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 establishes a procedure by which a person may seek judicial review of the decision of the lead agency made pursuant to CEQA. CEQA requires a court to make specified orders if it finds that any determination, finding, or decision of a public agency has been made without compliance with CEQA. The Jobs and Economic Improvement Through Environmental Leadership Act of 2011 (leadership act) authorizes the Governor, until January 1, 2020, to certify projects that meet certain requirements, including certain labor-related requirements, for streamlining benefits provided by the leadership act related to compliance with CEQA and streamlining of judicial review of action taken by a public agency to require a judicial action to be resolved within 270 days of the filing of the certified record of proceedings with the court. The leadership act provides that if a lead agency fails to approve a project certified by the Governor before January 1, 2021, the certification expires and is no longer valid. The leadership act requires a lead agency to prepare the record of proceedings for the certified project concurrent with the preparation of the environmental documents. The leadership act is repealed by its own terms on January 1, 2021. This bill would additionally include projects to construct a fixed guideway, as defined, and related fixed facilities meeting certain conditions as projects that are eligible for certification by the Governor under the leadership act. The bill would provide that the certification by the Governor expires if the lead agency fails to approve the project by January 1, 2024. Because a lead agency would be required to prepare the record of proceedings for these projects, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would provide that this act shall become effective only if Senate Bill 995 of the 2019–20 Regular Session is enacted on or before January 1, 2021. 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.
Sponsored bills
(1) Existing law requires the State Department of Public Health to establish a list of reportable communicable and noncommunicable diseases and conditions and to specify the requirements for a health officer, as defined, to report each listed disease and condition. Existing law requires a health officer to report the listed diseases and conditions and to take other specified measures to prevent the spread of disease. A violation of these requirements imposed on a health officer is a crime. This bill would require any electronic tool used by a health officer, as defined, for the purpose of reporting cases of communicable diseases to the department, as specified, to include the capacity to collect and report data relating to sexual orientation and gender identity, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. The bill would also require a health care provider, as defined, that knows of or is in attendance on a case or suspected case of specified communicable diseases to report to the health officer for the jurisdiction in which the patient resides the patient's sexual orientation and gender identity, if known. Because a violation of these requirements by a health care provider or a health officer would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated-local program. (2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. (3) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law requires that the statewide direct primary be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March in each even-numbered year. Existing law requires that the presidential primary be held on that same date in any year that is evenly divisible by 4. This bill would change the date of the statewide direct primary to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June in even-numbered years in which there is no presidential primary.
Existing law vests the Department of Transportation with full possession and control of all state highways. Existing law describes the authorized routes in the state highway system and establishes a process for adoption of a highway on an authorized route by the California Transportation Commission. Existing law authorizes the commission to relinquish to local agencies state highway segments that have been deleted from the state highway system by legislative enactment or have been superseded by relocation, and in certain other cases. This bill would authorize the commission to relinquish to the City of Coronado Route 282 and specified portions of Route 75, under certain conditions.
(1) Existing law, known as the Density Bonus Law, requires a city or county to provide a developer that proposes a housing development in the city or county with a density bonus and other incentives or concessions for the production of lower income housing units, or for the donation of land within the development, if the developer agrees to, among other things, construct a specified percentage of units for very low income, low-income, or moderate-income households or qualifying residents, including lower income students. Existing law requires the amount of a density bonus and the number of incentives or concessions a qualifying developer receives to be pursuant to a certain formula based on the total number of units in the housing development, excluding the units added by a density bonus awarded pursuant to the Density Bonus Law or any local law granting a greater density bonus. This bill would require a unit designated to satisfy the inclusionary zoning requirements of a city or county to be included in the total number of units on which a density bonus and the number of incentives or concessions are based. The bill would require a city or county to grant one incentive or concession for a student housing development project that will include at least 20% of the total units for lower income students. (2) Existing law requires a city or county to grant a density bonus and certain incentives or concessions if the developer agrees to construct a common interest development that will contain a specified percentage of units for persons and families of moderate income, as specified, if all units in the development are offered to the public for purchase. This bill instead would require a city or county to grant that density bonus and those incentives or concessions if the developer agrees to construct a housing development that will contain that specified percentage of units for persons and families of low or moderate income, as specified. (3) Existing