AGENDA LEGISLATIVE POLICY COMMITTEE SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE JULY 30, 2024
PUBLIC MEETING 4:30 P.M. MEMBERS Steve Madison, Chair, District 6 Gene Masuda, District 4 Jess Rivas, District 5 Jason Lyon, District 7 STAFF Brenda Harvey-Williams, Assistant City Manager Javan Rad, Chief Assistant City Attorney Tamer Sabha, Recording Secretary MISSION STATEMENT The City of Pasadena is dedicated to delivering exemplary municipal services, responsive to our entire community and consistent with our history, culture and unique character. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Assistive Listening Devices are available from the City Clerk’s Office with a 24-hour advance notice. Please call (626) 744-4124 to request use of a listening device.
Language translation services are available for this meeting by calling (626) 744-4124 at least 24 hours in advance. Habrá servicio de interpretación disponible para éstas juntas llamando al (626) 744-4124 por lo menos con 24 horas de anticipación. Items on the agenda may not be called in order listed. Agendas and supporting documents are available on the Internet at http://www.cityofpasadena.net/commissions/city-council-legislative-policy-committee/ Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the Legislative Policy Committee after distribution of the agenda packet will be posted online and listed as: “Supplemental Agenda Material Received after the Posting of the agenda”
PUBLIC COMMENT AT THE SPECIAL LEGISLATIVE POLICY COMMITTEE
MEETING FOR
JULY 30, 2024 AT 4:30 P.M. WILL BE ACCEPTED IN-PERSON AND BY VIDEOCONFERENCE/TELECONFERENCE.
Link to City Meeting Policy:
cityofpasadena.net/CityCouncilMeetingPolicy
TO VIEW A LIVE STREAM OF THE MEETING:
http://pasadena.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=9 AND
WWW.PASADENAMEDIA.ORG
In order to facilitate public participation at meetings the City will accept public comment in the following manner:
1. Whether participating in-person or virtually at the meeting, members of the public may provide public comment by submitting a speaker card prior to the start of public comment on that item, at the following webpage:
www.cityofpasadena.net/commissions/public-comment/
If a public comment speaker wishes to speak on more than one agenda item, please indicate which items on the online form (multiple item speakers will be handled according to the process posted on the agenda and as specified in the City meeting policy). Public comments are limited to 3 minutes each, and the Chair and Committee may limit this time if reasonable under the circumstances.
2. In-person Meeting Participation: Complete an online speaker card at the following website: www.cityofpasadena.net/commissions/public-comment/ After submitting a public speaker card, members of the public may attend the meeting in-person by coming to the Pasadena City Council Chamber, Room S249 at City Hall at the date and start-time of the posted meeting.
Virtual Meeting Participation: For virtual participants, you may attend by connecting to the meeting using a computer, other electronic device, or by telephone. Please review the agenda to identify the published start time for the meeting and connect to the meeting just prior to, or at the start of the meeting.
To participate in public comment for an item and to be recognized to speak, it is required that the speaker login to the meeting using the same name or telephone number used on the Speaker Card form. This will allow City staff to locate and promote the speaker into the meeting when it is time for their public comment.
Participants’ phone calls to the Committee meeting will be recorded as part of the Committee meeting. By staying on the line and making public comment during the Committee meeting by phone, you are agreeing to have your phone call recorded. Following is the connectivity information for virtual participation:
Computer or electronic devices, join the meeting at: cityofpasadena.net/cczoom Telephone only dial-in: 1-669-900-6833, Meeting ID: 161 482 446
3. Speaker Card Help Line: If a public comment speaker needs assistance in completing a speaker card, please call the City Clerk’s Office at: (626) 744-4124.
Help line will open 30 minutes prior to the posted start time of the meeting.
4. Members of the public may submit correspondence of any length prior to the start of the meeting, at the following email address:
Written correspondence will be forwarded to the Legislative Policy Committee prior to the start of the meeting, posted online, and made part of the legislative record for the item.
LIVESTREAM WITH CAPTIONING IS AVAILABLE AT WWW.PASADENAMEDIA.ORG, AND ALSO AT WWW.CITYOFPASADENA.NET/COMMISSIONS/AGENDAS,
IF YOU NEED A REASONABLE MODIFICATION OR ACCOMMODATION PURSUANT
TO THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
BECAUSE YOU ARE UNABLE TO PARTICIPATE ELECTRONICALLY AS SET FORTH ABOVE, CONTACT THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AT (626) 744-4124 OR
[email protected].
CITY OF PASADENA
NOTICE OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
LEGISLATIVE POLICY COMMITTEE
JULY 30, 2024
PUBLIC MEETING 4:30 P.M.
PASADENA CITY HALL, COUNCIL CHAMBER
100 NORTH GARFIELD AVENUE, ROOM 5249
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the special meeting of the Legislative Policy Committee, will be held on Tuesday, July 30, 2024, at 4:30 p.m., in the Council Chamber to discuss matters on the attached agenda.
1fjfio/hl
STEVE MADISON, Chair
Legislative Policy Committee
I HEREBY CERTIFY that this agenda in its entirety, was posted on the Internet at https://www.cityofpasadena.net/commissions/city-council-legislative-policy-committee/ and on the Council Chamber Bulletin Board, Room S249, and the Bulletin Board in the rotunda area; City Hall, 100 North Garfield Avenue, this 25th day of July 2024 by 5:30p.m. and that copies hereof were emailed or delivered to each member of the City Council and to each local newspaper of general circulation, radio or television station requesting notice in writing, all of which recipients are identified on the distribution herein below.
RUBEN MARTINEZ
City Manager's Office
DISTRIBUTION:
Gene Masuda, Councilmember
Jess Rivas, Councilmember
Steve Madison, Councilmember
Jason Lyon, Councilmember
Miguel Marquez, City Manager
Brenda Harvey-Williams, Assistant City Manager
Mark Jomsky, City Clerk
Michele Bagneris, City Attorney
Jana Stewart, Management Analyst Ill to Mayor/Council
Chris Giglio, Legislative Advocate
Kyra Ross, Legislative Advocate
Tamer Sabha, Recording Secretary
City Hall Information Kiosk
Pasadena Hastings Library
Alex Padilla, U.S. Senator
Laphonza Butler, U.S. Senator
Adam Schiff, U.S. Congressman
Judy Chu, U.S. Congresswoman
Anthony Portantino, State Senator
Chris Holden, State Assembly Member
Kathryn Barger, Board of Supervisors
La Opinion
Los Angeles Times
Pasadena Independent
Colorado Boulevar d.net
Pasadena NOW
Pasadena Star-News
Pasadena Weekly
SPECIAL MEETING
AGENDA
LEGISLATIVE POLICY COMMITTEE
JULY 30, 2024
Public Meeting: 4:30 P.M.
