The Alcoholic Beverage Control Act generally prohibits a manufacturer, winegrower, distiller, bottler, or wholesaler, among other licensees, or agents of these licensees, from paying a retailer for advertising. The act creates a variety of exceptions from this prohibition, including permitting specified licensees to purchase advertising space and time from, or on behalf of, an on-sale retail licensee that is an owner, manager, or major tenant of certain stadiums, parks, entertainment complexes, and arenas, subject to specified conditions. Existing law requires the purchase of advertising space or time in this context to be conducted pursuant to a written contract with the on-sale licensee, with a specified exception. Existing law makes it a crime for an on-sale licensee to coerce certain licensees to purchase advertising space or time, as specified. This bill would expand the exceptions described above to allow beer manufacturers, winegrowers, distilled spirits rectifiers, distilled spirits manufacturers, or distilled spirits manufacturer's agents to purchase advertising space and time, in connection with described events, from, or on behalf of, on-sale retail licensees, as described above, at specified facilities located in the City and County of San Francisco. By expanding the definition 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 City and County of San Francisco. 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 incorporate additional changes to Section 25503.6 of the Business and Professions Code proposed by SB 582 and AB 1724 that would become operative if this bill and SB 582, this bill and AB 1724, or all 3 bills are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Sponsored bills
Existing law, the State Housing Law, authorizes a city, county, or city and county to permit the construction and occupancy of efficiency units that have a minimum area of 150 square feet if they meet certain specified criteria. This bill would prohibit a city, county, or city and county from limiting the number of efficiency units in certain locations near public transit or university campuses, as specified.
Existing law provides for the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) , administered in California as CalFresh, under which each county distributes nutrition assistance benefits provided by the federal government to eligible households. Existing law requires each county human services agency to carry out the local administrative responsibilities of this program, subject to the supervision of the State Department of Social Services and to rules and regulations adopted by the department. Existing law requires current and future CalFresh benefits to be reduced, as specified, to recover an overissuance caused by administrative error if required by federal law, or if the overissuance exceeds $125 or the minimum cost-effective threshold for collecting overissuances that the department is authorized to establish, whichever is greater. This bill would require the department, by January 1, 2019, to finalize an analysis and determine whether it has adequate information to set a minimum statewide cost-effective threshold for collecting overissuances that are greater than $125, and, if it has adequate information, to include that greater threshold in the state's claims management plan that is submitted for approval to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) , Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) . The bill would require the department to establish a minimum statewide cost-effective threshold if the claims management plan includes that threshold and the USDA FNS approves the plan. The bill would require the department to submit a report to the Legislature detailing the results of the analysis, as specified, if the department determines that it does not have adequate information to set the minimum statewide cost-effective threshold described above. Existing federal law requires, if the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States determines that there has been negligence or fraud on part of a state in the certification of applicant households, the state to deposit into the Treasury of the United States, a sum equal to the face value of any benefits issued as a result of the negligence or fraud. Existing federal law authorizes the secretary, if he or she determines that a state overissued benefits to a substantial number of households in a fiscal year as a result of a major systemic error by the state, to prohibit the state from collecting these overissuances and requires the secretary to establish a claim against the state equal to the value of the overissuance caused by the systemic error. This bill would require a county human services agency to notify the department when a mass overissuance, as defined, has been identified, and to include in the notification information about whether the mass overissuance was caused by specified events. The bill would require the department to report mass overissuances to the USDA FNS, in accordance with federal law and guidance. By increasing the duties of local 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, 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 Local Agency Public Construction Act requires a bridge and highway district to advertise for contracts in specified publications for all vessel repair, maintenance, and alteration work whenever the estimated expenditure exceeds $20,000 and for all other construction, repair, maintenance, and alteration work and for all insurance purchased by the district if the estimated expenditure exceeds $5,000. The act authorizes a bridge and highway district to contract without advertising or competitive bidding in case of emergency. The act requires a bridge and highway district to comply with specified emergency contracting procedures if the notice for bids to let a contract will not be given. This bill would instead require a bridge and highway district to advertise for contracts for all vessel repair, maintenance, and alteration work if the estimated expenditure exceeds $1,000,000, and for all other construction, repair, maintenance, and alteration work, and all similar work, if the estimated expenditure exceeds $5,000, in at least one newspaper and one trade paper of general circulation, as specified. The bill would also authorize the district, at its discretion, to use informal bidding for a contract for construction, repair, maintenance, and alteration work, and all similar work, with an estimated expenditure that does not exceed $50,000, and for a contract for vessel repair, maintenance, and alteration work that does not exceed $1,000,000, if it enacts an ordinance that governs the selection of contractors, as specified. Existing law requires the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District to award all contracts in excess of $20,000 for the hiring or purchase of equipment, supplies, or materials to the lowest responsible bidder, except that, if the required expenditure exceeds $100,000, the contract may be let, in the district's discretion, to the responsible bidder who submitted a proposal that provides the best value, as specified. The bill would also authorize the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District to contract without competitive bidding with suppliers of goods and services by participating in contracts let by one or more specified public entities and any other entity that expends public funds.
