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.
(1) The Planning and Zoning Law requires each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for its physical development, and the development of certain lands outside its boundaries, that includes, among other mandatory elements, a housing element. That law, until January 1, 2033, deems a housing development project an allowable use on any real property owned by a local educational agency if the housing development satisfies specified conditions, including, among others, consisting of at least 10 housing units, 100% of the units being rented by local educational agency employees, local public employees, and general members of the public pursuant to a specified priority, and a majority of the units being deed restricted for lower income or moderate-income households, as specified. Existing law, the Housing Accountability Act, among other things, prohibits a local agency from disapproving a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households unless the local agency makes written findings as to one of certain sets of conditions, as specified, and describes various requirements applicable to housing development projects. This bill would revise and recast the provisions deeming a housing development project an allowable use on any real property owned by a local educational agency. The bill would require the housing development to satisfy specified conditions, and would apply the requirements of the Housing Accountability Act to review of housing development projects subject to these provisions. The bill would provide that a proposed housing development project is eligible for a density bonus, as specified, and would define various terms for these purposes. The bill would extend the operation of these provisions until January 1, 2036. (2) Existing law, prior to the sale, lease, or rental of any excess real property, requires the governing board of each school district to appoint a school district advisory committee to advise the governing board of the school district in the development of districtwide policies and procedures governing the use or disposition of school buildings or space in school buildings that is not needed for school purposes. Notwithstanding that law, existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district to elect not to appoint a school district advisory committee in the sale, lease, or rental of excess real property to be used for teacher or school district employee housing. This bill would specify that the governing board of a school district is authorized to elect not to appoint a school district advisory committee in the sale, lease, or rental of excess real property to be used for teacher or school district employee housing and that is subject to the provisions governing real property owned by a local educational agency described above. (3) 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 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. Existing law, until January 1, 2033, exempts from CEQA certain actions taken by a public agency related to affordable housing projects, as defined, if certain requirements are met. This bill would provide that an affordable housing project for purposes of the CEQA exemption includes real property owned by a local educational agency, as described above, and would exempt these projects from certain of the requirements for other affordable housing projects. (4) 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. (5) By adding to the duties of local planning officials with respect to approving certain development projects, 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.
(1) Existing law, the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, governs the management and operation of common interest developments. Existing law makes any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, or other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of any interest in a planned development, and any provision of a governing document, that either effectively prohibits or unreasonably restricts the construction or use of an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit on a lot zoned for single-family residential use, as specified, void and unenforceable. If the governing documents require association approval before a member may make a physical change to the member's separate interest or to the common area, existing law requires an association to satisfy specified requirements, including to provide a fair, reasonable, and expeditious procedure for making its decision in reviewing and approving or disapproving a proposed physical change, as described above. This bill would make any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, or other instrument, and any provision of a governing document, void and unenforceable to the extent that it prohibits, or includes conditions that have the effect of prohibiting, a substantially similar reconstruction of a residential structure, as specified, that was destroyed or damaged in a disaster, as defined. The bill would require a court to award reasonable attorney's fees to the owner of a separate interest in a common interest development who prevails in an action to enforce the above-described provisions. This bill would require any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, or other instrument, and any provision of a governing document that subjects a substantially similar reconstruction of a residential structure that was destroyed or damaged in a disaster to review by a body to be processed and approved, as specified. The bill would defined various terms for these purposes. The bill would require the body to, among other things, determine whether an application is complete or incomplete and to provide written notice of this determination to the applicant no later than 30 calendar days after the body receives the application. Once an application is deemed complete, the bill would require the body to conduct any review of the proposed modification to the separate interest within 45 calendar days, as specified. If a body finds that a complete application is noncompliant, the bill would require the body to provide the applicant with a list of items that are noncompliant and a description of how the application can be remedied by the applicant, as described. If an application is determined to be incomplete or noncompliant, the bill would require the body to provide a process for the applicant to appeal that decision, as specified. The bill would require a court to award reasonable attorney's fees to the applicant who prevails in an action to enforce the above-described provisions. (2) Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, authorizes a development proponent to submit an application for a development that is subject to a specified streamlined, ministerial approval process if the development satisfies certain objective planning standards and certain procedures are followed, including that the proponent of the development project requires in