Asm. Buffy Wicks

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 within the Planning and Zoning Law describes various reforms and incentives enacted by the Legislature to facilitate and expedite the construction of affordable housing. Existing law within the Planning and Zoning Law, in certain civil actions or proceedings against a public entity that has issued specified approvals for a housing development, authorizes a court to award all reasonably incurred costs of suit to a prevailing public entity or nonprofit housing corporation that is a real party in interest and the permit applicant of the low- or moderate-income housing if the court makes specified findings. This bill, where the applicant for a housing development is a prevailing party in an action brought by the applicant to enforce the public agency's compliance with a housing reform law as applied to the applicant's housing development project, would entitle an applicant for a housing development project to reasonable attorney's fees and costs and would require a court to impose fines on a local agency, as specified. The bill would extend any period of limitation for actions under any state law for a period of 60 days beginning on the date the applicant provides written notice to the local agency indicating its intent to commence an action. The bill would prohibit a public agency from requiring the applicant to indemnify, defend, or hold harmless the public agency in any action alleging the public agency violated the applicant's rights or deprived the applicant of the benefits or protection provide by a housing reform law. The bill would define housing reform law as a law that establishes or facilitates protections for the benefit of applicants for housing development projects or imposes limitations on a public agency for the benefit of housing development projects.

(1) The Planning and Zoning Law requires each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for its physical development, and the development of certain lands outside its boundaries, that includes, among other mandatory elements, a housing element. That law, until January 1, 2033, deems a housing development project an allowable use on any real property owned by a local educational agency if the housing development satisfies specified conditions, including, among others, consisting of at least 10 housing units, 100% of the units being rented by local educational agency employees, local public employees, and general members of the public pursuant to a specified priority, and a majority of the units being deed restricted for lower income or moderate-income households, as specified. Existing law, the Housing Accountability Act, among other things, prohibits a local agency from disapproving a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households unless the local agency makes written findings as to one of certain sets of conditions, as specified, and describes various requirements applicable to housing development projects. This bill would revise and recast the provisions deeming a housing development project an allowable use on any real property owned by a local educational agency. The bill would require the housing development to satisfy specified conditions, and would apply the requirements of the Housing Accountability Act to review of housing development projects subject to these provisions. The bill would provide that a proposed housing development project is eligible for a density bonus, as specified, and would define various terms for these purposes. The bill would extend the operation of these provisions until January 1, 2036. (2) Existing law, prior to the sale, lease, or rental of any excess real property, requires the governing board of each school district to appoint a school district advisory committee to advise the governing board of the school district in the development of districtwide policies and procedures governing the use or disposition of school buildings or space in school buildings that is not needed for school purposes. Notwithstanding that law, existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district to elect not to appoint a school district advisory committee in the sale, lease, or rental of excess real property to be used for teacher or school district employee housing. This bill would specify that the governing board of a school district is authorized to elect not to appoint a school district advisory committee in the sale, lease, or rental of excess real property to be used for teacher or school district employee housing and that is subject to the provisions governing real property owned by a local educational agency described above. (3) 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. Existing law, until January 1, 2033, exempts from CEQA certain actions taken by a public agency related to affordable housing projects, as defined, if certain requirements are met. This bill would provide that an affordable housing project for purposes of the CEQA exemption includes real property owned by a local educational agency, as described above, and would exempt these projects from certain of the requirements for other affordable housing projects. (4) The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. (5) By adding to the duties of local planning officials with respect to approving certain development projects, 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 Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022 (act) , until January 1, 2033, authorizes a development proponent to submit an application for an affordable housing development or a mixed-income housing development that meets specified objective standards and affordability and site criteria, including being located within