Asm. Buffy Wicks

Existing law makes it unlawful for any owner or operator of a motel, motor court, or like establishment to post or maintain outdoor advertising signs relating to room rates that has any untrue, misleading, false, or fraudulent representations, and specified other requirements on outdoor signs for those establishments. Existing law also prohibits an owner or operator of a hotel or motel from increasing the hotel or motel's rates upon the proclamation of a state of emergency by the President of the United States or the Governor or upon the declaration of a local emergency, as specified. This bill would prohibit a place of short-term lodging, as defined, from advertising or offering a room rate that does not include all fees or charges required to stay at the short-term lodging except taxes and fees imposed by a government on the stay, as specified. The bill would also require a place of short-term lodging to include in the total price to be paid, before the consumer reserves a stay, all taxes and fees imposed by a government on the stay. The bill would make a violation of those provisions subject to a specified civil penalty not to exceed $10,000 and would authorize an action to enforce those provisions to be brought by a city attorney, district attorney, county counsel, or the Attorney General. The bill would make the bill's provisions operative on July 1, 2024.

Existing law establishes a basic speed law that prohibits a person from driving a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent given the weather, visibility, traffic, and highway conditions and in no event at a speed that endangers the safety of persons or property. This bill would authorize, until January 1, 2032, the Cities of Los Angeles, San Jose, Oakland, Glendale, and Long Beach, and the City and County of San Francisco to establish a Speed Safety System Pilot Program if the system meets specified requirements. The bill would require a participating city or city and county to adopt a Speed Safety System Use Policy and a Speed Safety System Impact Report before implementing the program, and would require the participating city or city and county to engage in a public information campaign at least 30 days before implementation of the program, including information relating to when the systems would begin detecting violations and where the systems would be utilized. The bill would require a participating city or city and county to issue warning notices rather than notices of violations for violations detected within the first 60 calendar days of the program. The bill would also require a participating city or city and county to develop uniform guidelines for, among other things, the processing and storage of confidential information. The bill would designate all photographic or administrative records, not including data about the number of violations issued or the speeds at which they were issued for, made by a system as confidential, and would only authorize public agencies to use and allow access to these records for specified purposes. This bill would specify that any violation of a speed law recorded by a speed safety system authorized by these provisions would be subject only to the provided civil penalties. The bill would, among other things, provide for the issuance of a notice of violation, an initial review, an administrative hearing, and an appeals process, as specified, for a violation under this program. The bill would require any program created pursuant to these provisions to offer a diversion program for indigent speed safety system violation recipients, as specified. The bill would require a city or city and county participating in the pilot program to submit a report to evaluate the speed safety system to determine the system's impact on street safety and economic impact on the communities where the system is utilized. Existing law establishes a $25 filing fee for specified appeals and petitions. This bill would require a $25 filing fee for an appeal challenging a notice of violation issued as a result of a speed safety system until January 1, 2032. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Cities of Los Angeles, San Jose, Oakland, Glendale, and Long Beach, and the City and County of San Francisco.

