(From Press Release) – Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. signed into law today 15 bills to help increase the supply and affordability of housing in California. The measures provide funding for affordable housing, reduce regulations, boost construction and strengthen existing housing laws.
“These new laws will help cut red tape and encourage more and affordable housing, including shelter for the growing number of homeless in California,” said Governor Brown.
The Governor signed the housing bills at Hunters View, an affordable housing project located in the Bayview Hunters Point neighborhood of San Francisco. The public housing project was recently redeveloped with the help of federal, state and private partners.
“This package has everything from A to Z – affordability to zoning,” said Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon. “It’s not a magic wand, but it is going to put a lot of drafting tools, backhoes, hammers, and door keys to work. I’m proud of how the Assembly helped shape this package and of the real results it will deliver for Californians.”
“No one should have to work three full-time jobs just to provide a home for their family,” said Senate President pro Tempore Kevin de León. “This bipartisan package by the legislature marks an 
historic step towards our goal of ensuring that every Californian has a place to call home.”
“This combination of housing bills developed by the Legislature and Governor Brown address many of the issues that have taken a toll on the construction of housing in California,” said State Building and Construction Trades Council of California president Robbie Hunter. “These bills will streamline decision-making and the environmental review process, thereby reducing costs, and they will add billions of dollars for new, much-needed affordable housing.”
“The Governor’s action marks an important shift in our state’s housing policies toward a greater commitment to Californians struggling to keep a roof over their head,” said Housing California executive director Lisa Hershey. “SB 2 and SB 3 provide an influx of funds to spur development of affordable homes, and AB 1505 allows localities to create more inclusive, mixed-income communities. Housing California looks forward to continuing the work our lawmakers have begun.”
“These new funds will replenish the state’s proven affordable housing programs and jump-start many, many projects that are ready to get started and will make a real impact,” said Jack Gardner, president and CEO of The John Stewart Company, which redeveloped the San Francisco Hunters View project. “At the same time, the regulatory changes will help get shovels in the ground and reduce the time and expense of providing critically-needed affordable housing for struggling California families.”
The Governor signed the following bills into law today:
SB 2 (Atkins), the Building Homes and Jobs Act, establishes a permanent funding source for affordable housing through a $75 fee on real estate transaction documents. The fee is capped at $225 per transaction and exempts real estate sales. The fees would generate roughly $250 million a year, which would be split among state and local housing programs.
“We know what solves homelessness: homes,” said Senator Toni Atkins (D-San Diego). “SB 2 will provide an ongoing infusion of funding that communities all over California need to build affordable housing, so they can help bring people off the streets and into safe homes with supportive services. It will also help provide housing for seniors on low, fixed incomes and struggling families. California’s housing crisis is causing pervasive instability for individuals, families and communities. It will take continued hard work to solve the crisis, but our comprehensive, multifaceted package of housing bills is a good start toward restoring stability. I thank my colleagues who have contributed their great ideas, and I thank Governor Brown and our legislative leadership for making housing a top priority in 2017.”
SB 3 (Beall) authorizes $4 billion in general obligation bonds for affordable housing programs and a veteran’s home ownership program. SB 3 must be approved by voters next November.
“Senate Bill 3 gives California the opportunity to build $15 billion in much-needed affordable housing for working families, seniors, vets, and the homeless,” said Senator Jim Beall (D-San Jose). “Together, SB 3 and the housing bills signed today represent a historic step to expand a limited housing supply and counterbalance the skyrocketing market that threatens our future and economy. More Californians will be able to live in the community where they work and spend less time on congested roads.”
SB 35 (Wiener) streamlines the approval process for infill developments in local communities that have failed to meet their regional housing needs.
“California just took a huge step forward to address our housing crisis – a crisis that is tearing our communities apart, undermining our environment and economy, and making it harder for families to succeed,” said Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco). “No one should be living on our streets, be forced into three or four hour commutes, or have to leave their community as their family grows because they just can’t afford housing. These bills to streamline housing creation and fund new affordable housing construction won’t solve California’s entire housing problem – that will take years of hard work given how deep this crisis is – but today we are establishing a strong foundation for future housing efforts.”
