5A
Date: April 14, 2025
To: Honorable Chair and Members of the State Legislative Advocacy Committee From: Aram Chaparyan, City Manager
Michelle Ramirez, Community Development Director
By: Carlos Huizar, Management Associate | [email protected] Adrian V. Perez, Planning Associate | [email protected] Subject: City Manager and Community Development – Receive Update on the 2025 State Legislative Session and Provide Direction on State Legislation. Expenditure: None.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation of the City Manager and Community Development Director that the City Council State Legislative Advocacy Committee receive an update on the 2025 State Legislative Session and review and provide direction on the City’s position on pending State legislation.
FUNDING
There is no funding required for this action.
DISCUSSION
The Legislature returned to Sacramento on January 6, 2025, to begin the 2025-26 Legislative Session. The November 2024 election brought 29 brand-new members to the State Legislature. When coupled with the 37 new legislators elected in 2022, this means that 66 of 120 (55%) of the members of the Legislature will have 2 years or less experience.
There are 23 new members of the State Assembly, and the vacancy in the 32nd Assembly District was filled on February 25, 2025, as now-Assemblymember Stan Ellis received over 50% of the vote, preventing a runoff in April. In addition, there are 6 new members of the State Senate, and the vacancy for the 36th Senate District was filled on February 25, 2025, as now-Senator Tony Strickland also received over 50% of the vote. The supermajorities in both houses remain, with the Senate having 29 Democrats and 10 Republicans. In the Assembly, there are 60 Democrats and 19 Republicans.
Bill Introductions
This year, leadership in both houses reduced the number of bills members could introduce over a 2-year session. The Assemblymember’s maximum bill counts were reduced from 50 to 35, while the Senate's were reduced from 40 to 35. The deadline to introduce new bills was February 21, 2025, and the Legislators between both houses introduced 2,495 bills. In the Assembly, members introduced 1,584 bills, and the Senate introduced 911. Comparatively, the Legislature introduced 3,030 total bills last year, 1 State Legislative Advocacy Committee
April 14, 2025
with 1,974 in the Assembly and 1,056 in the Senate. That's a reduction of 535 bills between the 2 houses.
Most of the new bills introduced are considered spot bills, which are placeholder bills. However, we will see substantive amendments to those over the next few weeks before they are heard in the policy committee. All new bills must be in print for 30 days before they can be heard in committee, and as the bill introduction deadline was February 21, 2025, committee hearings have started to ramp up to review proposed state legislation.
Budget Projections
On January 10, 2025, Governor Newsom released his proposed budget. After two years of significant budget deficits, State revenues are $16.5 billion ahead of projections made when the Governor and Legislature enacted last year's budget. The Governor’s proposed budget projects a modest surplus of $380 million; however, the surplus only exists because of the state's use of $7.1 billion in rainy-day reserves. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) continues to project a roughly $2 billion deficit for FY2025-26. However, that number is likely to grow as high as $30 billion by 2028-29.
Typically, the Governor's Proposed Budget serves as a starting point for discussions with the Legislature. In May, the Governor releases a revised budget with more up-to-date revenue estimates. While there are usually some changes between the January and May Budget Proposals, we assume that the devastating wildfires in Los Angeles will significantly change the Governor's Budget by the time of the May revision. Tax filing deadlines have already been extended for those impacted by wildfires, and the Governor and the Legislature will be under immense political pressure to provide relief and funding to victims of the wildfires and local governments. Doing so could force them to change the priorities the Governor outlined in his January Budget.
Over the next few months, the Legislature will hold numerous budget hearings that will identify their priorities and make changes to the Governor’s proposed budget with a final budget agreement deadline of June 15, 2025.
LA Fires Impacting this Year’s Session
Unfortunately, this year's return to session coincided with the tragic wildfires sweeping through Los Angeles. The Governor and Legislature responded quickly and appropriated $2.5 billion in relief funding for Los Angeles. After a few hearings in the Assembly and Senate Budget Committees, the Legislature took up the proposal, passed it, and Governor Newsom signed it into law. We expect wildfire preparedness and mitigation to take center stage for much of the year.
State Legislation for Committee Consideration
The purpose of this staff report is provide an overview of selected legislation bills currently under consideration in the State legislature that may impact the City of Torrance. The report aims to highlight key provisions of each bill and seek the Committee’s direction on an official City position on each bill to recommend for the full City Council consideration.
Housing and Zoning
AB 650 (Papan): Planning and Zoning: Housing Element: Regional Housing Needs Allocation. 2 State Legislative Advocacy Committee
April 14, 2025
Currently a spot bill, this measure will be amended to significantly improve the housing element review process by encouraging local jurisdictions to begin planning earlier and providing greater clarity and certainty to a difficult and complex process. This measure would allow local jurisdictions to begin the housing element update six months earlier than what is required under existing law; support good faith actors that are working through the housing element review process; and require HCD to provide written communication that identifies specific deficiencies in the draft and text or analysis that HCD believes needs to be included to comply with the law.
