(1) The United States Constitution generally requires a state to give full faith and credit to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. Existing law authorizes, upon the demand made by another state, the extradition of a person charged with committing an act in this state that results in a crime in the demanding state, as specified. Existing law sets forth procedures by which a person may enforce a judgment for the payment of money and child custody orders issued by the court of a state other than California. Existing law authorizes a California court or attorney to issue a subpoena if a foreign subpoena has been sought in this state. Existing law generally prohibits a provider of health care, a health care service plan, or a contractor from disclosing medical information regarding a patient, enrollee, or subscriber without first obtaining an authorization, unless a specified exception applies, including that the disclosure is in response to a subpoena. This bill would prohibit a provider of health care, a health care service plan, or a contractor from releasing medical information related to a person or entity allowing a child to receive gender-affirming health care or gender-affirming mental health care in response to a criminal or civil action, including a foreign subpoena, based on another state's law that authorizes a person to bring a civil or criminal action against a person or entity that allows a child to receive gender-affirming health care or gender-affirming mental health care. The bill additionally would prohibit law enforcement agencies from knowingly making or participating in the arrest or extradition of an individual pursuant to an out-of-state arrest warrant based on another state's law against providing, receiving, or allowing a child to receive gender-affirming health care or gender-affirming mental health care in this state, as specified. (2) Existing law, known as the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, provides the state exclusive jurisdictional basis for making an initial child custody determination, and permits a California court to assume temporary emergency jurisdiction in specified circumstances. Existing law permits a court to decline to exercise its jurisdiction if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum and a court in another state is a more appropriate forum. Existing law permits a California court to decline to exercise its jurisdiction if the petitioner has wrongfully taken the child from another state or engaged in similar reprehensible conduct, except as specified. Existing law prohibits a court from considering the taking or retention of a child from a person who has legal custody of the child if there is evidence that the taking or retention was a result of domestic violence. The bill would prohibit the enforcement of an order based on another state's law authorizing a child to be removed from their parent or guardian based on that parent or guardian allowing their child to receive gender-affirming health care or gender-affirming mental health care. The bill would prohibit a court from finding that it is an inconvenient forum where the law or policy of another state that may take jurisdiction limits the ability of a parent to obtain gender-affirming health care or gender-affirming mental health care, as defined, and the provision of such care is at issue in the case before the court. The bill would authorize a court to take temporary jurisdiction because a child has been unable to obtain gender-affirming health care. The bill would additionally prohibit a court from considering the taking or retention of a child from a person who has legal custody of the child, if the taking or retention was for obtaining gender-affirming health care or mental health care. The bill would declare its provisions to be severable. (3) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Sections 2029.300 and 2029.350 of the Code of Civil Procedure proposed by AB 2091 to be operative only if this bill and AB 2091 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Sponsored bills
Existing law prohibits the state from seeking a criminal conviction or sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin, as specified, and, in a case in which judgment has not been entered prior to January 1, 2021, allows a petition to be filed alleging a violation of that prohibition. Existing law authorizes a court that finds a violation of that prohibition to impose specified remedies, including, among other things, vacating the conviction or sentence and ordering new proceedings. This bill would additionally authorize that petition to be filed for cases in which a judgment was entered as final prior to January 1, 2021, as specified, and in cases in which a juvenile disposition resulted in a commitment to the Division of Juvenile Justice, as specified. The bill would, if a motion under these provisions is based on the conduct or statements by the judge, require the judge to disqualify themselves from those proceedings. The bill would additionally make other technical changes. Existing law allows a defendant to file a motion requesting disclosure of all evidence related to a potential violation of the prohibition on seeking a criminal conviction or sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin, and requires the court to order the records to be released upon a showing of good cause. If the records are not privileged, existing law allows the court to permit the prosecution to redact information prior to disclosure. This bill would require the court, upon a showing of good cause, to order disclosure unless a statutory privilege or constitutional privacy right cannot be adequately protected by redaction or a protective order. Under existing law, a conviction or sentence is unlawfully imposed on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin if the defendant proves, among other things, that the defendant was charged or convicted of a more serious offense than defendants of other races, ethnicities, or national origins, or received a longer or more severe sentence, and the evidence establishes that the prosecution more frequently sought or obtained convictions for more serious offenses against people who share the defendant's race, ethnicity, or national origin, as specified, or if a longer or more severe sentence was more frequently imposed on defendants of a particular race, ethnicity, or national origin, as specified. Existing law requires this determination to be made pursuant to statistical evidence or aggregate data, as specified. This bill would allow that evidence to include nonstatistical evidence and would require the court to consider the totality of the evidence in determining whether a significant difference in seeking or obtaining convictions or in imposing sentences has been established. The bill would require the court to consider whether systemic and institutional racial bias, racial profiling, and historical patterns of racially biased policing and prosecution may have contributed to, or caused differences observed in, the data or impacted the availability of data overall. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1473 of the Penal Code proposed by SB 467 to be operative only if this bill and SB 467 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Existing law designates specific days as holidays in this state. Existing law requires the Governor annually to proclaim the date corresponding with the second new moon following the winter solstice, or the third new moon following the winter solstice should an intercalary month intervene, as the "Lunar New Year." Existing law entitles state employees, with specified exceptions, to elect to receive 8 hours of holiday credit for "Native American Day," in lieu of receiving 8 hours of personal holiday credit, and to elect to use 8 hours of vacation, annual leave, or compensating time off, consistent with departmental operational needs and collective bargaining agreements, for "Native American Day," as specified. This bill would repeal provisions requiring the Governor to annually proclaim the "Lunar New Year," and would instead recognize the "Lunar New Year" as a state holiday. The bill would authorize state employees, with specified exceptions, to elect to receive 8 hours of holiday credit for the "Lunar New Year" in lieu of receiving 8 hours of personal holiday credit, and to elect to use 8 hours of vacation, annual leave, or compensating time off, consistent with departmental operational needs and collective bargaining agreements, for "Lunar New Year," as specified. Existing law designates specific days designated as holidays in this state, every Saturday and the day after Thanksgiving Day as judicial holidays, except "Admission Day," "Columbus Day," and any other day appointed by the President, but not by the Governor, for a public fast, thanksgiving, or holiday. This bill would additionally exclude "Lunar New Year" from designation as a judicial holiday. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 135 of the Code of Civil Procedure proposed by AB 1801 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1801 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Sections 6700, 19853, and 19853.1 of the Government Code proposed by AB 1655 and AB 1801 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1655, AB 1801, or both are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Existing law, the Alatorre-Zenovich-Dunlap-Berman Agricultural Labor Relations Act of 1975, grants agricultural employees the right to form and join labor organizations and engage in collective bargaining with respect to wages, terms of employment, and other employment conditions, and authorizes employees to elect exclusive bargaining representatives for these purposes. Existing law creates the Agricultural Labor Relations Board and prescribes its composition, duties, and powers. Existing law authorizes the board to hold hearings and conduct investigations and requires that certain procedures be the exclusive method of redressing unfair labor practices. Under existing law, any person who willfully resists, prevents, or interferes with a member of the board or its agents or agencies in the performance of their duties is guilty of a misdemeanor. Existing law requires the board to certify the results of an election conducted by secret ballot of employees in a collective bargaining unit to designate a collective bargaining representative, unless the board determines there are sufficient grounds to refuse to do so. Existing law further provides that if the board refuses to certify an election because of employer misconduct that would render slight the chances of a new election reflecting the free and fair choice of employees, the labor organization shall be certified as the bargaining representative for the bargaining unit. This bill would refer to the election by secret ballot process as a polling place election. The bill would establish alternative procedures to the polling place election and authorize a labor organization to be certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of a bargaining unit through either a labor peace election or a non-labor peace election, as prescribed, dependent on whether an employer enrolls and agrees to a labor peace election for labor organization representation campaigns. The bill would provide that a labor peace election or a non-labor peace election permits a bargaining unit to summarily select a labor organization as its representative for collective bargaining purposes without using the existing polling place process. Under the bill, a labor peace election would be a mail ballot election and a non-labor peace election would establish a process for the submission of a petition with proof of majority support, subject to certification by the board. Among other provisions, the bill would require for both alternative procedures that an employer respond to the board with regard to a petition, including providing a specified list of employees to the board. By expanding the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would establish a schedule for agricultural employers to indicate to the board whether they agree to a labor peace compact, defined to mean an agreement by the employer to, among other things, make no statements for or against union representation to its employees or publicly, in any written or oral form, at any time during employee hire, rehire, or orientation, or after certain documents regarding organization are filed with the board. The bill would prohibit a labor peace compact from prohibiting an employer from communicating truthful statements to employees regarding workplace policies or benefits, as specified. The bill would require the board to develop an online web-based labor peace election process that will allow employers to indicate their labor peace choice online, and that will allow labor organizations to see whether a specific agricultural employer has agreed to a labor peace election campaign. This bill would repeal