HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-05-11 - AGENDA REPORTS - SB 621 (2)O
Agenda Item: 7
P
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AGENDA REPORT
CONSENT CALENDAR
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:1
DATE: May 11, 2021
SUBJECT: STATE LEGISLATION: SENATE BILL 621
DEPARTMENT: City Manager's Office
PRESENTER: Masis Hagobian
RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council adopt the City Council Legislative Committee recommendation to oppose Senate
Bill 621 (Eggman) and transmit position statements to Senator Eggman, Santa Clarita's state
legislative delegation, appropriate legislative committees, Governor Newsom, League of
California Cities, and other stakeholder organizations.
BACKGROUND
Authored by Senator Susan Eggman (D-5-Stockton), Senate Bill 621 would require local
governments to review the conversion of a hotel or motel to a multifamily development through
a ministerial and streamlined process and not subject to a conditional use permit or the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Existing law establishes the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which requires state
and local government agencies to conduct a public analysis on potential environmental impacts
of proposed projects and to reduce those impacts to the full extent feasible.
Additionally, existing law, until January 1, 2026, authorizes a development proponent to submit
an application for a multifamily housing development that is subject to a streamlined and
ministerial approval process, and not subject to a conditional use permit or CEQA, if certain
conditions are met.
Senate Bill 621 preempts local land use authority by requiring local governments to review and
approve the conversion of a hotel or motel into multifamily housing units through a streamlined
and ministerial review and approval process and not subject to a conditional use permit or
CEQA, if the following conditions are met:
• The structure has been vacant for at least six months prior to the submission of the
Page 1
Packet Pg. 40
O
application, unless 100 percent of the total units are for lower income households.
• At least 10 percent of the proposed units are reserved for lower -income households for at
least 55 years for units that are rented to the occupants or 45 years for units that are
owned by the occupants.
• The development proponent has certified to the local government that the proposed
development is a public work for purposes of prevailing wage requirements and that a
skilled and trained workforce will be used to perform all construction work, as
applicable.
Additionally, Senate Bill 621 prohibits local governments from imposing parking standards in
any of the following circumstances:
• The development is within one half mile of a major transit stop.
• The development is located within an architecturally and historically significant historic
district.
• When on -street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupants of the
development.
• When there is a car -share vehicle located within one block of the development.
This bill preempts the ability for local governments to analyze and consider environmental
impacts with regard to the conversion of prescribed existing structures to multifamily housing
units. For example, it would be unknown if associated construction with the conversion of a
hotel or motel involves wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy consumption or if the
multifamily units would result in solid waste generation in excess of infrastructure capacity.
Additionally, if the number of units are increased, it would be unknown whether the increase in
density would impact traffic, increase greenhouse gas emissions, or increase stress on public
infrastructure or public utilities and services.
Furthermore, the City of Santa Clarita (City) currently imposes minimum on -site parking
requirements to ensure that residents have adequate and reasonable access to homes. These local
standards serve as a safeguard to prevent congestion of vehicle parking that may cause unsafe
conditions for surrounding residents and businesses and access challenges for emergency
personnel, especially in the event of an evacuation due to an emergency. If this bill is
implemented, the City would lose the ability to impose parking standards if the proposed
conversion meets specific conditions prescribed in the bill.
The recommendation to oppose Senate Bill 621 is consistent with the City of Santa Clarita 2021
Executive and Legislative Platform. Specifically, Component 27 under the "State" section
advises that the City Council, "Oppose legislation that would interfere with, limit, or eliminate
the decision -making authority of municipalities in the area of local land use."
Senate Bill 621 passed the Senate Housing Committee (6-0-3) on April 15, 2021, and was
Page 2
Packet Pg. 41
O
referred to the Senate Governance and Finance Committee.
Notable supporters include the California Apartment Association (Sponsor); American Planning
Association, California Chapter; and State Building and Construction Trades Council of
California.
Notable opponents include the California Coalition for Rural Housing; California Housing
Consortium; and the Western Center on Law & Poverty.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
1. Adopt a "support" position on Senate Bill 621.
2. Adopt a "neutral" position on Senate Bill 621.
3. Take no action on Senate Bill 621.
4. Refer Senate Bill 621 back to the Legislative Committee.
5. Other direction, as provided by the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
The resources required to implement the recommended action are contained within the City of
Santa Clarita's adopted FY 2020-21 budget.
