Existing law establishes the California Interagency Council on Homelessness to oversee the implementation of Housing First guidelines and regulations, and, among other things, identify resources, benefits, and services that can be accessed to prevent and end homelessness in California. Existing law requires a state agency or department that funds, implements, or administers a state program that provides housing or housing-related services to people experiencing homelessness or who are at risk of homelessness to revise or adopt guidelines and regulations to include enumerated Housing First policies. Existing law specifies the core components of Housing First, including services that are informed by a harm-reduction philosophy that recognizes drug and alcohol use and addiction as a part of tenants' lives and where tenants are engaged in nonjudgmental communication regarding drug and alcohol use. This bill would authorize state programs to fund supportive-recovery residences, as defined, that emphasize abstinence under these provisions as long as the state program meets specified criteria, including that at least 90% of program funds awarded to each jurisdiction is used for housing or housing-based services using a harm-reduction model. This bill would specify requirements for applicants seeking funds under these programs and would require the state to perform periodic monitoring of select supportive-recovery residence programs to ensure that the supportive-recovery residences meet certain requirements, including that core outcomes of the supportive-recovery housing emphasize long-term housing stability and minimize returns to homelessness. The bill would also prohibit eviction on the basis of relapse, as specified. The bill would require, if a tenant is no longer interested in living in a supportive-recovery residence with an abstinence focus, is at risk of eviction, or is discharged from the program, the tenant to reside in the supportive recovery residence until the operator secures the tenant a new permanent housing placement option operated with harm-reduction principles that is also permanent housing. The bill would require supportive housing and services to support residents' access to and use of medications to treat behavioral and physical health conditions, as specified, and to provide overdose prevention training and overdose reversal medication to staff and residents, as specified. Existing law establishes the Department of Housing and Community Development and requires it to administer various programs that provide services to homeless individuals. This bill would require the department to adopt the most recent standards approved by the National Alliance for Recovery Residences or other national standards as the minimum standard for supportive-recovery residences that receive public funds under these provisions. The bill would require the department to establish a separate process for determining if the supportive-recovery residence complies with the core components of Housing First. The bill would require the department to verify compliance with the core components of Housing First for residences seeking Housing First certification, as specified. The bill would authorize the department to charge an annual fee to verify that supportive-recovery residences comply with the core components of Housing First in an amount not to exceed the reasonable cost of administering the program, not to exceed $100, and would establish the Supportive-Recovery Residence Program Fund for collection of the fee, to be available upon appropriation by the Legislature.
(1) Existing law, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, prohibits housing discrimination based on specified characteristics. Existing law defines discrimination to include refusal to sell, rent, or lease housing accommodations. Under existing law, discrimination does not include refusal to rent or lease a portion of an owner-occupied single-family house to a person as a roomer or boarder living within the household if no more than one roomer or boarder is to live within the household, as specified. Under this bill, discrimination would additionally not include refusal to rent or lease a portion of an owner-occupied single-family house to a person as a roomer, boarder, or tenant living within the household if, among other things, the owner is renting the portion of their home as a landlord in a nonprofit home-sharing program, as defined. (2) Existing law establishes various public social services programs that are administered by counties to provide eligible recipients with certain benefits, including, but not limited to, cash assistance under the Supplemental Security Income/State Supplementary Program for the Aged, Blind, and Disabled (SSI/SSP) and the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program, nutrition assistance under the CalFresh program, and health care services under the Medi-Cal program. This bill would exempt income received through renting bedrooms or units as a landlord in a nonprofit home-sharing program, as defined, from consideration as income or assets for purposes of determining eligibility and benefit amounts for public social services, to the extent permitted by federal law. The bill would require the State Department of Social Services to seek all available federal waivers and approvals necessary for the exemption under CalFresh and SSI/SSP. The bill would, for purposes of Medi-Cal eligibility, require the State Department of Health Care Services to implement the exemption no sooner than January 1, 2027, and only to the extent consistent with federal law, upon any necessary federal approvals, and if federal financial participation under the Medi-Cal program is available and not otherwise jeopardized. By expanding the scope of eligibility for public social services, thereby increasing duties on counties, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) 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.