Council Chamber, Pasadena City Hall
100 North Garfield Avenue, Room S249
PUBLIC MEETING - 4:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMENT – Limited to items on this special meeting agenda and will be heard at the time the item is considered.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
May 7, 2024 – Regular Meeting*
May 16, 2024 – Special Meeting*
OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
INFORMATION ONLY
1. BRIEFING BY CHRIS GIGLIO ON FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE MATTERS
2. BRIEFING BY KYRA EMANUELS ROSS ON STATE LEGISLATIVE MATTERS
3. REVIEW OF RECENT HOUSING LEGISLATION IN CALIFORNIA*
4. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF COMMISSION TERM LENGTHS
5. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF GOVERNOR NEWSOM’S EXECUTIVE
ORDER ADDRESSING HOMELESS ENCAMPMENTS
6. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
INSURANCE CATASTROPHE MODELING REGULATION
7. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF CHARTER REFORM; CAMPAIGN
FINANCE/ETHICS REFORM; AND COUNCIL PARLIAMENTARY
PROCEDURES
8. PAST AGENDAS FOR CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS*
a. Accessibility and Disability Commission – June 25, 2024, July 23, 2024 b. Arts & Culture Commission – June 12, 2024, July 10, 2024 c. Board of Zoning Appeals – June 26, 2024
d. Code Enforcement Commission – July 9, 2024
e. Commission on the Status of Women – June 5, 2024, July 17, 2024 f. Community Police Oversight Commission – June 6, 2024, July 11, 2024 g. Design Commission – June 11, 2024, June 25, 2024, July 23, 2024 h. Environmental Advisory Commission – June 11, 2024, July 9, 2024 i. Fire & Police Commission – June 19, 2024, July 17, 2024 j. Hahamongna Watershed Park Advisory Committee – June 13, 2024 k. Historic Preservation Commission – June 11, 2024, June 18, 2024, July 16, 2024
l. Human Relations Commission – June 11, 2024
m. Human Services Commission – June 12, 2024, July 10, 2024 n. Library Commission – June 19, 2024, June 26, 2024, July 17, 2024 o. Northwest Commission – June 18, 2024, July 9, 2024
p. Pasadena Rental Housing Board – June 26, 2024, July 10, 2024, July 24, 2024
q. Planning Commission – June 12, 2024, July 10, 2024, July 24, 2024 r. Recreation and Parks Commission – June 4, 2024
s. Reconnecting Communities 710 Advisory Group – July 1, 2024, July 17, 2024
t. Senior Commission – June 11, 2024, July 9, 2024
u. South Lake Parking Place Commission – July 25, 2024
v. Transportation Advisory Commission – May 30, 2024, June 27, 2024, July 25, 2024
w. Urban Forestry Advisor Committee – June 12, 2024, July 10, 2024
ADJOURN
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
May 7, 2024 – Regular Meeting*
May 16, 2024 – Special Meeting*
01 05/07/2024
CITY OF PASADENA
LEGISLATIVE POLICY COMMITTEE MINUTES
PASADENA CITY HALL
100 NORTH GARFIELD AVENUE
COUNCIL CHAMBER – ROOM S249
MAY 7, 2024
OPENING Acting Chair Masuda called the regular meeting of the Legislative Policy Committee to order at 4:46 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Staff:
Vice Mayor Steve Madison, Chair (Absent)
Councilmember Gene Masuda (Acting Chair)
Councilmember Jess Rivas
Councilmember Jason Lyon
Brenda Harvey-Williams, Assistant City Manager
Javan Rad, Chief Assistant City Attorney
Arnold Lee, Assistant City Attorney
Jerice Kenebrew, Recording Secretary
Jennifer Guess Mayo, Assistant General Manager – External Affairs
Koko Panossian, Director of Parks, Recreation, and Community Services
Tim McDonald, Director of Library and Information Services Chinua Obaze, Management Analyst III
Jennifer Paige, Director of Planning and Community Development Jason Mikaelian, Deputy Director of Planning
Israel Del Toro, Deputy Director of Building and Neighborhood Services
Rochelle Branch, Cultural Affairs Manager
Kristen Johnston, Management Analyst IV
Jesse De Anda, Building Official
PUBLIC COMMENT
No one appeared for public comments on matters not on the agenda.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Councilmember Rivas, seconded by Councilmember Lyon to approve the minutes of November 29, 2023 (special meeting), December 5, 2023 (cancellation), January 2, 2024 (cancellation), January 31, 2024 (special meeting), February 6, 2024 (cancellation), February 28, 2024 (special meeting), March 5, 2024 (cancellation), and April 2, 2024 (cancellation), as submitted. (Motion unanimously carried) (Absent: Vice Mayor Madison)
OLD BUSINESS
REVIEW OF SOUTH SAN RAFAEL FILMING GUIDELINES
The Acting Chair announced that this item will not be considered, and will be agendized at a future Committee meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
APPROVAL OF THE FEDERAL AND STATE LEGISLATIVE
PLATFORMS FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2024
02 05/07/2024
Jennifer Guess Mayo, Assistant General Manager – External Affairs, summarized the agenda report as part of her PowerPoint presentation, and responded to questions.
Councilmember Lyon recommended agendizing a future discussion related to affordable housing and promoting affordability over volume of building housing.
Following discussion, it was moved by Councilmember Rivas, seconded by Councilmember Lyon, to approve the staff
recommendation, and forward the item to the City Council for consideration. (Motion unanimously carried ) (Absent: Vice Mayor Madison)
COMMISSION REQUESTED AMENDMENT TO “RULES AND
REGULATIONS” FOR THE RECREATION AND PARKS
COMMISSION
Koko Panossian, Director of Parks, Recreation, and Community Services, summarized the agenda report as part of his PowerPoint presentation, and responded to questions.
Councilmember Rivas asked staff how the requested amendment to the Recreation and Parks Commission Rules and Regulations affects prior efforts by staff to standardize the rules and regulations across all City Commissions for consistency.
Brenda Harvey-Williams, Assistant City Manager, noted that there were some subtle differences among Commissions when staff brought a large number of requested amendments to Commission rules and regulations to the City Council, and in this instance the Recreation and Parks Commission is requesting the City Council’s approval in order to operate more effectively. She added that City Commissions elect officers in June at their annual meeting.
Mark Mastromatteo, Recreation and Parks Commission Chair, thanked the Committee for their consideration and provided information on the benefit of a Commission Chair serving multiple terms.
Following discussion, it was moved by Councilmember Lyon, seconded by Councilmember Rivas, to approve the staff
recommendation, and forward the item to the City Council for consideration. (Motion unanimously carried ) (Absent: Vice Mayor Madison)
INFORMATION ONLY BRIEFING BY CHRIS GIGLIO ON FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE
MATTERS
Chris Giglio, Federal Legislative advocate for the City, provided an update on the following federal legislative matters listed below and answered questions on the following topics:
• Congress approved budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2024;
03 05/07/2024
• Congresswoman Judy Chu secured federal funding
(Community Project Funding) for the Sunset Well Project and Workforce Development Educational Training Center Project; • President Biden signed proclamation to expand of San
Gabriel Mountains National Monument;
• Congress will spend the next few months debating President Biden’s proposed budget for FY 2025; and
• Bill to reauthorize federal aviation programs and provide funding for broadband assistance for low-income families.
Following discussion, on the order of the Chair and by consensus of the Committee, the information was received and filed.
BRIEFING BY KYRA EMANUELS ROSS ON STATE
LEGISLATIVE MATTERS
Kyra Emanuels Ross, State Legislative advocate for the City, provided an update on state and local legislative matters listed below and responded to questions:
• May revision to the proposed budget will be released with an expected deficit higher than the Governor’s January projected deficit of $38 billion;
• Memo distributed to agencies with a freeze on all one -time resources from the FY 2021 -2023 budgets that will apply to some transit agency funding and other administrative
spending at the state level;
• Bond discussions continue with school, housing, and climate bonds that will potentially be on the November 2024 ballot; • State Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Initiative 1935 (21 -0042A1) regarding ballot measures are
constitutional amendments or revisions;
• Policy deadline for bills to move from committees was May 3, 2024; and
• Hot topics that will be discussed by legislators this summer are ongoing labor legislation and Governor Newsom
expanding the Department of Housing and Community
Development Housing Enforcement Unit to include
homelessness in the seventh cycle of the Region al Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA).
Following discussion, on the order of the Chair and by consensus of the Committee, the information was received and filed.
NEW BUSINESS
Continued
BUDGET WORKSHOPS – FY 2025 RECOMMENDED
OPERATING BUDGET
a. LIBRARIES AND INFORMATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT
b. PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Tim McDonald, Director of Libraries and Information Services, presented a PowerPoint presentation on the department’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 accomplishments, appropriations, major initiatives for FY 2025, and responded to questions.
04 05/07/2024
In response to Councilmembers Rivas’ s inquiry related to the differences in funding and circulation for e -book and hard copy books, Director McDonald shared that vendors that sell e -books have different licensing agreements and pricing models with an example of a hard copy book that costs approximately $25, the e - book will cost $100, and will also report back to the Committee the circulation numbers between e-books and hard copy books.
Jennifer Paige, Director of Planning and Community Development, presented a PowerPoint presentation on the department’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 accomplishments, appropriations, FY 2025 budget priorities, and responded to questions.
In response to Councilmember Masuda’s question regarding methods for public outreach to promote the improved permitting process, Director Paige shared that staff is using social media, posting information in the Permit Center, and the Pasadena In Focus newsletter. She added that staff is open to share information with the Council District Liaisons, Council District newsletters, and other suggestions.
Following discussion, on the order of the Chair and by consensus of the Committee, the information was received and filed.
INFORMATION ONLY
Continued
REVIEW OF THE TAXPAYER PROTECTION ACT INITIATIVE 21-
0042A1
The Acting Chair announced that this item will not be considered and will be agendized at a future Committee meeting.
REVIEW OF RECENT HOUSING LEGISLATION IN CALIFORNIA
The Acting Chair announced that this item will not be considered and will be agendized at a future Committee meeting.