ATTACHMENTS
Senate Bill 621 - Bill Text
Page 3
Packet Pg. 42
7.a
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 5, 2021
SENATE BILL
No. 621
Introduced by Senator Eggman
(Principal coauthor: Senator Caballero)
(Principal coauthors: Assembly Members Gipson and Quirk -Silva)
February 18, 2021
An act to add Section 65913.5 to the Government Code, relating to
land use.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 621, as amended, Eggman. Conversion of motels and hotels:
streamlining.
Existing law, until January 1, 2026, authorizes a development
proponent to submit an application for a multifamily housing
development containing 2 or more residential units, which satisfies
specified objective planning standards, that is subject to a streamlined,
ministerial approval process, as provided, and not subject to a
conditional use permit. Existing law requires a local government to
notify the development proponent in writing if the local government
determines that the development conflicts with any of those objective
standards by a specified time; otherwise, the development is deemed
to comply with those standards.
Existing law generally requires that not less than the general prevailing
rate of per diem wages, as specified, be paid to workers employed on
a public work project that exceeds $1,000. Existing law establishes
requirements that apply when a public entity is required by statute or
regulation to obtain an enforceable commitment that a bidder, contractor,
or other entity will use a skilled and trained workforce to complete a
contract or project. Existing law also authorizes a public entity to require
98
Packet Pg. 43
SB 621 —2—
7.a
that a bidder, contractor, or other entity use a skilled and trained
workforce to complete a contract or project.
This bill would authorize a development proponent to submit an
application for a development for the complete conversion, as defined,
of a structure with a certificate of occupancy as a motel or hotel into
multifamily housing units to be subject to a streamlined, ministerial
approval process, provided that development proponent reserves
10% of the proposed housing units for lower
income households, unless a local government has affordability
requirements that exceed these requirements. The bill would require
the structure proposed to be converted be vacant for at least 6 months
prior to the submission of the application, except as provided. The bill
would require the development proponent to comply with specified
requirements regarding the payment of prevailing rate or per diem wages
for construction work related to the part of the development that is a
public work and the use of a skilled and trained workforce on the
development, except as provided. The bill would not apply to a hotel
or motel eoii4 site that is itt a eoasta a"f a. The
bill would require a local government to notify the development
proponent in writing if the local government determines that the
development conflicts with any of these objective standards within 30
days of submitting a complete application; otherwise, the development
would be deemed to comply with those standards.
This bill would restrict a local government's authority to impose
automobile parking standards for a development subject to these
provisions and would prohibit imposition of parking standards for a
project that is located within specified areas. The bill would prohibit a
local government from imposing any standard requiring a minimum or
maximum unit size. The bill would prohibit a local government from
imposing any density restriction on a development subject to these
provisions, except that the total number of housing units created by the
conversion shall not exceed the total number of units offered by the
hotel or motel.
By imposing new duties upon local agencies with respect to the
streamlined approval process described above, the bill would impose
a state -mandated local program.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead
agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the
completion of, an environmental impact report on a project that it
proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on
98
Packet Pg. 44
— 3 — SB 621
7.a
the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the
project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to
prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a
significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would
avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that
the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the
environment. CEQA does not apply to the approval of ministerial
projects.
The approval process established by this bill would be ministerial in
nature, thereby exempting the approval of development projects subject
to that approval process from CEQA.
The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill
address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair
and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.
Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act
for a specified reason.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State -mandated local program: yes.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
1 SECTION 1. Section 65913.5 is added to the Government
2 Code, to read:
3 65913.5. (a) Notwithstanding any law, a development
4 proponent may submit an application for a development that is
5 subject to the streamlined, ministerial approval process provided
6 by subdivision (b) and not subject to a conditional use permit, if
7 the development satisfies all of the following objective planning
8 standards:
9 (1) The development is for the complete conversion of a
10 structure with a certificate of occupancy as a motel or hotel into
11 multifamily housing units, including, but not limited to, efficiency
12 units, single -room occupancy units, and coliving spaces.
