4A
Date: October 22, 2025
To: Honorable Chair and Members of the State Legislative Advocacy Committee From: Aram Chaparyan, City Manager
Michelle Ramirez, Community Development Director
By: Eirenne O'Neill, Staff Assistant | [email protected] Oscar Martinez, Planning Manager | [email protected] Subject: City Manager and Community Development – Accept and File Update on the 2025 State Legislative Session. Expenditure: None.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation of the City Manager and Community Development Director that the City Council State Legislative Advocacy Committee accept and file an update on the 2025 State Legislative Session.
FUNDING
None required.
DISCUSSION
The 2025 State Legislative Session was highly active, with over 2,300 bills introduced between the Assembly and Senate. Approximately 1,400 bills originated in the Assembly and 900 in the Senate. The Legislature adjourned on September 30, 2025, after a busy final week marked by numerous last-minute amendments and negotiations. In total, more than 800 bills were sent to Governor Gavin Newsom for consideration. The Governor had until October 13, 2025, to sign, veto, or allow measures to become law without his signature, pursuant to Article IV, Section 10(b)(1) of the California Constitution. Governor Newsom signed 705 into law and vetoed 122, approximately 15% of the presented bills. The City of Torrance actively tracked key legislation related to housing, energy, homelessness, taxation, emergency preparedness, and economic development through the 2025 session. Below is a summary of those measures, the City’s position, and their outcomes.
Policy Area Highlights
Housing and Land Use: The City tracked multiple bills addressing the State’s housing crisis, including SB 79 (Weiner), AB 736 (Wicks) and SB 650 (Papan). These measures sought to streamline housing production, expand infill opportunities, and improve affordability near transit. 1 City Council
October 22, 2025
Energy and Environmental Policy: AB 303 (Addis) reflected growing State interest in integrating renewable energy standards with environmental review, though it did not advance. Broader legislative packages in 2025 focused on reducing utility costs and extending the State’s Cap-and- Trade Program.
Community Services and Homelessness: SB 569 (Blakespear), which the City supported, underscored the Legislature’s continued emphasis on homelessness prevention and service coordination.
Emergency Preparedness: AB 986 (Muratsuchi), co-authored by Torrance’s Assemblymember, represented a key local priority. Despite a gubernatorial veto, the City’s advocacy demonstrated regional leadership in public safety and emergency readiness.
Revenue and Economic Development: SB 346 (Durazo) and SB 828 (Cabaldon) focused on supporting fiscal stability and promoting economic growth through redevelopment of surplus land.
Key Legislation Tracked & Outcomes
Staff actively monitored the 2025 legislative session, submitted letters of support or opposition on key bills impacting local governance, housing, taxation, and public safety. Of the total letters issued, 65% reflected opposition and 35% expressed support, demonstrating the City’s consistent advocacy for local control and fiscally responsible legislation (Attachment 1). An analysis of the City’s tracked legislation indicates a non-alignment between the City’s positions and the voting patterns of Torrance legislative representatives Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi (D-66) and Senator Ben Allen (D-26).
Among the City-supported bills, both Muratsuchi and Allen voted in alignment on most measures, including SB 346 (Revenue and Taxation) and AB 650 (Planning and Zoning/Housing Policy) , which supported municipal flexibility in housing and local tax matters. However, despite their support, several of these bills ultimately died in committee or were vetoed, reflecting limited legislative success despite shared policy intent.
In contrast, several bills opposed by the City, particularly in housing and public policy areas, advanced through the legislature despite opposition from both the City and, in some cases, Muratsuchi or Allen. For instance, SB 79 (Planning and Zoning/Housing Policy) and SB 635 (Street Vendors) passed despite the City’s opposition, with both legislators voting “Yes.” This divergence highlights areas where the City’s priorities for local regulatory control differ from broader state policy directions.