the above provisions on January 1, 2028. This bill would prescribe civil penalties to be imposed upon an agricultural employer who commits an unfair labor practice in an amount not to exceed $10,000 for each violation, and would increase that sum to an amount not to exceed $25,000 for specified violations. The bill would require the board to consider specified factors in determining the amount of a civil penalty pursuant to these provisions. The bill would also authorize the board to impose personal liability for these penalties upon a director or officer of an employer in certain circumstances. Existing law authorizes a person aggrieved by the final order of the board granting or denying in whole or in part the relief sought for an unfair labor practice, to obtain a review of the order in a specified court of appeal by filing in the court a written petition requesting that the order of the board be modified or set aside. This bill would require an employer who appeals or petitions for a writ of review of any order of the board involving make-whole, backpay, or other monetary awards to employees, to post an appeal bond in the amount of the entire economic value of the order, as specified, and would provide for the bond to be forfeited under specified conditions. This bill would state that its provisions are severable. 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. Existing law requires that the housing element include, among other things, an inventory of land suitable and available for residential development. If the inventory of sites does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for groups of all households pursuant to specified law, existing law requires the local government to rezone sites within specified time periods and that this rezoning accommodate 100% of the need for housing for very low and low-income households on sites that will be zoned to permit owner-occupied and rental multifamily residential use by right for specified developments. This bill, the Middle Class Housing Act of 2022, would deem a housing development project, as defined, an allowable use on a parcel that is within a zone where office, retail, or parking are a principally permitted use, if specified conditions are met, including requirements relating to density, public notice, comment, hearing, or other procedures, site location and size, consistency with sustainable community strategy or alternative plans, prevailing wage, and a skilled and trained workforce. The bill would authorize an interested party, including a labor organization that represents workers in the geographic area of the project, to bring an action for injunctive relief against a developer or prime contractor that proceeds with a project in violation of specified bidding requirements. This bill would require a development proponent to provide written notice of their pending application to each commercial tenant on the parcel when the application is submitted and provide relocation assistance to each eligible commercial tenant, as described. The bill would require a local agency to require that a rental of any unit created pursuant to the bill's provisions be for a term longer than 30 days. This bill would authorize a local agency to exempt a parcel from these provisions if the local agency makes specified written findings supported by substantial evidence, as provided. The bill would specify that it does not alter or affect the application of any housing, environmental, or labor law applicable to a housing development authorized by these provisions, including, but not limited to, the California Coastal Act, the California Environmental Quality Act, the Housing Accountability Act, obligations to affirmatively further fair housing, and any state or local affordability laws or tenant protection laws. The bill would require the Department of Housing and Community Development to undertake at least 2 studies of the outcomes of these provisions that include specified information, including, among other things, the number of projects built and the number of units built. The bill would provide that these provisions become operative on July 1, 2023, and would repeal the provisions on January 1, 2033. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by the Middle Class Housing Act of 2022 address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. The Housing Accountability Act, which is part of the Planning and Zoning Law, prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning approval in a manner that renders infeasible, a housing development project, as defined for purposes of the act, for very low, low-, or moderate-income households or an emergency shelter unless the local agency makes specified written findings based on a preponderance of the evidence in the record. That act states that it shall not be construed to prohibit a local agency from requiring a housing development project to comply with objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need, except as provided. That act further provides that a housing development project or emergency shelter shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision 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 would provide that for purposes of the Housing Accountability Act, a proposed housing development project is consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision if the housing development project is consistent with the standards applied to the parcel pursuant to specified provisions of the Middle Class Housing Act of 2022. The Planning and Zoning Law, until January 1, 2026, also 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 a requirement that the site on which the development is proposed is zoned for residential use or residential mixed-use development, or has a general plan designation that allows residential use or a mix of residential and nonresidential uses, with at least 23 of the square footage of the development designated for residential use. Under that law, the proposed development is also required to be consistent with objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards in effect at the time the development is submitted to the local government. This bill would permit the development to be proposed for a site zoned for office or retail commercial use and that meets the requirements of the above-described Middle Class Housing Act of 2022. The bill would also provide that a project shall be deemed consistent with objective zoning standards, objective design standards, and objective subdivision standards if the project is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Middle Class Housing Act of 2022 and if none of the square footage in the project is designated for hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging use, except for a residential hotel, as defined. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65913.4 of the Government Code proposed by AB 2668 to be operative only if this bill and AB 2668 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. By expanding the crime of perjury and imposing new duties on local agencies with regard to local planning and zoning, 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 specified reasons.