SB 166 (Skinner) ensures that cities maintain an ongoing supply of housing construction sites for residents of various income levels.
SB 167 (Skinner) increases the standard of proof required for a local government to justify a denial of low- and moderate-income housing development projects. (SB 167 is identical to AB 678.)
“Our housing permit process should not be a shell game,” said Senator Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley). “My bills, SB 166 and 167, tackle the ‘Not in My Backyard’ obstacles that too often keep needed housing from being built.”
SB 540 (Roth) streamlines the environmental review process for certain local affordable housing projects.
“Access to housing is a basic human need,” said Senator Richard D. Roth (D-Riverside). “That’s why I am proud to have authored SB 540, which will incentivize and streamline housing construction to meet our state’s dire housing shortage. California is home to one of the most expensive housing markets in the nation, with many folks unable to afford to rent or own a home. SB 540 is a commonsense measure that will remove the barriers to housing construction in the areas most in need, helping ensure this crisis does not continue to grow and families do not continue to struggle”
AB 72 (Santiago/Chiu) strengthens the state’s ability to enforce laws that require local governments to achieve housing goals.
“Housing should not be for the privileged few who can afford a place to live,” said Assemblymember Miguel Santiago (D-Los Angeles). “Housing should be a right ensuring that any person who tries hard, works hard, and plays by the rules has the ability to sleep with a roof over their head. I’m thrilled that the Governor agrees with my legislative colleagues and I on this issue and I thank him for his leadership during California’s current housing emergency.”
AB 73 (Chiu) gives local governments incentives to create housing on infill sites near public transportation.
“California is a large and diverse state, but one thing we all share is that we’re living through the worst housing crisis in our state’s history,” said Assemblymember David Chiu (D-San Francisco). “With this historic package of bills, we begin to take on the affordable housing crisis that threatens our state’s economic prosperity, deepens inequality, and increases homelessness. My deep thanks goes to Speaker Anthony Rendon for making housing a top priority, and to my Assembly and Senate colleagues for their tireless partnership. I also appreciate the engaged leadership of Governor Brown and his incredible team. Our work is not done, but we’re making a down payment for our children’s future, for people struggling to pay the rent or the mortgage or even to have a roof at all, and for our teachers, firefighters and other workers who can’t afford a home in the cities they serve.”
AB 571 (E. Garcia) makes it easier to develop farmworker housing by easing qualifications for the Farmworker Housing Tax Credit.
“I truly want to commend Governor Brown, Speaker Rendon and Chairman Chiu for leading the charge to address our state’s severe housing crisis,” said Assemblymember Eduardo Garcia (D-Coachella). “I was proud to support this comprehensive package of bills, anchored around SB 2 and SB 3, which established a funding mechanism for these critical measures, and play my part advocating on behalf of rural Californian communities, like those in my district that have been historically underserved. AB 571 eases eligibility requirements for a state tax credit for developers to build migrant housing. Farmworker labor fuels our economies, yet these areas lack the necessary investments to spur growth and prosperity. These modifications to the Farmworker Housing Assistance Tax Credit Program, along with other programs established within this historic bill package, will help ensure the essential right to safe, affordable housing for more of our hard working families and veterans across California.”
AB 678 (Bocanegra) increases the standard of proof required for a local government to justify its denial of low- to moderate-income housing development projects. (AB 678 is identical to SB 167.)
“California is in the midst of an unprecedented housing crisis caused by a severe lack of inventory and new housing construction,” said Assemblymember Raul Bocanegra (D-Pacoima). “I’m proud to have worked with many of my colleagues in the Legislature as well as with Governor Brown to help create more housing and make owning or renting in California more affordable by providing greater certainty during the project approval process at the local level.”
AB 879 (Grayson) authorizes a study of local fees charged to new residential developments that will also include a proposal to substantially reduce such fees.
“This has been a long time coming, and after a decade of falling behind 100,000 housing units a year we finally exercised the fortitude to move California forward,” said Assemblymember Tim Grayson (D-Concord). “Though this package is not a fix all – it contains the first steps in the right direction. I want to thank leadership and the Governor for their work and vision on this issue.”
AB 1397 (Low) makes changes to the definition of land suitable for residential development to increase the number of sites where new multifamily housing can be built.