Staff recommendation: Support
SB 79 (Wiener): Planning and Zoning: Housing Development: Transit-oriented Development.
This measure would require cities to approve higher-density residential projects up to 7 stories near public transit stops ministerially regardless of local zoning codes, limit the use of local development standards on the proposed project, and allow transit agencies full land authority over residential and commercial development on property they own or lease.
Staff recommendation: Oppose (Letter sent 04/10/25)
SB 677 (Wiener): Housing Development: Streamlined Approvals.
This measure would limit local government’s ability to impose objective standards on SB 9 projects with 1,750 net habitable square feet in the floor area. It would also eliminate local agencies’ ability to provide setback requirements, height limits, lot coverage limits, floor area ratios, or any other standard that would limit residential development capacity for these projects. Finally, this measure would prohibit local governments from collecting impact fees for projects less than 1,750 square feet.
Staff recommendation: Oppose
AB 736 (Wicks): The Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026.
This bill would authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of $10 billion dollars to finance affordable rental housing and homeownership programs. This bill would provide allow for the submission of the bond act to the voters at the June 2, 2026, statewide primary election.
Staff recommendation: Support
3 State Legislative Advocacy Committee
April 14, 2025
AB 11 (Lee): The Social Housing Act.
This measure would create a state housing authority to build residential development in communities across California to meet the state’s RHNA goals for extremely low and very low-income housing, without regard for local housing elements approved by the state. This measure would only require the authority to consult with local jurisdictions’ preferences for the specific site of development, the number of stories, the number of units, or the development timeline. The agency would not need to follow local regulations, zoning codes, and height limits.
Staff recommendation: Oppose
AB 507 (Haney): Adaptive Reuse: Streamlining: Incentives.
This measure would require local governments to ministerially approve adaptive reuse office-to- residential conversion projects statewide. It would also exempt these projects from all impact fees not directly related to the impacts resulting from the site's change of use from non-residential to residential or mixed-use.
Staff recommendation: Oppose
AB 893 (Fong): Housing Development Projects: Objective Standards: Campus Development Zone.
This measure would require local agencies to ministerially approve a residential project for low-income faculty, staff, and students if the project is proposed on parcels within a one-mile radius of a main campus for a UC, CSU, California Community College, or private postsecondary educational institute. The Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022, until January 1, 2033, authorizes a developer to submit an application for an affordable housing development or a mixed-income housing development that meets specified objective standards and affordability and site criteria, including being located within a zone where office, retail, or parking are a principally permitted use. This act makes a development that meets those objective standards and affordability and site criteria a use by right and subject to 1 of 2 streamlined, ministerial review processes depending on, among other things, the affordability requirements applicable to the project. The act requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to undertake at least two studies, one completed on or before January 1, 2027, and one completed on or before January 1, 2031, on the outcomes of the act.
This bill would expand the eligibility for the above-described streamlined, ministerial approval to include developments located in a campus development zone, as defined, as long as the development meets certain affordability requirements and objective standards, as provided. The bill would require the outcomes of projects built under campus development zones to be reported in the January 1, 2031, outcomes report. The bill would also make related findings and declarations.
Staff recommendation: Pending
AB 1061 (Quirk-Silva): Housing Developments: Urban Lot Splits: Historical Resources.
This measure would eliminate the historical district protections that SB 9 projects (urban lot splits on single-family zoned parcels) must comply with. Instead of disallowing SB 9 projects in historic districts, local governments may only disallow the project if it is on a historical landmark.
Staff recommendation: Oppose
4 State Legislative Advocacy Committee
April 14, 2025
AB 874 (Avila Farias): Mitigation Fee Act: Waiver of Fees: Affordable Rental Housing.
This measure would require local agencies to waive all fees or charges for a residential development project that has a 55-year regulatory agreement with at least 49% of the total units reserved for lower- income households at an affordable rent. AB 874 only allows the local agency to collect fees to fund code enforcement, inspection services, or other fees to pay for enforcing local ordinances or state law.
Staff recommendation: Pending
AB 1154 (Carrillo): Accessory Dwelling Units: Junior Accessory Dwelling Units.
This measure would prohibit local agencies from requiring parking on ADUs less than 500 square feet and remove owner-occupancy requirements for some Junior ADUs. This measure has some minor code clean up in California Government Code Section 66322 for existing exemptions and adds an additional exemption if an ADU is 500 square feet or smaller a local agency shall not impose any parking standards.
An additional provision is proposed to Section 66333 of the California Government Code, to make the owner-occupancy not a requirement for Junior ADUs that have separate sanitation facilities.
Staff recommendation: Pending
SB 9 (Arreguin): Accessory Dwelling Units: Owner-Occupant Requirements.