contracts with construction contractors that specified standards will be met in project construction, as specified. Existing law requires the proponent of the development project to make a specified certification that certain labor standards will be met and requires the prime contractor to provide an affidavit under penalty of perjury, as specified. This bill would authorize a housing development proponent to submit an application for a housing development that is subject to a specified streamlined, ministerial approval process if the housing development satisfies certain objective standards, including that the housing development is located on a parcel on which a residential structure was destroyed or damaged in a disaster. The bill would require a local government to approve the development within 90 days of the submittal of the development if the local government's planning director or equivalent position determines that the development is consistent with specified objective planning standards. If the development is determined to be in conflict with those standards, the bill would require the local government staff or relevant local planning and permitting department that made the determination to provide the development proponent written documentation of which standard or standards the development conflicts with, and an explanation for the reason or reasons the development conflicts with that standard or standards, as specified. By mandating a higher level of service on local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would provide that an ordinance that precludes specified placements and uses of manufactured homes, mobilehomes, or recreational vehicles for use during the reconstruction or repair of any home damaged or destroyed in a disaster is unenforceable for a period of 3 years following the disaster declaration. The bill would require the housing development proponent to comply with certain labor standards, including that the housing development proponent will comply with the above-described labor standards, including the requirements that the development proponent make the specified certification and that the prime contractor provide an affidavit under penalty of perjury. By imposing certification and penalty of perjury requirements, this bill would expand the crime of perjury, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. (3) Existing law, 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 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 determines that the project would not have that effect, as provided. CEQA does not apply to the approval of ministerial projects. This bill would provide that its streamlined, ministerial approval process for a housing development, as described above, offers an optional streamlined, ministerial approval process and does not affect the availability, applicability, or use of any other exemption from CEQA. To the extent that the streamlined, ministerial review process established by the bill would apply to the approval of a housing development that would otherwise be discretionary, the bill would expand the exemption for the ministerial approval of projects under CEQA. (4) 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. (5) 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.
(1) Existing law, known as the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, among other things, prohibits an affected city or an affected county, as defined, from approving a housing development project that will require the demolition of occupied or vacant protected units, as defined, or that is located on a site where protected units were demolished in the previous 5 years unless specified requirements are met. Among these requirements, existing law requires that the project replace all existing protected units and protected units demolished on or after January 1, 2020, and, if the project is a housing development project, as defined, it will include at least as many residential dwelling units as the greatest number of residential dwelling units that existed on the project site within the last 5 years. Existing law requires that specified protected units replaced under these provisions be considered in determining whether the housing development project satisfies certain state and local requirements that the project provide a certain percentage of residential rental units affordable to, and occupied by, households with incomes that do not exceed the limits for moderate-income, lower income, very low income, or extremely low income households, as specified. This bill would additionally require that the above-described replaced protected units be considered in determining whether the housing development project satisfies requirements that the project provide a certain percentage of residential rental units affordable to, and occupied by, households with incomes that do not exceed the limits for acutely low income households, as specified. This bill, notwithstanding the above-described requirements, in the case of rehabilitation or replacement of an existing single-room occupancy building that meets prescribed criteria, would permit an affected city or an affected county to reduce the number of replacement units required if the project meets specified requirements, including, among others, that the reduction in replacement units is necessary to accommodate the conversion of single-room occupancy units, as provided, and that the converted units will be rental units with affordable rents, as specified. The bill would include specified findings declaring legislative intent with respect to these provisions. The bill would permit a borrower to conduct a market study to support the unit sizes proposed in the replacement housing plan, as provided. (2) Existing law establishes the Department of Housing and Community Development and requires it to administer various programs intended to promote the development of housing, including, among others, the Multifamily Housing Program, pursuant to which the department provides financial assistance in the form of deferred payment loans to pay for the eligible costs of development of specified types of housing projects. Existing law sets forth various general powers of the department in implementing these programs, including authorizing the department to enter into long-term contracts or agreements of up to 30 years for the purpose of servicing loans or grants or enforcing regulatory agreements or other security documents. This bill, for purposes of determining eligibility for an individual displaced from or returning to a single-room occupancy unit undergoing rehabilitation or a replacement unit that received funds from the department and is for a homeless individual or family, would (A) specify that an individual is deemed homeless if they meet certain criteria and (B) prohibit an individual or family meeting these criteria from being subject to a requirement that the unit be filled through a referral from a coordinated entry system, as defined, or a similar referral system.