Existing law states the Legislature's intention that a county or city general plan and the elements and parts of that general plan comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the adopting agency. This bill would emphasize the intent of the Legislature to support and encourage communities in reaching environmental and climate change objectives with these provisions. Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, requires the legislative body of a city or county to adopt a comprehensive general plan that includes various elements, including a circulation element. Existing law requires the circulation element to consist of the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, any military airports and ports, and other local public utilities and facilities. Existing law requires the legislative body, upon any substantive revision of the circulation element, to modify the circulation element to plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways for safe and convenient travel in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan. Existing law defines "users of streets, roads, and highways" to mean bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, pedestrians, users of public transportation, and seniors. This bill would require the legislative body, upon any substantive revision of the circulation element, on or after January 1, 2025, to incorporate the principles of the Federal Highway Administration's Safe System Approach and to develop bicycle plans, pedestrian plans, and traffic calming plans based on the policies and goals in the circulation element that, among other things, sets goals for initiation and completion of all actions identified in the plans within 25 years of the date of adoption of the modified circulation element, as specified. By adding to the duties of county and city officials in the administration of their land use planning duties, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would require a county or city to begin implementation of the plan within 2 years of the date of adoption of the plan, to regularly review its progress towards completing implementation of the modified circulation element, and to consider revising the circulation element if it determines it will not reach the goals of the bicycle, pedestrian, or traffic calming plans within 25 years of the date of adoption of the modified circulation element. This bill would state the intent of the Legislature that cities and counties use existing transportation funding to achieve the goals of these provisions. The bill would define various terms for its purposes. 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 California Safe Drinking Water Act, requires the State Water Resources Control Board to administer provisions relating to the regulation of drinking water to protect public health. Existing law declares it to be the established policy of the state that every human being has the right to safe, clean, affordable, and accessible water adequate for human consumption, cooking, and sanitary purposes. Existing law requires the state board, by January 1, 2018, to develop a plan for the funding and implementation of the Low-Income Water Rate Assistance Program, as prescribed. Existing law requires the state board, by February 1, 2018, to report to the Legislature on its findings regarding the feasibility, financial stability, and desired structure of the program, including any recommendations for legislative action that may need to be taken. This bill would establish the Water Rate Assistance Fund in the State Treasury to help provide water affordability assistance, for both drinking water and wastewater services, to low-income residential ratepayers. The bill would make moneys in the fund available upon appropriation by the Legislature to the state board to provide, in consultation with relevant agencies, direct water bill assistance to low-income residential ratepayers served by eligible systems, as defined, and would require 80% of total expenditures from the fund to be directly applied to residential ratepayer accounts. The bill would require the state board, to the extent feasible, cost effective, and permitted under the California Constitution, to identify and contract with one or more third-party providers. The bill would impose requirements on the state board in connection with the program, including, among others, within 270 days of the effective date, as defined, adopting guidelines in consultation with relevant agencies and an advisory group for implementation of the program and preparing a report to be posted on state board's internet website identifying how the fund has performed. The bill would require the guidelines to include minimum requirements for eligible systems, including the ability to confirm eligibility for enrollment through a request for self-certification of eligibility under penalty of perjury. By expanding the crime of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require, within 365 days of the effective date, the Public Utilities Commission to establish a mechanism for electrical corporations and gas corporations to, and would authorize the state board or third-party providers to enter into agreements with local publicly owned electric utilities and local publicly owned gas utilities to, regularly share specified customer data with the state board or third-party providers, subject to certain protections. The bill would require the state board to, among other things, coordinate with the commission to align criteria between all existing water rate assistance programs offered by investor-owned utilities and to ensure timely processing of payments to investor-owned utilities. The bill would make the operation of these provisions contingent on an appropriation in the annual Budget Act or another statute for these purposes. 