Category Bill Author City
Position Outcome
Planning and Zoning/Housing AB 736 Wicks Support Bill Died Energy and Environmental Review AB 303 Addis Support Bill Died Community Services/ Homelessness SB 569 Blakespear Support Bill Died Revenue and Taxation SB 346 Durazo Support Passed
Planning and Zoning/Housing SB 650 Papan Support Vetoed Emergency Services & Disaster
Management AB 986 Muratsuchi Support Vetoed
Surplus Land/Economic Development SB 828 Cabaldon Support Passed Transportation SB 445 Wiener Oppose Bill Died
2 City Council
October 22, 2025
Law Enforcement SB 627 Wiener,
Arreguin Oppose Passed
Street Vendors SB 635 Durazo Oppose Passed
Right to Rest SB 634 Perez Oppose Passed
Planning and Zoning/Housing SB 79 Wiener Oppose Passed
Public Employee’s Retirement Benefits AB 1383 McKinnor Oppose Bill Died Planning and Zoning/Housing AB 11 Lee Oppose Bill Died
Housing AB 1061 Quirk-Silva Oppose Passed
Planning and Zoning/Housing SB 677 Wiener Oppose Bill Died Planning and Zoning/Housing AB 507 Haney Oppose Passed
Governance and Labor Relations SB 707 Durazo Oppose Passed Governance and Labor Relations AB 339 Ortega Oppose Passed Telecommunications AB 470 McKinnor Oppose Bill Died
Planning and Zoning/Housing AB 893 Fong No
Position Passed
Planning and Zoning/Housing AB 1154 Carrillo No
Position Passed
Planning and Zoning/Housing SB 9 Arreguin No
Position Passed
Planning and Zoning/Housing AB 253 Quirk-Silva No
Position Passed
Planning and Zoning AB 671 Gabriel No
Position Passed
Energy and Environmental Review AB 609
Alvarez,
Caririllo, Flora,
Quirk-Silva,
Wicks, Wilson
No
Position Bill Died
Planning and Zoning/Housing AB 874 Farias No
Position Bill Died
Public Resources SB 131
Senate Budget
and Fiscal
Review
Committee
No
Position Passed
Housing AB 130 House Budget
Committee
No
Position Passed
Planning and Zoning SB 415 Reyes No
Position Passed
AB 130: Makes permanent the five-hearing limit on housing development projects originally enacted under SB 330 (2019), as well as the requirement that the local agency determine whether the site of a housing development project is a historic site at the time the application is deemed complete. It also amends the Housing Accountability Act and Permit Streamlining Act to make various requirements of those laws permanent. These include the rule that housing development projects are subject to only the ordinances, policies, and standards in effect at the time a preliminary application was submitted, as well as the time limits for action on an application. The bill also repeals the expiration provisions of the Housing Crisis Act of 2019. It also revised CEQA to add statutory exemptions for certain types of projects, including housing projects. The bill includes Public Resources Code section 21080.66, which establishes a new statutory exemption 3 City Council
October 22, 2025
for qualifying housing development projects that are 20 acres or less in size (or, in the case of a builder’s remedy project site, five acres or less)
SB 131: Limits CEQA review to those environmental effects caused solely by that condition and waives the need for analysis of project alternatives, cumulative impacts, and growth-inducing effects. These provisions do not apply to projects with multiple disqualifying conditions, or to projects involving distribution centers, oil and gas infrastructure or on protected lands. The changes to CEQA under SB 131 are also exempt from CEQA rezoning actions that implement the provisions of a housing element adopted pursuant to Government Code section 65583(c), as well as agricultural employee housing projects.
SB 79 Housing Development: Makes it easier to build more housing near public transit hubs by allowing higher density housing in these areas, often referred to as transit-oriented development (TOD). It addresses the state's housing affordability crisis by creating exemptions from certain environmental reviews for specific projects on transit agency land and establishes rules for development, including affordability requirements and anti-displacement measures. The bill provides local governments with some flexibility to create their own plans, but they must meet state requirements for increasing housing capacity near transit.
SB 71 California Environmental Quality Act: Exempts from its requirements active transportation plans, pedestrian plans, or bicycle transportation plans for the restriping of streets and highways, bicycle parking and storage, signal timing to improve street and highway intersection operations, and the related signage for bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles.
SB 838 Housing Accountability Act: Revises the definition of housing development project to, in the case of mixed-use developments with at least 2/3 of the new or converted square footage designated for residential use, require that no portion of the project be designated for use as a hotel, motel, bed-and-breakfast inn, or other transient lodging, except as specified.
AB 726 Planning and zoning: Modifies housing annual report to include additional information regarding units of new housing, the units of housing demolished, and a report on replacement housing units, as specified.
SB 9 Accessory Dwelling Units: Requires ADU Ordinances to be submitted to HCD within 60 days of adoption for review for compliance. If ordinance is found not to be in compliance, local agencies have up to 30 days to respond and amend or justify compliance.
AB 507 Adaptive Reuse: Modifies existing planning and zoning laws to streamline approvals for projects, such as converting existing commercial office buildings to residential uses, as a use by right if certain conditions are met, including affordability requirements and labor standards.
