(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. For the 4th and subsequent revisions of the housing element, existing law requires the Department of Housing and Community Development, in consultation with each council of governments, to determine each region's existing and projected need for housing, and requires the appropriate council of governments, or the department for cities and counties without a council of governments, to adopt a final regional housing plan that allocates a share of the regional housing need to each city, county, or city and county, as provided. 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, except with respect to the 7th housing element cycle for councils of governments with a housing element revision due date during the calendar year 2027, 2028, or 2029, 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. (2) 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 112 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 calendar year 2027, 2028, or 2029, would instead require that the above-described methodology be developed at least 212 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. (3) Existing law requires each city, county, and city and county to, among other things, revise its housing element according to a specified schedule. Existing law generally requires local governments within the jurisdiction of certain metropolitan planning organizations or regional transportation planning agencies to update their housing elements 18 months after adoption of every 2nd regional transportation plan update, but not later than 8 years later than the deadline for adoption of the previous 8-year housing element, as specified. For subsequent revisions of the housing element after the 5th revision, existing law requires certain local governments to revise their housing elements at 5-year intervals, as specified. For the 7th revision and subsequent revisions of the housing element, existing law makes subsequent revisions due 24 months after the adoption of the 2nd regional transportation plan update for local governments within the jurisdiction of the Southern California Association of Governments, except as provided. This bill would instead generally require local governments within the above-described metropolitan planning organizations or regional transportation planning agencies to update their housing elements 18 months after the estimated adoption date of every 2nd regional transportation plan update, as specified. The bill would require the 8th revision of the housing elements for the certain local governments previously at 5-year intervals for the 7th revision, to be due by June 30, 2032. The bill would also require, for the 9th and subsequent revisions of the housing elements for those local governments, to be due 18 months after adoption of every 2nd regional transportation plan update, as provided. For the 8th and subsequent revisions, the bill would require a local government within the Southern California Association of Governments to adopt the revised housing no later than 8 years later than the deadline for adoption of the previous 8-year housing element. The housing element law requires a metropolitan planning organization or regional transportation planning agency that has an 8-year revision interval described above to notify the Department of Housing and Community Development and the Department of Transportation in writing of the estimated adoption date for its next regional transportation plan update at least 12 months before the estimated adoption date. This bill would instead require the above-described notification 24 months before the estimated adoption date. (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 requiring local officials to provide a higher level of service, 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law authorizes a borrower who is experiencing financial hardship that prevents the borrower from making timely payments on a specified residential mortgage loan due directly to a specified state of emergency proclaimed by the Governor, or a specified federally declared disaster, to request forbearance on their residential mortgage loan, as prescribed. Existing law requires a mortgage servicer, except as specified, to offer mortgage payment forbearance for an initial 90-day period that may be extended up to a maximum forbearance period of 12 months and prohibits a mortgage servicer from assessing any late fees to the borrower's account or charging a default rate of interest during the forbearance period. This bill would, among other things, similarly authorize a borrower to request forbearance on a residential mortgage loan, as defined, secured by residential real property that has become uninhabitable as a direct result of a disaster, which the bill would define to mean the conditions described in a declaration of a disaster issued by the federal government. The bill would require the borrower to affirm that as a direct result of a disaster, a residential unit is uninhabitable. Because the bill would expand the crime of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would, except as specified, require a mortgage servicer to offer mortgage payment forbearance of a period of up to an initial 180 days, to be extended at the request of the borrower in 90-day increments, up to a maximum forbearance period of 12 months. The bill would provide that the forbearance period includes any period of forbearance related to the disaster that a mortgage servicer has provided to a borrower before the date upon which a declaration of a disaster was issued. The bill would also prohibit a mortgage servicer from assessing any late fees to the borrower's account or charging a default rate of interest during the forbearance period. This bill would require a mortgage servicer to report the credit obligations of borrowers under a disaster-related forbearance plan in compliance with the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act. For an account granted disaster-related mortgage payment relief, the bill would prohibit a mortgage servicer from furnishing information during the forbearance period indicating that the payments are in forbearance and would require the mortgage servicer to report the credit obligation or account as current. This bill would authorize a civil action to enforce these provisions to be brought by the Attorney General, a district attorney, or a county counsel. 