PAST AGENDAS FOR CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
a. Accessibility and Disability Commission – February 27, 2024, March 26, 2024, April 23, 2024
b. Arts & Culture Commission – March 13, 2024, April 10, 2024 c. Code Enforcement Commission – April 18, 2024, April 25 , 2024
d. Commission on the Status of Women – March 6, 2024, April 3, 2024, May 1, 2024
e. Community Police Oversight Commission – March 7 , 2024 , March 14, 2024, April 4, 2024, May 2, 2024
f. Deferred Compensation Committee – May 7, 2024
g. Environmental Advisory Commission – March 12, 2024, April 9, 2024
h. Historic Preservation Commission – April 16, 2024
i. Human Relations Commission – March 13, 2024, April 2, 2024, May 7, 2024
j. Human Services Commission – March 13, 2024, April 10, 2024 k. Library Commission – March 20, 2024, April 17, 2024
05 05/07/2024
l. Northwest Commission – March 12, 2024, April 9, 2024 m. Old Pasadena Parking Meter Zone Advisory Commission – April 18, 2024
n. Pasadena Rental Housing Board – March 27, 2024, April 10, 2024, April 24, 2024
o. Planning Commission – March 12, 2024, March 27, 2024, April 10, 2024, April 24, 2024
p. Recreation and Parks Commission – April 2, 2024
q. Reconnecting Communities 710 Advisory Group – March 20, 2024, April 17, 2024
r. Transportation Advisory Commission – March 28, 2024, April 25, 2024
Following a brief discussion, on the order of the Chair and by consensus of the Committee, the information was received and filed.
ADJOURNMENT On the order of the Acting Chair, the regular meeting of the Legislative Policy Committee was adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
ATTEST:
____________________
Tamer Sabha
Recording Secretary
_________________________________
Vice Mayor Steve Madison, Chair
Legislative Policy Committee
01 05/16/2024
CITY OF PASADENA
LEGISLATIVE POLICY COMMITTEE MINUTES
PASADENA CITY HALL
100 NORTH GARFIELD AVENUE
COUNCIL CHAMBER – ROOM S249
MAY 16, 2024
OPENING Chair Madison called the special meeting of the Legislative Policy Committee to order at 4:42 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Staff:
Vice Mayor Steve Madison, Chair
Councilmember Gene Masuda
Councilmember Jess Rivas
Councilmember Jason Lyon
Brenda Harvey-Williams, Assistant City Manager
Michele Bagneris, City Attorney/City Prosecutor
Mark Jomsky, City Clerk
Matt Hawkesworth, Director of Finance
Tim Wellman, Chief Assistant City Prosecutor
Martha Avila, Acting Division Manager – Mail Services
Amanda Fowler, Principal Administrative Analyst
Arlene Gallardo, Risk and Insurance Administrator
Jhoanna Gorriceta, Acting Senior Administrative Analyst Javan Rad, Chief Assistant City Attorney
Tamer Sabha, Recording Secretary
BUDGET WORKSHOPS – FY 2025 RECOMMENDED
OPERATING BUDGET
a. CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
b. CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
c. CITY COUNCIL
NEW BUSINESS
Michele Bagneris, City Attorney/City Prosecutor, presented a PowerPoint presentation on the department’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 accomplishments, appropriations, FY 2025 priorities, and responded to questions.
Vice Mayor Madison asked the City Attorney’s Office staff to remain abreast on the City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, U.S. Supreme Court case, which may impact how the City manages issues involving unhoused residents.
Matt Hawkesworth, Director of Finance, provided information on the General Liability Fund, and responded to questions.
Mark Jomsky, City Clerk, presented a PowerPoint presentation on the department’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 major accomplishments, expenses by categories and divisions, FY 2025 priorities and workplan, and responded to questions.
02 05/16/2024
Matt Hawkesworth, Director of Finance, presented a PowerPoint presentation on the City Council’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 and 2025 appropriations and significant changes from FY 2024 budget , and responded to questions.
Vice Mayor Madison advocated for the Department of Finance staff to monitor the City Council’s postage, printing, and travel expenses as a method to remain transparent to the community.
Following discussion, on the order of the Chair and by consensus of the Committee, the information was received and filed
INFORMATION ONLY
REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF CHARTER REFORM;
CAMPAIGN FINANCE/ETHICS REFORM; AND COUNCIL
PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURES
Vice Mayor Madison introduced the item to begin discussion on what role the Committee may have during the current efforts to update the City Charter related to the conduct of City Council candidates during campaigns, updating the Pasadena Fair Campaign Practices Agreement, registering lobbyists and consultants with the City, and issues discussed by the Charter Study Task Force.
Councilmember Rivas voiced support of discussing the suggested topics by Vice Mayor Madison, and suggested including the following topics for future discussion: conduct of meetings adhering to Robert’s Rules of Order, current practice of attaching councilmember names to City -wide giveaway events, participation of
councilmembers in Closed Session discussions about litigation in which the opposing party is a donor to their campaign , and recent recommendation brought by the Commission on the Status of Women about campaign mailers.
Councilmember Lyon advocated for the Committee to take a deep dive into governance issues over the next year and suggested adding the following topics for future discussion: recommendations brought by the Commission on the Status of Women, updating the Pasadena Fair Campaign Practices Agreement, additional effective methods to use City advisory bodies, improving communication to the City Council, and provide training to new Councilmembers.
Mark Jomsky, City Clerk, provided information on the City of Los Angeles Ethics Commission requiring lobbyist registration, the Pasadena Fair Campaign Practices Agreement, and responded to questions.
Vice Mayor Madison asked staff to continue the item at the next Committee meeting for further discussion on the matter.
Following discussion, on the order of the Chair and by consensus of the Committee, the information was received and filed.
03 05/16/2024
REQUESTS FOR FUTURE
AGENDA ITEMS
Vice Mayor Madison requested that the City’s state legislative advocates provide an informational presentation on home insurance affordability and availability.
ADJOURNMENT On the order of the Chair, the special meeting of the Legislative Policy Committee was adjourned at 6:17 p.m.
ATTEST:
____________________
Tamer Sabha
Recording Secretary
_________________________________
Vice Mayor Steve Madison, Chair
Legislative Policy Committee
INFORMATION ITEMS
3. REVIEW OF RECENT HOUSING LEGISLATION IN CALIFORNIA *
MEMORANDUM
TO: LEGISLATIVE POLICY COMMITTEE
FROM: JENNIFER PAIGE, DIRECTOR OF THE PLANNING & COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: JULY 30, 2024
SUBJECT: RECENT HOUSING LEGISLATION IN CALIFORNIA
______________________________________________________________________
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) identified significant housing challenges throughout the state in its 2018 housing assessment, and issued policy recommendations aimed at increasing production, lowering housing costs, and increasing accountability and enforcement for local jurisdictions to produce adequate housing supply. As a result, the state legislature has passed numerous bills in recent years addressing these recommendations. Continuing this trend, the 2023 legislative session resulted in the passage of a new package of housing and other planning related legislation.
Staff and outside counsel will present a summary of the bills at this Legislative Policy meeting. This information was also presented to the Planning Commission at a special meeting on March 12, 2024.
Attachment A: 2023 New Housing Legislation Summary
DISCLAIMER: This document is intended solely as a technical overview of new housing-related legislation. It is not intended to serve as legal advice regarding any jurisdiction's specific policies or any proposed housing development project. Local staff should consult with their city attorney or county counsel before taking any action to implement these changes.
ATTACHMENT A: 2023 New Housing Legislation Summary
This document was prepared for the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Regional Housing Technical Assistance (RHTA) program, in collaboration with the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), to be shared with local planning staff. This document was further edited to apply to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region and the City of Pasadena. Below is a summary of significant housing legislation that was passed in the 2023 legislative session and subsequently signed into law by Governor Newsom. All bills become effective on January 1, 2024, unless otherwise noted.
