Called an effort to address the “missing middle,” legislation streamlining townhome building survived last week’s committee hearing and negotiations.
Read more 3 firefighters killed in Colorado remembered for their bravery as wildfires churn in the West
The bill, from Assemblymember Sharon Quirk-Silva, D-Fullerton, allows for the “ministerial approval” of townhomes. That essentially means local governments could approve such projects in areas already zoned for residential development without the typical discretionary review or hearing process — often a lengthy and arduous process — so long as the development meets certain requirements.
The idea, said Quirk-Silva, is to focus on this “missing middle” many Californians find themselves stuck in, especially for two-income households: somewhere between apartments with expensive monthly rents or even more expensive single-family homes.
“The evidence is clear: While detached single-family units become more expensive, townhomes offer a feasible path forward,” Quirk-Silva said in the analysis for Assembly Bill 1751. This bill “removes red tape that has made developing these projects so difficult.”
“By establishing a ministerial approval process for townhomes that meet certain standards that protect housing equity, AB 1751 chooses people over politics, protecting existing affordable housing strategies while unlocking the potential for new ownership opportunities,” she said.
While the bill passed out of the Senate Local Government Committee last week, it did so after some “hard-fought” negotiations.
The crux of the bill — moving townhome developments along without some of the stalling and delays seen in other housing projects across California — remained. But a provision raising the minimum wage for construction workers on townhome projects was stripped.
Quirk-Silva doesn’t believe that’s an issue that’s going to go away anytime soon, even with it removed from her bill. And despite walking away with some bruises, she said it’s all part of the legislative process.
“I’m a big believer in legislation that gets amended, gets to a place it will get support, and you don’t get everything you want in a piece of legislation,” Quirk-Silva said in an interview. “It can be messy and difficult, but still, we retained some important elements.”
The bill was also amended to require 10% of the units in these projects to be affordable for lower-income households and to exclude sites where the local zoning minimum density is greater than 60 units per acre or sites that had five or more units already built within the past five years.
“The entire point of the bill,” Quirk-Silva said, “was to move forward with the ministerial approval of townhomes. … Looking at this missing middle, we believe this legislation would allow homes to be built 30% lower as a price point.”
Read more Trump posts a doctored photo of the Obamas and Air Force One with graffiti spray-painted on plane
“For many of our first-time homebuyers, this could be the difference to getting into a home now,” she said.
Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, D-Oakland, is also an author of AB 1751.
In other news
• A bill capping the resale price of concert and live event tickets at no more than 10% of face value cleared another policy committee last week.
“We’re one step closer to making sure tickets go to fans instead of profiteers,” Assemblymember Matt Haney, D-San Francisco, said. “AB 1720 is moving forward because fans, artists and independent venues have made it clear that the current ticketing system is broken. Inflated resale prices hurt artists, fans and the local music ecosystem.”
• A bill changing the length of time local governments have to respond to public records requests cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee last week after extra provisions — that would have made sweeping changes to just who could request records and how — were stripped.
From Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco, a Democrat who represents La Habra in the lower chamber, the bill caused a bit of a brouhaha in the legislature ahead of the committee hearing.
A variety of First Amendment and legal organizations rang alarm bells when the bill was changed to allow a government agency to petition a court if it believed a request for documents was made with “malicious intent.” If that was so determined, fees between $22.35 and $66.26 per hour for the search and review time of the requested records could be imposed. It would also let government agencies determine if a request was made for “commercial use” and charge fees then.
But ahead of the hearing, the bill was reverted to its original idea: increasing the time public agencies have to determine whether it has the records requested from 10 days after receiving a request from the public to 10 business days. And for special circumstances, it increases the time limit to 14 business days, instead of just 14 days.
Pacheco said last week that the bill was meant to address a growing strain on local governments dealing with large and complex records requests.
“Public access to government records is an essential part of our democracy, and that principle does not change with this bill,” Pacheco said. “AB 1821 has been narrowed in response to concerns, but the underlying challenge remains: public agencies are seeing a surge in the volume and complexity of records requests, and the timelines in law should reflect the fact that this work happens during business hours.”
Read more A new ICE facility could speed up deportations for families and kids