Existing law includes the terms "mentally retarded persons," "mentally retarded children," "retardation," and "handicap." This bill, The Dignity for All Act, would make nonsubstantive changes to those provisions to eliminate this obsolete terminology. The bill would repeal obsolete provisions of 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 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 authorizes the lead agency, if the lead agency determines that a project is exempt from CEQA, to file a notice of exemption with the Office of Planning and Research or the county clerk of each county in which the project is located. This bill would, until January 1, 2033, exempt from CEQA certain actions taken by a public agency related to affordable housing projects, as defined, if certain requirements are met. The bill would require the lead agency, if the lead agency determines an action related to an affordable housing project is exempt from CEQA under this provision and approves or carries out the project, to file a notice of exemption with the Office of Planning and Research and the county clerk of each county in which the project is located. By increasing the duties of a lead agency, 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 its physical development, and the development of certain lands outside its boundaries, that includes, among other mandatory elements, a housing element. That law allows a development proponent to submit an application for a development that is subject to a specified streamlined, ministerial approval process not subject to a conditional use permit, if the development satisfies certain objective planning standards. Existing law, the Zenovich-Moscone-Chacon Housing and Home Finance Act, establishes the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee within the Department of Housing and Community Development. Existing law requires the committee to allocate state low-income housing tax credits in conformity with state and federal law that establishes a maximum rent that may be charged to a tenant for a project unit constructed using low-income housing tax credits. This bill would require that a housing development project be a use by right upon the request of an applicant who submits an application for streamlined approval, on any land owned by an independent institution of higher education or religious institution on or before January 1, 2024, if the development satisfies specified criteria, including that the development is not adjoined to any site where more than one-third of the square footage on the site is dedicated to industrial use. The bill would define various terms for these purposes. Among other things, the bill would require that 100% of the units, exclusive of manager units, in a housing development project eligible for approval as a use by right under these provisions be affordable to lower income households, except that 20% of the units may be for moderate-income households, and 5% of the units may be for staff of the independent institution of higher education or the religious institution that owns the land, provided that the units affordable to lower income households are offered at affordable rent, as set in an amount consistent with the rent limits established by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee, or affordable housing cost, as specified. The bill would authorize the development to include ancillary uses on the ground floor of the development, as specified. This bill would specify that a housing development project that is eligible for approval as a use by right under the bill is also eligible for a density bonus, incentives, or concessions, or waivers or reductions of development and parking standards, except as specified. The bill would require a development subject to these provisions to provide off-street parking of up to one space per unit, unless a state law or local ordinance provides for a lower standard of parking, in which case the law or ordinance applies. The bill would prohibit a local government from imposing any parking requirement on a development subject to these provisions if the development is located within one-half mile walking distance of public transit, either a high-quality transit corridor or a major transit stop, as those terms are defined, or it is within one block of a car share vehicle. This bill would require a local government that determines a proposed development is in conflict with any objective planning standards, as specified, to provide the developer with written documentation explaining those conflicts under a specified timeframe. The bill would provide that the development shall be deemed to satisfy the required objective planning standards if the local government fails to provide the requisite documentation explaining any conflicts. The bill would authorize a local government to conduct a design review, as described, only if the design review focuses on compliance with the requisite criteria of a streamlined, ministerial review process. The bill would prohibit a local government from using a design review, as specified, from inhibiting, chilling, or precluding a streamlined, ministerial approval. The bill would require a local government to issue a subsequent permit for developments approved under the provisions of this act. 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 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 does not apply to the ministerial approval of projects. This bill, by requiring approval of certain development projects as a use by right, would expand the exemption for ministerial approval of projects under CEQA. The bill would repeal its provisions as of January 1, 2036. 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 Planning and Zoning Law, authorizes a development proponent to submit an application for a multifamily housing development that is subject to a streamlined, ministerial approval process, as provided, and not subject to a conditional use permit, if the development satisfies specified objective planning standards, including, among others, that the development proponent has committed to record, prior to the issuance of the first building permit, a land use restriction or covenant providing that any lower or moderate-income housing units required, as specified, remain available at affordable housing costs, as defined, or rent to persons and families of lower or moderate income for no less than specified periods of time. Existing law repeals these provisions on January 1, 2026. This bill would authorize the Department of General Services to act in the place of a locality or local government, at the discretion of that department, for purposes of the ministerial, streamlined review for development in compliance with the above-described requirements on property owned by or leased to the state. The bill would extend the operation of the streamlined, ministerial approval process to January 1, 2036. The bill would provide that the streamlined, ministerial approval process does not apply to applications for developments proposed on qualified sites, defined as a site that is located within an equine or equestrian district and meets certain other requirements, that are submitted on or after January 1, 2024, but before July 1, 2025. This bill would modify the above-described objective planning standards, including by revising the standard that prohibits a multifamily housing development from being subject to the streamlined, ministerial approval process if the development is located in a coastal zone to apply only if the development that is located in the coastal zone meets any one of specified conditions. The bill would