a zone where office, retail, or parking are a principally permitted use. The act makes a development that meets those objective standards and affordability and site criteria a use by right and subject to one of 2 streamlined, ministerial review processes depending on, among other things, the affordability requirements applicable to the project. The act requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to undertake at least 2 studies, one completed on or before January 1, 2027, and one completed on or before January 1, 2031, on the outcomes of the act. This bill would provide that, for purposes of determining whether a property or site satisfies the criteria, objective development standards, or other requirements for receiving streamlined, ministerial review under the act, a local government's review of the property or site is limited to the area described as being physically disturbed by construction in the application for streamlined, ministerial review and does not include, unless expressly stated otherwise, other contiguous or noncontiguous areas even if under the ownership or control of the project proponent. The bill would provide that easements for public right-of-way, public or private utilities, or other public improvements in, under, or over the property shall not make the property ineligible to receive streamlined, ministerial review for either affordable or mixed-income housing developments. This bill would also expand the eligibility for the above-described streamlined, ministerial review for mixed-income housing developments to include developments located in a campus development zone, as defined, as long as the development meets certain affordability requirements and objective standards, as provided. The bill would require the outcomes of projects built under campus development zones to be reported in the January 1, 2031, outcomes report. The bill would also make related findings and declarations. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA does not apply to the approval of ministerial projects. By expanding the scope of projects eligible for streamlined, ministerial approval as described above, this bill would expand the scope of the exemption from CEQA for ministerial projects. Existing law includes certain setback requirements in the objective standards that a mixed-income development project must meet to be subject to the above-referenced streamlined, ministerial review process. In this regard, existing law requires all parking to be set back at least 25 feet. This bill would instead impose that setback requirement only on parking that is aboveground. By changing the criteria local agencies must follow for the approval of certain development projects, 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.

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, and of certain land outside its boundaries, and requires the general plan to contain specified mandatory elements. Existing law specifies that these provisions generally do not apply to a charter city, but requires a charter city to adopt a general plan that contains the mandatory elements, among other things. Existing law prescribes a process to challenge the validity of a general plan. Among other things, existing law requires a petitioner to request a hearing or trial, as specified. Existing law requires a court to set a date for the hearing or trial to be heard no later than 120 days after the filing of the request, as specified. Existing law authorizes a court to continue for a reasonable time the date of the hearing or trial upon written motion and finding of good cause. Existing law requires a court to grant the petitioner temporary relief if the court grants a continuance to a respondent, as specified. This bill would apply to the above-described process to challenge the validity of a general plan to a charter city and state that this is declaratory of existing law. The bill would limit the period for which a court may continue a trial or hearing, as described above, to no more than 60 days and would additionally authorize a court to grant a continuance on the court's own motion. The bill would extend the requirement that a court grant temporary relief, as described above, in any instance in which the court orders a continuance, rather than only if the court grants a continuance to a respondent. The bill would require the court to consider ordering additional temporary relief if the court has already granted temporary relief. Existing law requires the general plan to contain specified mandatory elements, including a housing element. Existing law requires the housing element to consist of an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. Existing law also requires the housing element to, among other things, identify adequate sites for housing, as provided, and to make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community. In preparation of the housing element, existing law requires the city and county to consider certain guidelines adopted by the department. Existing law requires the department to review, according to a specified procedure, any action or failure to act by the city, county, or city and county that it determines is inconsistent with an adopted housing element or certain other requirements, including any failure to implement any program actions included in the housing element. This bill would require, to the extent that a quantified development standard, as defined, in a general plan element is inconsistent with a quantified development standard in another element, the provisions of the most recently adopted element to supersede the previously adopted element. If a local agency has established a specific deadline to amend a local ordinance, development