Table of Contents
Processing Requirements (SB 4, SB 423, SB 684, AB 821, AB 1218, AB 1490).................................................................2 SB 4: Affordable Housing on Faith and Higher Education Land (Government Code § 65913.16). ..................................... 2 SB 423: Modifications to Streamlined Approval (Government Code § 65913.4) ............................................................... 3 SB 684: Subdivisions for 10 Units or Fewer (Government Code §§ 65852.28, 65913.4.5, 66499.41). .............................. 4 AB 821: General Plan and Zoning Consistency (Government Code § 65850). .................................................................... 6 AB 1218: Replacement Housing Requirements (Government Code §§ 65912.114, 65912.124, 65940, 66300, 66300.5, and 66300.6) ....................................................................................................................................................................... 6 AB 1490: Affordable Adaptive Reuse Projects (Government Code §§ 65913.12 and 65960.1) ......................................... 7 California Environmental Quality Act (AB 1449, AB 1633, SB 69) ................................................................................ 8 1 AB 1449: Affordable Housing CEQA Exemption (Public Resources Code § 21080.40) ..................................................... 81 AB 1633: Certain CEQA Violations Made Violations of the Housing Accountability Act (Government Code § 65589.5(h)) ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 8 SB 69: CEQA Notices of Determination (Public Resources Code § 21152) ......................................................................... 9 Density Bonus (AB 1287, SB 713, AB 323) ................................................................................................................ 104 AB 1287: Additional Density Bonuses (Government Code § 65915) ............................................................................. 104 SB 713: Definition of “Development Standard” (Government Code § 65915) .............................................................. 105 AB 323: Sale of Affordable Units (Government Code § 65915) ..................................................................................... 105 Accessory Dwelling Units (AB 976, AB 1332) ........................................................................................................... 116 Parking (AB 894, AB 1317, AB 1308) ........................................................................................................................ 127 AB 894: Shared Parking (Government Code § 65863.1) ................................................................................................ 127 AB 1317: Unbundled Parking (Civil Code § 1947.1) ....................................................................................................... 127 AB 1308: Parking for Single-Family Home Remodels (Government Code § 65863.3) ................................................... 128
Processing Requirements --------------------------------------------------------------- (SB 4, SB 423, SB 684, AB 821, AB 1218, AB 1490)
SB 4: Affordable Housing on Faith and Higher Education Land (Government Code § 65913.16).
SB 4 requires that, upon the request of an applicant, a housing development project be a “use by right” on land owned by an independent institution of higher education or a religious institution if specified criteria are met.
Significant Provisions
To qualify for this “use by right” provision, the development site must meet the following requirements:
1. The land must be owned on or before January 1, 2024 by an independent institution of higher education or a religious institution;
2. The parcel must satisfy the requirements of Government Code §65913.4(a)(2)(A)-(B), (a)(6)(B)-(K), and (a)(7) (SB 35 Streamlined Ministerial Approval);
3. The development cannot be adjoining any site where more than 1/3 of the square footage on the site is dedicated to light industrial uses;
4. The housing units on the development may not be located within 1,200 feet of a site that is currently a heavy industrial use or where the most recent permitted use was heavy industrial, within 1,600 feet of a site that is either a site that is currently a Title V industrial use or where that was the most recent permitted use, and for a site where multifamily housing is not an existing permitted use, the housing units must not be located within 3,200 feet of a facility that actively extracts or refines oil or natural gas;
5. At least 80% of the development’s total units, except for a manager’s unit, must be for lower income households, up to 20% may be for moderate-income households and the units that are rented must be restricted for 55 years. The units that are sold must be restricted for 45 years or participate in an equity sharing agreement;
6. The development must comply with objective development standards that are not in conflict with the provisions of the statute;
7. If the development project requires demolition of existing residential units, or if residential units have been demolished in the last 5 years, it must comply with the replacement housing provisions in Government Code §66300(d) (Housing Crisis Act), whether or not the project is located in an affected city or county;
8. The applicant must certify that the project is either a public work or, if it includes more than ten units and is not in its entirety a public work, the applicant will ensure all construction workers are paid prevailing wages and other labor requirements provided in the statute are met;
9. The applicant must complete a Phase I environmental assessment and, if warranted, a Phase II environmental assessment;
10. If the development is 500 feet from a freeway, regularly occupied areas of the building must have air filtration media; and
11. The site may not contain tribal cultural resources that could be affected by the development and cannot be mitigated.
Housing developments eligible for by right approval under this statute may include certain ancillary uses on the ground floor: childcare centers and facilities operated by community-based organizations for recreational, social, or education services in single family residential zones; and in all other zones the development may include commercial uses that are permitted without a conditional use permit or planned unit development permit. A project that is eligible as a use by right includes any use that was previously existing and legally permitted on the site if it meets specified criteria: the total square footage of nonresidential space does not exceed the amount that previously existed or was permitted by a
conditional use permit; the total parking requirement for the nonresidential space does not exceed the lesser of the amount existing or required by a conditional use permit; and the new uses abide by the same operational conditions as contained in the previous conditional use permit.
Housing developments eligible for approval are allowed the following density: (1) if the development is located in a zone that allows residential uses, it shall be allowed the default density specified for lower income housing in the community’s housing element and a height of one story above the maximum height otherwise applicable; however, if the local government allows for greater residential density or building heights on an adjoining parcel, the greater density or building height shall apply; (2) if the project is located in a zone that does not allow residential uses, the development project shall be allowed a density of 40 units per acre and a height of one story above the maximum height otherwise applicable; however, if the local government allows for greater residential density or building heights on an adjoining parcel, the greater density or building height shall apply, but the project may not use an incentive, waiver, or concession to increase the height of the development to greater than specified in the statute.
The proposed development must provide off-street parking of up to 1 space per unit, unless a state law or local ordinance provides for less parking, in which case that standard shall apply. However, a parking requirement may not be imposed if the parcel is located within 1/2-mile walking distance of a high-quality transit corridor or a major transit stop, or there is a car share vehicle located within 1 block of the parcel.
Approval of the development project under SB 4 is subject to expiration timeframes, modification requirements, necessary public improvements, and approval of subsequent permits as specified in SB 35.
Design review may be conducted by a local government’s planning commission or equivalent board or commission responsible for review and approval of development projects, or the city council or board of supervisors, as applicable.
The design review must be objective and focused on assessing compliance with criteria required for streamlined, ministerial review of projects, and reasonable objective design standards published and adopted by ordinance or resolution by a local jurisdiction before submittal of the development.
SB 423: Modifications to Streamlined Approval (Government Code § 65913.4) SB 423 amends the streamlined, ministerial approval process (generally known as the “SB 35” process) for qualifying multifamily and mixed-use affordable housing projects in most localities.
Significant Provisions
SB 423 expands the jurisdictions to which SB 35 may apply to include a locality that has not adopted a housing element that has been found in substantial compliance with housing element law by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). SB 423 also extends SB 35 to the Coastal Zone, with certain exceptions, and removes the prohibition against an SB 35 project being located within a high or very high fire hazard severity zone as indicated on maps adopted by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. However, unless the site has adopted specified fire hazard mitigation measures, the SB 35 streamlined, ministerial process is prohibited in very high fire hazard severity zones (as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection) and the statutorily defined state responsibility area. The SB 35 streamlined, ministerial process is also not applicable to housing development applications on sites within an equine or equestrian district (and meeting certain other requirements) submitted on or after January 1, 2024, but before July 1, 2025.
Previously, to be eligible for the SB 35 ministerial approval process, any project (rental or for-sale) in a jurisdiction that did not issue enough above moderate-income housing building permits was required to dedicate a minimum of 10% of total number of units to households making at or below 80% of area median income (AMI). With the SB 423 changes, rental projects in a jurisdiction that (i) did not issue enough above moderate-income housing permits or (ii) has not adopted a housing element that has been found in substantial compliance with housing element law by HCD or (iii) has not submitted an Annual Progress Report to HCD are now required to provide either (i) at least 10% of the total units to households making at or below 50% of AMI or (ii) comply with the locality’s inclusionary ordinance where that ordinance requires greater than 10% of the units to be dedicated to households making at or below 50% AMI. If the local
inclusionary policy requires units that are restricted to households with incomes higher than 50% AMI (in jurisdictions subject to the 10% requirement) or 80% AMI (in jurisdictions that have not met their very low or low income RHNA), then providing the 10% at 50% AMI or 50% at 80% AMI, as applicable, is deemed sufficient to satisfy the local inclusionary requirement.
SB 423 eliminates the ability of the local government to conduct public oversight of the development; design review may still be conducted by the planning commission or other equivalent board or commission responsible for design review.
However, if the development is in a moderate resource area, low resource area, or an area of high segregation and poverty, the local government is required to provide for a public meeting before the City Council within 45 days of receiving a notice of intent before the development proponent submits an application for the proposed development.
If the local government’s planning director or equivalent position determines the housing development project is consistent with objective planning standards, SB 423 requires approval of the development. The California Department of General Services may act in place of a local government for determining a development’s compliance with and eligibility for the SB 35 streamlined, ministerial process when the development is located on land owned by or leased to the state.
