SB 1227

Bill Subjects

Abstract

(1) The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of an environmental impact report (EIR) on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. This bill would, until January 1, 2032, exempt from the requirements of CEQA development projects, as defined, meeting certain requirements occurring within the downtown revitalization zone, as defined, in the City and County of San Francisco. The bill would require the prime contractor and subcontractors on the development project to provide an affidavit under the penalty of perjury regarding the use of skilled and trained workforce on the development project, as provided. Because the bill would expand the crime of perjury and would increase the duties of the lead agency by requiring it to determine the applicability of the exemption for projects located in the City and County of San Francisco, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The Jobs and Economic Improvement Through Environmental Leadership Act of 2021 (Leadership Act) authorizes the Governor, before January 1, 2032, to certify projects that meet specified requirements for streamlining benefits related to CEQA, including the requirement that judicial actions challenging the action of a lead agency for projects certified by the Governor be resolved, to the extent feasible, within 270 days after the filing of the record of proceedings with the court, and a requirement that the applicant agrees to pay the costs of preparing the record of proceedings for the project concurrent with review and consideration of the project, as specified. The Leadership Act provides that if a lead agency fails to approve a project certified by the Governor before January 1, 2033, the certification is no longer valid. The Leadership Act provides that it is repealed on January 1, 2034. This bill would authorize the Governor to certify projects located in the downtown revitalization zone in the City and County of San Francisco that are not exempt from CEQA pursuant to the above provisions and that meet certain requirements for streamlining benefits related to CEQA, including the requirement that judicial actions challenging the action of a lead agency for projects certified by the Governor be resolved, to the extent feasible, within 270 days after the filing of the record of proceedings with the court, and a requirement that the applicant agrees to pay the costs of preparing the record of proceedings for the project concurrent with review and consideration of the project, as specified. The bill would specify that the certification of the project is voided if the lead agency, in approving the project, adopts a statement of overriding consideration for environmental impacts identified in the EIR that cannot be avoided or mitigated to less than significant. The bill would provide that if a lead agency fails to approve a project certified by the Governor before January 1, 2031, the certification is no longer valid. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2032. By increasing the duties of a lead agency in its implementation of CEQA, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing property tax law, in accordance with the California Constitution, provides for a "welfare exemption" for property used exclusively for religious, hospital, scientific, or charitable purposes and that is owned or operated by certain types of nonprofit entities, if certain qualifying criteria are met. This bill would provide, for lien dates occurring on or after January 1, 2025, that property is within that welfare exemption and is entitled to a partial exemption equal to the percentage of the value of the property that is equal to the percentage that the number of units serving moderate-income households represents of the total number of residential units, if the property is used exclusively for rental housing and related facilities, is owned and operated by specified entities, and certain conditions are met. The bill would require, as part of those conditions, the owner of the property to certify, under penalty of perjury, specified information, the property to be located within the downtown revitalization zone of the City and County of San Francisco, as defined, and the owner of the property to claim the exemption within 5 years following the issuance of the first building permit for residential units on the property. (3) This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City and County of San Francisco. (4) By expanding the crime of perjury, imposing additional duties on local tax officials, and increasing the duties of the lead agency by requiring it to determine the applicability of the CEQA exemption for projects located in the City and County of San Francisco, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for specified reasons. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. (5) Existing law requires the state to reimburse local agencies annually for certain property tax revenues lost as a result of any exemption or classification of property for purposes of ad valorem property taxation. This bill would provide that, notwithstanding those provisions, no appropriation is made and the state shall not reimburse local agencies for property tax revenues lost by them pursuant to the bill.