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, contains various provisions requiring a local government that receives an application for certain types of qualified housing developments to review the application under a streamlined, ministerial approval process, depending on the type of housing development, as specified. Existing law, the Subdivision Map Act, vests the authority to regulate and control the design and improvement of subdivisions in the legislative body of a local agency and sets forth procedures governing the local agency's processing, approval, conditional approval or disapproval, and filing of tentative, final, and parcel maps, and the modification thereof. The act generally requires a subdivider to file a tentative map or vesting tentative map with the local agency, as specified, and the local agency, in turn, to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the map within a specified time period. Existing law, known as the Starter Home Revitalization Act of 2021, among other things, requires a local agency to ministerially consider, without discretionary review or a hearing, a parcel map or a tentative and final map for a housing development project that meets certain requirements, including that the housing development project on the lot proposed to be subdivided will contain 10 or fewer residential units, except as provided. 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. 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. CEQA does not apply to the approval of ministerial projects. This bill, the Missing Middle Townhome Ownership Act, would authorize a development proponent to submit an application for a townhome development project that is subject to a prescribed ministerial approval process if the development complies with certain procedural requirements and satisfies specified objective planning standards. The bill would also require a local agency to ministerially consider, without discretionary review or a hearing, a tentative and final map for a townhome development project that meets specified requirements, including that the proposed subdivision complies with the requirements established by the bill for ministerial approval of a townhome development project, as described in the preceding sentence, and that the newly created parcels are no smaller than 600 square feet. The act would define "townhome" for these purposes to mean a single-family dwelling unit that is less than or equal to 3 stories of occupiable square footage and either shares a common wall, as specified, or is separated from one or more neighboring units by no more than a specified fire separation distance, and would define "townhome development project" to mean a housing development project that consists entirely of residential units that satisfy this definition of townhome and meets prescribed density requirements, size requirements, and unit limits. The bill would authorize a local agency to disapprove a townhome development project, or deny the issuance of a tentative map or a final map for a townhome development project, allowed under the bill's provisions if it makes written findings based upon a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed townhome development project would have a specific, adverse impact, as provided in specified law, upon public health and safety and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. The bill would authorize a local agency to adopt an ordinance to implement its provisions and would provide that the adoption of such an ordinance is not a project under CEQA. By establishing new ministerial approval processes relating to townhome development projects, as described above, this bill would expand the scope of the exemption from CEQA for ministerial projects. Further, by adding to the duties of local officials with respect to the review and approval of townhome development projects, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would exempt the City and County of San Francisco from its provisions. The bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City and County of San Francisco. 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, except as provided. 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 places various limits and prohibitions on the governing documents, as defined, relative to an owner's separate interest within those developments. This bill would declare void and unenforceable any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of any interest in a common interest development, or provision of a governing document that effectively prohibits or restricts the owner of a separate interest from completing a residential window replacement project or impose any requirements on California Energy Code-compliant windows, as specified. The bill's provisions would not apply to certain provisions that impose reasonable installation restrictions on a residential window replacement project that do not significantly increase the cost of a residential window replacement project or significantly decrease the energy efficiency of a residential window replacement project, except as specified. This bill would prohibit an association from subjecting a residential window replacement project to design review or any other form of approval if the association's governing documents do not place reasonable restrictions on a residential window replacement project. This bill, for specified residential window replacement projects that propose the replacement of windows, would require an association to impose certain conditions on the project, including a requirement that the owner obtain approval from the association. The bill would require an association to approve a project if the owner agrees to certain requirements in writing, including that the owner comply with the association's governing documents, engage a licensed contractor for the installation, obtain any required local or state permits required for the project, and pay for the costs associated with the installation. (2) The Planning and Zoning Law authorizes the legislative body of any county or city to adopt ordinances that regulate the use of buildings, structures, and land as between industry, business, residences, open space, and other purposes. This bill would require a city, county, or city and county to administratively approve an application for a residential window replacement project. The bill would prohibit a city, county, or city and county from requiring discretionary review or a hearing for a residential window replacement project. The bill would also prohibit a city, county, or city and county from denying an application for a residential window replacement project and a local government that is both a city and county from imposing any conditions on certain windows proposed in a housing development project, except as specified. The bill would limit the application of these provisions under certain circumstances, including if a residential building is individually designated on the California Register of Historical Resources prior to the date the application for a residential window replacement project is submitted. By adding to the duties of local governments, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) The bill would make its provisions severable. (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) This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City and County of San Francisco. (6) 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.