law requires the planning agency of the city or county to provide to the department, the Office of Planning and Research, and the legislative body of the city or county, by April 1 of each year, an annual report that includes, among other things, the city or county's progress in meeting its share of the regional housing needs. This bill would require the planning agency to include in that report the number of units in a student housing development for lower income students for which the developer was granted a density bonus. (4) Existing law authorizes a city or county to refuse a concession or incentive if the city or county makes a written finding, based upon substantial evidence that the concession or incentive would have a specified adverse impact on public health and safety, the physical environment, or real property listed in the California Register of Historical Resources. This bill would remove the specified adverse impact on the physical environment from the list of reasons for which a city or county is authorized to refuse a concession or incentive. Existing law prohibits a city or county from applying any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development meeting the criteria for a density bonus at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by certain provisions of the Density Bonus Law. Existing law authorizes an applicant to submit to a city or county a proposal for the waiver or reduction of such a development standard and to request a meeting with the city or county, and requires a court to award reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit to the plaintiff if the court finds that the refusal to grant a waiver or reduction violates certain provisions of the Density Bonus Law. Existing law prohibits these provisions from being interpreted to require a local government to waive or reduce development standards if the waiver or reduction would have a specified adverse impact upon health, safety, or the physical environment, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. This bill would remove the specified impact upon the physical environment from the limitations on the above-described requirement that a local government waive or reduce development standards. This bill would make findings and declarations related to the modifications to the Density Bonus Law made by this bill. (5) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65400 of the Government Code proposed by AB 168 and AB 2345 to be operative only if this bill and either or both AB 168 and AB 2345 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65915 of the Government Code proposed by AB 2345 to be operative only if this bill and AB 2345 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (6) 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 Constitution establishes the Public Utilities Commission and authorizes the commission to exercise ratemaking and rulemaking authority over all public utilities, as defined, subject to control by the Legislature. The Public Utilities Act authorizes the commission to supervise and regulate every public utility, including electrical corporations, and to do all things that are necessary and convenient in the exercise of that power and jurisdiction. Existing law authorizes the commission to fix the rates and charges for every public utility and requires that those rates and charges be just and reasonable. Existing law authorizes the commission, in a proceeding on an application by an electrical corporation to recover costs and expenses arising from a catastrophic wildfire occurring on or after January 1, 2019, to allow cost recovery if the costs and expenses are just and reasonable, after consideration of the conduct of the utility, including consideration of specified factors. Existing law establishes the Wildfire Fund to pay eligible claims arising from a covered wildfire, as provided. Existing law requires the commission to initiate a rulemaking proceeding to consider using its existing authority to require certain electrical corporations to collect a nonbypassable charge from its ratepayers to support the Wildfire Fund, and requires the commission to direct those electrical corporations to collect that charge if the commission determines that the imposition of the charge is just and reasonable and that it is an appropriate exercise of its authority, as specified. This bill would enact the Wildfire Prevention and Community Resilience Act of 2020 and would require the Natural Resources Agency, in consultation with the commission, to adopt an interim expenditure plan and an expenditure plan that are focused on reducing wildfire risk on the ground and in communities through activities such as defensible space implementation, home hardening, improved public safety, including expenditures to add trained emergency medical technicians to the workforce, and other authorized activities, as well as to prepare residents for wildfires through public education and outreach, as provided. The bill would establish the Wildfire Prevention and Community Resilience Fund and, upon appropriation by the Legislature, would require moneys in the fund be used for the implementation of those plans. The bill would require the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency, upon the adoption of the interim plan, to notify the State Controller of the adoption. The bill would require, within 30 days of the notification, the transfer of $500,000,000 from the Surplus Money Investment Fund to the Wildfire Prevention and Community Resilience Fund, and would appropriate the money to the Natural Resources Agency for the implementation of the interim expenditure plan. The bill would provide for the repayment of the moneys transferred from the Wildfire Prevention and Community Resilience Fund to the Surplus Money Investment Fund, as provided. The bill would require the commission to require large electrical corporations, as defined, to collect, on and after a specified time, a nonbypassable charge from their ratepayers, as provided, to finance the bonds issued for the support of the Wildfire Prevention and Community Resilience Fund, as described below. Existing law, until January 1, 2003, authorizes the Department of Water Resources to enter into contracts for the purchase of electric power. Existing law authorizes the department to sell power to retail end use customers and local publicly owned electric utilities under certain circumstances. Existing law authorizes the department to issue