13 (2) (A) The structure has been vacant for at least six months
14 prior to the submission of the application. If any rooms become
15 occupied after the submission of an application, that application
16 is void.
98
Packet Pg. 45
SB 621 — 4 —
7.a
1 (B) The six month vacancy requirement in subparagraph (A)
2 shall be waived if 100 percent of the total units, exclusive of a
3 manager's unit, are for lower income households, as defined by
4 Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, except that up to
5 20 percent of the total units in the development may be for
6 moderate -income households, as defined in Section 50053 of the
7 Health and Safety Code.
8 (3) The housing development shall be subject to a recorded deed
9 restriction requiring that at least 10 percent of the units have
10 an affordable housing cost or affordable rent for lower income
11 households.
12 (4) The development proponent has committed to record, prior
13 to the issuance of the first building permit, a land use restriction
14 or covenant providing that all lower income units shall remain
15 available at affordable housing costs or rent to lower income
16 households for at least the following periods of time:
17 (A) Fifty-five years for units that are rented to the occupants.
18 (B) Forty-five years for units that are owned by the occupants.
19
20 zotte,
22 (-6)
23 (5) The development proponent has done both of the following:
24 (A) Certified to the local government that either of the following
25 is true:
26 (i) The entirety of the development is a public work for purposes
27 of Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720) of Part 7 of Division
28 2 of the Labor Code.
29 (ii) The development is not in its entirety a public work for
30 which prevailing wages must be paid under Chapter 1
31 (commencing with Section 1720) of Part 7 of Division 2 of the
32 Labor Code, but all construction workers employed on construction
33 of the development will be paid at least the general prevailing rate
34 of per diem wages for the type of work and geographic area, as
35 determined by the Director of Industrial Relations pursuant to
36 Sections 1773 and 1773.9 of the Labor Code, except that
37 apprentices registered in programs approved by the Chief of the
38 Division of Apprenticeship Standards may be paid at least the
39 applicable apprentice prevailing rate. If the development is subject
98
Packet Pg. 46
—5— SB 621
7.a
1 to this clause, then for those portions of the development that are
2 not a public work, all of the following shall apply:
3 (I) The development proponent shall ensure that the prevailing
4 wage requirement is included in all contracts for the performance
5 of all construction work.
6 (II) All contractors and subcontractors shall pay to all
7 construction workers employed in the execution of the work at
8 least the general prevailing rate of per diem wages, except that
9 apprentices registered in programs approved by the Chief of the
10 Division of Apprenticeship Standards may be paid at least the
11 applicable apprentice prevailing rate.
12 (III) Except as provided in subclause (V), all contractors and
13 subcontractors shall maintain and verify payroll records pursuant
14 to Section 1776 of the Labor Code and make those records
15 available for inspection and copying as provided therein.
16 (IV) Except as provided in subclause (V), the obligation of the
17 contractors and subcontractors to pay prevailing wages may be
18 enforced by the Labor Commissioner through the issuance of a
19 civil wage and penalty assessment pursuant to Section 1741 of the
20 Labor Code, which may be reviewed pursuant to Section 1742 of
21 the Labor Code, within 18 months after the completion of the
22 development, or by an underpaid worker through an administrative
23 complaint or civil action, or by a joint labor-management
24 committee though a civil action under Section 1771.2 of the Labor
25 Code. If a civil wage and penalty assessment is issued, the
26 contractor, subcontractor, and surety on a bond or bonds issued to
27 secure the payment of wages covered by the assessment shall be
28 liable for liquidated damages pursuant to Section 1742.1 of the
29 Labor Code.
30 (V) Subclauses (III) and (IV) shall not apply if all contractors
31 and subcontractors performing work on the development are subject
32 to a project labor agreement that requires the payment of prevailing
33 wages to all construction workers employed in the execution of
34 the development and provides for enforcement of that obligation
35 through an arbitration procedure.
36 (VI) Notwithstanding subdivision (c) of Section 1773.1 of the
37 Labor Code, the requirement that employer payments not reduce
38 the obligation to pay the hourly straight time or overtime wages
39 found to be prevailing shall not apply if otherwise provided in a
40 bona fide collective bargaining agreement covering the worker.
