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.
Existing law, subject to an appropriation in the annual Budget Act, requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to provide, under the Transitional Housing Program, funding to counties for allocation to child welfare services agencies to help young adults who are 18 to 24 years of age, inclusive, secure and maintain housing, with priority given to young adults formerly in the state's foster care or probation systems. Existing law, subject to an appropriation in the annual Budget Act, also requires the department to allocate funding to counties under the Housing Navigation and Maintenance Program to help young adults who are 18 to 24 years of age, inclusive, secure and maintain housing, with priority given to young adults currently or formerly in the foster care system. This bill would extend the age of eligibility for the Housing Navigation and Maintenance Program to young adults who are 18 to 28 years of age, inclusive, and would, instead, give priority to nonminor dependents and young adults formerly in the state's foster care or probation system, as defined. The bill would specify the eligible uses of the funding allocated to a county child welfare agency under the Housing Navigation and Maintenance Program. Existing law requires a child welfare agency that accepts any distribution of money under either program to report certain data to the department on an annual basis, including specified information relating to the number of homeless youth served and the number of former or current foster youth served, as defined. This bill would revise those reporting requirements to instead require information about the number of young adults served, including the number of young adults formerly in the state's foster care or probation system, as defined, and would require additional information to be reported under the Housing Navigation and Maintenance Program related to housing vouchers, as specified.
Existing law, the Joint Exercise of Powers Act, authorizes 2 or more public agencies, as defined, to jointly exercise any power common to the contracting parties, as provided. Among other things, that act also authorizes a mutual water company to enter into a joint powers agreement with any public agency for the purposes of risk pooling, as specified. Existing law, the Government Claims Act, among other things, authorizes public entities, mutual water companies, public agencies, water corporations, and mutual water companies to provide insurance under that act by a joint powers agreement, as specified. This bill would additionally authorize a nonprofit housing developer to enter into a joint powers agreement with any public agency for the purpose of risk pooling, and would expand the list of entities authorized to provide insurance by a joint powers agreement to include nonprofit housing developers. The bill would require that, if a nonprofit housing developer enters into a joint powers agreement with one or more public agencies, that the agreement ensure that no participating public agency becomes responsible for the underlying debts or liabilities of the joint powers agreement and that any participating public agency be indemnified against those debts and liabilities. The bill would require a joint powers agreement established pursuant to this authorization to solely utilize any revenues it generates to provide technical support, continuing education, safety engineering, and operational and managerial advisory assistance to its members for the purpose of reducing risk liabilities and furthering the technical managerial and financial capacity of those members. Existing law also authorizes 2 or more local public entities having the same governing board, a mutual water company and a public agency, or a water corporation, a mutual water company, and one or more public agencies, as specified, to be coinsured under a master policy and the total premium prorated among them. This bill would recast the provisions described above, provide that the affected entities are those authorized pursuant to specified provisions, and include among those entities nonprofit housing developers.
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.
The Bergeson-Peace Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank Act creates within the Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (bank) and requires it to administer the act, which, among other things, provides for the financing of certain economic development projects. This bill would establish, upon appropriation by the Legislature, the Multifamily Backstop Financing Program (program) , for purposes of supporting multifamily projects through the provision of state-backed credit backstops that would enable surety companies to issue payment and performance bonds to qualified offsite housing factories in the state. The bill would authorize the bank to provide credit backstops to surety companies and surety insurers that issue construction bonds according to specified parameters. The bill would require the bank to adopt rules and regulations necessary to implement the program.