SB 423 requires a development proponent to certify to the local government that certain wage and labor standards will be met, including that all construction workers will be paid prevailing wages. These requirements do not apply to a project that consists of 10 or fewer units and is not a public work. Requirements to use a skilled and trained workforce have been substantially modified. Projects with over 50 units must also comply with apprenticeship requirements. Those more than 85 feet high must use a skilled and trained workforce unless qualified contractors are not available.
SB 684: Subdivisions for 10 Units or Fewer (Government Code §§ 65852.28, 65913.4.5, 66499.41).
SB 684 creates a streamlined approval process for development projects of 10 or fewer residential units on urban lots under 5 acres by adding 3 new sections to the Government Code. Local ordinances may be adopted to implement the provisions of SB 684 and the 3 statutes discussed below, which shall not be considered a project under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Significant Provisions
Parcel Maps; Tentative and Final Maps (Government Code § 66499.41) SB 684 requires local agencies to ministerially consider, without discretionary review or a hearing, a parcel map or a tentative and final map for a housing development project that meets certain size, density, and other requirements. The proposed subdivision must result in ten or fewer parcels and the proposed development project contains ten or fewer residential units. The lot to be subdivided must be zoned for multifamily development, not larger than 5 acres, substantially surrounded by qualified urban uses, as defined in the statute, and located either in a city that includes some portion of an urban area or in an urbanized area or urban cluster in a county with a population greater than 600,000. The newly created parcels may not be smaller than 600 square feet, unless otherwise authorized by the local agency in an ordinance. The parcels must comply with applicable objective standards of the Subdivision Map Act, be served by a public water system and municipal sewer system, may not have been created by an urban lot split (Government Code §66411.7), and must comply with the housing development provisions added by this bill (Government Code §65852.28). If a parcel has been created through this subdivision, a local agency is not required to permit further subdivision through an urban lot split (Government Code §66411.7).
The lot proposed to be subdivided may not be located on a site that is any of the following:
1. Prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance;
2. Wetlands;
3. In a very high fire hazard severity zone;
4. A hazardous waste site (with limited exceptions);
5. Within an earthquake fault zone, unless the development complies with applicable seismic protection building codes;
6. In a special flood hazard area (with limited exceptions);
7. In a regulatory floodway;
8. Land identified for conservation in a community conservation plan, habitat conservation plan, or other natural resource protection plan;
9. Habitat for certain protected species; or
10. Under conservation easement.
Other requirements include the average total area of floor space of the proposed housing units cannot exceed 1,750 net habitable square feet, and that the proposed housing units must be one of the following: (a) constructed on fee simple ownership lots, (b) part of a common interest development, (c) part of a housing cooperative, or (d) owned by a community land trust. The housing development on the lot proposed to be subdivided cannot require demolition or alteration of housing (1) subject to a recorded covenant restricting affordability levels, (2) subject to local rent or price control, or (3) occupied by tenants within the preceding 5 years from the date of application, or (4) on a parcel where an owner withdrew accommodations from rent or lease within 15 years before the date of project application. Lots do not need to comply with any local requirements for size, width, depth, or dimensions of a parcel.
The project must comply with the local agency’s inclusionary ordinance, if such ordinance has been adopted, objective zoning and design standards that are not inconsistent with the provisions of the bill, result in at least as many units as the maximum allowable residential density, unless the parcel is identified in the jurisdiction's current housing element, in which case the project must result in at least as many units as projected for that parcel in the housing element and at the affordability levels and subject to a recorded affordability restriction of at least 45 years, and a local agency is not required to allow development of an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit.
Finally, in jurisdictions that have adopted a compliant housing element, SB 684 shall not apply to sites located in a single- family residential horse keeping zone.
Section 66499.41 goes into effect on July 1, 2024, except for the subsection related to sites in single family residential horse keeping zones, which goes into effect on January 1, 2024.
Housing Development Project Applications (Government Code § 65852.28) Local agencies may impose objective zoning standards, subdivision standards, or objective design standards that do not conflict with this section or the ministerial subdivision provisions of SB 684.
However, a local agency may not impose objective zoning, subdivision, or design standards that:
1. Physically preclude the development of a project built to densities deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for lower income households as specified in Housing Element Law (Government Code § 65583.2(c)(3)(B))
2. Apply solely or partially because the subdivision or development was approved under this Section;
3. Require a setback between units, except as required in the California Building Code;
4. Require enclosed or covered parking;
5. Impose side and rear setbacks inconsistent with SB 9 (Government Code § 65852.21(b)(2)(B));
6. Impose parking requirements inconsistent with SB 9 (Government Code § 65852.21(c)(1)); or
7. Impose a floor area ratio standard of less than 1.0 for projects with 3-7 units or 1.25 for projects with 8-10 units.
Section 65852.28 goes into effect on July 1, 2024.
Building Permits (Government Code § 65913.4.5)
SB 684 provides that, for housing development projects consisting of 10 or fewer units, local agencies shall issue building permits based on the tentative or parcel map and its conditions of approval if the applicant has (1) received a tentative map approval or parcel map approval for the subdivision, and (2) submitted a building permit application that the local agency deemed complete pursuant to Government Code § 65913.3 (applications for post entitlement phase permits). At
the time of issuance, any dedication, improvement, and sewer requirements identified in the tentative map approval must be guaranteed.
Section 65913.4.5 also authorizes local agencies to:
• Condition issuance of the building permit on submission of a recorded covenant and agreement that states the applicant agrees that the building permit is issued on condition that a certificate of occupancy or equivalent final approval for the building will not be issued unless the final map has been recorded; and • Require security in an amount no greater than 300% of the total estimated cost of the improvements or the acts to be performed, in the form of bonds, instrument of credit when a public agency provides at least 20% of the financing for the portion of the agreement requiring security, pledge from a financial institution that the funds necessary to carry out the agreement are on deposit and guaranteed for payment, or a letter of credit, to ensure faithful performance of the requirements contained in the tentative or parcel map or conditions of approval.
The local agency may deny issuance of a building permit, tentative map, or development approval if the building official makes a written finding, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that construction of the proposed structure before recordation of a final map would have a specific, adverse impact to public health and safety and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the impact.
Section 65913.4.5 goes into effect on July 1, 2024.
AB 821: General Plan and Zoning Consistency (Government Code § 65850).
AB 821 addresses what happens when a zoning ordinance is not consistent with the general plan when a project application that does not fall within the Housing Accountability Act and is consistent with the general plan, but not the zoning, is submitted. A local agency must either amend the zoning ordinance within 180 days of receipt of the development application to be consistent with the general plan; or, if the zoning ordinance is not amended within that time period, the local agency must process the development application and apply objective general plan standards, but not inconsistent zoning standards.
Any resident or property owner may bring an action in superior court to enforce compliance with the provisions of AB 821 within 90 days of either the enactment or amendment of a zoning ordinance or the agency’s failure to comply with this section.
AB 1218: Replacement Housing Requirements (Government Code §§ 65912.114, 65912.124, 65940, 66300, 66300.5, and 66300.6)
AB 1218 amends the Housing Crisis Act to expand replacement housing and relocation assistance requirements that apply when housing units are demolished. AB 1218 adds Government Code Sections 66300.5 and 66300.6, which now covers all the replacement housing and relocation requirements.
Significant Provisions
Under existing law, the following demolition protections apply to housing development projects that will require the demolition of residential units:
• The project must replace all existing or demolished protected units; • Any existing tenants must be allowed to occupy their units until 6 months before start of construction, with proper notice; and
• The developer must provide income-eligible occupants of any protected units with relocation benefits and a right of first return for a comparable unit affordable to the household in the new development.
A "housing development project" is a use consisting of (1) residential units only, (2) a mixed-use development with at least 2/3rds of the square footage designated for residential use, or (3) transitional or supportive housing. AB 1218 extends these protections to all development projects and to sites where protected housing units were demolished in
the last 5 years, unless all of the following conditions are met: (i) the project is an industrial use; (ii) the project site is entirely within a zone that does not allow residential uses; (iii) the applicable zoning was adopted before January 1, 2022; and (iv) the protected units that are or were on the project site are or were nonconforming uses.
Further, for development projects that are not housing development projects, AB 1218 provides that the required replacement housing must be developed prior to or concurrently with the development project and must be located within the same jurisdiction. The development proponent may contract with another entity to develop the replacement housing.
Finally, under current law, notice must be provided to existing occupants of units to be demolished 90 days before requiring the occupant to move, in accordance with Relocation Assistance Law requirements. AB 1218 amends these notice requirements, as described below.