revenue bonds and entitles the department to recover, as a revenue requirement, amounts necessary to enable it to finance the bonds and purchase electric power pursuant to these provisions. Existing law authorizes the department to issue Wildfire Fund bonds on and after either the date on which the department legally defeases all of its remaining bonds under the provisions described above or the date on which it pays those obligations in full at maturity, whichever is earlier, to support the Wildfire Fund. Existing law entitles the department to recover, as a revenue requirement, amounts necessary to enable it to finance the bonds in support of the Wildfire Fund. Existing law requires those bond proceeds and revenues received by the department to be deposited in the Department of Water Resources Charge Fund. Existing law continuously appropriates the moneys in the Department of Water Resources Charge Fund to the department for specified purposes, including transfers to the Wildfire Fund and repayment of the bonds issued in support of the Wildfire Fund. This bill would authorize the department to issue bonds, in an aggregate amount of up to $3,000,000,000, the repayment of which, including interest, commences on the date on which the department has paid in full, at maturity, or legally defeases any outstanding bonds issued for the support of the Wildfire Fund or on January 1, 2036, whichever is later, to support the Wildfire Prevention and Community Resilience Fund. The bill would entitle the department to recover, as a revenue requirement, amounts necessary to enable it to finance the bonds in support of the Wildfire Prevention and Community Resilience Fund. The bill would require those bond proceeds and revenues received by the department to be deposited in the Department of Water Resources Charge Fund. The bill would continuously appropriate the moneys in the Department of Water Resources Charge Fund to the department for specified purposes, including transfers to the Wildfire Prevention and Community Resilience Fund and repayment of the bonds issued for the support of the Wildfire Prevention and Community Resilience Fund. Under existing law, a violation of the Public Utilities Act or any order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the commission is a crime. Because certain of the above provisions would be codified in the act and would require action by the commission, a violation of which would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 3289 of the Public Utilities Code proposed by SB 350 to be operative only if this bill and SB 350 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. 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 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 (EIR) 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 preparation of a master EIR and authorizes the use of the master EIR to limit the environmental review of subsequent projects that are described in the master EIR, as specified. This bill would require a lead agency to prepare a master EIR for a general plan, plan amendment, plan element, or specified plan for housing projects where the state has provided funding for the preparation of the master EIR. The Jobs and Economic Improvement Through Environmental Leadership Act of 2011 (leadership act) authorizes the Governor, until January 1, 2020, to certify projects that meet certain requirements, including a requirement that the project applicant agrees to pay the costs of the court of appeal in hearing and deciding a case challenging a lead agency's action on a certified project and certain labor-related requirements, for streamlining benefits provided by the leadership act related to compliance with CEQA and streamlining of judicial review of action taken by a public agency to require a judicial action to be resolved within 270 days of the filing of the certified record of proceedings with the court. The leadership act provides that if a lead agency fails to approve a project certified by the Governor before January 1, 2021, the certification expires and is no longer valid. The leadership act requires a lead agency to prepare the record of proceedings for the certified project concurrent with the preparation of the EIR. The leadership act is repealed by its own terms on January 1, 2021. This bill would extend the authority of the Governor to certify a project to January 1, 2024. The bill would authorize the Office of Planning and Research to charge a fee on an applicant seeking certification for costs incurred by the Governor's office in the implementation of the leadership act. The bill would additionally include housing development projects, as defined, meeting certain conditions as projects eligible for certification. The bill would, except for those housing development projects, require the quantification and mitigation of the impacts of a project from the emissions of greenhouse gases, as provided. The bill would provide for the certification by the Governor of a project alternative described in an EIR for a certified project, as provided. The bill would additionally require the project applicant, as a condition of certification, to agree to pay for the costs of the trial court in hearing and deciding the case. The bill would revise and recast the labor-related requirements for projects undertaken by public agencies and for projects undertaken by private entities. The bill would instead specify that the time period for the final resolution of any judicial action is 270 business days after the filing of the record of proceedings with the court. The bill would provide that the certification expires and is no longer valid if the lead agency fails to approve a certified project before January 1, 2025. The bill would instead repeal the leadership act on January 1, 2025. Because the bill would extend the obligation of the lead agency to prepare concurrently the record of proceedings, 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 provides for the creation of accessory dwelling units by local ordinance, or, if a local agency has not adopted an ordinance, by ministerial approval, in accordance with specified standards and conditions. This bill, among other things, would require a proposed housing development containing 2 residential units within a single-family residential zone to be considered ministerially, without discretionary review or hearing, if the proposed housing development meets certain requirements, including, but not limited to, that the