Legislation

Subscribe to Legislation

This legislative year, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law thirty-one pieces of legislation designed to combat California’s ongoing housing crisis by providing tools to expand housing production, streamline housing permitting, and increase allowable density across the state.  Key housing-related bills, which take effect on January 1, 2022, unless otherwise noted, are discussed below.

  • SB 7, known as the Housing and Jobs Expansion and Extension Act, took immediate effect as an “urgency statute” to address the state’s housing crisis through zoning and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) reform. It reenacts AB 900 through 2025 and extends expedited CEQA review for small-scale infill housing projects.  For a more in-depth discussion of SB 7, please refer to Downey Brand’s previous CEQA Chronicles SB 7 blog post.
  • SB 8 extends the term of the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) to January 1, 2030, and allows applicants who submit qualifying preliminary applications for housing developments prior to January 1, 2030 to utilize the protections of the Act through January 1, 2034. SB 8 also clarifies aspects of the existing law.  SB 330 included procedural and substantive protections for qualifying housing development projects such as accelerating the approval process, limiting fee increases on housing applications, and implementing accountability provisions.  Through SB 8, the Legislature clarifies the definition of a “housing development project” for purposes of the Housing Crisis Act to include projects that involve no discretionary approval, projects that involve both discretionary and ministerial approvals, and projects that include construction of a single dwelling unit.  SB 8 adds demolition, relocation, and return rights, and also clarifies that developers cannot demolish multiple units and replace them with a single family home.

…

On June 11, 2021, Governor Newsom signed Executive Order N-08-21 (the “Order”) that establishes September 30, 2021, as the end date for COVID-19 pandemic-related suspensions for (1) deadlines for filing, noticing, and posting of CEQA documents with county clerk offices; (2) tribal consultation deadlines under CEQA; and (3) open meeting requirements. This end date for pandemic-related relief from normal CEQA procedures is certain to affect base requirements for ongoing projects.…

Single home under construction with 2 builders on the roof

On May 20, 2021, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Senate Bill 7, known as the Housing and Jobs Expansion and Extensions Act, which extends expedited California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) judicial review for small-scale housing developments.  In 2011, Assembly Bill 900, known as the Jobs and Economic Improvement Through Environmental Leadership Act, created an expedited judicial review process under CEQA for large, multi-benefit housing, clean energy, and manufacturing projects, provided that they met certain requirements, including provisions related to labor.  Eligible projects were entitled to immediate review in the court of appeal—rather than superior court—and would be reviewed on an expedited timeframe.  No AB 900 project has been overturned in court since the law was enacted, and implementation of the law and its benefits resulted in the creation of over 10,000 new housing units.  AB 900 was repealed by its own terms on January 1, 2021.…

On April 20, 2021, the First District Court of Appeal filed its first published opinion interpreting California Senate Bill 35’s streamlining provisions in Ruegg & Ellsworth v. City of Berkeley.  The Court held that the City of Berkeley erred in finding a mixed-use development project ineligible for SB 35 streamlining.  Because the project met the essential qualifications under SB 35, the First District commanded the trial court to issue a writ of mandate directing the City to approve the project without further environmental review.  This marks the first published decision to enforce the State’s new affordable housing laws and is a harbinger of battles to come.

In 2015, the developer submitted an application for a mixed-use development on a surface parking lot that is part of a three-block area the Berkeley Landmarks Preservation Commission designated as a City of Berkeley Landmark in 2000, as the location of the West Berkeley Shellmound.  After several years of legal wrangling with the City and stakeholders over that proposal, and following the passage of SB 35, the developer submitted a new application, proposing a mixed-use project comprised of 260 dwelling units—50 percent of which were designated as “affordable to low-income households”—above approximately 27,500 square feet of retail space and parking.

In a ruling that should send shivers up the spine of any public agency in California needing to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the Fourth District Court of Appeal on July 30 held that any email correspondence related to a project and its compliance with CEQA must be retained as part of the agency’s record of administrative proceedings, even if the agency’s document retention policy states otherwise.  This marks the first ruling (or statute or regulation) to impose such a duty.

