Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed all but one of the 40-odd planning and development bills the Legislature passed, including – at the last minute – the controversial bill regulating warehouses.

Newsom signed AB 98, the warehouse bill, on September 29, just one day before the deadline. He was under tremendous pressure from business leaders, especially in the Central Valley, to veto it. Some environmental justice groups also opposed it.

AB 98 passed the legislature on Aug. 31, the last day of the session. The bill requires, among other things, that new warehouses be located on major commercial roads; that they be set back at least 900 feet near schools, houses, and other “sensitive receptors” and that they bet set back at least 500 feet in the Inland Empire whether or not sensitive receptors are nearby. Houses demolished for warehouses must be replaced on a 2-to-1 basis and the law does not override the California Environmental Quality Act, which both environmental justice advocates and Attorney General Rob Bonta have used to challenge new warehouses in both the Inland Empire and the Central Valley. (Previous CP&DR coverage can be found here.)

Altogether, Newsom signed more than 40 planning and development bills, most of which either further tightened state oversight of housing entitlements or punched more holes in the California Environmental Quality Act.

He only vetoed one bill: AB 3068, which would have created a ministerial approach process for adaptive reuse of office buildings to residential projects and allowed local governments to divert property taxes to support conversions to affordable housing. His veto message indicates that he got pressure from labor over the labor standards contained in the bill.

One bill that didn’t get much attention – but could wind up being extremely important – is AB 2875, which establishes a no-net-loss policy on wetlands statewide and directs that this policy be embedded in state law in more specific ways. Likely a response to recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings on takings, the bill could increase required mitigation for wetlands.

Newsom also signed SB 768, which requires the Department of Housing & Community Development to study how mitigation for vehicles miles traveled under SB 743 is being implemented. VMT mitigation has been a controversial topic throughout the state, especially as guidance from the Office of Planning & Research and the California Air Resources Board has called for extensive mitigation in any area whose average VMT is more than 15% below the regional average.

CP&DR’s previous coverage of the housing bills Newsom signed can be found here. Taken together, the bills don’t include any extremely aggressive moves by the state to box in local governments. Indeed, in a few cases – such as a new bill on the builders remedy – the new legislation actually does the opposite and boxes in developers a bit. But some – such as an ADU law – are aggressive in their own way. There’s also definitely a trend toward transparency – posting more information on the internet about fees especially.

Here's a rundown of the bills Newsom signed:

ADUs

AB 2533: Extends amnesty to ADUs built before 2020 and prohibits connection fees as part of legalization.

AB 3057: CEQA exemption for JADU ordinances in single-family neighborhoods.

SB 1077: Requires Coastal Commission to issue guidance to simplify approval of ADUs in coastal zone.

SB 1211: Increases the number of allowable accessory dwelling units on a parcel from 2 to 8, depending on the situation.

Builders Remedy

AB 1893: Boxes in the builders remedy, among other things limiting the amount of additional density a developer can obtain. Previous CP&DR coverage is available here.

CEQA

AB 347: Exempts EV charging station from CEQA.

AB 2085: Requires ministerial approval of reproductive health clinics in some zones

AB 2091: Exempts “rails to trails” projects and projects involving non-motorized vehicles.

AB 2117: Ensures that permits don’t expire when a project is subject to a CEQA challenge.

AB 2199: Extends infill exemption from 2025 to 2032.

AB 3035: Expands streamlined permitting for farmworker housing in Santa Clara and SantaCruz from 36 to 150 units.

AB 3265: Expedited CEQA review for soundstages that meet high enviro standard

SB 393: Puts the burden of proof on the plaintiff when seeking a bond from a CEQA defendant. A response to the $500,000 bond placed on the citizen group Save Downtown Livermore in litigation over Eden’s affordable housing project in Livermore. Previous CP&DR coverage of that case can be found here.

Coastal

SB 951: Prohibits Coastal Commission from bringing project up on appeal on its own if the project conforms with an adopted Local Coastal Program.