(1) Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, requires each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, which includes, among other mandatory elements, a housing element. Existing law requires a public agency to administer its programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner to affirmatively further fair housing, and take no action that is materially inconsistent with its obligation to affirmatively further fair housing. Existing law defines "affirmatively furthering fair housing," as provided. The Planning and Zoning Law requires that a housing element include, among other things, a program that sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period. Existing law requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to develop a standardized reporting format for programs and actions taken pursuant to the requirement to affirmatively further fair housing. This bill would require the department to develop the above-described standardized reporting format on or before December 31, 2026. (2) Existing law requires, for the 4th and subsequent revisions of the housing element, the department to determine the existing and projected need for housing for each region, as specified. Existing law requires the department, in consultation with the council of governments, to determine the existing and projected need of housing for each region at least 2 years prior to the scheduled revision of the housing element, as provided. Existing law requires the department to meet and consult with the council of governments regarding the assumptions and methodology to be used to determine the region's housing needs at least 26 months prior to the scheduled revision of the housing element, as provided. This bill, except as specified, would extend the above-described timeline for the department to determine the existing and projected need of housing for each region from 2 years to 3 years prior to the scheduled revision of the housing element. The bill would require the department to meet and consult with the council of governments, as described above, pursuant to prescribed deadlines. For the 7th revision of the housing element, the bill would require the department to meet and consult with each council of governments at least 38 months prior to the scheduled revision, except for specified councils of governments. For the 8th and subsequent revision of the housing element, the bill would require the department to meet and consult with each council of governments at least 38 months prior to the scheduled revision. (3) Existing law authorizes at least 2 or more cities and a county, or counties, at least 28 months prior to the scheduled housing element revision, to form a subregional entity to allocate the subregion's existing and projected housing need among its members. If the council of governments does not receive a notification of this formation at least 28 months prior to the update, existing law requires the council of governments to implement specified requirements regarding the regional housing need process. Existing law requires the council of governments to determine the share of regional housing need assigned to each delegate subregion at least 25 months prior to the scheduled revision. This bill would extend the above-described timeline for cities and counties to form a subregional entity to allocate the subregion's housing need, as provided, from 28 months to 34 months, and the above-described timeline for the council of governments to determine the share of regional housing need assigned to each subregion from 25 months to 31 months, respectively. (4) Existing law, at least 2 years before a scheduled revision of the housing element, as specified, requires each council of governments, or delegate subregion as applicable, to develop, in consultation with the department, a proposed methodology for distributing the existing and projected regional housing need to jurisdictions, as specified. Existing law, at least 1 12 years before a scheduled revision of the housing element, as specified, requires each council of governments and delegate subregion, as applicable, to distribute a draft allocation of regional housing needs to each local government in the region or subregion, where applicable, and the department, as specified. This bill, except with respect to the 7th housing element cycle for councils of governments with a housing element revision due date during the 2027 calendar year, would instead require that the above-described methodology be developed from at least 2 12 years before a scheduled revision of the housing element, and that the distribution of the draft allocation plan be made at least 2 years before a scheduled revision of the housing element, respectively. (5) Existing law requires a planning agency to submit a copy of its draft housing element or amendments to its housing element or housing element revision to the department for review, and requires the department to notify the city, county, or city and county with written findings if the department finds that the housing element or the amendment does not substantially comply with specified law. If the department finds that the draft housing element or draft amendment is not in substantial compliance, existing law requires the jurisdiction to either update the draft to substantially comply with specified law, or adopt the draft housing element or amendment without changes, as provided. This bill would require the department, if the department finds that a draft element or draft amendment does not substantially comply, as described above, to (A) identify and explain the specific deficiencies in the draft element or draft amendment and (B) provide the specific analysis or text that the department expects the planning agency to include in the draft element or draft amendment to remedy those deficiencies, as specified. The bill would require a jurisdiction, in updating a noncompliant housing element or amendment under the above-described provisions, to include the specific analysis or text in its draft element or amendment. (6) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65583 of the Government Code proposed by SB 340 and AB 610 to be operative only if this bill and either or both of those bills are enacted and this bill is enacted last. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65584.01 of the Government Code proposed by SB 486 to be operative only if this bill and SB 486 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65584.03 of the Government Code proposed by AB 1275 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1275 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65584.04 of the Government Code proposed by SB 486 and AB 1275 to be operative only if this bill and either or both of those bills are enacted and this bill is enacted last. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65585 of the Government Code proposed by AB 507 to be operative only if this bill and AB 507 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (7) By imposing additional duties on local governments, this bill would create 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law authorizes the legislative body of a city or a county to establish an enhanced infrastructure financing district to finance public capital facilities or other specified projects of communitywide significance, including the acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of housing for persons of very low, low, and moderate income. Existing law authorizes the City and County of San Francisco to establish a downtown revitalization and economic recovery financing district for the purpose of financing commercial-to-residential conversion projects with incremental tax revenues generated by commercial-to-residential conversion projects within the district. Existing law requires the City and County of San Francisco to establish a board for the district at the same time that it adopts the resolution of intention to form the district, and requires the district to prepare a downtown revitalization financing plan (financing plan) that includes specified information and requirements, including that the first distribution of incremental tax revenues distributed back to a commercial-to-residential conversion project commence with the fiscal year that begins after the project is issued a certificate of occupancy. Existing law, among other things, requires a district to establish a process for eligible commercial-to-residential conversion projects identified in the financing plan to opt into receiving incremental tax revenue generated by the respective project. Existing law specifies that the commercial-to-residential conversion projects that opt in to receive incremental tax revenue are public works for which prevailing wages are required to be paid, as specified, and requires the commercial-to-residential conversion projects that opt in to receiving incremental tax revenue to comply with labor standards adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco, as provided. This bill would additionally authorize any city, county, or city and county, except the City and County of San Francisco, to establish a downtown revitalization and economic recovery financing district for the purpose of financing specified commercial-to-residential conversion projects with incremental tax revenues generated by commercial-to-residential conversion projects within the district. The bill would require the district to meet the requirements imposed on the City and County of San Francisco when establishing a downtown revitalization and economic recovery financing district described above and would modify the required components of the district's proposed financing plan, as provided. The bill would make various conforming changes to the above-described provisions in this regard and would also make technical changes. This bill would further specify that, for purposes of the preparation of a financing plan, if the city, county, or city and county does not issue certificates of occupancy, the first distribution of incremental tax revenue to a commercial-to-residential conversion project shall be made with the fiscal year that begins after the project completes a final inspection. The bill would remove the requirement that commercial-to-residential conversion projects that opt in to receive incremental tax revenue comply with labor standards adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco and would instead subject such projects to specified labor standards. Existing law requires a certain portion of any ad valorem property tax revenue annually allocated to the local government that is specified in the adopted financing plan, as described, to be allocated to and, when collected, apportioned to a special fund of the district for all lawful purposes of the district. Existing law also requires those revenues to be allocated and apportioned to the local government when the district ceases to exist pursuant to the financing plan. This bill would remove those provisions.