(1) The Housing Accountability Act, among other things, prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning approval in a manner than renders infeasible, a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households or an emergency shelter unless the local agency makes specified written findings based upon substantial evidence in the record. This bill would require the findings of the local agency to instead be based on a preponderance of the evidence in the record. (2) The act authorizes a local agency to disapprove or condition approval of a housing development or emergency shelter, as described above, if, among other reasons, the housing development project or emergency shelter is inconsistent with both the jurisdiction's zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as specified in any element of the general plan as it existed on the date the application was deemed complete, and the jurisdiction has adopted a revised housing element in accordance with specified law. This bill would specify that a change to the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation subsequent to the date the application was deemed complete does not constitute a valid basis to disapprove or condition approval of the housing development project or emergency shelter. (3) The act defines various terms for purposes of its provisions, including the term "housing development project," which is defined as a project consisting either of residential units only, mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential units, or transitional housing or supportive housing. For a mixed-use development for these purposes, the act requires that nonresidential uses be limited to neighborhood commercial uses, as defined, and to the first floor of buildings that are 2 or more stories. This bill would instead require, with respect to mixed-use developments, that 23 of the square footage be designated for residential use. (4) If a local agency proposes to disapprove a housing development project that complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, or to approve it on the condition that it be developed at a lower density, the act requires that the local agency base its decision upon written findings supported by substantial evidence on the record that specified conditions exist. This bill would specify that a housing development project or emergency shelter is deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision for purposes of the above-described provisions if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project or emergency shelter is consistent, compliant, or in conformity. The bill, if the local agency considers the housing development project to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, would require the local agency to provide the applicant with written documentation identifying the provision or provisions, and an explanation of the reason or reasons it considers the housing development to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity within specified time periods. If the local agency fails to provide this documentation, the bill would provide that the housing development project would be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision. By requiring local agencies to provide documentation related to disapprovals of housing development projects, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (5) The act authorizes the project applicant, a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the development or emergency shelter, or a housing organization, as defined, to bring an action to enforce its provisions. This bill would entitle a housing organization to reasonable attorney's fees and costs if it is the prevailing party in an action to enforce the act. (6) If a court finds that the local agency disapproved, or conditioned approval in a manner that renders infeasible the project or emergency shelter or housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households without making the required findings or without making sufficient findings, the act requires the court to issue an order or judgment compelling compliance with its provisions within 60 days, including an order that the local agency take action on the development project or emergency shelter and awarding attorney's fees and costs. This bill would additionally require the court to issue an order compelling compliance with the act, as described above, if it finds that either the local agency, in violation of a specified provision of the act, disapproved or conditioned approval of a housing development project in a manner rendering it infeasible for the development of an emergency shelter or certain housing without making the required findings or without making findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence, or, the local agency, in violation of another specified provision of the act, disapproved a housing development project complying with specified standards and criteria or imposed a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, without making the required findings or without making findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The bill would authorize the court to issue an order or judgment directing the local agency to approve the housing development project or emergency shelter if the court finds that the local agency acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development project or emergency shelter in violation of the act. (7) The act authorizes the court to impose fines if it finds that a local agency acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development or emergency shelter and failed to carry out the court's order or judgment compelling compliance within 60 days of the court's judgment. The act requires that the fines be deposited into a housing trust fund and committed for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households. This bill, upon a determination that the local agency has failed