98
Packet Pg. 47
SB 621 —6-
7.a
1 The requirement to pay at least the general prevailing rate of per
2 diem wages does not preclude use of an alternative workweek
3 schedule adopted pursuant to Section 511 or 514 of the Labor
4 Code.
5 (B) (i) Certified to the local government that a skilled and
6 trained workforce will be used to perform all construction work
7 on the development.
8 (ii) If the development proponent has certified that a skilled and
9 trained workforce will be used to construct all work on the
10 development and the local government approves the application,
11 then the development proponent shall comply with all of the
12 following:
13 (I) The development proponent shall require, in all contracts
14 for the performance of work, that every contractor and
15 subcontractor at every tier will individually use a skilled and trained
16 workforce to construct the development.
17 (II) Every contractor and subcontractor shall use a skilled and
18 trained workforce to construct the development.
19 (III) Except as provided in subclause (IV), the development
20 proponent shall provide to the local government, on a monthly
21 basis while the development or contract is being performed, a
22 report demonstrating compliance with Chapter 2.9 (commencing
23 with Section 2600) of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Public Contract
24 Code. A monthly report provided to the local government pursuant
25 to this subclause shall be a public record under the California
26 Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250)
27 of Division 7 of Title 1) and shall be open to public inspection. A
28 development proponent that fails to provide a monthly report
29 demonstrating compliance with Chapter 2.9 (commencing with
30 Section 2600) of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Public Contract Code
31 shall be subject to a civil penalty of ten thousand dollars ($10,000)
32 per month for each month for which the report has not been
33 provided. Any contractor or subcontractor that fails to use a skilled
34 and trained workforce shall be subject to a civil penalty of two
35 hundred dollars ($200) per day for each worker employed in
36 contravention of the skilled and trained workforce requirement.
37 Penalties may be assessed by the Labor Commissioner within 18
38 months of completion of the development using the same
39 procedures for issuance of civil wage and penalty assessments
40 pursuant to Section 1741 of the Labor Code, and may be reviewed
98
Packet Pg. 48
—7— SB 621
7.a
1 pursuant to the same procedures in Section 1742 of the Labor
2 Code. Penalties shall be paid to the State Public Works
3 Enforcement Fund.
4 (IV) Subclause (III) shall not apply if all contractors and
5 subcontractors performing work on the development are subject
6 to a project labor agreement that requires compliance with the
7 skilled and trained workforce requirement and provides for
8 enforcement of that obligation through an arbitration procedure.
9 (b) (1) Notwithstanding any law, a local government shall
10 provide a streamlined application and review process for, and shall
11 grant ministerial approval to, a project that is in compliance with
12 the standards specified in subdivision (a). If a local government
13 determines that a development submitted pursuant to subdivision
14 (a) is in conflict with any of the objective planning standards
15 specified in subdivision (a), it shall provide the development
16 proponent written documentation of the standard or standards with
17 which the development conflicts, and an explanation of the reason
18 or reasons the development conflicts with the standard or standards,
19 within 30 days of submittal of a complete application for the
20 development to the local government.
21 (2) If the local government fails to provide the required
22 documentation pursuant to paragraph (1), the development shall
23 be deemed to satisfy the objective planning standards specified in
24 subdivision (a).
25 (3) If a local government has local affordability requirements
26 that exceed the percentages specified in paragraph (3) of
27 subdivision (a), those local requirements shall apply.
28 (c) (1) Any design review or public oversight of the
29 development may be conducted by the local government's planning
30 agency. That design review or public oversight shall be objective
31 and assess compliance only with criteria required for streamlined
32 projects, as well as any reasonable objective design standards
33 published and adopted by ordinance or resolution by a local
34 jurisdiction before submission of a development application, and
35 shall be broadly applicable to development within the jurisdiction.
36 That design review or public oversight shall be completed within
37 60 days of submittal of a complete application for the development
38 to the local government pursuant to this section, and shall not in
39 any way inhibit, chill, or preclude the ministerial approval provided
40 by this section or its effect, as applicable.
98
Packet Pg. 49
SB 621 —8-
7.a
1 (2) If the development proponent requests a delay, the 60-day
2 time period shall be tolled for the period of the delay.