The Housing Authorities Law establishes a housing authority within each county and city and authorizes the authority to, among other things, prepare, carry out, acquire, lease, and operate housing projects and housing developments for persons of low income, as provided. This bill would, unless required by federal law, and except as specified, prohibit a housing authority or other covered housing provider, as defined, from establishing or implementing any rules, policies, or procedures that impose term limits or work requirements, as defined, as a condition of eligibility for any covered housing or that impact the amount of the rent subsidy or assistance provided to covered housing tenants. The bill would, however, permit a covered housing provider to establish or implement a voluntary employment or job training program if specified conditions apply. The bill would provide that its provisions do not limit or alter the operation of specified federal housing programs and requirements.
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 and other incentives or concessions, as specified, if the developer agrees to construct, among other options, 20% of the total units, as defined, for lower income students in a student housing development that meets certain requirements. These requirements include, among other things, that all units in the student housing development be used exclusively for undergraduate, graduate, or professional students enrolled full time at an institution of higher learning, and the rent provided in the applicable units of the development for lower income students is calculated at 30% of 65% of the area median income for a single-room occupancy unit type. This bill, for the purposes of a student housing development being eligible for a density bonus and other incentives or concessions, would revise and recast the rent requirements for the applicable units of the development for lower income students. The bill would also require a city or county to provide an additional density bonus, as specified, for a student housing development that meets the requirements for being eligible for the above-described density bonus and meets other specified criteria, including that the development provides 24% of the total units to lower income students, and the applicant agrees to include additional rental units affordable to moderate-income students, as defined, provided that the resulting student housing development would not restrict more than 50% of the total units, as defined, to moderate-income or lower income students. By imposing new duties on local governments, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65915 of the Government Code proposed by AB 2433, SB 1383, or both, to be operative only if this bill and AB 2433, SB 1383, or both are enacted and this bill is enacted last. 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 provides that a trustee's sale of property under a power of sale contained in a deed of trust or mortgage on real property containing one to 4 residential units is not final until the earliest of various time periods. Existing law provides specified eligible bidders, defined to include eligible tenant buyers, prospective owner-occupants, and eligible nonprofit corporations with certain attributes, various rights in connection with those sales, and sets forth procedures for eligible bidders to submit bids after those sales. Existing law authorizes the Attorney General, a county counsel, a city attorney, or a district attorney to bring an action to enforce these provisions as specified. This bill would instead provide that a trustee's sale of eligible property, as defined, is not final until the earliest of various time periods. The bill would change the term "eligible tenant buyer" to "eligible tenant bidder," and would redefine the term "eligible bidder" to remove prospective owner-occupants and to mean an eligible tenant bidder or an eligible community bidder, as defined. The bill would add an additional attribute to the eligible nonprofit corporations portion of "eligible community bidder." The bill would authorize the persons described above to seek a civil penalty to enforce these provisions, as specified. The bill would make conforming changes.