to comply with the order or judgment compelling compliance with these provisions within 60 days, would instead require the court to impose fines, as described above, in every instance in which the court determines that the local agency disapproved, or conditioned approval in a manner that renders infeasible, the housing development project or emergency shelter without making the required findings or without making sufficient findings. The bill would require that the fine be in a minimum amount of $10,000 per housing unit in the housing development project on the date the application was deemed complete. In determining the amount of fine to impose, the bill would require the court to consider the local agency's progress in attaining its target allocation of the regional housing need and any prior violations of the act. The bill would authorize the local agency to instead deposit the fine into a specified state fund, and would also provide that any funds in a local housing trust fund not expended after 5 years would revert to the state and be deposited in that fund, to be used, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households. If the local agency has acted in bad faith and failed to carry out the court's order, as described above, the bill would require the court to multiply the fine by a factor of 5. This bill would also require that a petition to enforce the act be filed and served no later than 90 days from the later of (a) the effective date of a decision of the local agency imposing conditions on, disapproving, or taking any other final action on a housing development project or (b) the expiration of certain time periods specified in the Permit Streamlining Act. (8) In order to obtain appellate review of a trial court's order, the act requires a party to file a petition within 20 days after service upon it of a written notice of the entry of the order, or within such further time not exceeding an additional 20 days as the trial court may for good cause allow. This bill would allow a party to instead appeal a trial court's order or judgment to the court of appeal pursuant to specified law. (9) This bill would make various technical and conforming changes to the Housing Accountability Act. (10) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65589.5 of the Government Code proposed by AB 1515 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1515 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (11) 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) 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. The Planning and Zoning Law requires a planning agency, after a legislative body has adopted all or part of a general plan, to provide an annual report to the legislative body, the Office of Planning and Research, and the Department of Housing and Community Development on the status of the general plan and progress in meeting the community's share of regional housing needs. Existing law requires the housing element portion of the annual report to be prepared through the use of forms and definitions adopted by the department pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act. This bill would require the housing element portion of the annual report to be prepared through the use of standards, forms, and definitions adopted by the department. The bill would eliminate the requirement that the forms and definitions be adopted by the department pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act and would instead authorize the department to review, adopt, amend, and repeal the standards, forms, or definitions, as provided. The bill would also require the planning agency to include in its annual report specified information regarding units of net new housing, including rental housing and for-sale housing that have been issued a completed entitlement, building permit, or certificate of occupancy. The bill would also require the Department of Housing and Community Development to post an annual report submitted pursuant to the requirement described above on its Internet Web site, as provided. (2) 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 authorize a development proponent to submit an application for a multifamily housing development, which satisfies specified planning objective standards, that is subject to a streamlined, ministerial approval process, as provided, and not subject to a conditional use permit. The bill would require a local government to notify the development proponent in writing if the local government determines that the development conflicts with any of those objective standards by a specified time; otherwise, the development is deemed to comply with those standards. The bill would limit the authority of a local government to impose parking standards or requirements on a streamlined development approved pursuant to these provisions, as provided. The bill would provide that if a local government approves a project pursuant to that process, that approval will not expire if that project includes investment in housing affordability, and would otherwise provide that the approval of a project expire automatically after 3 years, unless that project qualifies for a one-time, one-year extension of that approval. The bill would provide that approval pursuant to its provisions would remain valid for three years and remain valid thereafter so long as vertical construction of the development has begun and is in progress, and would authorize a discretionary one-year extension, as provided. The bill would prohibit a local government from adopting any requirement that applies to a project solely or partially on the basis that the project receives ministerial or streamlined approval pursuant to these provisions. The bill would repeal these provisions as of January 1, 2026. (3) The bill would make findings that ensuring access to affordable housing is a matter of statewide concern and declare that its provisions would apply to all cities and