(1) Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, requires each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and specified land outside its boundaries, that contains certain mandatory elements, including a housing element. Existing law requires that the housing element consist of an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing, as specified. Existing law requires that the housing element include, among other things, an assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints that are relevant to the meeting of these needs, including an inventory of land suitable for residential development, as provided. Existing law, for the 4th and subsequent revisions of the housing element, requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to determine the existing and projected need for housing for each region, as specified, and requires the appropriate council of local governments, or the department for cities and counties without a council of governments, to adopt a final regional housing need plan that allocates a share of the regional housing need to each locality in the region. Existing law requires the inventory of land to be used to identify sites throughout the community that can be developed for housing within the planning period and that are sufficient to provide for the jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need. Existing law requires each local government to revise its housing element in accordance with a specified schedule. Existing law, the Housing Accountability Act, among other things, requires a local agency that proposes to disapprove a housing development project, as defined, or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density to base its decision on written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence that specified conditions exist if that project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete. The act authorizes the applicant, a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the housing development project or emergency shelter, or a housing organization to bring an action to enforce the act's provisions, as provided, and provides for penalties if the court finds that the local agency is in violation of specified provisions of the act. This bill would require that a housing development project, as defined, within a specified distance of a transit-oriented development (TOD) stop, as defined, be an allowed use as a transit-oriented housing development on any site zoned for residential, mixed, or commercial development, if the development complies with applicable requirements, as specified. Among these requirements, the bill would require a project to include at least 5 dwelling units and establish requirements concerning height limits, density, and residential floor area ratio in accordance with a development's proximity to specified tiers of TOD stops, as provided. The bill would require that, for the purposes of the Housing Accountability Act, a proposed development consistent with the applicable standards of these provisions as well as applicable local objective general plan and zoning standards be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with prescribed requirements, as specified. The bill would provide that a local government that denies a project meeting the requirements of these provisions located in a high-resource area, as defined, would be presumed in violation of the Housing Accountability Act, as specified, and immediately liable for penalties, beginning on January 1, 2027, as provided. These provisions would not apply to a local agency until July 1, 2026, except as specified, or within unincorporated areas of counties until the 7th regional housing needs allocation cycle. The bill would specify that a development proposed pursuant to these provisions is eligible for streamlined, ministerial approval pursuant to specified law, except that the bill would exempt a project under these provisions from specified requirements, and would specify that the project is required to comply with certain affordability requirements, under that law. This bill would require a proposed development to comply with specified demolition and antidisplacement standards; to not be located on sites where the development would require demolition of housing, or that was previously used for housing, that is subject to rent or price controls; to include housing for lower income households, as specified; be consistent with specified height, noise, safety, and fire standards; and meet specified labor standards, as provided. The bill would also authorize a transit agency's board of directors to adopt agency TOD zoning standards for district-owned real property located in a TOD zone, which establish minimum zoning requirements for an agency TOD project, as specified. Prior to one year following the adoption of the 7th revision of the housing element, this bill would not apply the provisions relating to a housing development project to specified sites for which a local government has adopted an ordinance indicating the site's exclusion, as specified, including a site that is covered by a local TOD alternative plan, as defined, adopted by a local government. For the 7th and subsequent revisions of the housing element, the bill would authorize a local government to include a local TOD alternative plan in its housing element or adopt an alternative plan by ordinance, as specified. The bill would exempt a jurisdiction that has adopted a compliant local TOD alternative plan from the provisions relating to a housing development, as specified. This bill would require the Department of Housing and Community Development to oversee compliance with the bill's provisions and would require the department to promulgate standards on how to allow for capacity pursuant to these provisions to be counted in the inventory of land included within a county's or city's housing element, as specified. The bill would authorize each metropolitan planning organization to create a map of designated TOD stops and zones within its region by tier in accordance with these standards, which would have a rebuttable presumption of validity. The bill would authorize a local government to enact an ordinance to make its zoning code consistent with these provisions, as provided. The bill would require the local government to submit a draft of this ordinance to the department for review, at least 14 days prior to adoption of the ordinance. The bill would require the local government to submit a copy of this ordinance to the department within 60 days of enactment and would require the department to review the ordinance for compliance, as specified. If at any time the department finds an ordinance is out of compliance, and the local government does not take specified steps to address compliance, the bill would require the department to notify the local government in writing and authorize the department to notify the Attorney General, as provided. This bill would define various terms for its purposes and make related findings and declarations. This bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. By increasing the duties of local officials, and by expanding the crime of perjury by requiring the certification of certain information related to labor standards, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) This bill would provide that its provisions are severable. (3) 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for specified reasons.