AB 893 Housing Development Projects: Mandates that HCD conduct two studies, by 2027 and 2031, to evaluate the outcomes of the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022. The Act of 2022 allows development proponents to apply for affordable or mixed-use housing projects within specific zones that allow office, retail, or parking as primary uses and granted as “use by right” without CEQA reviews. The bill amends the act by limiting reviews to areas specifically impacted by construction, ensures existing easements do not disqualify properties from streamlined reviews, and clarifies parking setbacks apply to above ground parking. 4 City Council
October 22, 2025
AB 1154 Junior Accessory Dwellings (JADUs): Modifies owner-occupancy requirements for JADUs to only apply to JADUs that share sanitation facilities with the existing home. Additionally, the bill mandates that JADUs must be rented for terms longer than 30 days.
AB 253 California Residential Private Permitting Review Act: Mandates several changes to the residential building permit process for counties and cities. It requires local governments prescribing permit fees to publish a fee schedule online. The bill removes the previous requirement for local authorities to hire private entities for plan checks if the process exceeds 30 days. Instead, it allows applicants to hire a private professional if local processing takes too long.
This private provider must submit an affidavit and a report under penalty of perjury, which the local agency must review within 10 business days. The applicant may resubmit corrected plans if initially non-compliant. The bill adjusts requirements for post-entitlement phase permits, ensuring compliance occurs if a private provider checks the plans. While indemnifying local agencies from liability related to the privately checked plans, it specifies that public agencies are not liable for injuries resulting from their actions or omissions in permitting decisions. The bill also mandates that starting in 2027, the annual report on housing development must include data on permits reviewed by private professionals and the resources dedicated to permit processing. This bill emphasizes that these changes apply statewide and take effect immediately as an urgency statute, without requiring state reimbursement for local implementation costs.
AB 671 Accelerated restaurant building plan approval: This bill would require a local building department, upon the request and at the expense of the permit applicant, to allow a qualified professional certifier, defined as a licensed architect or engineer who meets certain requirements, to certify that the plans and specifications of the tenant improvement comply with all applicable building, health, and safety codes, as specified. The bill would require a qualified professional certifier, or the applicant, as applicable, to prepare certain affidavits related to the tenant improvement under penalty of perjury. The bill would require the local building department to approve or deny the permit application within 20 business days of receiving a complete application and would deem the plan approved for permitting purposes if the local building department does not approve or deny the application within that timeframe. The bill would also authorize the applicant to resubmit corrected plans addressing the deficiencies identified in the initial denial, would limit the local building department’s review of each subsequent resubmission to the deficiencies identified in the initial denial, and would require the local building department to approve or deny each subsequent resubmission within 10 business days of receipt. The bill would require each local building department to conduct audits of tenant improvements submitted for certification, as specified. The bill would authorize a city or county to adopt additional qualifications or requirements for qualified professional certifiers, including penalties or reasonable administrative fines for certain actions. The bill would make qualified professional certifiers liable for any damages arising from negligent plan review. The bill would also require the applicant to indemnify the local agency from any property damage or personal injury arising from construction permitted under the above-described provisions.
SB 415 Logistics Use Developments: Refines requirements for new and expanded logistics uses under AB 98. AB 98 required setbacks to loading bays from sensitive receptors (residences, schools, daycare, public parks, nursing homes, and hospitals). The Bill further clarifies that these requirements do not apply to properties used primarily for manufacturing or non-storage functions, clarifies that cold storage trucks are only obligated to plug in, as opposed to generally idling, if sufficient power exists onsite to charge; clarifies shared entrances are permissible as long as 5 City Council
October 22, 2025
there is a dedicated heavy-duty truck aisle; and clarifies “logistics park” where a development may consist of multiple buildings or logistics uses.
Statewide Special Election
The upcoming statewide special election will temporarily implement new congressional district maps, which will remain in effect until 2030 if approved by California voters. The measure directs the independent Citizens Redistricting Commission to resume its role in redrawing congressional district boundaries in 2031. Proposition 50 is the sole item on the ballot for the November 4th special election, and its outcome will determine how Californians are represented in the U.S.
House of Representatives.
The proposed redistricting plan aims to shift the balance of power by flipping five Republican-held House seats in California while making five other competitive districts more favorable to Democrats. This could potentially reduce the number of Republicans in the state’s 52-member congressional delegation to as few as four.
This redistricting strategy, championed by Governor Gavin Newsom, thrusts California into a heated nationwide redistricting battle, as former President Trump seeks to safeguard his slim Republican majority in the U.S. House. The GOP currently holds a narrow five-seat advantage, the smallest margin in decades.
Conclusion
The 2025 Legislative Session addressed critical issues of housing, affordability, energy resilience, and economic recovery. Although several bills supported by the City did not advance, continued engagement with legislators remains vital to ensuring the City’s priorities are reflected in future sessions.