require a development that is located in a coastal zone that satisfies the specified conditions to obtain a coastal development permit. The bill would require a public agency with coastal development permitting authority to approve a coastal development permit if it determines that the development is consistent with all objective standards of the local government's certified local coastal program, as specified. The bill would provide that the changes made by this act would apply in a coastal zone on or after January 1, 2025. This bill would modify the objective planning standard that prohibits a development subject to the streamlined, ministerial approval process from being located in a high fire severity zone by deleting the prohibition for a development to be located within a high or very high fire hazard severity zone as indicated on maps adopted by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, and would instead prohibit a development from being located with the state responsibility area, as defined, unless the site has adopted specified standards. The bill would also remove an exception for sites excluded from specified hazard zones by a local agency, as specified. This bill would also provide an alternative definition for "affordable rent" for a development that dedicates 100% of units, exclusive of a manager's unit or units, to lower income households. The bill would, among other modifications, delete the objective planning standards requiring development proponents to pay at least the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and utilize a skilled and trained workforce and would instead require a development proponent to certify to the local government that certain wage and labor standards will be met, including a requirement that all construction workers be paid at least the general prevailing rate of wages, as specified. The bill would require the Labor Commissioner to enforce the obligation to pay prevailing wages. By expanding the crime of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would specify that the requirements to pay prevailing wages, use a workforce participating in an apprenticeship, or provide health care expenditures do not apply to a project that consists of 10 or fewer units and is not otherwise a public work. Existing law requires a local government to approve a development if the local government determines the development is consistent with the objective planning standards. Existing law requires, if the local government determines a submitted development is in conflict with any of the objective planning standards, the local government to provide the development proponent written documentation of the standards the development conflicts with and an explanation for the conflict within certain timelines depending on the size of the development. Existing law, the Housing Accountability Act, prohibits a local agency from disapproving a housing development project, as described, unless it makes specified written findings. This bill would instead require approval if a local government's planning director or equivalent position determines the development is consistent with the objective planning standards. The bill would make conforming changes. The bill would require all departments of the local government that are required to issue an approval of the development prior to the granting of an entitlement to also comply with the above-described streamlined approval requirements within specified time periods. The bill would prohibit a local government from requiring, prior to approving a development that meets the requirements of the above-described streamlining provisions, compliance with any standards necessary to receive a postentitlement permit or studies, information, or other materials that do not pertain directly to determining whether the development is consistent with the objective planning standards applicable to the development. The bill would, for purposes of these provisions, establish that the total number of units in a development includes (1) all projects developed on a site, regardless of when those developments occur, and (2) all projects developed on sites adjacent to a site developed pursuant to these provisions if, after January 1, 2023, the adjacent site had been subdivided from the site developed pursuant to these provisions. Existing law requires, before submitting an application for a development subject to the above-described streamlined, ministerial approval process, the development proponent to submit to the local government a notice of its intent to submit an application, as described. For developments proposed in a census tract that is designated either as a moderate resource area, low resource area, or an area of high segregation and poverty, as described, this bill would require local governments to provide, within 45 days of receiving a notice of intent and before the development proponent submits an application for the proposed development that is subject to the streamlined, ministerial approval process, for a public meeting, as described, to provide an opportunity for the public and the local government to comment on the development. The bill would require this public meeting to be held by the jurisdiction's planning commission if the development proposal is located within a city with a population greater than 250,000 or an unincorporated area of a county with a population of greater than 250,000. Existing law authorizes the local government's planning commission or any equivalent board or commission responsible for review and approval of development projects, or as otherwise specified, to conduct any design review or public oversight of the development. This bill would remove the above-described authorization to conduct public oversight of the development and would only authorize design review to be conducted by the local government's planning commission or any equivalent board or commission responsible for design review. By imposing additional duties on local officials, 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.

Existing law, commonly 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, waivers or reductions of development standards, parking ratios, and other incentives or concessions, as specified, if the developer agrees to construct certain types of housing. Existing law prohibits a city, county, or city and county from applying any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development meeting specified criteria at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by the Density Bonus Law. Existing law defines "development standard" as including a site or construction condition, including, but not limited to, a height limitation, a setback requirement, a floor area ratio, an onsite open-space requirement, a minimum lot area per unit requirement, or a parking ratio that applies to a residential development pursuant to any ordinance, general plan element, specific plan, charter, or other local condition, law, policy, resolution, or regulation. This bill would specify that "development standard" for these purposes includes these standards adopted by the local government or enacted by the local government's electorate exercising its local initiative or referendum power, whether that power is derived from the California Constitution, statute, or the charter or ordinances of the local government. 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. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65915 of the Government Code proposed by AB 323 and AB 1287 to be operative only if this bill and either or both of those bills are enacted and this bill is enacted last.

Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, authorizes a local agency, by ordinance or ministerial approval, to provide for the creation of accessory dwelling units in areas zoned for residential use, as specified. Existing law authorizes a local agency to impose standards on accessory dwelling units that include, but are not limited to, parking, height, setback, landscape, architectural review, and maximum size of a unit. This bill would require each local agency, by January 1, 2025, to develop a program for the preapproval of accessory dwelling unit plans, whereby the local agency accepts accessory dwelling unit plan submissions for preapproval and approves or denies the preapproval applications, as specified. The bill would authorize a local agency to charge a fee to an applicant for the preapproval of an accessory dwelling unit plan, as specified. The bill would require the local agency to post preapproved accessory dwelling unit plans and the contact information of the applicant on the local agency's internet website. The bill would require a local agency to either approve or deny an application for a detached accessory dwelling unit within 30 days that utilizes either an accessory dwelling unit plan preapproved by the local agency within the current triennial California Building Standards Code rulemaking cycle or a plan that is identical to a plan used in an application for a detached accessory dwelling unit approved by the local agency within the current triennial California Building Standards Code rulemaking cycle. By imposing new duties on local agencies, the bill would create 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 a specified reason.

(1) Existing law, the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Housing Finance Act, establishes the Bay Area Housing Finance Agency to raise, administer, and allocate funding for affordable housing in the San Francisco Bay area, as defined, and provide technical assistance at a regional level for tenant protection, affordable housing preservation, and new affordable housing production. Existing law requires the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority and executive board of the Association of Bay Area Governments to form an advisory committee composed of 9 representatives with knowledge and experience in the areas of affordable housing finance and development, tenant protection, and housing preservation. This bill would require the authority and executive board to form an advisory committee composed of at least 9 and no more than 11 representatives with knowledge and expertise in the areas of affordable housing finance, construction workforce, and development, tenant protection, and housing preservation. The act provides the authority with various powers, including the power to place a measure on the ballot to raise revenue and allocate funds throughout the San Francisco Bay area, apply for and receive grants or loans from public and private entities, incur and issue bonds and other indebtedness, and otherwise incur liabilities or obligations. The act authorizes the authority to allocate and deploy financing to cities, counties, other public agencies within the San Francisco Bay area and private affordable housing developers to finance affordable housing development, as specified. This bill would specify that the authority is limited to placing only one measure on the ballot per election. The bill would also authorize the authority to deploy financing to nonprofit corporations to finance affordable housing development, as specified. Existing law authorizes a city or county, or an agency created pursuant to a joint powers agreement, to issue revenue bonds to defray the costs of acquiring home mortgages or making loans to lending institutions in order to enable them to make home mortgages, and the costs of studies and surveys, insurance premiums, underwriting fees, legal, accounting and marketing services incurred in connection with the issuance and sale of bonds, as specified. This bill would authorize the authority to issue mortgage revenue bonds, pursuant to provisions described above; acquire, hold, develop, operate, and dispose of real property; and create one or more California limited liability companies of which the authority is the sole member. (2) 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. This bill would exempt from CEQA any actions taken by the authority to raise, administer, or allocate funding for tenant protection, affordable housing preservation, or new affordable housing production or to provide technical assistance consistent with the authority's purpose. (3) Existing law authorizes the executive board of the authority to impose a commercial linkage fee, as defined, in an amount not to exceed ten dollars ($10) per square foot, within the San Francisco Bay area, as specified. Existing law requires the expenditures of proceeds from a commercial linkage fee be limited to affordable housing production, preservation, and tenant protection programs. This bill would authorize the expenditures of proceeds from a commercial linkage fee to include the authority's related administrative costs. (4) The act defines "authority revenues" to include, without limitation, revenues generated by any special tax, fee, or charge imposed by the authority, other than ad valorem property taxes. Existing law, the Revenue Bond Law of 1941, requires a local agency to annually publish a summary statement showing, among other things, the amount of gross revenues from revenue bonds. This bill would revise and recast the definition of "authority revenue" to also include loan repayments, investment income, or income derived