Existing law requires a city or county to prepare and adopt a general plan for its jurisdiction that contains certain mandatory elements, including a housing element. Existing law requires the housing element to identify adequate sites for housing, including rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, and emergency shelters, among other things. Existing law requires the housing element to contain an assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs, including by identifying one or more zoning designations that allow residential uses, including mixed uses, where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit and that are suitable for residential uses. Existing law requires an emergency shelter to include other interim interventions, including, but not limited to, a navigation center, bridge housing, and respite or recuperative care. This bill would additionally require an emergency shelter to include all services provided onsite, including the addition or expansion of services that are consistent with certain written, objective standards. By imposing a higher level of service on cities and counties in preparing and adopting a general plan, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to administer the Emergency Housing and Assistance Program. Under the program, moneys from the continuously appropriated Emergency Housing and Assistance Fund are available for the purposes of providing shelter, as specified, to homeless persons at as low of a cost and as quickly as possible, without compromising the health and safety of shelter occupants, to encourage the move of homeless persons from shelters to a self-supporting environment as soon as possible, to encourage provision of services for as many persons at risk of homelessness as possible, to encourage compatible and effective funding of homeless services, and to encourage coordination among public agencies that fund or provide services to homeless individuals, as well as agencies that discharge people from their institutions. Existing law defines "emergency shelter" to mean, in part, housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of 6 months or less by a homeless person. This bill would modify that definition to mean housing with supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of 6 months or less by a homeless person. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65583 of the Government Code proposed by AB 610 and AB 650, to be operative only if this bill and either or both of those bills are enacted and this bill is enacted last. 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 requires certain transportation planning agencies to prepare and adopt regional transportation plans directed at achieving a coordinated and balanced regional transportation system. Existing law requires each regional transportation plan to include a sustainable communities strategy prepared by each metropolitan planning organization in order to, among other things, identify areas within the region sufficient to house all the population of the region, including all economic segments of the population, over the course of the planning period of the regional transportation plan taking into account net migration into the region, population growth, household formation, and employment growth. This bill would require the sustainable communities strategy, in identifying areas within the region sufficient to house all the population of the region, to also take into account changes in enrollment levels at institutions of public higher education, as defined. By imposing additional duties on metropolitan planning organizations, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing 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, for the 4th and subsequent revision of the housing element, the Department of Housing and Community Development to determine the existing and projected need for housing for each region in a specified manner. Existing law requires the department to meet and consult with the council of governments regarding the assumptions and methodologies to be used to determine each region's housing needs and requires the council of governments to provide data assumptions from the council of governments' projections, including specified data for the region, if available. As part of that requirement, existing law directs the council of governments to provide data assumptions regarding anticipated household growth associated with projected population increases. This bill would require the Department of Finance to consider changes in enrollment levels at campuses of the University of California or the California State University in the region, as forecasted by the University of California and California State University pursuant to the provisions described below, when preparing the anticipated household growth associated with projected population increases. Existing law requires each council of governments or delegate subregion, as applicable, to develop a proposed methodology for distributing the existing and projected regional housing need to cities, counties, and cities and counties within the region or within the subregion, as provided. Existing law requires, to the extent that sufficient data is available, each council of governments or delegate subregion, as applicable, in developing the methodology, to consider including several specified factors, including the housing needs generated by the presence of a private university or a campus of the California State University or the University of California within any member jurisdiction. This bill would require each council of governments or delegate subregion, as applicable, in developing the proposed methodology, to also consider including the distribution of students of the above-described universities among jurisdictions within the region, and for a campus of the California State University or the University of California, the optimization of transit, pedestrian, and other nonvehicle trip efficiency by students to the campus, including off-campus facilities. The bill would request the Regents of the University of California, and require the Trustees of the California State University, to provide, no more than 6 months before the development of the proposed methodology for the 7th and each subsequent housing element cycle, except as specified, to each council of governments a forecast of changes in enrollment levels at its campuses, including off-campus facilities, within the region based on specified factors and to provide, upon request, trip and travel data. By imposing additional duties on councils of government, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) 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 the lead agency 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. Existing law makes the selection of a location for a particular campus of public higher education and the approval of a long-range development plan subject to CEQA and requires preparation of an EIR. Existing law provides that enrollment or changes in enrollment, by themselves, do not constitute a project for purposes of CEQA. CEQA regulations require an EIR to describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, including a "no project" alternative analysis for the purpose of allowing decisionmakers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project. This bill would specify that the University of California and the California State University are not required to conduct a "no project" alternative analysis in an EIR, a supplemental EIR, or an addendum for a development project, for which the University of California or the California State University, respectively, is the lead agency, if specified conditions are met, including that the University of California or the California State University, respectively, has provided the forecast of changes in enrollment levels for purposes of developing the most recent methodology pursuant to the above-described provisions. (4) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65584.01 of the Government Code proposed by SB 233, AB 650, and AB 1275 to be operative only if this bill and one, two, or all of the other bills are enacted and this bill is enacted last. This bill would also incorporate additional changes to Section 65584.04 of the Government Code proposed by AB 650 and AB 1275 to be operative only if this bill and one or both of the other bills are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (5) 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 a specified reason. 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.