(1) Existing law, the California Factory-Built Housing Law, generally regulates the design, manufacture, and installation of factory-built housing and defines terms for its purposes. The law authorizes the Department of Housing and Community Development, among other things, to regulate quality assurance agencies to perform inspections of factory-built housing manufacturers. The law requires a local enforcement agency, among other things, to enforce and inspect the installation of factory-built housing. The law provides that any person who violates any of its provisions and other specified law is guilty of a misdemeanor, as specified. This bill would revise these provisions, among other things, to authorize a quality assurance agency to also perform an installation inspection of factory-built housing, at the choice of a first user, after the department adopts regulations regarding the requirements for a quality assurance agency to perform these inspections. The bill would require the department to adopt those regulations by January 1, 2029. The bill would set the maximum fees that a local enforcement agency is authorized to impose for the inspection or permitting of factory-built housing, and prohibit a local enforcement agency from imposing fees under certain circumstances. The bill would prohibit a quality assurance agency or a local enforcement agency from disassembling, damaging, or destroying factory-built housing while inspecting the installation. The bill would make conforming changes and define terms for its purposes. By increasing the duties of local officials, and by expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) 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. (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 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 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 (EIR) 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. The Permit Streamlining Act sets forth various procedures for the review and approval of development project applications. Among other things, the act requires a public agency that is the lead agency or a responsible agency for a development project to approve or disapprove the project within a specified period of time, which varies depending on the project's phase in the CEQA process. The act defines "development project" to include specified housing development projects, as provided. This bill would additionally require approval or disapproval of a housing development project within 30 days from the date of certification by the lead agency of the EIR, if the EIR is prepared pursuant to specified provisions of CEQA if certain other conditions are met. The bill would also define "housing development project" for the purposes of the Permit Streamlining Act and make additional conforming changes. By imposing additional duties on local agencies, 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 establishes the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) in order to meet the public transit problems of the County of Santa Clara. Existing law authorizes the VTA to purchase or otherwise acquire property for transit-oriented joint development projects, as provided. This bill would authorize the VTA to similarly purchase or acquire property for an employee housing project, as defined, for VTA employees and members of the public, as specified. The bill would authorize the VTA to construct affordable rental housing for employees and affordable for-sale housing that promotes housing opportunities for VTA employees, as specified. The bill would require the VTA to submit an annual report to the Legislature on the use of the bill's provisions to develop housing, as specified. By requiring the VTA to submit a new report, 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law, the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, governs the formation and operation of common interest developments. Existing law requires that a common interest development be managed by an association. Existing law requires the board of an association, if the association adopts or has adopted a policy imposing any monetary penalty on any association member for a violation of the governing documents, to adopt and distribute to each member a schedule of the monetary penalties that may be assessed for those violations, as provided. Existing law prohibits a monetary penalty for a violation of the governing documents from exceeding the lesser of the amount stated in the schedule that is in effect at the time of the violation or $100 per violation, except if the violation might result in an adverse health or safety impact on the common area or another association member's property, as specified. This bill would also except if the violation is contained in a specified list developed and published by the Department of Real Estate. In this regard, the bill would require the department, on or before January 1, 2028, to develop and publish a list of specified violations for which an association may impose a monetary penalty that is greater than $100, as specified. The bill would require the list to be limited to violations that are clearly defined and address significant risks to health, safety, or the integrity of the common interest development. The bill would require the department, in developing the list, to identify categories of violations that pose heightened risks to health, safety, or the integrity of the common interest development, including violations that create a risk of fire or other life safety hazards, as specified, and before finalizing the list, to conduct a stakeholder engagement process to solicit input from a broad range of interested parties, as specified. The bill would require the department to release a draft list of violations for public comment and to consider comments before finalizing the list of violations, as prescribed. The bill would require the department to publish the final list of violations on the department's internet website. Existing law requires the board to notify a member in writing at least 10 days before a meeting to consider or impose discipline or a monetary charge on a member, as specified. Existing law requires the board to give a member the opportunity to cure a violation prior to the meeting, and prohibits the board from imposing discipline if the member cures the violation prior to the meeting or, if curing the violation would take longer than the time between the notice provided and the meeting, the member provides financial commitment to cure the violation. This bill would specify that a member engaged in habitual, repeated, or continuing violations is not deemed to have cured a violation simply because the violation is not occurring at the time of the hearing.
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 prohibit land improved with an operating hotel or motel from being valued, for purposes of establishing, adjusting, or resetting ground rent under an existing lease, based on density bonuses, concessions or incentives, or waivers, as specified, unless those density increases are entitled and vested as of the valuation date, as provided. The bill would also prohibit its provisions from being construed to alter the requirements for obtaining a density bonus, as specified.
