The Planning and Zoning Law provides for the creation of an accessory dwelling unit by local ordinance, or, if a local agency has not adopted an ordinance, by ministerial approval, in accordance with specified standards. The law requires a local agency to submit an accessory dwelling unit ordinance to the Department of Housing and Community Development within 60 days after adoption. The law authorizes the department to submit written findings to a local agency as to whether the ordinance complies with the standards. If the department finds that the ordinance does not comply with the standards, the law requires the department to provide a local agency reasonable time, no longer than 30 days, to respond to its findings. If the local agency does not amend its ordinance in response to those findings or does not adopt a resolution with findings explaining the reason the ordinance complies with the standards and addressing the department's findings, the law requires the department to notify the local agency and authorizes the department to notify the Attorney General that the local agency is in violation of state law. This bill would invalidate the ordinance if the local agency fails to submit a copy of the ordinance to the department within 60 days of adoption or fails to respond to the department's findings that the ordinance does not comply with the standards within 30 days, as described above.
(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.
Existing law establishes various advisory boards and commissions in state government with specified duties and responsibilities. This bill would create the California Latino Commission to address the inequities faced by the Latino community in housing, education, economic mobility, labor, and health care. The commission would consist of 9 members who have demonstrated expertise in specified areas, including housing policy and advocacy and economic development. The bill would task the commission with, among other things, collecting and analyzing data, developing recommendations, and monitoring the implementation of state programs and policies affecting the Latino community, as specified. The bill would require the commission to work with other state agencies and to submit an annual report to the Governor and the Legislature. The bill would establish that the commission and its activities would be supported by appropriations by the Legislature from the General Fund and grants from federal and private sources. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2036.
(1) 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. Existing law exempts from CEQA a rezoning that implements the schedule of actions contained in an approved housing element, as specified. This bill would subject a rezoning that would allow for the construction of a bed and breakfast inn, motel, hotel, or other transient lodging to CEQA review even if the rezoning implements a schedule of actions contained in an approved housing element. The bill would specify that other transient lodging does not include a residential hotel, as defined, or a resident's use or marketing of a unit as short-term lodging, as defined, in a manner that is consistent with local law. (2) Existing law, for the approval of a proposed housing development project, as defined, that would otherwise be exempt from CEQA pursuant to a statutory exemption, or specified categorical exemptions adopted before January 1, 2026, but for a single disqualifying condition, as specified, limits the application of CEQA to the effects upon the environment that are caused solely by that single condition. For these projects, existing law requires the initial study or EIR to examine only those effects that the lead agency determines, based upon substantial evidence in the record, are caused solely by the single condition that makes the proposed project ineligible for a statutory or categorical exemption. This bill would exempt from that limited application of CEQA a housing development project that has a project site or parcel size that exceeds 4 acres, if the project is a builder's remedy project, as defined, and the project applicant applied, as specified. This bill would subject a project that includes a bed and breakfast inn, hotel, motel, or other transient lodging, as specified, to full CEQA review even if it would be eligible for the limited application of CEQA described above because of a single disqualifying condition. The bill would specify that other transient lodging does not include a residential hotel, as defined, or a resident's use or marketing of a unit as short-term lodging, as defined, in a manner that is consistent with local law. To the extent that this bill would impose new responsibilities on a lead agency, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) Existing law exempts from CEQA, except when located on natural and protected lands, a project that consists exclusively of a facility for advanced manufacturing, as specified. Existing law, the Administrative Procedure Act, sets forth the requirements for the adoption, publication, review, and implementation of regulations by state agencies. This bill would repeal the CEQA exemption for a project that consists exclusively of a facility for advanced manufacturing. The bill would instead exempt from CEQA a project that consists exclusively of a facility for manufacturing, producing, or assembling certain products, components, or systems, as provided, if, among other things, the project is not located within 300 feet of a sensitive receptor, as defined, and the project applicant demonstrates high road employment standards, as defined, and certifies to the lead agency that it will maintain those standards in the development, construction, and operation of the facility. Because a lead agency would be required to determine whether a project meets the high road employment standards, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission to develop and make available to lead agencies guidelines for evaluating whether a project applicant demonstrates high road employment standards. The bill would exempt the development of these guidelines from the Administrative Procedure Act. (4) This bill would appropriate $10,000 from the General Fund to the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation for implementation of this act. (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 a specified reason. (6) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a bill providing for appropriations related to the Budget Bill.
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.
Existing law establishes the Multifamily Housing Program administered by the Department of Housing and Community Development. Existing law requires that specified funds appropriated to provide housing for individuals and families who are experiencing homelessness or who are at risk of homelessness and who are inherently impacted by or at increased risk for medical diseases or conditions due to the COVID-19 pandemic or other communicable diseases be disbursed in accordance with the Multifamily Housing Program for specified uses. This disbursement program is referred to as Homekey. This bill would require the Legislative Analyst's Office to conduct an evaluation of the Homekey disbursement program described above to review the effectiveness of the program in relation to sustaining people experiencing homelessness, including, among other things, the number of housing units and projects funded since the program's inception, and the timeliness of the allocation of program funds provided to localities participating in the program, including, among other things, the average time between application submission and fund disbursement. The bill would require the office, on or before July 1, 2027, to submit a report to the Legislature, subject to specified requirements, with the results of the above-described evaluation described that includes policy recommendations to address any issues identified during the evaluation. The bill would repeal its provisions on January 1, 2031, pursuant to specified provisions.