AB 1490: Affordable Adaptive Reuse Projects (Government Code §§ 65913.12 and 65960.1) AB 1490 provides incentives, such as guaranteed permit turnaround times, for statutorily defined “extremely affordable adaptive reuse projects” (i.e., motel and hotel conversions).
Significant Provisions
For qualifying "extremely affordable adaptive reuse projects,” AB 1490 provides that a city's or county's planning agency must provide development determinations within 60 days of submittal of the completed proposal for the development project for projects of 150 or fewer housing units, and within 90 days for projects of 150 or more units. The application is “deemed consistent” if the jurisdiction does not respond within these timeframes.
To qualify for adaptive reuse incentives, multifamily housing development projects must satisfy certain criteria (i.e., be an “extremely affordable adaptive reuse project”), including:
• Occupancy of 100% of non-managers' units must be restricted to lower income households, with at least 50% of units dedicated to very low-income households, subject to a recorded deed restriction; • The development must involve retrofitting and repurposing a building that currently allows temporary dwelling or occupancy, and be entirely within the envelope of the existing building; • The site must be an infill parcel, but not a site or adjoined to any site where more than 1/3 of the footage on the site is dedicated to industrial use;
• Housing developments of 50 units or more must provide onsite management services; and • The housing development does not eliminate any existing open space on the parcel.
A local agency may impose objective design review standards for a housing development project submitted pursuant to AB 1490, except that it may not impose or require the curing of any preexisting conflict with: (i) maximum density requirements; (ii) maximum floor area ratio requirements; (iii) requirement to add additional parking; or (iv) requirement to add additional open space. A local agency may deny a project that satisfies the above criteria if the project is on or adjoining an industrial-use site and the local agency makes a finding that the development would have an adverse effect on public health and safety.
Finally, any local source of funding that can be used for affordable housing development must include adaptive reuse (i.e., the retrofitting and repurposing of an existing building to create new residential units) as an eligible type of project.
California Environmental Quality Act ----------------------------------------------- (AB 1449, AB 1633, SB 69)
This section summarizes bills amending the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
AB 1449: Affordable Housing CEQA Exemption (Public Resources Code § 21080.40) AB 1449 exempts from CEQA numerous public agency actions for an “affordable housing project,” as defined below.
Significant Provisions
If a housing development meets the requirements to be considered an “affordable housing project,” then the issuance of an entitlement; lease, conveyance, or encumbrance of public agency land (including any action to facilitate the lease, conveyance, or encumbrance of public agency land or land to be purchased by a public agency); actions to provide financial assistance; and rezoning, specific plan amendments, or general plan amendments required for construction of an affordable housing project, are all exempt from CEQA.
Additionally, to qualify for the exemption, the affordable housing project must be subject to a recorded California Tax Credit Allocation Committee regulatory agreement and adequately served by existing utilities or extensions, and the public agency must confirm that:
i) The project site meets the requirements of Government Code 65913.4(a)(6)(B)-(K); ii) The development proponent has completed a phase I environmental assessment and specified mitigation if a recognized environmental condition or hazardous substances are found; iii) If the site is vacant, the project site does not contain tribal cultural resources that could be affected by the development and could not be mitigated; and
iv) If multifamily housing is not a permitted use on the project site, the project cannot include housing within 500 feet of a highway, within 3,200 feet of an active facility that extracts or refines oil or natural gas, or within a very high fire hazard zone.
AB 1633: Certain CEQA Violations Made Violations of the Housing Accountability Act (Government Code § 65589.5(h))
AB 1633 amends the Housing Accountability Act to expand the definition of disapproval of a housing development project to include certain circumstances when a public agency fails to make determinations under CEQA or requires additional analysis before approving CEQA documents.
Significant Provisions
This legislation is intended to prohibit public agencies from using CEQA as a means of delaying or denying project approvals. Under AB 1633, applicants may utilize the remedies of the HAA to sue local agencies that use CEQA as a means to disapprove or delay a housing development.
AB 1633 amends Government Code Section 65589.5(h) to expand the definition of “disapprove the housing development project” to include (1) a failure to make a determination on whether a project is exempt from CEQA, or an abuse of discretion as defined in the legislation; or (2) the failure to adopt a negative declaration, addendum or to certify an EIR under certain circumstances.
The protections of AB 1633 only apply if there is substantial evidence in the record that the project meets the environmental eligibility standards for streamlining under SB 35 (Government Code §65913.4). Additionally, development projects utilizing this provision must be either:
a) Within 1/2-mile walking distance from a high-quality transit stop; b) Located in a very low vehicle travel area;
c) Proximal, meaning within 1-mile (or 2 miles in a rural area) to 6 or more amenities as specified in the legislation such as a bus station, ferry terminal, pharmacy, supermarket, public library, school; or d) Parcels where at least 75% of the perimeter adjoins parcels that are developed with urban uses.
The density of the housing development must also meet or exceed 15 dwelling units per acre, and the parcel must be in an “urbanized area” as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21071. This includes cities where the population of the city plus 2 contiguous cities equals at least 100,000, and some County islands and areas within urban growth areas.
If the basis for the protections afforded by AB 1633 is that the development is exempt from CEQA, there must be substantial evidence in the record that the housing development is eligible for a CEQA exemption.
If the basis for the protection is that the public agency failed to adopt a negative declaration, addendum or EIR there must be a negative declaration, addendum or EIR or other comparable document prepared that if adopted would satisfy the requirements of CEQA, the public agency must have held a meeting to adopt the CEQA document, and the public agency either committed an abuse of discretion or failed to decide whether to adopt the CEQA document or require additional study. Abuse of discretion involving the preparation of an environmental review document means the public agency failed to adopt the appropriate CEQA document in bad faith without substantial evidence in the record to support a fair argument that further environmental analysis or study is required, and the public agency decided to require further environmental study.
Applicants must give the public agency timely notice that the agency’s action or inaction violates these provisions. If a public agency determines that a developer is not exempt from CEQA, the applicant must give notice within 35 days of the date the local agency gave the applicant notice of the determination. If the public agency has not taken any action on an exemption, timely notice from the applicant means notice given at least 60 days after the project application has been accepted as complete or deemed complete. If the public agency fails to adopt or certify an environmental review document, timely notice means notice given within 35 days of the public agency determining to require additional study.
If the public agency has not taken action on an environmental review document, timely notice means notice given within the time periods set out in CEQA for the preparation of the applicable environmental review document, or if there is no time period in CEQA, within 180 days.
Once a notice is received from an applicant, the local agency has 90 days to make the appropriate determination but may extend that time period if the notice involves a finding of exemption under CEQA for another 90 days by giving the applicant notice of the need for an extension. The legislation does not provide an option to extend the 90-day response period for notices related to the adoption, approval, or certification of an environmental review document. For applicant notices related to CEQA exemptions, the public agency is required to file the applicant’s notice with the County Clerk, and the County Clerk is to post the notice.
AB 1633 also provides additional protections for local government sued by opponents of a housing development project by limiting the circumstances under which the court may award attorneys’ fees to the opponents. The statute states that attorneys’ fees should rarely be awarded if the local agency acted in good faith in approving a housing development project.
SB 69: Notice of Exemptions (Public Resources Code § 21152) SB 69 requires that when a local agency files a notice of determination or notice of exemption, as applicable, with the county clerk of each county in which a project is located that it will also file the notice of determination with the State Clearing House in the Office of Planning and Research. The notice, including any subsequent or amended notice, must be posted by the Office of Planning and Research within 24 hours of receipt in the office and on the State Clearinghouse internet website and remain posted for 30 days.
Density Bonus ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (AB 1287, SB 713, AB 323)
AB 1287: Additional Density Bonuses (Government Code § 65915) AB 1287 increases the maximum density bonus to nearly 90% for the inclusion of more very low income, low income, or moderate-income housing.
Significant Provisions
AB 1287 requires a local jurisdiction to grant an additional density bonus where:
1. The housing development would not restrict more than 50% of the total units to moderate-income, lower income, or very low-income households;
2. The housing development does any one of the following: (i) provides 24 % of the total units to lower income households; (ii) provides 15 % of the total units to very low- income households; or (iii) provides 44 of the total units to moderate income-households; and
3. The development provides 5% to 10% additional very low-income units, or 5% to 15% additional moderate-income units. In that case, the development is entitled to an additional density bonus of 20 % to 38.75%. For instance, a development with 25% very low-income units (15% plus 10%) is entitled to a total density bonus of 88.75% (50% bonus for 15% very low income, plus 38.75% bonus for an additional 10% very low income).