standard, condition, or policy applicable to quantified development standards, or timelines or processes relating to entitlement and permitting decisions, and the local agency has failed to make that amendment by the specified deadline, the bill would require the department to undertake the above-described review procedure. Existing law requires each city, county, or city and county to bring its housing element into conformity with certain requirements by a specified deadline. Existing law also requires a city, county, or city and county, upon a finding by a court that an action of a city, county, or city and county, which is required to be consistent with its general plan, does not comply with its housing element, to bring its action into compliance within 60 days. Existing law requires the court to retain jurisdiction throughout the period for compliance to enforce its decision and authorizes the court to extend the time period for compliance by an additional 60 days upon a determination that the 60-day period for compliance would place an undue hardship on the city, county, or city and county. This bill would extend the amount of time a city, county, or city and county has to bring its action into compliance to 120 days and would remove the above-described extension provision. The bill would also require the court to retain jurisdiction throughout the period for compliance with its order and to conform to certain requirements. The bill would authorize the court to grant a reasonable extension of time for the city, county, or city and county to comply if review by the Department of Housing and Community Development is required as part of the court order and that review is not timely completed, as specified. Existing law requires a court, if that court finds that a city, county, or city and county failed to complete a specified rezoning by a certain deadline, to issue an order or judgment, after considering the equities of the circumstances presented by all parties, compelling the local government to complete the rezoning within 60 days or the earliest time consistent with public hearing notice requirements in existence at the time the action was filed. Existing law also requires the court, if that court determines that its order or judgment is not carried out, to issue further orders to ensure that certain purposes and policies are fulfilled, including ordering, after considering the equities of the circumstances presented by all parties, that any required rezoning be completed within 60 days or the earliest time consistent with public hearing notice requirements in existence at the time the action was filed. Existing law also authorizes the court to impose sanctions on the city, county, or city and county if the court determines that its order or judgment is not carried out. This bill would extend the amount of time a local government has to complete the above-described rezoning under a court order or judgment to 120 days. The bill would also remove the requirement that a court issue further orders that any required rezoning be completed within 60 days or the earliest time consistent with public hearing notice requirements in existence at the time the action was filed. The bill would instead require that the court impose sanctions on the city, county, or city and county if the court determines that its order or judgment is not carried out. Existing law requires a county or city to bring the general plan or relevant mandatory element into compliance with state law within 120 days of a court issuing a final order or judgment in favor of a petitioner in any action brought to challenge the validity of that plan or element. Existing law also requires a county or city to bring its zoning ordinance into consistency with its general plan or relevant mandatory element within 120 days of bringing the general plan or relevant mandatory element into compliance with state law. Existing law authorizes a court to grant a county or city 2 extensions of time, as specified, to bring the general plan, relevant mandatory element, or zoning ordinance into compliance or consistency. Existing law requires a court, in the order or judgment, to include one or more specified remedies. Existing law also authorizes a court to grant these remedies as temporary relief, during a pendency of a challenge to the validity of a general plan, upon a showing of probable success on the merits, as specified. This bill would instead require, in any order or judgment issued in an action brought to challenge the validity of the general plan of any city, county, or city and county, or any mandatory element thereof that resolves whether those plans or elements substantially comply with certain requirements, that order or judgment to be immediately appealable, regardless of whether any final judgment has been issued. The bill would instead require a county or city to comply with the above-described requirements if the court finds that the general plan or mandatory element does not substantially comply with certain requirements. The bill would remove a court's above-described authority to grant a city or county 2 extensions of time. The bill would specify that the above-described remedies are not stayed during the pendency of an appeal of the order or judgment, but would authorize a court to stay remedies if there is a showing by a county or city that it would suffer irreparable harm. The bill would require, rather than authorize, a court to grant these remedies as temporary relief during a pendency of a challenge to the validity of the general plan. The bill would require that request for temporary relief to be made by noticed motion or application, 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.

