(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 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 authorizes a development proponent to submit an application for an eligible agricultural employee housing development that is subject to a streamlined, ministerial approval process, as specified, and is not subject to a conditional use permit if certain requirements are met, including that the development is located on specified land in the County of Santa Clara or the County of Santa Cruz and is within 15 miles of an area designated as farmland or grazing by the Department of Conservation and is not a site or adjoined to a site where more than 13 of the square footage on the site is dedicated to industrial use, as specified. The act defines an eligible agricultural housing development as an agricultural employee housing development that meets certain requirements, including that the development does not contain more than 36 units or spaces, or 150 units or spaces for developments located in the County of Santa Clara or the County of Santa Cruz, designed for use by a single family or household. This bill would expand eligibility for the approval process under these provisions to include a development located in the Counties of Fresno, Madera, or Merced that meets the above-described requirements that it be located within 15 miles of an area designated as farmland or grazing and not on a site or adjoined to a site where more than 13 of the square footage on the site is dedicated to industrial use, as specified. The bill would also increase the maximum number of units in an eligible agricultural employee housing development from 36 units to 150 units if the development is located in the Counties of Fresno, Madera, or Merced. By expanding the scope of developments eligible for approval, thereby increasing the duties of local officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Counties of Fresno, Madera, and Merced. 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.
The Planning and Zoning Law, among other things, provides for the creation of junior accessory dwelling units by local ordinance, or, if a local agency has not adopted an ordinance, by ministerial approval, in accordance with specified standards and conditions. Existing law requires an ordinance that provides for the creation of a junior accessory dwelling unit to, among other things, require owner-occupancy in the single-family residence in which the junior accessory dwelling unit is permitted. Under this bill, that owner-occupancy requirement would apply only if the junior accessory dwelling unit has shared sanitation facilities with the existing structure. The bill would require an ordinance that provides for the creation of a junior accessory dwelling unit to require that a rental of a junior accessory dwelling unit be for a term longer than 30 days. By imposing new duties on local governments with respect to the approval of junior accessory dwelling units, 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, the Planning and Zoning Law, requires each city, county, or city and county to prepare and adopt a general plan for its jurisdiction that contains certain mandatory elements, including a housing element. Under existing law, a part of the housing element is an assessment of housing needs, which includes the locality's share of the regional housing need. Under existing law, the appropriate council of governments, or for cities and counties without a council of governments, the Department of Housing and Community Development, adopts a final regional housing need plan that allocates a share of the regional housing need to each locality in the region. Existing law authorizes a local government to conduct a review or appeal regarding allocation data provided by the department or the council of governments regarding, among other things, the locality's share of the regional housing need. This bill would authorize a local government within the same county as a tribe to enter into a voluntary agreement with a tribe to allow new tribal housing development projects to count toward the locality's share of the regional housing needs allocation, as specified. The bill would prohibit a local government from requiring a tribe to waive sovereign immunity in order to enter into a voluntary agreement pursuant to these provisions. The bill would define various terms for these provisions. The bill would state the intent of the Legislature that the Department of Housing and Community Development be encouraged to approve units in a tribal housing development as counting toward the locality's regional housing needs allocation, as specified. 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.
Existing law establishes a low-income housing tax credit program pursuant to which the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) provides procedures and requirements for the allocation, in modified conformity with federal law, of state insurance, personal income, and corporation tax credit amounts to qualified low-income housing projects that have been allocated, or qualify for, a federal low-income housing tax credit, and farmworker housing. Existing law limits the total annual amount of the state low-income housing credit for which a federal low-income housing credit is required, as specified. That law authorizes a taxpayer to make an election in its application to the CTCAC to sell all or any portion of any credit allowed. This bill would instead authorize a taxpayer to make that election in the manner prescribed by the CTCAC, as provided.