from the ownership or operation of real property. The bill would provide for prioritization of spending of authority revenues. The bill would require the authority to publish the above-described summary statement not more than 9 months after the close of each fiscal year. (5) Existing law requires the authority to distribute regional housing revenue, as defined, in the form of a grant, loan, or other financing tool in a manner that achieves certain minimum shares over 5-year periods. In this regard, existing law requires 5% of those regional housing revenues for tenant protection programs for low- and moderate-income households, which includes, among other things, preeviction and eviction legal services and providing emergency rental assistance for lower income households. This bill would include homelessness prevention services, as specified, as an eligible expense under tenant protection programs for low- and moderate-income households. (6) Existing law requires the authority to distribute funds received through the authorized funding measures according to specified provisions, which in part require each county to adopt a county expenditure plan applicable to county housing revenue. Existing law requires, in order for the expenditure plan to be deemed complete, the expenditure plan to specify, among other things, a description of any specific project or program proposed to receive funding. This bill would additionally require the plan to demonstrate that the county has consulted with each city in the county, excluding cities that receive a direct allocation. (7) Existing law requires, if the authority proposes a measure that will generate revenues and that requires voter approval, the board of supervisors of the relevant county or counties to call a special election on the measure. Existing law requires each county included in the measure to use the exact ballot question, impartial analysis, and summary of the expenditure plan provided by the authority. Existing law requires these materials to include, among other things, an estimate of the number of affordable housing units to be built or preserved by household income category served, and a description of any specific projects planned to be funded. This bill would instead require each county included in the measure to use the election materials provided by the authority, including the exact ballot question, impartial analysis, and full text of the ballot measure for inclusion in the voter information pamphlet. The bill would make conforming changes. By changing the duties of local officials with respect to elections procedures for revenue measures on behalf of the authority, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (8) 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.

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. Existing law also authorizes the legislative body of a city or a county to adopt ordinances establishing requirements for parking. When an entity receiving parking is not using that parking to meet public automobile parking requirements, this bill would require a local agency, as defined, to allow entities with underutilized parking to share their underutilized parking with the public, local agencies, or other entities, if those entities submit a shared parking agreement, as defined, to the local agency, and information identifying the benefits of the proposed shared parking agreement. The bill would require a local agency to allow parking spaces identified in a shared parking agreement to count toward meeting automobile parking requirements for a new or existing development or use, including, but not limited to, shared parking in underutilized spaces and in parking lots and garages that will be constructed as part of the development or developments when specified conditions regarding the distance between the entities that will share the parking are met. The bill would require a local agency to approve the shared parking agreement if it includes, among other things, a parking analysis using peer-reviewed methodologies developed by a professional planning association, as specified. The bill would require a local agency to decide whether to approve or deny the shared parking agreement and determine how many parking spaces can be reasonably shared between uses to fulfill parking requirements if the shared parking agreement does not include this parking analysis. If the local agency is required to decide whether to approve or deny an agreement for specified developments under these provisions, the bill would require the local agency to notify all property owners within 300 feet of the shared parking spaces of the proposed agreement and to hold a public meeting if it receives a request to do so within 14 days of notifying property owners, as provided. The bill would specify that these notification and public meeting requirements would not apply to local agencies that enact an ordinance that provides for shared parking agreements, including ordinances enacted before January 1, 2024. The bill would require a local agency, private landowner, or lessor to examine the feasibility of shared parking agreements to replace new parking construction or limit the number of new parking spaces that will be constructed when state funds are being used on a proposed new development or other public funds are being used to develop a parking structure or surface parking, as specified. The bill would specify that these provisions do not apply to land owned or leased by the state. By imposing new requirements on local governments when reviewing and approving new developments, 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 a specified reason.