counties, including a charter city, a charter county, or a charter city and county. (4) By imposing new duties upon local agencies with respect to the streamlined approval process and reporting requirement described above, 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. (5) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65400 of the Government Code proposed by AB 879 to be operative only if this bill and AB 879 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65582.1 of the Government Code proposed by AB 73 to be operative only if this bill and AB 73 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Under existing law, there are programs providing assistance for, among other things, emergency housing, multifamily housing, farmworker housing, home ownership for very low and low-income households, and downpayment assistance for first-time home buyers. Existing law also authorizes the issuance of bonds in specified amounts pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law. Existing law requires that proceeds from the sale of these bonds be used to finance various existing housing programs, capital outlay related to infill development, brownfield cleanup that promotes infill development, and housing-related parks. This bill would enact the Building Homes and Jobs Act. The bill would make legislative findings and declarations relating to the need to establish permanent, ongoing sources of funding dedicated to affordable housing development. The bill would impose a fee, except as provided, of $75 to be paid at the time of the recording of every real estate instrument, paper, or notice required or permitted by law to be recorded, per each single transaction per single parcel of real property, not to exceed $225. By imposing new duties on counties with respect to the imposition of the recording fee, the bill would create a state-mandated local program. The bill would require that a county recorder quarterly send revenues from this fee, after deduction of any actual and necessary administrative costs incurred by the county recorder, to the Controller for deposit in the Building Homes and Jobs Fund, which the bill would create within the State Treasury. The bill would, upon appropriation by the Legislature, except as provided, require (1) for moneys collected on and after January 1, 2018, and until December 31, 2018, that 50% of the moneys deposited in the fund be made available to local governments for specified purposes, and 50% made available to the Department of Housing and Community Development to assist persons experiencing or at risk of homelessness, and (2) for moneys collected on and after January 1, 2019, that 70% of the moneys deposited in the fund be provided to local governments in accordance with a specified formula and 30% made available to the department for specified purposes, including a continuous appropriation of moneys to the California Housing Finance Agency for the purpose of creating mixed income multifamily residential housing for lower to moderate income households, as provided. The bill would also provide that funds allocated to a local government that does not have a documented plan to expend certain moneys allocated to it within 5 years would revert and be deposited in the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund, to be used for specified purposes. By continuously appropriating moneys for use by the California Housing Finance Agency, this bill would make an appropriation. The bill would require that 20% of all moneys in the fund be expended for affordable owner-occupied workforce housing, and that moneys in the fund allocated to local governments be expended to support affordable housing, home ownership opportunities, and other housing-related programs, as specified. The bill would impose certain auditing and reporting requirements. 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.
The Planning and Zoning Law authorizes the legislative body of any county or city to adopt ordinances regulating zoning within its jurisdiction, as specified. This bill would additionally authorize the legislative body of any county or city to adopt ordinances to require, as a condition of development of residential rental units, that the development include a certain percentage of residential rental units affordable to, and occupied by, moderate-income, lower income, very low income, or extremely low income households or by persons and families of low or moderate income, as specified, and would declare the intent of the Legislature in adding this provision. This bill would also authorize the Department of Housing and Community Development, within 10 years of the adoption or amendment of an ordinance by a county or city after September 15, 2017, that requires as a condition of the development of residential rental units that more than 15% of the total number of units rented in the development be affordable to, and occupied by, households at 80% or less of the area median income, to review that ordinance if the county or city meets specified conditions. The bill would authorize the department to request, and require that the county or city provide, evidence that the ordinance does not unduly constrain the production of housing by submitting an economic feasibility study that meets specified standards. If the department finds that economic feasibility study does not meet these standards, or if the county or city fails to submit the study within 180 days, the bill would require the county or city to limit any requirement to provide rental units in a development affordable to households at 80% or less of the area median income to no more than 15% of the total number of units in the development. The bill would require the department to report any findings made pursuant to these provisions to the Legislature. The bill would also declare that these provisions regarding department review of certain land use ordinances address a matter of statewide concern.