Golden Door Properties, LLC v. Superior Court of San Diego, Lead Case No. D076605, stems from numerous CEQA writ petitions related to San Diego County’s (“County”) approval of the Newland Sierra Project.  The specific issue in the opinion is the impact of the County’s document retention policy, which directed City staff to automatically delete emails not marked or saved as “official records” after 60 days.  In some tension with that retention policy, Public Resources Code sub-sections 21167.6(e)(7) and (e)(10) require agencies to include external and non-privileged internal emails and other written communications related to a CEQA project in the administrative record of proceedings when litigation is filed challenging the project under CEQA.  In this instance, the County argued that some emails related to the project and its compliance with CEQA had been deleted pursuant to the County’s document retention policy and thus could not be produced in response to discovery or for the administrative record.  A battle over discovery of the records ensued.  Ultimately, a trial court discovery referee ruled that there was no duty to retain emails under CEQA, and therefore denied efforts by petitioners to compel the agency to produce the records.…

On June 4, 2020 President Trump signed an Executive Order titled “Accelerating the Nation’s Economic Recovery from the COVID-19 Emergency by Expediting Infrastructure Investments and Other Activities,” allowing—and, in fact, directing—federal agencies to circumvent environmental permitting requirements in order to expedite infrastructure projects. The Order is based on the President’s March 13, 2020 declaration of national emergency due to the Novel Coronavirus Disease (“COVID-19”) outbreak and the resulting dramatic downturn in the economy; apparently, the administration concluded that “without intervention, the United States faces the likelihood of a potentially protracted economic recovery with persistent high unemployment.”

The Order directs federal agencies to take all reasonable measures to speed infrastructure investments in order to strengthen the economy. It focuses on expediting the delivery of transportation infrastructure projects, civil works projects, and projects on federal land, directing the Secretaries of Transportation, the Army, Defense, the Interior, and Agriculture to “use all relevant emergency and other authorities to expedite work on, and completion of, all authorized and appropriated” highway and other infrastructure projects; civil works projects; and infrastructure, energy, environmental, and natural resources projects on Federal lands that are within the authority of each of the Secretaries to perform or to advance.…

On May 29, 2020, the Judicial Council of California issued a Circulating Order to amend its earlier-issued Emergency Rule 9 in order to shorten the time for tolling statutes of limitations for all civil causes and provide a fixed date, including for causes of action arising under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State planning and zoning laws.   Under the amended Emergency Rule 9, the tolling period for civil actions with limitations periods that are less than 180 days—which includes most CEQA and planning and zoning law claims—expires on August 3, 2020.  This clarifies and dramatically reduces the time within which complaining parties must file civil litigation to challenge most CEQA and related land use approvals.

As we noted earlier, on April 6, 2020, the Judicial Council of California issued Emergency Rules to address impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the judicial branch.  This included Emergency Rule 9, which tolled the time to file any type of civil litigation from April 6, 2020, to until 90 days after the Governor lifts the state of emergency for the COVID-19 pandemic.  This created enormous uncertainty related to land use matters and CEQA actions, as the time to file such challenges is unusually short (30 to 90 days) and it is entirely unclear when the Governor might lift the state of emergency.  Emergency Rule 9 threatened to extend the limitations periods for CEQA and land use claims by months.…

On April 23, 2020, Governor Newsom signed Executive Order N-54-20 (the “Order”) in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which eased procedural legal requirements as to a variety of types of civil actions, including CEQA cases.  In order to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, the Governor has proclaimed a State of Emergency, and shelter in place orders have required state and local governments and members of the public to implement social distancing protocols statewide.  Recognizing that physical distancing protocols may prevent lead agencies, responsible agencies, and project applicants from complying with CEQA’s public filing and noticing requirements, the Order suspends all such requirements for 60 days, until June 22, 2020.  The suspension does not apply to provisions governing the timeline for public review.  It also does not apply to the requirement to publish and mail notices of preparation to interested parties and contiguous property owners and occupants.…

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the state and several local jurisdictions have issued orders/rules in the last few weeks that affect not only the timing of processing land use and planning entitlements, but also the filing of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and other claims challenging land use projects and approvals in California courts. The situation is fluid, but this entry summarizes some of the major orders affecting planning and CEQA deadlines.

In one of the most significant developments, on April 6, 2020, the Judicial Council of California issued Emergency Rules to address impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the judicial branch. Among other things, the Judicial Council added emergency rule 9 to the Rules of Court, which tolls the time to file any type of civil litigation from April 6, 2020 until 90 days after California Governor Gavin Newsom lifts the state of emergency for the COVID-19 pandemic. This is a significant time extension for many civil case types, and CEQA claims in particular, as they otherwise must be filed within 30 or 35 days of agency action. In practice, this means that project proponents and lead agencies will likely have a longer period of uncertainty related to whether a project will be challenged in court, both during the state of emergency and for some time afterward.…

On the heels of its notice of federal rulemaking under the National Environmental Policy Act (see our July 2 blog post) and other more modest efforts at reform on the administrative level, the Administration on July 19 announced a series of proposed changes to the regulations governing administration of the federal Endangered Species Act…