The bill also changes the definition of “maximum allowable residential density” or “base density” to mean “the greatest number of units allowed under the zoning ordinance, specific plan, or land use element of the general plan, or if a range of density is permitted, means the greatest number of units allowed by the specific zoning range, specific plan, or land use element of the general plan” and removes from the same definition the provision stating that the greater density prevails if the density allowed under the zoning ordinance is inconsistent with the density allowed under the land use element of the general plan or specific plan.
AB 1287 also increases the number of incentives and/or concessions for 100% lower-income projects from 4 to 5 and requires a jurisdiction to grant at least 4 incentives and/or concessions for a for-sale housing development project that provides either a total of 16% very low-income units or 45% moderate-income units.
Currently, density bonus law states that a local government may require reasonable documentation from an applicant to establish eligibility for a requested density bonus, incentives, concessions, waivers, reductions of development standards, and parking ratios. AB 1287 modifies this provision, such that a local government may not request reasonable documentation to establish eligibility for waivers. However another provision (Section 65915(j)(1)) appears to still allow reasonable documentation of eligibility for concessions.
SB 713: Definition of “Development Standard” (Government Code § 65915) SB 713 modifies the definition of “development standard” to provide that it includes “a regulation that is adopted by the local government or that is enacted by the local government’s electorate exercising its local initiative or referendum power, whether that power is derived from the California Constitution, statute, or the charter or ordinances of the local government.”
AB 323: Sale of Affordable Units (Government Code § 65915) AB 323 provides that any for-sale unit(s) that qualified an applicant for the award of a density bonus must be (i) sold to and occupied by a very, low, or moderate-income household for an affordable housing cost and subject to an equity sharing agreement, or (ii) if any such unit is not purchased by an income-qualified household within 180 days after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, then it is sold to a qualified nonprofit housing corporation pursuant to a
recorded contract that satisfies the requirements of Revenue & Taxation Code Section 402.1(a)(10). For the purposes of the latter, “qualified nonprofit housing corporation” must meet all of the following criteria:
1. Has a determination letter from the Internal Revenue Service affirming its tax-exempt status pursuant to Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3);
2. Not a private foundation (as defined in Internal Revenue Code Section 509);
3. Based in California;
4. All of the board members of the nonprofit corporation have their primary residence in California; and
5. The primary activity of the nonprofit corporation is the development and preservation of affordable home ownership housing in California; and
6. Incorporates within its initial purchase contracts a repurchase option requiring a subsequent purchaser of the property that desires to resell or convey the property to offer the qualified nonprofit corporation the right to repurchase the property prior to selling or conveying that property pursuant to an equity sharing agreement or affordability restrictions on the sale and conveyance of the property ensuring at least 45 years of affordability.
This bill also adds Section 714.7 to the Civil Code to prohibit a developer from selling any for-sale unit constructed pursuant to a local inclusionary ordinance to a purchaser that does not meet the income eligibility requirements unless such unit is not purchased by an income-qualifying household within 180 days of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. In such case, the developer may sell the unit(s) to qualified nonprofit housing corporation as defined.
Violations of this new Civil Code Section 714.7 are punishable by a civil penalty of up to $15,000 for each violation.
Accessory Dwelling Units --------------------------------------------------------------- (AB 976, AB 1332)
AB 976 (Government Code § 65852.2) makes permanent the prohibition on owner occupancy requirements for accessory dwelling units. Owner-occupancy is still required to construct a junior accessory dwelling unit.
AB 1332 (Government Code § 65852.27) requires local agencies to develop a program to preapprove accessory dwelling unit plans by January 1, 2025. The program must meet the following requirements:
1. The local agency must accept accessory dwelling unit plan submissions for preapproval without restricting who may submit plans for preapproval.
2. The review must be based on the standards in Government Code Section 65852.2.
3. The local agency may charge the applicant for the preapproval of plans the same fees that the local agency would charge an applicant seeking approval of an accessory dwelling unit.
4. The local agency must post the preapproved accessory dwelling unit plans and the contact information of the applicant of a preapproved accessory dwelling unit plan on the local agency’s internet website. The plan must be removed from the website within 30 days of receiving a request for removal from the applicant.
The local agency must approve or deny an application for a detached ADU ministerially without discretionary review within 30 days from the date the local agency receives a completed application if the application either (1) utilizes a plan for an accessory dwelling unit that has been preapproved by the local agency within the current triennial California Building Standards Code rulemaking cycle, or (2) utilizes a plan that is identical to a plan used in an application for a detached accessory dwelling unit approved by the local agency within the current triennial California Building Standards Code rulemaking cycle.
Parking --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (AB 894, AB 1317, AB 1308)
AB 894: Shared Parking (Government Code § 65863.1)
AB 894 allows underused parking lots to satisfy parking requirements on a different site.
Significant Provisions
When at least 20% of a development’s parking spaces are not occupied during the period in which shared parking is proposed, the owner may propose entering into a shared parking agreement to satisfy the parking requirements on another site, if the parcels sharing the parking are on the same, or contiguous parcels, separated by no more than 2,000 feet of travel by the shortest walking route, or if there is a plan for shuttles or other means to move people between the parking lot and the serviced site. If the underutilized parking is not used by the receiving parcel to meet the local agency’s parking requirements, the local agency must accept the shared parking agreement.
If the underutilized parking is being used by the receiving parcel to meet the local agency’s parking requirements, the local agency must approve the shared parking agreement if the agreement includes a parking analysis using peer- reviewed methodologies developed by a professional planning association and the agreement either secures the long- term provision of parking or allows periodic review and approval by the local agency. If the shared parking agreement does not include a professional planning association study and the local agency has not adopted an ordinance that provides for shared parking agreements, the local agency must decide whether to approve or deny the shared parking agreement. Prior to acting on a shared parking agreement, if the parties to the shared parking agreement include developments of at least 10 residential units or at least 18,000 square feet, the local agency must notify all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed shared parking agreement and, if a request for a meeting is received within 14 days, hold a public meeting. Additionally, in certain publicly funded projects, the public agency providing the most funding must examine the feasibility of shared parking before funding is granted for parking lots or garages.
AB 1317: Unbundled Parking (Civil Code § 1947.1)
AB 1317 requires that parking be separately leased to tenants in 10 counties starting in 2025.
Significant Provisions
Residential rental properties with 16 or more units for which a certificate of occupancy was issued after January 1, 2025, and are located in 1 of 10 specified counties must “unbundle” parking from rent. Unbundling parking means that the parking will be leased under a separate contract (e.g., rental agreement addendum or separate rental agreement), and the cost of parking will not be included in the price of rent. Tenants have the right of first refusal for parking spaces; spaces that are not claimed by the tenants can be leased to other on-site users or off-site residential uses on a month- to-month basis. Failure of the tenant to pay the fee associated with parking may not constitute the basis for an unlawful detainer action, but the owner may revoke the tenant’s right to the parking if the associated fees remained unpaid for 45 days after the date on which they were due. The requirements do not apply to 100% affordable housing projects or to townhouses and row houses. In ABAG’s jurisdiction, only Alameda and Santa Clara Counties are subject to this requirement. San Diego County is excluded. In the SCAG area, only Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura Counties are subject to this requirement.
AB 1308: Parking for Single-Family Home Remodels (Government Code § 65863.3) AB 1308 provides that if an owner of a single-family home seeks to remodel, renovate, or add to the single-family home and the single-family home will not exceed any maximum size limitations (e.g., height, lot coverage, floor-to-area ratio) imposed by local zoning regulations, then the public agency cannot increase the minimum parking requirement as a condition of approval.
2023
New Housing
Legislation
Overview
Barbara E. Kautz
Goldfarb & Lipman LLP
(Presented to the Pasadena Planning
Commission on 3/12/24; UPDATED on
7/24/24)
Topic Areas
• Project Processing
• Affordable Housing & Density Bonus
• CEQA
• Parking
• Proposed Legislation for 2024
2 Project Processing
3 • SB 35: Streamlined Ministerial Process approved in 2018. • Planning Director’s determination of consistency with standards is final. • Requires City Council to hold public comment meeting before project application in moderate- or low-resource areas or areas of high segregation and poverty. • When conducting objective standards/zoning review, cannot require information related to building/post-approval entitlements.
• Specifies mitigation measures for projects in high fire hazard areas and in “state responsibility areas.”
• Affordable units meeting SB 35 standards meet City standards at all income levels (Base density of project in City must be 50% affordable to lower incomes). 4 SB 35 Revamp – SB 423
• Must ministerially consider, without discretion or review hearing, a subdivision map that meets 12 criteria, including the following:
• Property zoned for multifamily; results in ≤10 lots and housing units; not larger than 5 acres.