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 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. This bill would, until January 1, 2030, exempt from CEQA a university housing development project, as defined, carried out by a public university, as defined, on real property owned by the public university if the project meets certain requirements, including that each building within the project is certified as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) platinum or better by the United States Green Building Council, that the project's construction impacts are fully mitigated, and that the project is not located, in whole or in part, on certain types of sites, including a site that is within a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by a 1% annual chance flood or within a regulatory floodway as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, as provided. The bill, with respect to a site that is within a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by a 1% annual chance flood or within a regulatory floodway, would prohibit a local government from denying an application on the basis that a public university did not comply with any additional permit requirement, standard, or action adopted by that local government applicable to the site if the public university is able to satisfy all applicable federal qualifying criteria in order to demonstrate that the site meets these criteria and is otherwise eligible to be exempt from CEQA pursuant to the above requirements. By imposing additional duties on local governments, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would provide that a university housing development project is not exempt from CEQA if, among other things, the project would require the demolition of specified housing or a historic structure that is listed on a national, state, or local historic register. The bill would require the public university to hold at least one noticed public hearing to hear and respond to public comments before determining that the university housing development project is exempt under the bill's provisions. The bill would require the lead agency, before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each building within a project, to obtain the LEED certification of the building, and to make a determination that all construction impacts of the project have been fully mitigated and issue a notice of that determination. The bill would require the lead agency to file the LEED certification and the notice with the Office of Planning and Research and the county clerk of the county in which the project is located. The bill would require the Office of Planning and Research and the county clerk to make the certification and notice available to the public. To the extent that this bill would impose additional duties on a local agency, including the county clerk, 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.
(1) Existing law, referred to as the Density Bonus Law, requires a city or county to provide a developer that proposes a housing development within the city or county with a density bonus and other incentives or concessions, as specified, if the developer agrees to construct specified percentages of units for lower income, very low income, or senior citizen housing, among other things, and meets other requirements. Existing law requires that an applicant agree to, and the city, county, or city and county ensure, the continued affordability of all very low and low-income rental units that qualified the applicant for a density bonus, as provided. Existing law, for developments where 100% of all units are for lower income households, except as provided, requires that rent for 20% of the units be set at an affordable rent and that rent for the remaining units be at an amount consistent with the maximum rent levels for a housing development that receives an allocation of state or federal low-income housing tax credits from the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) . Existing law, with respect to a for-sale unit that qualified the applicant for a density bonus, also requires that the local government enforce an equity sharing agreement, as provided, unless it is in conflict with the requirements of another public funding source or law. This bill, with respect to the affordability requirements applicable to 100% lower income developments, would instead require the rent for the remaining units in the development be set at an amount consistent with the maximum rent levels for lower income households, as those rents and incomes are determined by CTCAC. The bill, with regard to the enforcement of equity sharing agreements for for-sale units, would also permit the local government to defer to the recapture provisions of the public funding source. The bill would also make a technical change to the Density Bonus Law by deleting duplicative provisions relating to for-sale units subject to the above-described provisions. (2) Under existing law, for projects where 100% of all units are for lower income households, except as provided, a city, county, or city and county is required to award to an applicant under the Density Bonus Law a height increase of up to 3 additional stories, or 33 feet, if the project is located within 12 mile of a major transit stop and is prohibited from imposing any maximum controls on density on the project if the project is located within 12 mile of a major transit stop. This bill would also award the above-described height increase if the project is located within a very low vehicle travel area, as defined. The bill would also prohibit the above-described maximum controls on density if the project is located in a designated county, and within a very low vehicle travel area. This bill would define "designated county" to include the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Los Angeles, Marin, Napa, Orange, Riverside, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma, and Ventura.This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for those counties. (3) Existing law defines various terms for purposes of the Density Bonus Law, including "development standard" and "maximum allowable residential density." That law defines "maximum allowable residential density" as the density allowed under the zoning ordinance and land use element of the general plan, or as described, and states that if the density is inconsistent between the zoning ordinance and land use element of the general plan, the general plan density