This measure would prohibit local agencies from requiring owner occupancy requirements on existing or new ADUs. This measure is a code clean up to be consistent with ADU law. California Government Code Section 66315 states that:
“Section 66314 establishes the maximum standards that a local agency shall use to evaluate a proposed accessory dwelling unit on a lot that includes a proposed or existing single-family dwelling. No additional standards, other than those provided in Section 66314, shall be used or imposed, including an owner-occupant requirement, except that a local agency may require that the property may be used for rentals of terms 30 days or longer.”
The state is proposing to remove owner-occupant requirement standards outlined above and add “A local agency shall not impose an owner-occupancy requirement for a proposed or existing accessory dwelling unit,” under Section 66322 of the California Government Code.
Staff recommendation: Pending
5 State Legislative Advocacy Committee
April 14, 2025
AB 303 (Addis): Battery Energy Storage Systems: Permitting.
This measure would revise the permitting review process for Battery Energy Storage Systems facilities.
Until June 2029, any facility that is capable of storing 200 megawatthours or more of energy, would submit an application for certificate to the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission in lieu of any permit, certificate, or similar document required by any state, local, or regional agency. This bill would specify that energy storage systems do not include battery energy storage systems for the described purposes and to deny any pending applications as of the effective date of AB 303. This bill would prohibit the authorization of a development project that includes a battery energy storage system capable of storing 200 megawatthours or more of energy if the development project is located within 3,200 feet of a sensitive receptor or is located on an environmentally sensitive site, as specified. This bill would impose a state-mandated local program to review proposed development projects that include a battery energy storage system at the local agency level.
Staff recommendation: Support
AB 609 (Wickes): California Environmental Quality Act: Infill Exemption: Housing Development Projects.
This bill would exempt from the requirements of CEQA a housing development project, as defined, that meets certain conditions on sites up to 20 acres. The bill would require a local government, as a condition of approval for the development, to require the development proponent to complete a phase I environmental assessment.
Staff recommendation: Pending
Community Services
SB 639 (Pérez) Homelessness: Civil and criminal penalties The California Constitution authorizes a county or city to make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws. Current law establishes procedures for the enactment of ordinances by counties and cities and makes a violation of a county or city ordinance, as applicable, a misdemeanor unless by ordinance it is made an infraction. Current law also prohibits a state agency from adopting or enforcing any rule or a violation of which can result in the imposition of a fine or imprisonment, or both, unless a statute specifically authorizes the imposition of such fine or imprisonment, or both, for a violation of the rule or regulation. This bill would prohibit a local jurisdiction from adopting a local ordinance, or enforcing an existing ordinance, that imposes civil or criminal penalties on a person who is homeless for any act immediately related to homelessness or any act related to basic survival, or on a person who is assisting a person who is homeless with any act related to basic survival. The bill would similarly prohibit a state agency from adopting any regulation or issuing any policy or guidance, or enforcing an existing regulation, policy, or guidance, that imposes those civil or criminal penalties. The bill would define various terms for these purposes.
Staff recommendation: Oppose
SB 569 (Blakespear) Department of Transportation: Homeless Encampments.
This measure would require the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to coordinate with local governments to address and prevent homeless encampments located on state property.
6 State Legislative Advocacy Committee
April 14, 2025
Revenue and Taxation
SB 346 (Durazo) Local Agencies: Transient Occupancy Taxes: Short-term Rental Facilitator.
This measure would require short-term rental facilitators, at the request of a city, to provide the Assessor Parcel Number of a short-term rental listing to the City and would provide cities audit authority for transient occupancy taxes collected and remitted by short-term rental facilitators.
Staff recommendation: Support
Governance, Transparency and Labor Relations
SB 707 (Durazo) Open Meetings: Meeting and Teleconference This measure would make several changes to the Brown Act including, requiring all open and public meetings include an opportunity for members of the public to attend via a two-way telephonic option or a two-way audiovisual platform.
Staff recommendation Oppose
AB 339 (Ortega) Local Public Employee Organization: Notice Requirements.
This measure would require the governing body of a public agency to give the recognized employee organization no less than 120 days’ written notice before issuing a request for proposals, request for quotes, or renewing or extending an existing contract to perform services that are within the scope of work of the job classification represented by the recognized employee organization.
Staff recommendation Oppose
SB-828 Land use: economic development: surplus land.
Current law authorizes a city, county, or city and county, with the approval of its legislative body by resolution after a public hearing, to acquire, sell, or lease property in furtherance of the creation of an economic opportunity, as defined. Current law provides that this authorization is an alternative to any other authority granted by law to cities to dispose of city-owned property. This bill would revise those provisions to authorize a city, county, or city and county to, in addition to a sale or lease of property, otherwise transfer property under the above-described provisions to create an economic opportunity and would make related, conforming changes to these procedures. The bill would require the city, county, or city and county, to submit a report containing specified information to the Controller within 90 days after adopting the resolution approving the acquisition, sale, lease, or transfer of the property.
Staff recommendation Support
7