Top local housing and transportation bills for cities

Simran Kohli is a 2024 Ronald O. Loveridge Summer Fellow and a political science administrative studies major at the University of California, Riverside. She can be reached at [email protected].

Over the next few weeks, the Legislature will cast the final votes on bills that could significantly affect local housing and transportation plans. Here are the biggest bills in each area that city leaders need to know about.

Cal Cities take on new proposed state housing laws

Lawmakers could add more teeth to the state's housing laws with SB 1037 (Wiener), which would allow the Attorney General to fine cities up to $50,000 a month if they don't adopt a complaint housing element or approve certain affordable housing projects. Cal Cities opposes the measure.

Unlike existing penalties, SB 1037 would not include a grace period, and cities could not cure the violations before the fines are imposed. The bill's vague language could also lead to an increase in litigation between the state and cities, which does not result in housing production.

Legislators are also looking at the builder's remedy, which allows developers to bypass local zoning laws under certain conditions. AB 1886 (Alvarez) would allow developers to use the provision immediately after the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) or a court finds that a city failed to meet its housing planning obligations and the city has passed its statutory certification deadline. Cal Cities opposes the measure, as it does not provide protections for cities acting in good faith.

AB 1893 (Wicks) would place boundaries around the builder's remedy while limiting both development density and objective standards. Recent changes to the bill could lead to more lawsuits, as the law does not clearly define the expectations for cities. Cal Cities will oppose the measure unless the author amends it to focus on guidance and resources, rather than new punishments for cities.

Cal Cities will also oppose AB 2023 (Quirk-Silva) unless it is amended. This measure would make it harder for a city to challenge claims that its housing element is out of compliance. It would also reset the public review period for any new amendments requested by HCD for a draft housing element. This would effectively set cities up to fail an already difficult and time-consuming process. Cal Cities has requested the author amend the bill to remove these obstacles and bring AB 2023 in line with existing law.

Another oppose unless amended measure, SB 937 (Wiener), would prevent cities from collecting mitigation fees on affordable housing projects until a certificate of occupancy is issued or the construction for which the project fees will be used begins. The bill previously applied to all housing developments. However, the measure would still make it more difficult for cities to provide the public services that must accompany new developments.

Similarly, AB 2729 (Patterson) would prohibit cities from collecting fees or charges on affordable housing projects at the time of application unless the construction of a public improvement or facility will occur within two years of issuing the permit. Cal Cities opposes this bill, as this change could delay or even deny vital public services.

Cal Cities is also opposing AB 2243 (Wicks). The bill would expand existing streamlining requirements to include adaptive reuse projects, regional malls on major commercial corridors, and some high-rise areas, throwing a wrench in many housing element updates. It would also reduce the amount of fees local governments can collect on adaptive reuse projects.

Cals Cities support for vehicle safety and emissions bills, pushes back on expedited permitting proposal

By comparison, Cal Cities' transportation portfolio is much more muted - but no less important. AB 2286 (Aguilar-Curry) would require some heavy-duty autonomous vehicles to have a human safety operator onboard during operation. Cal Cities supports the measure, as self-driving vehicles are not as safe as human-operated vehicles.

Two other Cal Cities-supported measures would help cities meet their Advanced Clean Fleet requirements. AB 3179 (Juan Carrillo) would expand the definition of emergency vehicles that qualify for an exemption from the state's Advanced Clean Fleet regulation. AB 637 (Jackson) would allow rental trucks to count toward a city's zero-emission vehicle procurement requirements under the Advanced Clean Fleet regulation adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

Zero-emission technology for many heavier municipal vehicles is still nascent or prohibitively expensive. Both measures would make it easier for cities to potentially meet their targets and milestones that started in January of this year.

However, Cal Cities is opposing SB 1418 (Archuleta). The bill ignores the reality that hydrogen applications are on the decline. SB 1418 would force local agencies to adopt an expedited permitting process for the hydrogen-fueling stations by 2025 regardless of local conditions and other permitting mandates. Cal Cities is urging the author to clarify who is first in line, remove the ordinance requirement, and provide funding.

Additional contributions by Cal Cities lobbyists Damon Conklin and Brady Guertin.

Public link

Please use the above public link if you want to share this noodl on another website.