(1) The Planning and Zoning Law requires an owner of an assisted housing development proposing the termination of a subsidy contract or prepayment of governmental assistance, or the owner of an assisted housing development for which there will be the expiration of rental restrictions, to provide a notice of the proposed change to each affected tenant household residing in the assisted housing development, as specified, and provide a copy of any notices issued to any prospective tenant at the time he or she is interviewed for eligibility. That law provides injunctive relief for persons aggrieved by a violation of these provisions, as specified. This bill would require the owner of an assisted housing development that is within 3 years of a scheduled expiration of rental restrictions to also provide notice of the scheduled expiration of rental restrictions to any prospective tenant at the time he or she is interviewed for eligibility, and to existing tenants by posting the notice, as specified. The bill would additionally specify that injunctive relief may include, but is not limited to, the reimposition of prior restrictions, as specified, and restitution of rent increases that were collected improperly. The bill would additionally authorize the court to award attorney's fees and costs to a prevailing plaintiff bringing an action for injunctive relief pursuant to these provisions. (2) The Planning and Zoning Law prohibits an owner of an assisted housing development, as defined, from terminating a subsidy contract or prepaying the mortgage, as specified, unless the owner or its agent has first provided specified entities an offer to purchase the development. That law requires an owner of an assisted housing development in which there will be the expiration of rental restrictions to also provide specified entities an opportunity to submit an offer to purchase the development. That law also requires an owner of an assisted housing development to provide specified entities with notice, as provided, of an opportunity to submit an offer to purchase under specified circumstances. Existing law requires an opportunity to purchase the development to be provided to entities that include, among others, regional or national nonprofit organizations, regional or national public agencies, and profit-motivated organizations. This bill would limit the opportunity to purchase the development to those agencies and organizations described above that own and operate at least 3 comparable rent- and income-restricted affordable rental properties governed under a regulatory agreement with a department or agency of the State of California or the United States, either directly or by serving as the managing general partner of limited partnerships or managing member of limited liability corporations. Existing law requires, to qualify as a purchaser of an assisted housing development, specified entities to, among other things, be capable of managing the housing and related facilities for its remaining useful life, as specified. This bill would revise that requirement by instead requiring specified entities to be certified by the Department of Housing and Community Development, based on demonstrated relevant prior experience in California and current capacity, as capable of operating the housing and related facilities, as specified. The bill would require the department to establish a process for certifying these entities and to maintain a list of entities that are certified, as specified. Existing law, if a qualified entity elects to purchase an assisted housing development, requires the qualified entity to make a bona fide offer to purchase the development, as specified. Existing law authorizes the owner or the qualified entity to request the fair market value of the property be determined by an independent appraiser. Existing law, during the first 180 days from the date of an owner's bona fide notice of the opportunity to submit an offer to purchase, requires an owner to accept a bona fide offer to purchase only from a qualified entity and requires a purchase agreement to be executed when a bona fide offer to purchase has been made to an owner and the offer is accepted. This bill would revise the offer and acceptance process described above by requiring the bona fide offer to purchase made by the qualified entity to be at the market value determined by negotiation and agreement between the parties, and if the parties fail to reach an agreement regarding market value, by an appraisal process initiated by the owner's receipt of the bona fide offer, as specified. The bill would prohibit the owner, if the owner has received a bona fide offer to purchase made within 180 days of the owner's notice of the opportunity to submit an offer, from accepting offers from any other entity, and would require the owner to either accept this bona fide offer to purchase or declare to the Department of Housing and Community Development under penalty of perjury that the owner will not sell the property for at least 5 years from the date of the declaration. By expanding the definition of the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would require an owner who wishes to sell, and who has received a bona fide offer that meets these requirements, to accept the offer and execute a purchase agreement within 90 days of receipt of the offer. The bill would require the owner to take all steps reasonably required to renew any expiring housing assistance contract, or extend any available subsidies or use restrictions, as provided, once a bona fide offer is made. Existing law requires an independent appraiser determining the fair market value of the property as described above to possess qualifications equivalent to those required by the members of the Appraisers Institute. This bill would additionally require appraisers to be certified by the Department of Housing and Community Development as having sufficient experience in appraising comparable rental properties in California. Existing law requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to undertake specified responsibilities and duties with respect to the provisions described above. This bill would additionally require the department to refer violations of these provisions to the Attorney General, as specified, and monitor compliance with specified provisions by owners of assisted housing developments and to provide a report to the Legislature, as provided. Existing law authorizes the requirements described above to be enforced either in law or in equity by specified entities. This bill would additionally authorize a tenant association at the property or any affected public entity to enforce these requirements either in law or in equity. The bill would authorize the court to waive any bond requirement and award attorney's fees and costs to a prevailing plaintiff under these provisions. (3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
