Local government: housing development projects: fees and exactions cap.

The California Constitution authorizes cities and counties to make and enforce within their limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws, and further authorizes cities organized under a charter to make and enforce all ordinances and regulations in respect to municipal affairs, which supersede inconsistent general laws. Existing law provides that a city or a county may, in the exercise of their police powers, license and regulate businesses operating within their jurisdiction and may fix the rate of the license fee and provide for its collection. Existing law authorizes the legislative body of a city and the board of supervisors of a county to license, for revenue and regulation, and fix a license tax upon, every kind of lawful business transacted in the city or county, as specified. Existing law requires a legislative body of a city or a board of supervisors of a county imposing a license tax upon a business operating both within and outside the legislative body's or board's taxing jurisdiction to levy the tax so that the measure of tax fairly reflects that proportion of the taxed activity actually carried on within the taxing jurisdiction. Existing law, the Quimby Act, which is within the Subdivision Map Act, authorizes the legislative body of a city or county to require the dedication of land or to impose fees for park or recreational purposes as a condition to the approval of a tentative map or parcel subdivision map if specified requirements are met. Existing law, the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, after a community facilities district has been created and authorized to levy specified special taxes, authorizes the legislative body, by ordinance, to levy the special taxes at the rate and apportion them in the manner specified in the resolution forming the community facilities district. Existing law, the Mitigation Fee Act, requires a local agency that establishes, increases, or imposes a fee as a condition of approval of a development project to, among other things, determine a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. The Mitigation Fee Act also prohibits specified fees from exceeding the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged, unless a question regarding the amount of the fee in excess of that cost is submitted to, and approved by a popular vote of two-thirds of those electors voting on the issue. This bill would prohibit a city or county from imposing a specified fee or exaction if the total dollar amount of the fees and exactions that a city or county would impose on a proposed housing development is greater than 12 percent of the city's or county's median home price unless approved by the Department of Housing and Community Development. The bill would authorize a city or county to seek approval from the department to impose a fee or an exaction that would result in the total dollar amount of fees and exactions exceeding that limitation by making a specified finding and submitting a completed application for a waiver. The bill would require the department to develop a standard form application for a waiver in conjunction with the Governor's Office of Planning and Research. The bill would also require the department to develop standards to determine whether to grant a waiver and the total dollar amount limitation to which a city or county granted a waiver is subject. The bill would require the department to conduct and post on its internet website an analysis that, for purposes of these provisions, determines the median home price in each city and county of the state. Existing law requires the department to notify a city or county, and authorizes the department to notify the Attorney General, that the city or county has taken an action that violates specified provisions relating to local government regulation of housing development. Existing law authorizes the Attorney General to bring a suit for specified housing element violations under certain circumstances and to request that a court issue an order or judgment directing the city or county to comply with those housing element provisions. Under existing law, the court retains jurisdiction to ensure that its order or judgment is carried out and is authorized to impose specified fines under certain circumstances. This bill would require the department to notify a city or county, and authorize the department to notify the Attorney General, that the city or county has imposed a fee or exaction in violation of the provisions of the bill. The bill would authorize the Attorney General to bring suit for a violation under certain circumstances and to request that a court issue an order or judgment directing the city or county to comply with the provisions of the bill. Under the bill, the court would retain jurisdiction to ensure that its order or judgment is carried out and would be authorized to impose specified fines under certain circumstances. The bill would establish the Housing Development Fine and Exaction Cap Account Fund, and would make the moneys in the fund available upon appropriation by the Legislature. Existing law, the Permit Streamlining Act, which is part of the Planning and Zoning Law, requires a specified city, county, or special district to maintain on its internet website a current schedule of fees and exactions imposed by the city, county, or special district applicable to a proposed housing development project. The act requires this information to be presented in a manner that clearly identifies the fees and exactions that apply to each parcel. This bill would revise and recast that provision to additionally require the city, county, or special district to include on its internet website the total dollar amount of those fees and exactions as a percentage of the median home price in the city or county. 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.