“No one should be denied a place to call home,” said Assemblymember Evan Low (D-Campbell). “This housing package will help make our Golden State shine bright again.”
AB 1505 (Bloom/Bradford/Chiu/Gloria) authorizes cities and counties to adopt an inclusionary ordinance for residential rental units in order to create affordable housing.
“The skyrocketing cost of housing is forcing millions of Californians to make stressful financial decisions every month just to keep the eviction notice off their front door,” said Assemblymember Richard H. Bloom (D-Santa Monica). “Our housing problem is real and devastating to families, seniors, and young adults in communities throughout this state. Today’s signing of AB 1505 ensures that real affordable housing is built so our teachers, grocery clerks, car mechanics, and retired seniors – those who we interact with every day and who make up the fabric of our communities – can also afford to live in our communities.”
“People shouldn’t have to the leave the state in order to find affordable housing or achieve the American dream of home ownership,” said Senator Steven Bradford (D-Gardena.)
“Skyrocketing housing costs have squeezed California’s working and middle class for too long,” said Assemblymember Todd Gloria (D-San Diego). “I am proud to join the Governor and my fellow legislators to pass a historic package of bills that makes specific and tangible progress to give some relief to those struggling to pay their rents and mortgages. We have more work to do on housing affordability and I look forward to building on this year’s achievements in the months ahead. Our goal must remain a roof over the head of every Californian at a price they can afford.”
AB 1515 (Daly) allows housing projects to be afforded the protections of the Housing Accountability Act if the project is consistent with local planning rules despite local opposition.
“The Housing Accountability Act fosters and respects responsible local control by providing certainty to all stakeholders in the local approval process, and preventing NIMBYism from pressuring local officials into rejecting or downsizing compliant housing projects,” said Assemblymember Tom F. Daly (D-Anaheim). “AB 1515 strengthens the provisions of the HAA and provides courts with clear standards for interpreting the HAA in favor of building housing.”
AB 1521 (Bloom/Chiu) gives experienced housing organizations a first right of refusal to purchase affordable housing developments in order to keep the units affordable.
Another mistake. Instead of acknowledging that there’s a limited amount of space (especially in “desirable” areas), politicians are ramming this down our throats (and actually increasing costs related to turnover of houses).
There seems to be some “disconnect” between politicians and (a significant number of) citizens. (Not to mention a disconnect with reality.)
Regarding “affordability”, this essentially subsidizes employers who won’t, or can’t pay their employees a sufficient wage. (The status quo.)
Hopefully, the upcoming $4 billion bond measure will fail.
Is there a limited amount of space and what is that limit and who gets to decide when we’ve reached it?
There certainly is a limited amount of space, unless one is advocating expansion of the city beyond its borders. Voters get to decide that, on a case-by-case basis.
Why would you want the bond measure to fail? It replaces the revenue stream that affordable housing used to get from the redevelopment districts.
I also wonder how this might impact Davis, if it continues to prematurely develop space that will be needed at some point to meet the new “fair share” growth requirements. (Yes, now we can accurately refer to them as “requirements”.)
Where do you see those requirements in this set of statutes?
Here’s one of them. (Not sure how the other bills listed above interplay with this.) In any case, why are you asking me, when your own article lists them?
I recall reading that the state can also fine cities for failing to meet these requirements. (I’ll try to find that, if it’s not already listed in your article above.)
“SB 35 (Wiener) streamlines the approval process for infill developments in local communities that have failed to meet their regional housing needs.”
Below is an article from the Sacramento Bee, which might be somewhat more complete than the Vanguard’s article. (I didn’t actually compare the two articles.)
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article176152771.html
I’m aware of that – don’t think that’s going to have a huge effect here.
Actually, I don’t think that’s true. I read through this package of legislation pretty quickly when this first came up, and don’t see anything in it that makes any change to the SACOG ‘fair share’ housing allocation process. But I’m certainly open to correction on that analysis.
You are correct Don, it is not true… it did not change the underlying provisions of the Government Code. It speaks to ‘streamlining’ an application submitted in conformance with land use designations in an already approved GP, and restricts the addition of extraneous conditions, in excess of those already in place by ordinance.