Under existing law, known as the public trust doctrine, the state has title as trustee to all tidelands and navigable lakes and streams and is charged with preserving these waterways for navigation, commerce, and fishing, as well as for scientific study, recreation, and as an open space and habitat for birds and marine life. Existing law establishes the State Lands Commission in the Natural Resources Agency. Existing law provides that the state's power and right to control, regulate, and use its tidelands and submerged lands when acting within the terms of the public trust is absolute. Existing law provides that tidelands and submerged lands granted by the Legislature to local entities remain subject to the public trust, and remain subject to the oversight authority of the state by and through the commission. Existing law provides that granted public trust lands remain subject to the supervision of the state and the state retains its duty to protect the public interest in granted public trust lands. Under existing law, the commission's power to lease and grant is conferred upon the local trustee of the granted public trust lands. Existing law grants the City of Oakland sovereign tide and submerged lands located within its boundaries. This bill would lift, until February 1, 2066, the use restrictions imposed by the granting statutes and the public trust doctrine for after-acquired lands, as defined, in Jack London Square and would authorize the Port of Oakland to lease the after-acquired lands for any purpose subject to specified conditions. The bill would provide that on February 2, 2066, the use restrictions imposed by the granting statutes and the public trust doctrine again apply to after-acquired lands. The bill would require, on or before January 15, 2027, and every year thereafter until February 2, 2066, the Port of Oakland to provide the commission with a narrative statement, as specified. The bill would, until February 1, 2066, hold the terms of a specified stipulated judgment in abeyance for after-acquired lands subject to the act, as provided. To the extent that this bill would impose additional duties on the City of Oakland, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires workers employed on public works to be paid not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages, determined by the Director of Industrial Relations, for work of a similar character in the locality that the public work is performed, as prescribed, unless an exception applies, and imposes misdemeanor penalties for a willful violation of this requirement. The bill would apply the above-described prevailing wage standards to privately funded tenant improvements on after-acquired land leased by the Port of Oakland if certain requirements are met. By expanding the scope of a crime, this 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 Port of Oakland. 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.

Existing law requires each county to develop a procedure for electronically transmitting, upon the issuance of certain types of protective orders, the contents of the order and other specified information to the Department of Justice through the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System. Existing law also requires the department to maintain a California Restraining and Protective Order System and to make specified information electronically available to court clerks and law enforcement personnel. This bill, Wyland's Law, would, subject to an appropriation by the Legislature, authorize the department to establish, or contract with a vendor to establish, an automated protected person information and notification system to provide a petitioner or a protected person in a protective order case with automated access to information about their case, as specified. The bill would require a record demonstrating whether the superior court has fulfilled its transmission obligations or a record demonstrating receipt of information about a protective order that the department maintains to be open to public inspection and copying.

Existing law provides that recorded covenants, conditions, restrictions, or private limits on the use of land contained in instruments affecting the transfer or sale of any interest in real property that, among other things, restrict the number, size, or location of the residences that may be built on the property, are not enforceable against the owner of an affordable housing development, as defined, if an approved restrictive covenant affordable housing modification document has been recorded in the public record, as provided. As part of this process, existing law requires the owner to submit to the county recorder a copy of the original restrictive covenant and any documents the owner believes necessary to establish that the property qualifies as an affordable housing development and requires the county counsel to determine, among other things, if the property qualifies as an affordable housing development and if a modification document may be recorded. Existing law provides that these provisions do not authorize any development that is not otherwise consistent with local general plans, zoning ordinances, and any applicable specific plan. This bill would extend those provisions to a housing development that is owned or controlled by an entity or individual that has submitted a development project application to redevelop an existing commercial property, and the development project includes residential uses permitted by state housing laws or local land use and zoning regulations and would make various conforming changes. The bill would additionally make these provisions applicable to covenants, conditions, restrictions, or private limits contained in a reciprocal easement agreement, as provided, and include instruments affecting the transfer or sale of any interest in real property that prohibits the number, size, or location of residences that may be built on the property or restricts or prohibits the residential uses of the property. The bill would further provide that these provisions do not authorize any development that is not otherwise consistent with state housing laws. By imposing additional duties on county officials, 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 prohibits any person from selling, leasing, or transferring any firearm unless the person is licensed as a firearms dealer, as specified. Existing law prescribes certain requirements and prohibitions for licensed firearms dealers. A violation of any of these requirements or prohibitions is grounds for forfeiture of a firearms dealer's license. For purposes of these provisions, existing law defines "machinegun" to mean, among other definitions, any weapon that shoots or is designed to shoot automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. This