Existing law, the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act, authorizes specified adult persons to petition a civil court to create a voluntary CARE agreement or a court-ordered CARE plan and implement services, to be provided by county behavioral health agencies, to provide behavioral health care, including stabilization medication, housing, and other enumerated services, to adults who are currently experiencing a severe mental illness and have a diagnosis identified in the disorder class schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, and who meet other specified criteria. Existing law authorizes a specified individual to commence the CARE process, known as the original petitioner. Existing law authorizes the court to dismiss a case without prejudice when the court finds that a petitioner has not made a prima facie showing that they qualify for the CARE process. Existing law requires the court to take prescribed actions if it finds that a prima facie showing has been made, including, but not limited to, setting the matter for an initial appearance on the petition. Existing law requires the court, if it determines the parties have entered or are likely to enter into a CARE agreement, to either approve or modify the CARE agreement and continue the matter at a progress hearing in 60 days, or continue the matter for 14 days to allow the parties additional time to enter into an agreement. Existing law prohibits a person from being tried or adjudged to punishment while that person is mentally incompetent. Existing law requires the court to, for a person found mentally incompetent and not charged with certain offenses, among other things, determine whether restoring the person to mental competence is in the interests of justice. Existing law requires the court to, if restoring the person to mental competence is not in the interests of justice, conduct a hearing, as specified, and determine the person's eligibility for diversion. Under existing law, if the court determines, at the first hearing, that the person is ineligible for diversion, the court is required to hold a hearing to determine the person's other options, including the CARE program. Existing law authorizes a court to refer an individual from, among other things, assisted outpatient treatment or conservatorship proceedings, as specified, to CARE Act proceedings. Existing law provides that if the individual is referred from assisted outpatient treatment, the county behavioral health director or their designee shall be the petitioner, whereas if the referral is from conservatorship proceedings, the conservator or proposed conservator is the petitioner. This bill would allow the court to make a prima facie determination without conducting a hearing. The bill, in the first hearing to determine competence to stand trial, would authorize the court to consider the petitioner's eligibility for both diversion and the CARE program. The bill would authorize the court to refer the petitioner to the CARE Act court if the defendant or counsel for the defendant agrees to the referral and the court has reason to believe the petitioner may be eligible for the CARE program. If the petitioner is not accepted into the CARE program or if the CARE Act court refers the petitioner back to criminal court, as specified, the bill would require the criminal court to conduct a hearing to determine whether the petitioner is eligible for a diversion program. The bill would authorize the county behavioral health agency and jail medical providers to share confidential medical records and other relevant information with the court for the purpose of determining likelihood of eligibility for behavioral health services and programs. The bill would authorize the court to call additional progress hearings after 60 days. The bill would also include persons suffering from bipolar I disorder with psychotic features, except for psychosis related to current intoxication, in the disorder class. The bill would additionally authorize a court to refer an individual from felony proceedings, as specified, to the CARE Act program. The bill would authorize a CARE Act court to consider a referral as a petition for participation in the CARE program if certain requirements are met. The bill would make additional technical and conforming changes. Existing law requires the Judicial Council to develop a mandatory form for use to file a CARE process petition with the court, and requires the petition to be signed under penalty of perjury and include either an affidavit of a licensed behavioral health professional, as defined, or evidence that the respondent was detained for a minimum of 2 intensive treatments, as specified. The bill would additionally include a nurse practitioner and physician assistant as a licensed behavioral health professional for purposes of individuals authorized to prepare an affidavit supporting a CARE process petition. By increasing various duties on county behavioral health agencies, this 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, 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.