prevails. This bill would expand the definition of "development standard" to include a minimum lot area per unit requirement. The bill would also modify the definition of "maximum allowable residential density" to account for density allowed in a specific plan, to provide that where the density allowed in the zoning ordinance is inconsistent with that allowed in the land use element of the general plan or specific plan, the greater prevails, and to set forth how density is determined. (4) Existing law prohibits, upon the request of the developer, a city, county, or city and county from requiring a vehicular parking ratio that exceeds specified ratios. Existing law, however, prohibits the imposition of any vehicular parking standards if a development consists solely of rental units, as described, and if the development meets any of specified criteria, including if the development is a for-rent housing development for individuals who are 62 years of age or older, as specified. This bill would instead prohibit the imposition of any vehicular parking standards if a development is for a project where 100% of all units are for lower income households, except as provided, and meets any of the specified criteria. The bill would also modify those criteria. (5) By imposing additional duties on local officials in administering the Density Bonus Law, 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. (6) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65915 of the Government Code proposed by AB 682 to be operative only if this bill and AB 682 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
(1) Existing law, the Permit Streamlining Act, which is part of the Planning and Zoning Law, requires each public agency to provide a development project applicant with a list that specifies the information that will be required from any applicant for a development project. The act requires public agencies to approve or disapprove of a development project within certain specified timeframes. Existing law requires a city, county, or special district to provide specified information, including a current schedule of fees, exactions, and affordability requirements applicable to a proposed housing development project, and an archive of impact fee nexus studies, cost of service studies, or equivalent studies, conducted by the city, county, or special district, on its internet website. The Housing Accountability Act, among other things, prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning approval in a manner that renders infeasible, specified housing development projects, including projects for very low, low, or moderate-income households and projects for emergency shelters, that comply with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria in effect at the time the application for the project is deemed complete, unless the local agency makes specified written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record. The act authorizes a project applicant, a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the housing development or emergency shelter, or a housing organization to bring a lawsuit to enforce its provisions. This bill would require a local agency to compile a list of information needed to approve or deny a postentitlement phase permit, as defined, to post an example of a complete, approved application and an example of a complete set of postentitlement phase permits for at least 5 types of housing development projects, as defined, in the jurisdiction, as specified, and to make those items available to all applicants for these permits no later than January 1, 2024. The bill would define "local agency" for these purposes to mean a city, county, or city and county. This bill would require a local agency, beginning on specified dates determined by population size, to provide an option for postentitlement phase permits to be applied for, completed, and retrieved by the applicant on its internet website, and accept applications for postentitlement phase permits and any related documentation by electronic mail until that process has been established. The bill would require the local agency to list on their internet website or provide by electronic mail upon request, as applicable, the current processing status of the applicant's permit. This bill would establish time limits for completing reviews regarding whether an application for a postentitlement phase permit is complete and compliant, and whether to approve or deny an application, as specified, and would make any failure to meet these time limits a disapproval of the housing development project and a violation of the Housing Accountability Act. The bill would define specified terms for its purposes. By imposing additional duties on local officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) The California Coastal Act of 1976 provides for the planning and regulation of development, under a coastal development permit process, within the coastal zone, as defined, based on various coastal resources planning and management policies set forth in the act. This bill would provide that the above provisions would not apply to permits required and issued by specified government agencies, including permits required and issued by the California Coastal Commission. (3) The Housing Accountability Act also requires a housing development project to be subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when a preliminary application is submitted, except as specified. Existing law specifies the act does not prohibit a housing development project that is an affordable housing project from being subject to ordinances, policies, and standards adopted after the preliminary application was submitted if the project has not commenced construction within 3.5 years. Existing law defines "affordable housing project" for purposes of those provisions to mean a housing development in which units within the development are subject to a recorded affordability restriction for at least 55 years, among other things. This bill would instead require either that units within the development be subject to a recorded affordability restriction for at least 55 years for rental housing and 45 years for owner-occupied housing or that the first purchaser of each unit participate in an equity sharing agreement, as specified. (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, counties, and cities and counties, including charter cities, counties, and cities and counties. (5) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.