The November 2025 General Election will be a pivotal one for the State Legislature, with all 80 Assembly seats and 20 Senate seats on the ballot. At least 35 new members are expected to join the Legislature, in addition to the 37 first-term legislators from 2022, meaning that 60% of lawmakers will have served for two years or less.
This turnover highlights the importance of maintaining proactive outreach and education on the City’s legislative priorities, including housing flexibility, infrastructure investment, and public safety preparedness.
ATTACHMENT
1. 2025 Legislative Session Results Flyer
2. Public Correspondence
6 Distribution of Letters
Letters of Opposition
65%
Letters of Support
35%
Letters of Support Letters of Opposition
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
7 13
2025 Legislative
Session Results
City of Torrance Summary of Key Votes
State Assembly
D-66 Assemblyman
Al Murastuchi
October 14, 2025
State Senate
D-26 Senator
Ben Allen
ATTACHMENT 1
7 City of Torrance Support
Category Bill Name Al Muratsuchi Ben Allen Outcome
Planning and Zoning/Housing Policy AB 736 Yes - BILL DIED Energy and Environmental Review AB 303 - - BILL DIED
Community Services/ Homelessness SB 569 - Yes BILL DIED Revenue and Taxation SB 346 Yes Yes PASSED
Planning and Zoning/Housing Policy AB 650 Yes Yes VETOED Emergency Services & Disaster
Management AB 986 Yes Yes VETOED
Surplus Land/Economic Development SB 828 Yes Yes BILL DIED City of Torrance Oppose
Category Bill Name Al Muratsuchi Ben Allen Outcome
Transportation SB 445 - Yes BILL DIED
Law Enforcement SB 627 Yes Yes PASSED
Street Vendors SB 635 Yes Yes PASSED
Right to Rest SB 634 Yes Yes PASSED
Planning and Zoning/Housing Policy SB 79 No No vote PASSED Public Employee’s Retirement Benefits AB 1383 - - BILL DIED Planning and Zoning/Housing Policy AB 11 Yes - BILL DIED Housing AB 1061 No No vote PASSED
Planning and Zoning/Housing Policy SB 677 - - BILL DIED Planning and Zoning/Housing Policy AB 507 No vote Yes PASSED Governance and Labor Relations SB 707 No vote Yes PASSED Governance and Labor Relations AB 339 Yes Yes
Telecommunications Law AB 470 No vote - BILL DIED
8 ATTACHMENT 2
From: Sheikh, Asam <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2025 10:00 PM
To: East Lion <[email protected]>
Cc: Chaparyan, Aram <[email protected]>; Santana, Danny <[email protected]>; Ramirez, Michelle <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Question regarding SB 79 and the City.
Dear Stephen -
Thank you for reaching out and raising these important questions. We’ll review your concerns and get back to you shortly.
Regards,
ASAM SHEIKH
Councilmember District #3
310-618-2801 | [email protected]
TorranceCA.Gov | Facebook | X (Formerly Twitter) | Instagram This email, and any attachments to it, may contain confidential information and is intended for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you may have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email and any attachments.
Any review, reliance, disclosure, copying, storing, distribution, forwarding without express permission, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited.
From: East Lion <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2025 5:44 PM
To: Sheikh, Asam <[email protected]>
Subject: Question regarding SB 79 and the City.
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
Councilman,
I have questions regarding SB 79 and what agency would be the transit agency defined in SB 79 which would own the property which the high density development would be located on. The law states that the transit agencies would own the property, effectively making the property tax free, depriving the city of its share of property tax revenue.
At the same time, I don’t envision the city being a landlord either.
If it is Torrance Transit Agency, would the city be purchasing properties within 1/4-1/2 mile of the Giordano Regional Transit Center located at 465 Crenshaw be the center of that 1/4-1/2 mile radius?
If so, how is the city planning on financing the purchases since the law prevents the use of eminent domain to acquire the property?
9 If it is MTA, would they be purchasing properties within that same 1/4-1/2 mile radius, utilizing MTA funds?
If the city has insufficient resources to purchase the properties, I assume the city’s purchasing process would not go forward, correct?
The concept of a legally-required minimum density of 80 units per acre (208 feet by 208 feet square) is a proposition this city is unable to manage. This city does not have the water, sewer, and electrical infrastructure to handle that kind of population addition and won’t have it in the foreseeable future, let alone the funds to purchase properties within the radius of the transit center.
I would request the Council have a hard, “No” in funding this state-mandated boondoggle.
Thank you for your time.
Stephen Saracco II
3202 Sonoma St.Torrance, CA
310-488-7378
10