The GC does not require local entities to zone/re-zone land, nor to expand its boundaries.
All it (SB 35) does is require local entities to follow through on their approved GP, when land owners/developers seek to develop in accordance with the existing local documents, report their progress, and makes it more difficult for entities (or certain ‘citizens’) to throw roadblocks in the way at the twelfth hour.
Personally, I would prefer to pay the actual costs of goods and services, rather than having government subsidize housing programs that are needed as a result of failing to pay a sufficient and competitive wage. If that means a $15 burrito in expensive areas, so be it. And, if it means that some low-wage jobs and related businesses disappear, so be it as well. (Probably more automation, which is inevitable in the long run regardless.)
But, yet you and others want UCD to build housing and ensure it is affordable to students (and staff?)… that would be a government subsidy! I love irony!
Howard: I’d simply like to see UCD use some of that $42,000 tuition that they receive from each International student (which comprises the majority of their plans to increase enrollment) to take care of their own “customers” (and not force those costs and impacts on the city). Yes, it would also be nice if they gave their customers a break.
Should I go ahead and post the articles regarding state audits again, regarding the failure of UC to control costs (and rely upon International student money, instead)?
UCD has said how much they will do.
Don: That’s not actually true. But, even if/when that’s settled, the city can (and should) make its own decisions, which include considerations besides housing the increase in enrollment that UCD is pursuing. (Actually, you’ve recently noted that most of the increase has already occurred.)
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-housing-legislation-signed-20170929-htmlstory.html
You ignore the term, ” … that meet (as in, existing GP and zoning ) zoning requirements…”!
C’mon… get real… there’s a spaghetti shortage imminent, I’ve heard… facts have more protein than empty carbs…
Howard:
Some more “spaghetti” for your lunch:
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-housing-legislation-signed-20170929-htmlstory.html
Those are the operative words throughout. So far as I can tell by reading the legislative analysis of each bill in its final form, nothing compels a city to annex new land in order to meet SACOG or other regional council allocations. This applies to infill projects and to cities with insufficiently zoned land within their existing boundaries.
Don: I admittedly don’t know the relationship between “existing zoning” and (future) state housing requirements.
For example, what if a city simply runs out of space zoned for housing? Does that mean there would be no requirements?
Also, what happens if the city approves a project that is less dense than what’s allowed? (See SB166.)
Not sure this has been tested or analyzed, yet. There’s always some unknowns and unintended consequences with new legislation.
In any case, it certainly increases the importance of CAREFULLY CONSIDERING the potential unintended impacts of zoning changes.
Again, you read in what is not there. There is no “there, there”, for requiring annexations, or re-zoning… SB 166 is about when the GP or zoning (existing) is for 15 du/ac, and the local entity approves a site @ 6 du/ac. Which makes sense, to me, where if you downsize the housing capacity in your plans, you have to make it up somewhere else.
Everything you have cited reflects a “you said you were going to this, but now you’re not” approach from the legislature… just following up on the previously adopted local documents…
Actually, that logic might be a leverage point with UCD, and their past ‘commitments’, but probably not… you and/or others could try to use it as a ‘plausibility’, or ‘intent of the legislature’ argument there… might be good to pressure UCD to incorporate the concepts in the proposed LRDP!
Ron: when was the last time the city of Davis turn down an infill project that met existing zoning?
David: You’re correct, so far. In fact, the council is apparently willing to CHANGE zoning to accommodate developments. I would argue that changes in zoning should be considered much more carefully, as a result of this package of bills.
Also, the link below describes a city which zoned land in a manner that would likely never be viable. Would this type of thing be challenged, as a result of this legislation?
http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-pol-ca-housing-supply/
I suspect that there will be some battles (e.g., beyond Davis) regarding this legislation, going forward.
You’ve pretty much got it right, Don, with a nuance… if a GP calls for a particular site to be MF or other housing, but the local entity hasn’t gotten around to clean up the zoning to match the GP, arguably the entity would have to follow through with the GP designation… key word is “arguably”… not definitive from what I read…
I guess we’ll see if that’s “allowed” by the state, at some point. (Not just in Davis.)
http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-pol-ca-housing-supply/
I changed the text to bold, above. I suspect that we’ll see what that means, in the future. (Possibly from a city other than Davis. Perhaps not just yet, in Davis.)
