Laserfiche WebLink
<br />2020 State Legislative Summary Page 4 of 6 <br /> <br /> <br />production, build more housing for the homeless population, protect tenants, remove barriers to <br />larger development, encourage ADUs, increase land availability, and finance production. <br /> <br />TPA was an active member of various efforts and coalitions to help craft legislation that would do <br />help meet the above stated goals. TPA also kept the City Manager’s office informed on the status <br />and movement of the Senate Democrats’ Housing Production package, they major set of bills which <br />TPA was invited to work on by Senate Pro Team Atkins. However, a number of factors led to many <br />housing bills failing on the last day of session, mostly due to time constraints. The bills included: <br /> <br />• Senate Bill 902 (Wiener) Planning and zoning: housing development: density <br />o Would have allowed a local government to zone any parcel for up to 10 units of <br />residential density, at a height specified by the local government, if the parcel was <br />located in a transit-rich area, a jobs-rich area, or an urban infill site. <br />o This bill was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. <br /> <br />• SB 995 (Atkins) Environmental quality: Jobs and Economic Improvement Through <br />Environmental Leadership Act of 2011: housing projects <br />o Would have provided State funds for lead agencies/local governments to develop a <br />Master EIR to facilitate more seamless, but locally controlled housing development in <br />their respective jurisdictions. <br />o This bill failed due to time constraints. <br /> <br />• SB 1120 (Atkins) <br />o Was introduced to require a proposed housing development containing two <br />residential units to be considered ministerially, without discretionary review or <br />hearing, in zones where allowable uses are limited to single-family residential <br />development. <br />o This bill failed due to time constraints. <br /> <br />• SB 1085 (Skinner) <br />o Would have expanded the number of incentives available to housing developers to <br />build moderate income units. <br />o This bill failed due to time constraints. <br /> <br />• SB 1385 (Caballero) <br />o Would have allowed a housing development on land zoned as office or retail <br />commercial use so long as no commercial tenants occupied 50% of the property for <br />at least 3 years. <br />o This bill was held in the Assembly Local Government Committee. <br /> <br />Impact Fees <br />With the understanding that impact fees and other development fees are an important source of <br />funding for San Leandro, and that any legislative changes to adjust impact fee levels would directly <br />affect the city’s social services, TPA worked to communicate the local government perspective to <br />key Legislators and staff in the Capitol. Specifically, we engaged with: The Pro Tem’s office, The <br />Speaker’s office, Senate Governance and Finance Committee, Senate Housing Committee, <br />Assembly Local Government Committee, and the Assembly Housing and Community Development <br />Committee. <br /> <br />We specifically framed the issue by shedding light on already existing economic difficulties as a result <br />of the COVID-19 pandemic. After a push from TPA and other local government lobby coalitions, all <br />impact fee bills were held in the committee process. Some of the bills that were kept from advancing <br />included: <br />83