proposed housing development would not require demolition or alteration of housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income, that the proposed housing development does not allow for the demolition of more than 25% of the existing exterior structural walls, except as provided, and that the development is not located within a historic district, is not included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, or is not within a site that is legally designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district. The bill would set forth what a local agency can and cannot require in approving the construction of 2 residential units, including, but not limited to, authorizing a city or county to impose objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design standards, as defined, unless those standards would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of up to 2 units, prohibiting the imposition of setback requirements under certain circumstances, and setting maximum setback requirements under all other circumstances. The Subdivision Map Act vests the authority to regulate and control the design and improvement of subdivisions in the legislative body of a local agency and sets forth procedures governing the local agency's processing, approval, conditional approval or disapproval, and filing of tentative, final, and parcel maps, and the modification of those maps. Under the Subdivision Map Act, an approved or conditionally approved tentative map expires 24 months after its approval or conditional approval or after any additional period of time as prescribed by local ordinance, not to exceed an additional 12 months, except as provided. This bill, among other things, would require a city or county to ministerially approve a parcel map or tentative and final map for an urban lot split that meets certain requirements, including, but not limited to, that the urban lot split would not require the demolition or alteration of housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income, that the parcel is located within a residential zone, and that the parcel is not located within a historic district, is not included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, or is not within a site that is legally designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district. The bill would set forth what a local agency can and cannot require in approving an urban lot split, including, but not limited to, authorizing a city or county to impose objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design standards, as defined, unless those standards would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of 2 units on either of the resulting parcels, prohibiting the imposition of setback requirements under certain circumstances, and setting maximum setback requirements under all other circumstances. The bill would also extend the limit on the additional period that may be provided by ordinance, as described above, from 12 months to 24 months and would make other conforming or nonsubstantive changes. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA does not apply to the approval of ministerial projects. This bill, by establishing the ministerial review processes described above, would thereby exempt the approval of projects subject to those processes from CEQA. By increasing the duties of local agencies with respect to land use regulations, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
(1) Existing law permits the Governor to proclaim a state of emergency during conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property, including epidemics. Existing law provides that the proclamation takes effect immediately, affords specified powers to the Governor, and terminates upon further proclamation by the Governor. The Governor proclaimed a state of emergency March 4, 2020, related to the COVID-19 pandemic. An executive order issued by the Governor on March 27, 2020, and extended on May 29, 2020, prohibits the eviction of residential tenants during the pendency of a state of emergency, except as specified. Under the executive order, this protection is effective through July 28, 2020. Existing law establishes a procedure, known as an unlawful detainer action, that a landlord must follow in order to evict a tenant. Existing law provides that a tenant is subject to such an action if the tenant continues to possess the property without permission of the landlord in specified circumstances, including when the tenant has violated the lease by defaulting on rent or failing to perform a duty under the lease. Existing law, the Tenant Protection Act of 2019, prohibits, with certain exceptions, an owner of residential real property from increasing the gross rental rate for a dwelling or unit more than 5% plus the percentage change in the cost of living, as defined, or 10%, whichever is lower, of the lowest gross rental rate charged for the immediately preceding 12 months, subject to specified conditions. This bill would authorize an owner of real property and a tenant to sign and execute a tenant-owner COVID-19 eviction relief agreement that, during a state of emergency related to the COVID-19 pandemic, and unspecified additional days, would allow the tenant to defer the tenant's unpaid rent, and would prohibit the owner from serving a notice terminating the tenancy or filing a complaint for unlawful detainer for that unpaid rent or during the state of emergency, unless an exception applies. The agreement would require the tenant to repay the unpaid rent to the state as installments in accordance with a specified repayment schedule, or ahead of the repayment schedule, during taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2024, and before January 1, 2034. The bill would require the owner of real property to offer the tenant a signed copy of the agreement, along with a specified notice, prior to executing the tenant-owner COVID-19 eviction relief agreement, and would make related changes. The bill would require the owner of real property to obtain a signed acknowledgment of receipt from the tenant if the tenant declines the offer. If the tenant does not respond to the offer, the bill would require the owner to confirm, under penalty of perjury, that the owner hand-delivered or mailed the offer. By expanding the crime of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would void any demand for the payment of unpaid rent accrued, or any notice to terminate tenancy served, beginning on March 4, 