BILL ANALYSIS
SB 948
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 948 (Alarcon)
As Amended August 31, 1999
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :21-13
HOUSING 6-3 APPROPRIATIONS 14-6
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Lowenthal, Corbett, |Ayes:|Migden, Cedillo, Davis, |
| |Dutra, Mazzoni, | |Hertzberg, Kuehl, Papan, |
| |Torlakson, Wildman | |Romero, Shelley, |
| | | |Steinberg, Thomson, |
| | | |Wesson, Wiggins, Wright, |
| | | |Aroner |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|House, Margett, Runner |Nays:|Brewer, Ackerman, |
| | | |Ashburn, Campbell, |
| | | |Maldonado, Runner |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Specifies that the Ellis Act is not intended to
interfere with local governments authority to regulate the
demolition of rental property nor its authority to regulate the
conversion of non-residential use following its withdrawal from
rent or lease. Specifically, this bill :
1)Specifies that the Ellis Act is not intended to preempt local
or municipal, environmental land use regulations, procedures
or controls that govern the demolition and redevelopment of
residential property.
2)Clarifies that a party challenging the adequacy of a housing
element may file suit within 60 days of the Department of
Housing and Community Development's review or after providing
the jurisdiction 60 days to correct the cited deficiencies.
3)Strengthens the findings a city or county must make in order
to deny an affordable housing project. Specifically, this
section of the bill:
a) Defines specific adverse impact to mean a significant,
quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact based on
SB 948
Page 2
objective, identified written public health or safety
standards policies or conditions as they existed on the date
the application was deemed complete; and,
b) Provides that the project must be inconsistent with both
the general plan and the zoning ordinance.
4) Further defines what it means to "disapprove the
development project" and requires the court to issue an order
or judgement if the local governmental body disapproves the
project without making "sufficient findings supported by
substantial evidence." The court shall retain jurisdiction to
ensure compliance, and if after 60 days the order is not
carried out, this bill allows the court to take further
action.
5)Clarifies existing law 1) allowing a developer to accept less
than the 25% density bonus offered by the jurisdiction 2)
requiring that local government grant the density bonus
without approval of a general plan amendment, zoning change,
or other discretionary approval.
6)Reduces the amount of time a local government's lead agency
has to approve a development project from 180 days to 90 days
after the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is certified if
certain conditions are meet (e.g., the project is affordable
to very low or low-income, the local governmental body has
received notice that an application has been made or will be
made for an allocation or commitment of financing, tax
credits, bond authority or other financial assistance from a
public agency or federal agency).
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, minor absorbable costs to local government.
COMMENTS : State officials estimate that there is a demand for
250,000 new housing units each year in California, but fewer
than 130,000 were built last year. Many economists agree that
inadequate housing production poses a major long-run threat to
the state's economic growth. According to the author, this bill
will increase the development of affordable housing by reducing
barriers at the local level. This bill has been thoroughly
negotiated with the only opposition remaining to that portion of
the bill dealing with the Ellis Act.
SB 948
Page 3
Analysis Prepared by : Patrick O Donnell / H. & C.D. /
(916)319-2085
FN: 0002765