Density Bonus Law

AB 2243: Clarifies that affordability requirements apply to base units, not bonus units; and extends AB 2011 (allowing residential development in commercial zones) to high-rise districts not in commercial corridors.

AB 2694: Extends Density Bonus Law to residential care facilities for the elderly. A dense eldercare facility was recently an issue in a court case from Los Angeles (previous CP&DR coverage here), though the DBL was not at issue in that case.

Environment

AB 2875: Declares no net loss of wetlands (and net gain in the long run) to be state policy and requires codification of policy.

Fees

AB 1820: Requires local governments to provide impact fee estimate prior to construction.

AB 2430: Prohibits imposition of monitoring fees to monitor affordable housing requirements if the project is 100% affordable.

AB 2663: Requires cities and counties to post housing in-lieu fees on the internet and explain how they were spent.

AB 3012: Local governments must make fee estimate tool available online.

AB 3177: Limits ability to use Mitigation Fee Act to obtain land for street widening and level-of-service improvements

SB 937: Allows delay of impact fee payment on residential projects.

Land Use

AB 98: Sets standards for new warehouses, including setbacks and other land use restrictions.

AB 1889: Requires general plan conservation elements to deal with wildlife connectivity.

Housing Elements

AB 1037: Allows Attorney General to seek civil penalties against cities and counties with egregious Housing Element violations.

AB 1886 and AB 2023: Clarifies that a Housing Element is compliant with state law if a court says so and there’s a “rebuttal presumption” in court that a Housing Element is in or out of compliance of the Department of Housing and Community Development says so. (The question of whether a local government can independently certify Housing Element compliance has been a huge legal issue, as evidenced by CP&DR’s coverage here.)

AB 2597: Gives cities in LA and Imperial Counties six extra months to adopt housing elements. LA county cities have had difficulty meeting the deadline. 

AB 2667: Requires HCD to create standardized Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing reporting, which local governments must use in Housing Elements starting with the 7th RHNA cycle.

AB 3093: Adds two new categories to Housing Element income categories to account for homelessness. (Detailed CP&DR coverage of the HCD report that recommended these changes can be found here.)

RHNA

AB 2667: HCD must create standardized Affirmatively Furthering Fair housing reporting requirements for 7th cycle, and local governments must use those requirements.

Other Housing

AB 1123: Allows streamlined Subdivision Map Act approval of small homes s (10 or fewer units)

AB 1413: Expands definition of “disapproval” under the Housing Accountability Act and also expands notification requirements in those situations to conform with CEQA deadlines.

AB 2729: Extends life of all entitlements by 18 months.

AB 3122: Permits application of objective design standards in SB 35 applications.

SB 7: Specifies that cities and counties located in rural areas without Councils of Governments can’t object to Regional Housing Needs Determination. In these areas, HCD does the determination.

SB 450: Tightens SB 9 so that it's harder to deny lot splits, among other provisions. (For more background on how cities are – or are not – implementing SB 9, check out CP&DR’s previous coverage here.)

SB 312: Further clarifies CEQA streamlining for student housing contained in SB 886, which was passed after the so-called “People’s Park” decision. (For more background on the case and SB 886, see CP&DR’s previous analysis here.)

SB 768: Requires HCD to do a study of how VMT is used as a metric for analyzing housing projects.

AB 2488: Allows tax-increment financing for office-to-residential conversion in Downtown San Francisco.

Transit-Oriented Development

AB 2553: Redefines a “major transit stop” under state law as a transit stop with 20-minute headways instead of 15-minute headways. This is important because much TOD streamlining is geared toward “major transit stops” and post-COVID transit agencies have been cutting back service.

AB 2712: Specifies that TOD projects with lower parking requirements in Los Angeles. must be excluded from residential permit parking.

Other Transportation

SB 960: Requires Caltrans to include complete streets in plans and develop transit priority guidelines