Existing law sets forth an expedited procedure for judicial review of decisions by a local public agency regarding the issuance, revocation, suspension, or denial of a permit involving expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as specified. This bill would provide similar expedited judicial review for denials of permits or other entitlements for housing development projects or residential units at the trial and appellate level, as specified. The bill would authorize a petitioner, the Attorney General, or the Department of Housing and Community Development to file a petition for writ of mandate under these provisions. The bill would require a local agency, upon the request of an applicant or notice from the department or the Attorney General, to compile a record of its proceedings as they occur and to certify the record within 15 days of the service of a writ. The bill would require that a hearing be set no later than 45 days after the filing of the writ and that the court issue a decision no later than 30 days after the matter is submitted or 75 days after the writ was filed, whichever is earlier. The bill would authorize the temporary assignment of judicial officers to ensure the timelines are met.
The Permit Streamlining Act requires a public agency that is the lead agency for a development project to approve or disapprove that project within specified time periods. Existing law requires a city or county that has an internet website to, among other things, make a fee estimate tool that the public can use to calculate an estimate of fees and exactions for a proposed housing development project available on its internet website. This bill would require a city or county with a population of 150,000 or more persons to make a centralized application portal available on its internet website to applicants for housing development projects, as prescribed. The bill would, notwithstanding that provision, authorize a city or county described above to make a centralized application portal available on its internet website no later than January 1, 2030, if the legislative body of the city or county, on or before January 1, 2028, takes certain action, including initiating a procurement process to make a centralized application portal available on its internet website. The bill would require the centralized application portal to allow for tracking of the status of an application. The bill would specify that a city or county is not required to provide the status of any permit or inspection required by another local agency, a state agency, or a utility provider. The bill would define various terms for purposes of its provisions. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, among other things, provides for the creation by ordinance, or by ministerial approval if the local agency has not adopted an ordinance, of an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) or a junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU) in accordance with specified standards and conditions. Existing law defines the term "junior accessory dwelling unit" for these purposes to mean a unit that is no more than 500 square feet in size and contained entirely within a single-family structure. This bill would revise the definition of a "junior accessory dwelling unit" to require the size of a JADU to be no more than 500 square feet of interior livable space. Existing law makes certain declarations of the Legislature's intent regarding the effect of an ADU ordinance. Existing law authorizes the Department of Housing and Community Development to review, adopt, amend, or repeal guidelines to implement uniform standards or criteria that supplement or clarify the terms, references, and standards for an ADU. This bill would revise the above-described declaration of legislative intent to additionally apply with respect to a JADU ordinance. The bill would also expand the department's authority to review, adopt, amend, or repeal guidelines to additionally grant that authority with respect to terms, references, and standards for JADUs. Existing law requires a local agency to submit an ADU ordinance to the Department of Housing and Community Development within 60 days after the adoption for department review, as specified. Under existing law, the standards applicable to an ADU under these provisions supersede a conflicting local ordinance, except as specified. This bill would similarly require a local agency to submit a JADU ordinance to the department within 60 days after adoption for department review and would require the department to notify the local agency if the ordinance is noncompliant with JADU ordinance requirements, as specified. The bill would nullify and void that ordinance if the local agency fails to submit a copy of that ordinance or respond to the department's findings that the ordinance is noncompliant, as specified. The bill would also specify that the standards applicable to a JADU supersede any conflicting local ordinance, except as specified. Existing law requires a local agency to consider ministerially a permit application for an ADU or a JADU within 60 days, as specified. If a local agency has not adopted an ADU ordinance, existing law requires a permit application for an ADU to be considered pursuant to this ministerial approval provision. Existing law prohibits a local ordinance, policy, or regulation, other than an ADU ordinance consistent with the laws governing approvals of ADUs, from being the basis for the delay or denial of a building permit or a use permit under this ministerial approval provision. If a local agency has not adopted a JADU ordinance, this bill would additionally require a permit application for a JADU to be considered pursuant to this ministerial approval provision, and would prohibit a local ordinance, policy, or regulation, other than a JADU ordinance consistent with the laws governing approvals of JADUs, from