bill would, on and after July 1, 2026, prohibit a licensed firearms dealer to sell, offer for sale, exchange, give, transfer, or deliver any semiautomatic machinegun-convertible pistol, except as specified. For these purposes, the bill would define "machinegun-convertible pistol" as any semiautomatic pistol with a cruciform trigger bar that can be readily converted by hand or with common household tools into a machinegun by the installation or attachment of a pistol converter, as specified, and "pistol converter" as any device or instrument that, when installed in or attached to the rear of the slide of a semiautomatic pistol, replaces the backplate and interferes with the trigger mechanism and thereby enables the pistol to shoot automatically more than one shot by a single function of the trigger. The bill would make a violation of these provisions punishable by a fine, a 2nd violation punishable by a fine that may result in a suspension or revocation of the dealer's license and removal from certain centralized lists maintained by the Department of Justice, and a 3rd violation punishable as a misdemeanor that shall result in the revocation of the dealer's license and removal from certain centralized lists. Existing law prohibits the manufacture, sale, possession, or transportation of a machinegun, except as authorized. A violation of these prohibitions is punishable as a felony. This bill would expand the above definition of "machinegun" to include any machinegun-convertible pistol equipped with a pistol converter and, thus, prohibit the manufacture, sale, possession, or transportation of a machinegun-convertible pistol equipped with a pistol converter. Existing law, subject to certain exceptions, generally makes it an offense to manufacture or sell an unsafe handgun, as defined, and requires the Department of Justice to compile a roster listing all of the handguns that have been tested and determined not to be unsafe handguns. Existing law establishes criteria for determining if a handgun is an unsafe handgun, including, for firearms manufactured after a certain date and not already listed on the roster, the lack of a chamber load indicator and a magazine disconnect mechanism. For any pistol listed on the roster on January 1, 2026, that was not subject to the above-described requirements to be on the list because it was submitted for testing before specified dates, that is thereafter only modified to change the design features that brought the pistol within the definition of a machinegun-convertible pistol, and that is submitted to an independent certified laboratory for testing pursuant to the above-described testing provisions before January 1, 2027, this bill would authorize that pistol to be submitted for testing and added to the roster without meeting those requirements. This bill would make these provisions severable. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 3273.50 of the Civil Code proposed by AB 1263 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1263 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. By creating a new crime and expanding the application of an existing crime, 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.

(1) Existing law, the State Housing Law, establishes statewide construction and occupancy standards for buildings used for human habitation. Existing law requires a county's or city's building department to enforce the State Housing Law and the California Building Standards Code, and other rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the State Housing Law pertaining to standards for buildings used for human habitation. Existing law requires a county or city, upon the applicant's request, to contract with or employ temporarily a private entity or person to check the plans and specifications submitted with an application for a residential building permit to comply with the State Housing Law or local ordinances adopted pursuant to the State Housing Law, when the building department takes more than 30 days, as specified, to complete the plan check. Existing law authorizes an enforcement agency to inspect any building to secure compliance with the State Housing Law and the California Building Standards Code, and other rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the State Housing Law. This bill would require the building department to conduct an inspection of the permitted work for specified new residential constructions of a building and residential additions to an existing building within 10 business days of receiving a notice of the completion of the permitted work authorized by a building permit issued for those projects. By imposing new duties on local agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law, the Housing Accountability Act, among other things, prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning approval in a manner that renders infeasible, a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households unless the local agency makes written findings as to one of certain sets of conditions, as specified. The act also requires, when a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, that the local agency base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that 2 specified conditions exist. Existing law defines the term "disapprove the housing development project" for these purposes to include any instance in which a local agency takes certain actions or fails to comply with certain requirements, including the failure to meet specified time limits relating to postentitlement phase permits. Existing law makes, among other things, a local agency's failure to meet those specified time limits relating to postentitlement phase permits a violation of the Housing Accountability Act. This bill would revise the definition of "disapprove the housing development project" under the Housing Accountability Act to include any instance in which a building department fails to inspect permitted work for specified new residential constructions of a building and residential additions to an existing building within 10 business days of receiving a notice of the completion of the permitted work authorized by a building permit issued for those projects, as described above. The bill would also make the failure of a building department to inspect permitted work for those projects within that time limit a violation of the Housing Accountability Act. By requiring local agencies to take certain actions, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would correct cross-references in the Housing Accountability Act. (3) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65589.5 of the Government Code proposed by SB 838 to be operative only if this bill and SB 838 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (4) 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.