• Density and affordability must either = that in the housing element; or, maximum allowable residential density. City must allow 30 du/acre. • City may impose objective standards, but must allow:. • Parking and setbacks consistent with SB 9 (cannot require covered parking; must allow 4-foot rear and side setbacks).
• FAR standard of 1.0 for projects with 3 to 7 units or 1.25 for projects with 8 to 10 units. 5 Subdivisions for Up to 10 Lots/Units - SB 684(1 of 4) • Building Permits: Must issue building permit based on subdivision map without a final map.
• Must approve or deny an application within 60 days of a complete application; no action = deemed approved.
• To deny:
• Return in writing list of deficient items and how to remedy; or • Make written findings, based on preponderance of evidence, showing specific, adverse impact on public health and safety and no feasible mitigation.
Effective on 7/1/2024.
6 Subdivisions for Up to 10 Lots/Units - SB 684(1 of 4) Affordable Housing &
Density Bonus
7 • Applies to land owned by private institutions of higher education; or religious institutions.
• Property must be owned on/before 1/1/2024.
• 100% affordability (excluding manager units):
• Up to 20% moderate income; rest is lower income.
• 5% may be for staff of institution that owns the land. • Allowed Density: Residential zone 30 du/ac. Non-residential zone 40 du/ac. • Height: One-story above max height allowed. If adjacent parcel allows taller, the taller height allowed.
8 Housing on Faith/Higher Education Land – SB 4
4)
• Additional Requirements include the following:
• Site must meet SB 35 location requirements.
• Prevailing wage requirements.
• Maximum of 1 parking space/unit, unless within ½-mile walking distance of major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor.
• No discretionary permit and no CEQA.
• Determining inconsistency with objective planning standards:
• Within 60 days of submittal if ≤150 units; 90 days if >150 units. • Objective design review may occur at Planning Commission or equivalent:
• Within 90 days of submittal if ≤150 units; 180 days for if>150 units. • Bill sunsets 1/1/2036.
9 Housing on Faith/Higher Education Land – SB 4
4)
• Allows conversion of motels and hotels to low-income housing. • Must meet the following criteria:
• Restrict 100% of units to lower-income and at least 50% to very low-income. • Does not eliminate any open space.
• Must provide decision within 60 days of complete application if ≤150 units and 90 days if >150 units.
• May impose objective design standards except:
• Any maximum density or maximum floor area ratio requirements. • Any requirement to add more parking or open space.
• Local funding sources must include adaptive reuse as an eligible project type. 10 Extremely Affordable Adaptive Reuse – AB 1490 4)
Increase in Density Bonus/Incentives - AB 1287 (1 of 3) • Developer can request additional density bonus if (i.e., density bonus stacking):
• Project includes:
• 15% of the units to very low-income households; or
• 24% of the total units to lower income households; or • 44% of the units to moderate income households.
• Project includes additional very low or moderate-income units. • 100% affordable projects: Increase from 4 to 5 incentives; 16% very low income entitled to 4 incentives.
11 Example:
Project with 15% very low-income units and 15% moderate income units can qualify for a 100% density bonus.
Explanation:
• Project can qualify for a density bonus of 50% if 15% of the base project units will be affordable to very low-income households.
• Project can get an additional 50% bonus if 15% of the base project units will be affordable to moderate income households, which can be rentals. 12 Increase in Density Bonus/Incentives - AB 1287 (1 of 3) CEQA
13 Affordable Housing Exemption - AB 1449 (1 of 2)
• Exempts affordable housing projects from CEQA (financing, lease or sale of property, etc.) - even legislative actions.
• Qualifying project must meet 10 criteria, including:
• 100% affordable to lower income households, excluding manager units. • Prevailing wage requirements.
• 75% surrounded by urban uses.
• Will be subject to tax credit regulatory agreement.
• Adequately served by existing utilities.
• Meets environmental standards of SB 35; may be in coastal zone. 14 15
CEQA Violations as HAA Violations – AB 1633(1 of 2)
• Under HHA, “disapproval” of a project includes failure to find project exempt and failing to approve an MND, EIR or addendum without substantial evidence for more study.
• Qualifying project must meet specific standards, including:
• Site cannot be in a high/very high fire severity zone. • Project must have a density of at least 15 units du/ac. • Use with exemptions (more likely):
• Applicant must notify City within 35 days after told it is not exempt, or at least 60 days after project found complete. Agency must respond within 90 days or extend for 90 days. • Use with MNDs or EIRs (less likely):
• Applicant must notify within 35 days after agency has failed to approve or , if no action, within time set out for document preparation. Agency must respond within 90 days. 15 Parking
16 Shared Parking - AB 894 (1 of 2)
• Requirements: At least 20% of a development’s parking is not occupied.
Contiguous, within 2,000 feet (walking route), or shuttle. • Noticing: Notice owners within 300 feet. Hold a meeting if request for a meeting is received within 14 days of notice.
• Required vs. Additional Parking:
• Required: Must accept agreement if it includes analysis developed by professional planning association and either secures long-term parking OR allows periodic review by City.
• Not required: Must accept shared parking agreement.
• Recording: Can require shared parking agreements to be recorded. 17 18
• If a single-family house is being remodeled or expanded, City cannot require more parking UNLESS the maximum size requirements for the single-family home are exceeded (height, lot coverage, FAR, etc.).
• Applicability:
• Residential developments with 16+ units must “unbundle” parking from the lease of a residential unit and charge separately for the parking space. • Residential developments issued a certificate of occupancy after 1/1/2025. • Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties in SCAG area.
Parking for Single-Family Houses - AB 1308
Unbundled Parking - AB 1317
Proposed Legislation
for 2024
19 (not presented to the Planning Commission)
Housing Accountability Act - AB 1886 and 1893(1 of 3)
• Approved by the Assembly; currently going through Senate Committees. • AB 1886: Housing Elements not in conformance until HCD or a court agrees. • AB 1893:
• Expand the definition of disapproval and “bad faith” to include unjustified conduct including burdensome processing requirements and unnecessary delays. • Builder’s Remedy Projects:
• 13% low-income minimum instead of 20%. “Clear & convincing evidence” required to impose City inclusionary requirements.
• Entitled to at least 45 units/acre. If in low VMT area or high opportunity area, entitled to 80 units/acre plus density bonuses.
• Projects already submitted can elect to use new provisions. 20 3)
• Approved by the Senate; currently going through Assembly Committees. • Allow up to eight detached ADUs to be created on a lot with existing multifamily dwellings, provided the number of ADUs does not exceed the number of existing units on the site.
• Continue to allow only two ADUs for proposed multifamily projects. 21 Accessory Dwelling Units – SB 1211(1 of 3)
Historic Resources – AB 2580(1of 3)
• Approved by the Senate; currently going through Assembly Committees. • Next Housing Element Cycle must include an analysis of historical preservation practices and policies and an assessment on how existing and proposed historic designations affect a City’s ability to meet its share of the housing need. • The City’s Annual Report on housing production must include a list of all historic designations listed since the last reporting period, and the status of any housing development projects proposed for the new historic designations, including all of the following:
• Whether the housing development project has been entitled. • Whether a building permit has been issued for the housing development project. • The number of units in the housing development project. 22 Q & A (2 of 2)
23 INFORMATION ITEMS
8. PAST AGENDAS FOR CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS *
AGENDA
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
TUESDAY, JULY 16, 2024
6:00 P.M.
REGULAR PUBLIC MEETING
GEORGE ELLERY HALE BUILDING - HEARING ROOM
175 NORTH GARFIELD AVE. (ENTRANCE ON RAMONA ST.)
1. ROLL CALL
2. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA
3. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES
A. JUNE 4, 2024
B. JUNE 18, 2024
4. PUBLIC HEARING
A. REQUEST FOR CALL FOR REVIEW
315 N. PASADENA AVE - (COUNCIL DISTRICT 1) (DHP2024-00035) Request for a Call for Review of the Director's decision of an application for Designation of the property (Roosevelt School) as a Landmark. No new information has been submitted by the applicant since the Call for Review was initiated.
(Case Planner: Stephanie Cisneros)
Applicant: Rene H. Gonzales
Owner: Pasadena Unified School District
5. ADVISORY REVIEW
A. 377 ARROYO TERRACE
Comments to City Council on the nomination for 377 Arroyo Terrace for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
(Case Planner: Kevin Johnson)