I now realize you were focused on Torrance, Ron… a different matter entirely… your cite includes the FC situation, upon which I focused… same article, two different situations… entirely… easy to get talking at cross-purposes…
Is it? (In the not-so-long run?) Again, changes in zoning carry far more weight and consequences, now.
And, I’m still not sure what will happen when any city runs out of “viable” locations zoned for housing. I foresee potential legal challenges.
That is a prospective comment(s), not validated by the legislation that has been enacted. Go ahead, have the last word… je suis finis, unless someone does another ‘faux fact’…
I see no “slippery slope”…
And yet, no one has been able to respond to my question. What happens when a city runs out of “sufficiently zoned land”? No state “requirements”, then? (And, no “challenges” from a developer?)
Sure, just bury your head in the sand, and pretend that Davis (or any other city) doesn’t have to consider this (especially when making changes to zoning). Yeah, Davis is “too special”, for that.
Now, let’s get back to the “only” thing that should matter (according to some) – accommodating UCD’s enrollment plans.
Nothing that I have seen in any of these bills would require a city to annex and zone land for housing.
Davis is unique in having a requirement that any annexation go to a public vote.
I don’t know anyone who thinks that is the only thing that matters.
Don: Again, you haven’t answered my question. What happens when a city runs out of “sufficiently zoned” land? No “state requirements”, then?
Or, does the city simply continue to rezone to allow for greater densities to meet such requirements, regardless of viability or impacts? (And, might that viability be “challenged”?)
On a (somewhat) similar note:
http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-pol-ca-housing-supply/
Nothing in these bills appears to address that situation, so it is no different than before. As far as I can tell.
Don: By the way, I find your ability to predict the future (e.g., regarding UCD’s plans, as well as the potential ramifications of the multiple new housing bills) to be quite remarkable.
The articles above describe some of the “teeth” that the new housing bills have. (Some ramifications and consequences are not spelled out, such as my question above.) I suspect this will be tested, at some point.
I am not predicting the future about UCD, Ron. I am reading their published documents and parsing the answers by their planners to questions that are put to them in public forums. If you have a different interpretation of what Matt Dulcich or others are saying, by all means let us know what it is.
I am reading the legislative analyses of the bills as to my understanding of their ramifications. In each case, you can click through to the last version that was before the legislature and read the analysis yourself. By all means, if you have a different interpretation than I have provided, let us know what it is.
My confidence in my analyses of those two things in not equal. I am much more confident in what I have said about UCD’s plans than in my analysis of the legislation. It would be really great to have someone more connected to affordable housing (like, say, Daryl Rutherford) give us their understanding of these bills.
Always buy Apple stock.
[edit: this was in response to a joke from Ron about predicting the stock market, which he subsequently edited out.]
“Nothing that I have seen in any of these bills would require a city to annex and zone land for housing.”
Even SACOG doesn’t require farmland conversion for growth
David: Again, no one has answered my question above. What happens when a city runs out of sufficiently zoned (and presumably viable) land to meet state requirements? Would the state simply tell those cities that there are no requirements?
The article I referenced above shows that some cities didn’t even bother reporting this information, in the past. That’s probably changed, now.
http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-pol-ca-housing-supply/
Yes we did.
Or, Don, given the legislation and what is happening in Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico, etc., am seriously thinking (not!) about moving a bunch of my funds into building materials/contractor companies!
Except I think I’m around a month too late to take full advantage of that strategy…
Trying to ‘lighten up’, but the reality is particularly bad for Puerto Rico, there can be no ‘joking’… logistically, and lack of ‘executive action’, it is a true tragedy…
Don answered your question. You didn’t like the answer. The legislation doesn’t address that issue
David: It’s not that I “didn’t like the answer”. As you, Don, and I have noted, it seems unresolved at this point. That’s not unexpected, in new legislation. The “consequences” are often not fully understood or realized, until later.
But again, I’d suggest it’s something to carefully consider, when making changes to existing zoning.
Got to run for awhile.