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. 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. CEQA, until January 1, 2033, exempts from its requirements certain actions for affordable housing projects that meet specified requirements, including confirmation by a public agency that, among other things, the project site satisfies specified requirements and a vacant project site does not contain tribal cultural resources that could be affected by the development that were found pursuant to a consultation and the effects of which cannot be mitigated, as provided. This bill would extend the operation of the above-described exemption to January 1, 2037, and would expand the exemption to also include a public university or public college housing project, as defined, that meets specified requirements. Because the bill would extend the operation of the exemption and would increase duties on a lead agency related to the expansion of this exemption, 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
(1) The Planning and Zoning Law requires a local agency or state agency to compile one or more lists that specify in detail the information required from any applicant for a postentitlement phase permit, as defined. Existing law also establishes time limits for completing reviews regarding whether an application for a postentitlement phase permit is complete and compliant, and whether to approve or deny an application. Existing law requires the time limits to be tolled, if the local agency or state agency requires review of the application by an outside entity, until the outside entity completes the review and returns the application, as specified. This bill would prohibit a local agency or state agency from requiring or requesting more than 2 plan check and specification reviews in connection with an application for a building permit, as part of its review. The bill would authorize a local agency or state agency to deny an application that is not compliant with the permit standards following 2 plan check and specification reviews. The bill would also authorize an applicant to request additional submittals of applications that are not compliant with the permit standards. The bill, if a local agency or state agency finds that a complete application is noncompliant, would prohibit a local agency or state agency from requesting or requiring any action or inaction as a result of a building inspection undertaken to assess compliance with the applicable building permit standards that would represent a deviation from a previously approved building plan or similar approval for the building permit, except as specified. This bill would remove the above-described tolling requirements relating to outside entity reviews and, instead, would require, if federal or state law requires review of the application by another public agency that is independent of the local agency or state agency before the local agency or state agency is authorized to act on the application, the time limits to be tolled for the application until the public agency completes the review and returns the application to the local agency or state agency. The bill would require the local agency or state agency to notify the applicant of the tolling, as specified. (2) Existing law, if a postentitlement phase permit is determined to be incomplete or noncompliant, requires a local agency or state agency to provide a process for an applicant to appeal that decision in writing to the governing body of the agency or, if there is no governing body, to the director of the agency, as provided by that agency. Existing law requires the city or county to provide that the right of appeal is to the governing body or, at their option, the planning commission, or both. Existing law requires a local agency or state agency to provide a final written determination on the appeal not later than 60 business days after receipt of the applicant's written appeal, for housing development projects with 25 units or fewer, and not later than 90 business days for a housing development projects with 26 units or more. Existing law also specifies that the fact that an appeal is permitted to both the planning commission and to the governing body does not extend the specified time period. This bill would revise those timelines to not later than 30 business days for housing development projects with 25 units or fewer and 45 business days for housing development projects with 26 units or more. The bill would remove the specification that the fact that an appeal is permitted to both the planning commission and to the governing body does not extend the specified time period. The bill would remove the requirement that, if a postentitlement phase permit is determined to be incomplete or noncompliant, a local agency or state agency provide a process for an applicant to appeal that decision to the director of the agency if there is no governing body, as provided by that agency. The bill would remove the requirement that a city or county provide that the right of appeal is to the governing body or, at their option, the planning commission, or both. This bill would authorize the applicant to seek a writ of mandate to compel approval of the application, if the applicant's appeal is denied, or a decision on the appeal is not made within the timelines provided, or an appeals process is not provided as required. By imposing additional duties on local agencies regarding postentitlement phase permits, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) Existing law, the Housing Accountability Act, among other things, prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning approval in a manner that renders infeasible, 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. The act also requires, when a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, that the local agency base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that 2 specified conditions exist. Existing law defines the term "disapprove the housing development project" for these purposes to include any instance in which a local agency takes certain actions or fails to comply with certain requirements, including the time limits described above. Existing law makes a local agency's failure to meet the above-described time limits relating to postentitlement phase permits a violation of the Housing Accountability Act. This bill would, instead, make a violation of the above-described provisions relating to postentitlement phase permits, among others, a violation of the Housing Accountability Act. The bill would also revise the definition of "disapprove the housing development project" under the Housing Accountability Act to include any instance in which a local agency fails to comply with any of the provisions described above relating to postentitlement phase permits. By requiring local agencies to take certain actions, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (4) The bill would make other conforming changes and would provide that certain changes are declaratory of existing law. (5) 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. (6) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65589.5 of the Government Code proposed by SB 1072 to be operative only if this bill and SB 1072 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (7) 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 prohibits mobilehome park management from terminating a tenancy except for specified reasons, including, among other reasons, failure of the homeowner or resident to comply with a reasonable rule or regulation of the park that is part of the rental agreement. Existing law provides that an act or omission of a homeowner or resident does not constitute a failure to comply with a reasonable rule or regulation until management has given the homeowner written notice of the alleged rule or regulation violation and the homeowner or resident has failed to adhere to the rule or regulation within seven days. Existing law further provides these provisions do not relieve management from its obligations to demonstrate that a rule or regulation has in fact been violated. This bill would, instead, require that the management serve the homeowner with the written notice, as prescribed, and would require the notice to include the language of each rule or regulation for which the homeowner is alleged to be in violation, along with specific facts, as provided, and any action required to adhere to the rule or regulation. The bill would, instead, provide that these provisions do not relieve the management from its burden of demonstrating that a rule or regulation has in fact been in fact violated.