being the basis for the delay or denial of a building permit or a use permit under this ministerial approval provision. This bill would additionally require a permitting agency to determine whether an application for ADU or JADU is complete and provide written notice of the determination not later than 15 business days after the permitting agency received the application. If the permitting agency determines that an application is incomplete, the bill would require the permitting agency to provide the applicant with a list of incomplete items and a description of how the application can be made complete in the written notice and authorize the applicant to cure and address the application, as specified. The bill would require the permitting agency, if a permit application is determined to be incomplete or is denied, to provide a process for the applicant to appeal that decision, as provided, and would require the permitting agency to provide a final written determination by not later than 60 business days after receipt of the written appeal. Existing law imposes limits on construction, connection, and impact fees and capacity charges imposed on an ADU, including prohibiting impact fees upon the development of an ADU based on if the ADU is 750 square feet and requiring that any impact fee on an ADU of 750 square feet or more be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit. Existing law prohibits a local agency, special district, or water corporation from requiring the applicant to install a new or separate utility connection between an ADU and the utility or imposing a related connection fee or capacity charge for specified ADUs, except as specified. This bill would revise these provisions to additionally apply to construction, connection, and impact fees and capacity charges imposed on a JADU. The bill would revise the above-described limitation on impact fees to, instead, prohibit impact fees upon the development of an ADU that has 750 square feet of interior livable space or less or JADU that has 500 square feet of interior livable space or less, and to require that any impact fee on an ADU that has more than 750 square feet of interior livable space be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit. Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement against construction within the boundaries of the school district for the purpose of funding the construction or reconstruction of a school facility, subject to specified limitations. Under existing law, the fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement may only apply to specified constructions, including residential construction if the resulting assessable space exceeds 500 square feet. This bill would specify that an ADU or a JADU that contains less than 500 square feet of interior livable space does not increase assessable space by 500 square feet under these provisions. Existing law prohibits a local agency from establishing by ordinance a maximum square footage for an attached or detached ADU that is either less than 850 square feet or 1,000 square feet for an ADU that provides more than one bedroom. Existing law also prohibits a local agency from establishing by ordinance any requirement for a zoning clearance or separate zoning review or any other minimum or maximum size for an ADU, size based upon a percentage of the proposed or existing primary dwelling, or limits on lot coverage, floor area ratio, open space, front setbacks, and minimum lot size, for attached or detached dwellings that does not permit at least an 800-square foot ADU with four-foot side and rear yard setbacks. This bill would revise these size limitations to be based on the square feet of interior living space of the ADU. Existing law requires a local agency to ministerially approve a building permit application within a residential or mixed-use zone for specified ADUs or JADUs, including one detached, new construction, ADU that does not exceed 4-foot side and rear yard setbacks for a lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling. For these ADUs and JADUs, existing law authorizes a local agency to impose specified height limitations and total floor area limitations of no more than 800 square feet. Existing law prohibits a local agency from imposing a requirement that an ADU install a fire sprinkler if a sprinkler is not required for the primary residence. This bill would require a local agency to ministerially approve a building permit application for a combination of the specified ADUs or JADUs and revise the total area limitation to be based on the square feet of interior livable space. The bill would revise the prohibition on requiring fire sprinkler installation, as described above, to additionally apply to a JADU. This bill would make other technical and conforming changes to the provisions governing the review and approval of ADUs and JADUs. By imposing additional duties on local planning officials, this 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law, commonly referred to as the Density Bonus Law, requires a city or county to provide a developer that proposes a housing development, as defined, within the city or county with a density bonus, other incentives or concessions, and waivers or reductions of development standards, as specified, if the developer agrees to construct, among other options, specified units and meets other requirements. This bill would specify that certain provisions of the Density Bonus Law do not require a city, county, or city and county to approve, grant a concession or incentive requiring approval of, or waive or reduce development standards otherwise applicable to, transient lodging as part of a housing development, except as specified. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65915 of the Government Code proposed by SB 92 to be operative only if this bill and SB 92 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
