This measure would proclaim May 2021 as Sea Level Rise Awareness Month in California in order to recognize the devastating effects of climate change and encourage local governments to take action.
This measure would declare the month of September 2021 as California Emergency Preparedness Month.
This measure would designate November 2021 as Runaway and Homeless Youth Prevention Month and recognize the need for individuals, schools, communities, businesses, local governments, and the state to take action on behalf of runaway and homeless youth in California.
This measure would recognize August 15, 2021, as India's Independence Day, and urge all Californians to join in celebrating India's independence.
This measure would proclaim August 2021 as Breastfeeding Awareness Month of 2021 in California. The measure would recognize the unique benefits that breastfeeding provides, as specified, and would affirm that Californians should work to ensure that barriers to initiation and continuation of breastfeeding are removed. The measure would encourage Californians to work together to explore ways to, among other things, improve women's access to breastfeeding support services in medical, social, and employment settings.
This measure would proclaim the month of September 2021 as California Firefighter Appreciation Month and September 25, 2021, as California Firefighters Memorial Day.
The Planning and Zoning Law provides for the creation of 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. This bill, among other things, would require a proposed housing development containing no more than 2 residential units within a single-family residential zone to be considered ministerially, without discretionary review or hearing, if the proposed housing development meets certain requirements, including, but not limited to, that the proposed housing development would not require demolition or alteration of housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income, that the proposed housing development does not allow for the demolition of more than 25% of the existing exterior structural walls, except as provided, and that the development is not located within a historic district, is not included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, or is not within a site that is legally designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district. The bill would set forth what a local agency can and cannot require in approving the construction of 2 residential units, including, but not limited to, authorizing a local agency to impose objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design standards, as defined, unless those standards would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of up to 2 units or physically precluding either of the 2 units from being at least 800 square feet in floor area, prohibiting the imposition of setback requirements under certain circumstances, and setting maximum setback requirements under all other circumstances. 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 of those maps. Under the Subdivision Map Act, an approved or conditionally approved tentative map expires 24 months after its approval or conditional approval or after any additional period of time as prescribed by local ordinance, not to exceed an additional 12 months, except as provided. This bill, among other things, would require a local agency to ministerially approve a parcel map for an urban lot split that meets certain requirements, including, but not limited to, that the urban lot split would not require the demolition or alteration of housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income, that the parcel is located within a single-family residential zone, and that the parcel is not located within a historic district, is not included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, or is not within a site that is legally designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district. The bill would set forth what a local agency can and cannot require in approving an urban lot split, including, but not limited to, authorizing a local agency to impose objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design standards, as defined, unless those standards would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of 2 units, as defined, on either of the resulting parcels or physically precluding either of the 2 units from being at least 800 square feet in floor area, prohibiting the imposition of setback requirements under certain circumstances, and setting maximum setback requirements under all other circumstances. The bill would require an applicant to sign an affidavit stating that they intend to occupy one of the housing units as their principal residence for a minimum of 3 years from the date of the approval of the urban lot split, unless the applicant is a community land trust or a qualified nonprofit corporation, as specified. The bill would prohibit a local agency from imposing any additional owner occupancy standards on applicants. By requiring applicants to sign affidavits, thereby expanding the crime of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would also extend the limit on the additional period that may be provided by ordinance, as described above, from 12 months to 24 months and would make other conforming or nonsubstantive 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. CEQA does not apply to the approval of ministerial projects. This bill, by establishing the ministerial review processes described above, would thereby exempt the approval of projects subject to those processes from CEQA. The California Coastal Act of 1976 provides for the planning and regulation of development, under a coastal development permit process, within the coastal zone, as defined, that shall be based on various coastal resources planning and management policies set forth in the act. This bill would exempt a local agency from being required to hold public hearings for coastal development permit applications for housing developments and urban lot splits pursuant to the above provisions. By increasing the duties of local agencies with respect to land use regulations, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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 specified reasons.