Existing law, the Mitigation Fee Act, imposes certain requirements on a local agency that imposes a fee as a condition of approval of a development project that is imposed to provide for an improvement to be constructed to serve the development project, or a fee for public improvements, as specified. The act also regulates fees for development projects and fees for specific purposes, including water and sewer connection fees, among others. The act, among other things, requires local agencies to comply with various conditions when imposing fees, extractions, or charges as a condition of approval of a proposed development or development project. The act prohibits a local agency that imposes fees or charges on a residential development for the construction of public improvements or facilities from requiring the payment of those fees or charges until the date of the final inspection or the date the certificate of occupancy is issued, whichever occurs first, except for utility service fees, as provided. This bill would require a local agency to provide a qualified residential rental project, as defined, with the option of either or both (1) development impact fees set at a rate of $0 or (2) a development impact fee deferral agreement loan, subject to certain requirements. The bill would also require a local agency to provide a qualified residential ownership project, as defined, with the option of either or both (1) development impact fees set at a rate of $0 or (2) a development impact fee deferral agreement loan for each income-qualified homebuyer, subject to certain requirements. The bill would define "development impact fee" for these purposes to mean a fee collected by a local agency to fund the construction of public improvements or facilities, with certain exceptions.
Existing law, referred to as the Density Bonus Law, requires a city or county to provide a developer that proposes a housing development 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, specified percentages of units for lower income households or very low income households, and meets other requirements. Under existing law, the number of incentives or concessions granted to a development under the Density Bonus Law vary based on the percentage of affordable units within the development, or whether the development serves specified other target populations, as provided. Existing law establishes the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency and requires it to administer various programs intended to promote the development of housing. Existing law establishes the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (the commission) , consisting of 5 members, and establishes various duties and responsibilities of the commission relating to energy usage in the state. This bill would require a city or county to grant additional incentives or concessions when an applicant proposes to construct a green housing development, as defined. The bill would require that the number of incentives or concessions granted initially be set to 3 and would require HCD, as specified, to evaluate and report on the number and type of units and developments entitled, permitted, and constructed pursuant to these provisions. The bill would require HCD, in this report, to maintain or alter the number of incentives or concessions granted under these provisions, as prescribed. The bill would require a city or county to report, as specified, at least annually to HCD on the quantity of green housing developments where the applicant has requested additional incentives or concessions under these provisions. The bill would also prohibit a city or county from requiring that a green housing development include car parking. By expanding a city or county's duties to administer incentives or concessions, 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, the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, governs the management and operation of common interest developments by an association. Existing law requires the board of an association to provide general notice of a proposed rule change at least 28 days before making the rule change, in accordance with certain procedures. Existing law, however, permits the board to make an emergency rule change if it determines that the change is required to address an imminent threat to public health or safety, or an imminent risk of substantial economic loss to the association, as prescribed. This bill would make nonsubstantive changes to that provision. Existing law, the Common Interest Development Open Meeting Act, prohibits the board of a common interest development from taking action on any item of business outside of a board meeting. Existing law also prohibits the board from conducting a meeting via a series of electronic transmissions, except in specified emergency circumstances. This bill would prohibit a majority of the directors of the board, outside an authorized meeting, from using a series of communications of any kind, directly or through intermediaries, to discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item of business within the board's subject matter jurisdiction, except in an emergency. The bill would also exempt from this prohibition certain informational and ministerial communications. Existing law authorizes the board to adjourn to, or meet solely in, executive session to consider litigation and other specified matters. Existing law requires any matter discussed in executive session to be generally noted in the minutes of the immediately following meeting that is open to the entire membership. This bill would require discussions regarding ongoing litigation to have the case name, case number, and name of the court included as part of the executive session meeting minutes. This bill would require, if open session meetings of the board are electronically recorded using audio, or audio and video, that the recordings be considered a record of the association and be made available to members on the same basis as written meeting minutes. The bill would exempt a recording used solely for the purpose of creating meeting minutes and would authorize that the recording be deleted 12 months after the meeting minutes are completed. The bill, for meetings that are being recorded, would require notice to be given at the beginning of every open session of the board that the meeting is being recorded. Existing law requires the minutes, minutes proposed for adoption that are marked to indicate draft status, or a summary of the minutes of a board meeting, other than an executive session, to be available to members within 30 days of the meeting and distributed to a member upon request and upon reimbursement of the association's cost for making that distribution. This bill would prohibit the imposition of a charge for minutes that are distributed electronically. The bill would allow minutes posted on the association website to meet minute distribution requirements. The bill would require the minutes, or proposed minutes, to include specified information, including the date and time of the meeting. The bill would require an association to make the minutes available to a member who requests a physical copy of the minutes. Existing law requires an association to distribute an annual budget report 30 to 90 days before the end of its fiscal year that contains specified information. This bill would require the annual budget report to also include a statement listing any active litigation in which the association is named as a party, as specified.
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. 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. Existing law requires rezoning, as specified, when an inventory of sites does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for groups of specified household income levels. If the local government fails to adopt a housing element that the Department of Housing and Community Development has found to be in substantial compliance with specified law within 120 days of the statutory deadline for adoption of the housing element, existing law requires the local government to complete this rezoning no later than one year from the statutory deadline for adoption of the housing element. This bill would extend the above-described one-year deadline to one year and 6 months.