2020, upon the declaration of the state of emergency related to the COVID-19 pandemic, and until the state of emergency is terminated, as provided. The bill would, during the state of emergency, prohibit an owner of real property from demanding payment of unpaid rent, serving a notice terminating tenancy, or filing a complaint for unlawful detainer, among other things, unless the owner includes a signed acknowledgment of receipt or a sworn confirmation of a rejected offer for a tenant-owner COVID-19 eviction relief agreement. This bill would grant a tenant who has entered into a COVID-19 eviction relief agreement an affirmative defense in any unlawful detainer action brought by the owner. The bill would also stay any eviction action where a party to the eviction action produces a signed COVID-19 eviction relief agreement. (2) Existing law authorizes the Franchise Tax Board to require any person to withhold for income tax purposes an amount of a taxpayer's income, as specified, that reasonably represents the amount of tax due, as determined by the board. Existing law also provides for the collection of various debts by the Franchise Tax Board, including fines, state or local penalties, bail, forfeitures, restitution fines, restitution orders, and other amounts imposed by specified state courts and delinquent tax debt due to the federal Internal Revenue Service. This bill would require the Franchise Tax Board to calculate the repayment installments of unpaid rent, and would authorize a tenant to apply for reduction or forgiveness of repayment installments depending on the taxpayer's income. The bill would require specified persons to withhold the amount of each installment from each tenant's income during taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2024, and before January 1, 2034, as provided. The bill would require the Franchise Tax Board to transfer these moneys to the Treasurer to be deposited in the General Fund. This bill would specify that any deferment or repayment of rent authorized under these provisions is not included when determining the lowest gross rental rate for purposes of the Tenant Protection Act of 2019. (3) Existing law, the Personal Income Tax Law, and the Corporation Tax Law, impose taxes upon taxable income, and in conformity with federal income tax law, generally defines "gross income" for purposes of those laws as income from whatever source derived, except as specifically excluded, and provides various exclusions from gross income. Existing law authorizes various credits against the taxes imposed by those laws. Existing law establishes the continuously appropriated Tax Relief and Refund Account in the General Fund and provides that payments required to be made to taxpayers or other persons from the Personal Income Tax Fund are to be paid from that account, including any amount allowable as an earned income tax credit in excess of any tax liabilities. This bill, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2024, and before January 1, 2034, would exclude from gross income the gross amount of unpaid rent in a signed and executed tenant-owner COVID-19 eviction relief agreement that is reduced or forgiven by the Franchise Tax Board, as described above. This bill would allow a credit against those taxes for each taxable year beginning on or after January 1, 2024, and before January 1, 2034, to a qualified taxpayer who is an owner of real property, as specified, in an amount equal to the gross amount of unpaid rent deferred by the qualified taxpayer in a signed and executed tenant-owner COVID-19 eviction relief agreement between the qualified taxpayer and a tenant that meets the requirements described above, or in an amount equal to the gross amount of unpaid rent deferred plus inflation of at least 2% if the qualified taxpayer is a small business owner. The bill would require the qualified taxpayer to register with the Franchise Tax Board, and would require the board to approve the reservation, as specified. The bill would authorize the qualified taxpayer to claim the credit in any taxable year beginning on or after January 1, 2024, and before January 1, 2034, of the qualified taxpayer's choosing, or to sell the credit to an unrelated party, subject to specified conditions. If the amount allowable as a credit exceeds the qualified taxpayer's tax liability for the taxable year, the bill would authorize the qualified taxpayer to choose whether to be refunded the balance from the Tax Relief and Refund Account upon appropriation by the Legislature or to carry over the balance to reduce the taxpayer's tax liability in the following taxable years, as provided. The bill would require the Director of Finance to make certain adjustments relating to the General Fund and the operation of the provisions of the bill. (4) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
The Planning and Zoning Law requires a city or county to adopt a general plan for land use development within its boundaries that includes, among other things, a housing element. Existing law requires an attached housing development to be a permitted use, not subject to a conditional use permit, on any parcel zoned for multifamily housing if at least certain percentages of the units are available at affordable housing costs to very low income, lower income, and moderate-income households for at least 30 years and if the project meets specified conditions relating to location and being subject to a discretionary decision other than a conditional use permit. Existing law provides for various incentives intended to facilitate and expedite the construction of affordable housing. This bill would authorize a local government to pass an ordinance, notwithstanding any local restrictions on adopting zoning ordinances, to zone any parcel for up to 10 units of residential density per parcel, at a height specified by the local government in the ordinance, if the parcel is located in a transit-rich area, a jobs-rich area, or an urban infill site, as those terms are defined. In this regard, the bill would require the Department of Housing and Community Development, in consultation with the Office of Planning and Research, to determine jobs-rich areas and publish a map of those areas every 5 years, commencing January 1, 2022, based on specified criteria. The bill would specify that an ordinance adopted under these provisions is not a project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. This bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.