(1) The Housing Accountability Act, among other things, prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning approval in a manner than renders infeasible, a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households or an emergency shelter unless the local agency makes specified written findings based upon substantial evidence in the record. This bill would require the findings of the local agency to instead be based on a preponderance of the evidence in the record. (2) The act authorizes a local agency to disapprove or condition approval of a housing development or emergency shelter, as described above, if, among other reasons, the housing development project or emergency shelter is inconsistent with both the jurisdiction's zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as specified in any element of the general plan as it existed on the date the application was deemed complete, and the jurisdiction has adopted a revised housing element in accordance with specified law. This bill would specify that a change to the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation subsequent to the date the application was deemed complete does not constitute a valid basis to disapprove or condition approval of the housing development project or emergency shelter. (3) The act defines various terms for purposes of its provisions, including the term "housing development project," which is defined as a project consisting either of residential units only, mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential units, or transitional housing or supportive housing. For a mixed-use development for these purposes, the act requires that nonresidential uses be limited to neighborhood commercial uses, as defined, and to the first floor of buildings that are 2 or more stories. This bill would instead require, with respect to mixed-use developments, that 23 of the square footage be designated for residential use. (4) If a local agency proposes to disapprove a housing development project that complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, or to approve it on the condition that it be developed at a lower density, the act requires that the local agency base its decision upon written findings supported by substantial evidence on the record that specified conditions exist. This bill would specify that a housing development project or emergency shelter is deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision for purposes of the above-described provisions if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project or emergency shelter is consistent, compliant, or in conformity. The bill, if the local agency considers the housing development project to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, would require the local agency to provide the applicant with written documentation identifying the provision or provisions, and an explanation of the reason or reasons it considers the housing development to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity within specified time periods. If the local agency fails to provide this documentation, the bill would provide that the housing development project would be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision. By requiring local agencies to provide documentation related to disapprovals of housing development projects, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (5) The act authorizes the project applicant, a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the development or emergency shelter, or a housing organization, as defined, to bring an action to enforce its provisions. This bill would entitle a housing organization to reasonable attorney's fees and costs if it is the prevailing party in an action to enforce the act. (6) If a court finds that the local agency disapproved, or conditioned approval in a manner that renders infeasible the project or emergency shelter or housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households without making the required findings or without making sufficient findings, the act requires the court to issue an order or judgment compelling compliance with its provisions within 60 days, including an order that the local agency take action on the development project or emergency shelter and awarding attorney's fees and costs. This bill would additionally require the court to issue an order compelling compliance with the act, as described above, if it finds that either the local agency, in violation of a specified provision of the act, disapproved or conditioned approval of a housing development project in a manner rendering it infeasible for the development of an emergency shelter or certain housing without making the required findings or without making findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence, or, the local agency, in violation of another specified provision of the act, disapproved a housing development project complying with specified standards and criteria or imposed a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, without making the required findings or without making findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The bill would authorize the court to issue an order or judgment directing the local agency to approve the housing development project or emergency shelter if the court finds that the local agency acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development project or emergency shelter in violation of the act. (7) The act authorizes the court to impose fines if it finds that a local agency acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development or emergency shelter and failed to carry out the court's order or judgment compelling compliance within 60 days of the court's judgment. The act requires that the fines be deposited into a housing trust fund and committed for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households. This bill, upon a determination that the local agency has failed to comply with the order or judgment compelling compliance with these provisions within 60 days, would instead require the court to impose fines, as described above, in every instance in which the court determines that the local agency disapproved, or conditioned approval in a manner that renders infeasible, the housing development project or emergency shelter without making the required findings or without making sufficient findings. The bill would require that the fine be in a minimum amount of $10,000 per housing unit in the housing development project on the date the application was deemed complete. In determining the amount of fine to impose, the bill would require the court to consider the local agency's progress in attaining its target allocation of the regional housing need and any prior violations of the act. The bill would authorize the local agency to instead deposit the fine into a specified state fund, and would also provide that any funds in a local housing trust fund not expended after 5 years would revert to the state and be deposited in that fund, to be used upon appropriation by the Legislature for financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households. If the local agency has acted in bad faith and failed to carry out the court's order, as described above, the bill would require the court to multiply the fine by a factor of 5. This bill would also require that a petition to enforce the act be filed and served no later than 90 days from the later of (a) the effective date of a decision of the local agency imposing conditions on, disapproving, or taking any other final action on a housing development project or (b) the expiration of certain time periods specified in the Permit Streamlining Act. (8) In order to obtain appellate review of a trial court's order, the act requires a party to file a petition within 20 days after service upon it of a written notice of the entry of the order, or within such further time not exceeding an additional 20 days as the trial court may for good cause allow. This bill would allow a party to instead appeal a trial court's order or judgment to the court of appeal pursuant to specified law. (9) This bill would make various technical and conforming changes to the Housing Accountability Act. (10) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65589.5 of the Government Code proposed by AB 1515 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1515 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (11) 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.