The Planning and Zoning Law requires a city or county to adopt a general plan for land use development within its boundaries that includes, among other things, a housing element. Existing law requires an attached housing development to be a permitted use, not subject to a conditional use permit, on any parcel zoned for multifamily housing if at least certain percentages of the units are available at affordable housing costs to very low income, lower income, and moderate-income households for at least 30 years and if the project meets specified conditions relating to location and being subject to a discretionary decision other than a conditional use permit. Existing law provides for various incentives intended to facilitate and expedite the construction of affordable housing. This bill would, notwithstanding any local restrictions on adopting zoning ordinances, authorize a local government to adopt an ordinance to zone any parcel for up to 10 units of residential density per parcel, at a height specified in the ordinance, if the parcel is located in a transit-rich area or an urban infill site, as those terms are defined. The bill would prohibit a local government from adopting an ordinance pursuant to these provisions on or after January 1, 2029. The bill would specify that an ordinance adopted under these provisions, and any resolution to amend the jurisdiction's General Plan, ordinance, or other local regulation adopted to be consistent with that ordinance, is not a project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. The bill would prohibit an ordinance adopted under these provisions from superceding a local restriction enacted or approved by a local initiative that designates publicly owned land as open-space land or for park or recreational purposes. The bill would impose specified requirements on a zoning ordinance adopted under these provisions, including a requirement that the zoning ordinance clearly demarcate the areas that are subject to the ordinance and that the legislative body make a finding that the ordinance is consistent with the city or county's obligation to affirmatively further fair housing. The bill would require an ordinance to be adopted by a 23 vote of the members of the legislative body if the ordinance supersedes any zoning restriction established by local initiative. The bill would prohibit an ordinance adopted under these provisions from reducing the density of any parcel subject to the ordinance and would prohibit a legislative body from subsequently reducing the density of any parcel subject to the ordinance. The bill would prohibit a residential or mixed-use residential project consisting of 10 or more units that is located on a parcel zoned pursuant to these provisions from being approved ministerially or by right or from being exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, except as specified. This 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.
This measure would proclaim September 20, 2021, as Latino Veterans Day.
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 prescribes requirements for the housing element, including adequate sites for various types of housing based on the existing and projected need of all economic segments of the community. Existing law requires a city or county to consider guidelines adopted by the Department of Housing and Community Development (department) in preparing its housing element and prescribes a process for submitting the element for review by the department. Existing law authorizes the department to take certain actions if it determines that the housing element does not comply with prescribed requirements. The Housing Accountability Act prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning approval in a manner that renders infeasible, specified housing development projects, including projects for very low, low-, or moderate-income households and projects for emergency shelters that comply with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria in effect at the time the application for the project is deemed complete, unless the local agency makes specified written findings based on a preponderance of the evidence in the record. This bill would, until January 1, 2029, establish an Office of Housing Appeals (office) within the department, administered by the director of the department, to review housing development projects that are alleged to have been denied or subject to conditions in violation of the Housing Accountability Act. The bill would establish housing appeals panels, consisting of administrative law judges with specified qualifications, within the office. The bill would authorize an applicant, as defined, who proposes a housing development project, as defined, that consists of 5 or more units pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act, as described above, to appeal a local agency's decision on the project application to a housing appeals panel. The bill would prohibit an applicant from bringing an action in court alleging a violation of the Housing Accountability Act for any housing development project prior to the final decision of the office, except as specified. The bill would provide that the statute of limitations for a claim alleging a violation of the Housing Accountability Act or any other claim relating to an action of the local agency on the housing development project at issue does not commence until the date of the final decision of the office, as specified. This bill would require an applicant to file, within 30 days after the date of a final decision by the local agency, a written notice of intent, as specified, with the local agency that the applicant intends to file an appeal. The bill would prescribe the timelines within which applicants, the office, and local agencies would be required to act. The bill would require, among other things, the local agency to transmit a copy of its decision and reasoning to the office if it will contest an appeal. This bill would require the panel to vacate a local decision if it finds that the local agency disapproved the housing development or conditioned the approval of the housing development in violation of the Housing Accountability Act. The bill would require the panel to order the local agency to issue any necessary approval for the development and, if applicable, to modify or remove any conditions or requirements that violate the act. The bill would require a panel to render a written decision within 14 days of an appeal hearing and require the office to post written decisions on its internet website. This bill would provide that a decision by the panel is subject to review by the superior court, which shall review the panel's decision de novo. The bill would require a local agency to carry out an office order within 30 days of entry, unless judicial review is sought. The bill would authorize an applicant to enforce the office orders in court. The bill would entitle the applicant to attorney's fees and costs, and would additionally authorize the court to impose specified fines on the local agency. The bill would authorize the department to charge applicants a fee for an appeal, as specified, and if the office orders approval of the proposed development or modifies or removes any conditions or requirements imposed upon the applicant, the bill would require a local agency to reimburse the applicant for the fee. By increasing the duties of local officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize a court to stay specified court proceedings that are related to an appeal filed with the office until the panel has rendered its written decision. 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.