Regarding rezoning, it appears that the legislation allows it in one-direction, only. (Increased density.) A city (and even an owner) cannot subsequently “change their mind”, without finding some other location to “replace” the possible housing that was “lost”.
That suggests a city might want to tread carefully, when rezoning to increase density. That decision cannot be undone without finding a replacement location. In addition, we don’t know what the state will require regarding “fair share” growth requirements when a given city runs out of viable locations.)
I suspect that some “exclusive” enclave (perhaps someplace like La Cañada Flintridge, as discussed in the article above) will attempt to challenge some of these new laws, hopefully before Davis runs into (or creates is own) problems regarding these requirements.
Your words, Ron, spot on! Truer words seldom spoken!
Yet you cite Herand Der Sarkissian… have to assume you fully agree with what you cited, including,
Which “tribe” do you belong to, Ron? White, reasonably affluent males? Other? Same cite…
Got your point , Ron… pretty clear…
Seriously, Howard? Nowhere did I suggest that those statements were something that I agreed with. In fact, I found it somewhat racist.
I cited that example as a community that might fight the state requirements. But, some of the same underlying issues regarding the state requirements will also ultimately impact all slow-growth communities.
Regarding the statement, “I don’t know”, you’ll find that no one (including you, David, or Don) fully understand the ramifications of the new requirements. David and Don have already confirmed that.
And yet, you attempt to discredit me. A mark of a “true troll”. At this point, it’s par for the course, for you. (At least, for those who have views that you apparently don’t like.)
Go ahead – doesn’t faze me at all.
Ron: Somewhat racist? The whole thing is horrible including the part where you cite him talking about forcing low income people housing into La Canada. Perhaps you should be more careful with who you cite and attempt to form common cause with because that whole passage is basically veiled racism or at the very least classism.
I mean geez: “it didn’t make sense for the state to try to force low-income housing into La Cañada Flintridge because the city’s high land costs made it fiscally irresponsible. He added that any state efforts to integrate housing of all income levels into wealthy communities are doomed.”
You have forcing low-income housing and “integrate,” how many buzz-words that are problematic can you fit in there?
Bottom line: bad Ron, be more careful next time. Howard was actually nice in pulling his punches.
David… thank you for the acknowledgement that I was restraining (self-moderating)…
Yet, what I mainly picked up on was the ‘I’ve got mine, the hell with the rest attitude’, but yeah, you picked up on the race/class thing, which I also noted, but did not push on…
What I mainly picked up on was,
The “I’ve got mine, the hell with the rest of you”, the self-ish, exclusion-ist atttitude is what I regale against.
Yes, sometimes that is based on ‘race’, but it goes much deeper, across social and economic lines, but the three factors are often intertwined… minorities are “them”… students are “them”… those ‘income-challenged’ are “them”… the homeless are “them”… I just have no patience for those who want it to be all about “us”… not the way I was brought up (thank God!).
Sorry to be a bit “preachy”, but as it is Sunday, will not ignore a ‘pulpit’. An opportunity to speak what I believe is ‘truth’, as I understand it, tho’ I may be labelled (again) as a “troll” for doing so…
I have already pointed out, more than once, that I referred to that citation as an example of a community which might be more inclined to challenge the state’s new regulations. To suggest that I was attempting to form a “commonality” with the somewhat racist statements is downright dishonest, and I resent your attempting to do so. Perhaps it’s you that should be more careful.
The “commonality” between slow-growth communities is better-expressed by this quote:
And again, no one understands what will occur if/when a city determines that it is “full”.
Also, the new legislation permits rezoning in one direction only – greater density. This apparently can’t be “undone” (without finding a “replacement” location for the “lost” housing), even if a developer subsequently proposes a development that fails to achieve maximum density.
Actually Ron, I went out of my way not to suggest that. I simply stated that you should have been more careful as I don’t believe that represents your views.
O.K. – thanks.
I guess we’ll see if some community like La Cañada Flintridge runs “afoul” of the new state regulations, before Davis does. Should be interesting to see in coming years.
In the meantime, I hope that Davis proceeds carefully, regarding the potential unintended consequences of rezoning (as a result of this new legislation).