3 (d) If a local government approves a development pursuant to
4 this section, then, notwithstanding any other law, that approval
5 shall not expire for five years.
6 (e) (1) A local government, whether or not it has adopted an
7 ordinance governing automobile parking requirements in
8 multifamily developments, shall not impose automobile parking
9 standards for a streamlined development that was approved
10 pursuant to this section in any of the following instances:
I I (A) The development is located within one-half mile of a major
12 transit stop, as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources
13 Code.
14 (B) The development is located within an architecturally and
15 historically significant historic district.
16 (C) When on -street parking permits are required but not offered
17 to the occupants of the development.
18 (D) When there is a car -share vehicle located within one block
19 of the development.
20 (2) If the development does not fall within any of the categories
21 described in paragraph (1), the local government may impose
22 automobile parking requirements for streamlined developments
23 approved pursuant to this section not to exceed one parking space
24 per unit.
25 (f) A local government shall not require, as a condition for
26 ministerial approval of an application for a streamlined
27 development pursuant to this section, the correction of
28 nonconforming zoning conditions.
29 (g) (1) A local government, whether or not it has adopted an
30 ordinance governing minimum or maximum unit size requirements
31 in multifamily developments, shall not impose any standard
32 requiring a minimum or maximum size requirement for the units
33 of a development subject to this section.
34 (2) A local government shall not impose any density restriction
35 on a development subject to this section, except that the total
36 number of housing units created by the conversion shall not exceed
37 the total number of units offered by the hotel or motel.
38 (h) A local government shall not adopt any requirement,
39 including, but not limited to, increased fees or inclusionary housing
40 requirements, that applies to a project solely or partially on the
98
Packet Pg. 50
— 9 — SB 621
7.a
1 basis that the project is eligible to receive a streamlined review or
2 ministerial approval pursuant to this section.
3 (i) The determination of whether an application for a
4 development is subject to the streamlined, ministerial approval
5 process provided by subdivision (b) is not a "project" as defined
6 in Section 21065 of the Public Resources Code.
7 0) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the
8 following meanings:
9 (1) (A) "Conversion" means a change in use as described in
10 paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) that does not require a change to
11 the exterior of the structure being converted, except as follows:
12 (i) A development proponent may alter the structure or site for
13 aesthetic purposes.
14 (ii) A development proponent may alter the structure or site as
15 necessary to comply with applicable state or local building
16 standards in effect at the time of conversion or to ensure
17 accessibility to individuals with disabilities. A development
18 proponent may add up to 5 percent of the square footage of the
19 existing structure for purposes of this paragraph.
20 (B) "Conversion" does not preclude a development proponent
21 from altering the interior of the structure, including the merging
22 of the interior rooms of a structure.
23 (2) "Density restriction" means the density allowed under the
24 zoning ordinance and land use element of the general plan, or, if
25 a range of density is permitted, means the density for the specific
26 zoning range and land use element of the general plan applicable
27 to the development.
28 (3) "Development proponent" means the developer who submits
29 an application for streamlined, ministerial approval pursuant to
30 this section.
31 (4) "Efficiency unit" has the same meaning as defined in
32 subdivision (b) of Section 17958.1 of the Health and Safety Code.
33 (5) "Local government" means a city, including a charter city,
34 a county, including a charter county, or a city and county, including
35 a charter city and county.
36 (6) "Motel" and "Hotel" do not include a residential hotel, as
37 defined in subdivision (b) of Section 50519 of the Health and
38 Safety Code.
98
Packet Pg. 51
SB 621 —10 —
7.a
1 (7) "Project labor agreement" has the same meaning as defined
2 in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 2500 of the Public
3 Contract Code.
4 (8) "Skilled and trained workforce" has the same meaning as
5 provided in Chapter 2.9 (commencing with Section 2600) of Part
6 1 of Division 2 of the Public Contract Code.
7 SEC. 2. The Legislature finds and declares that Section 1 of
8 this act adding Section 65913.6 to the Government Code addresses
9 a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair as that
10 term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California
11 Constitution. Therefore, Section 1 of this act applies to all cities,
12 including charter cities.
13 SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
14 Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because
15 a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service
16 charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or
17 level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section
18 17556 of the Government Code.
X
98
Packet Pg. 52