The California Constitution authorizes a county or city to make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws. Existing law establishes procedures for the enactment of ordinances by counties and cities and makes a violation of a county or city ordinance, as applicable, a misdemeanor unless by ordinance it is made an infraction. This bill would prohibit a local jurisdiction from adopting a local ordinance, or enforcing an existing ordinance, that prohibits a person or organization from providing support services, as specified, to a person who is homeless or assisting a person who is homeless with any act related to basic survival. The bill would define various terms for these purposes. 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 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, for the 4th and subsequent revisions of the housing element, the Department of Housing and Community Development, in consultation with each council of governments, where applicable, to determine the existing and projected need for housing for each region, as prescribed. Existing law requires, among other things, the department to meet and consult with the council of governments regarding the assumptions and methodology to be used by the department to determine the region's housing needs at least 26 months prior to the scheduled revision of the housing element and before developing the existing and projected housing need for a region. This 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. 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.
Existing law relating to housing development approval requires a local agency to compile a list of information needed to approve or deny a postentitlement phase permit, to post an example of a complete, approved application and an example of a complete set of postentitlement phase permits for at least 5 types of housing development projects in the jurisdiction, as specified, and to make those items available to all applicants for these permits no later than January 1, 2024. Existing law establishes time limits for completing reviews regarding whether an application for a postentitlement phase permit is complete and compliant and consequences for a local agency that fails to meet that timeline, as provided. Existing law defines "postentitlement phase permit" to, among other things, include a range of permits issued by a local agency. This bill would require a state agency to comply with the above-described provisions relating to postentitlement phase permits applicable to a local agency. The bill would require a state agency to make the information list, as described above, and the above-described examples of a complete, approved application and a complete set of postentitlement phase permits available on the agency's internet website by January 1, 2026. The bill would deem a postentitlement phase permit approved, and all related reviews complete, if a state agency fails to meet the time limits for review of an application for that permit. The bill would revise the definition of "postentitlement phase permit" for purposes of these provisions to, among other things, include permits issued by a state agency and any postentitlement review by a state agency that is necessary to begin construction of a development that is intended to be at least 23 residential, excluding certain discretionary and ministerial permits and reviews and subject to specified exceptions, and would define the term "state agency" for these purposes. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law provides for the creation by local ordinance, or by ministerial approval if a local agency has not adopted an ordinance, of accessory dwelling units in areas zoned for single-family or multifamily dwelling residential use in accordance with specified standards and conditions. Existing law prohibits a local agency from issuing a certificate of occupancy for an accessory dwelling unit before the local agency issues a certificate of occupancy for the primary dwelling. This bill, notwithstanding that prohibition, would require a local agency to issue a certificate of occupancy for an accessory dwelling unit constructed in a county that is subject to a proclamation of a state of emergency made by the Governor on or after February 1, 2025, even if the primary dwelling has not yet been issued a certificate of occupancy, if certain requirements are met, including that the primary dwelling was substantially damaged or destroyed by an event referenced in the state of emergency proclamation. By imposing new duties on local agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires a permitting agency to either approve or deny an application to create or serve an accessory dwelling unit within 60 days from the date the permitting agency receives a completed application if there is an existing single-family or multifamily dwelling on the lot. Existing law deems the application approved if the local agency has not approved or denied the completed application within 60 days. Under existing law, if the permit application to create or serve an accessory dwelling unit is submitted with a permit application to create or serve a new single-family or multifamily dwelling on the lot, the permitting agency may delay approving or denying the permit application for the accessory dwelling unit until the permitting agency approves or denies the permit application to create or serve the new single-family or multifamily dwelling, as provided. The California Coastal Act of 1976, which is administered by the California Coastal Commission, requires any person wishing to perform or undertake any development in the coastal zone, as defined, to obtain a coastal development permit from a local government or the commission, except as provided. Existing law specifies that the laws governing accessory dwelling units do not supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the act, except as specified. This bill would create an exception to the above provision by requiring a local government or the commission, as specified, to either approve or deny a coastal development permit application for an accessory dwelling unit within 60 days of receiving a completed application. The bill would, notwithstanding that 60-day time limit, authorize the commission, if a coastal development permit application to create or serve an accessory dwelling unit is submitted with a coastal development permit application to create or serve a new single-family or multifamily dwelling on the lot, to delay approving or denying the coastal development permit application for the accessory dwelling unit until the commission approves or denies the coastal development permit application to create or serve the new single-family or multifamily dwelling. Under the bill, and except under the circumstance described above, if the commission has not approved or denied a completed application within 60 days, the application would be deemed approved. 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. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
