Existing law provides that when there is reason to believe that a person arrested for a violation of specified controlled substance provisions may not be a citizen of the United States, the arresting agency shall notify the appropriate agency of the United States having charge of deportation matters. This bill would repeal those provisions. Existing law provides that whenever an individual who is a victim of or witness to a hate crime, or who otherwise can give evidence in a hate crime investigation, is not charged with or convicted of committing any crime under state law, a peace officer may not detain the individual exclusively for any actual or suspected immigration violation or report or turn the individual over to federal immigration authorities. This bill would, among other things and subject to exceptions, prohibit state and local law enforcement agencies, including school police and security departments, from using money or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes, as specified, and would, subject to exceptions, proscribe other activities or conduct in connection with immigration enforcement by law enforcement agencies. The bill would apply those provisions to the circumstances in which a law enforcement official has discretion to cooperate with immigration authorities. The bill would require, by October 1, 2018, the Attorney General, in consultation with the appropriate stakeholders, to publish model policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible for use by public schools, public libraries, health facilities operated by the state or a political subdivision of the state, and courthouses, among others. The bill would require, among others, all public schools, health facilities operated by the state or a political subdivision of the state, and courthouses to implement the model policy, or an equivalent policy. The bill would state that, among others, all other organizations and entities that provide services related to physical or mental health and wellness, education, or access to justice, including the University of California, are encouraged to adopt the model policy. The bill would require that a law enforcement agency that chooses to participate in a joint law enforcement task force, as defined, submit a report annually pertaining to task force operations to the Department of Justice, as specified. The bill would require the Attorney General, by March 1, 2019, and annually thereafter, to report on the types and frequency of joint law enforcement task forces, and other information, as specified, and to post those reports on the Attorney General's Internet Web site. The bill would require law enforcement agencies to report to the department annually regarding transfers of persons to immigration authorities. The bill would require the Attorney General to publish guidance, audit criteria, and training recommendations regarding state and local law enforcement databases, for purposes of limiting the availability of information for immigration enforcement, as specified. The bill would require the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to provide a specified written consent form in advance of any interview between a person in department custody and the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement regarding civil immigration violations. This bill would state findings and declarations of the Legislature relating to these provisions. By imposing additional duties on public schools and local law enforcement agencies, 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, 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.
Sponsored bills
Existing law, the California Finance Lenders Law, generally provides for the licensure and regulation of finance lenders and brokers by the Commissioner of Business Oversight. Existing law requires a person seeking to become licensed as a finance lender or broker to submit an application to the commissioner, and to comply with specified licensure requirements such as paying a fee and an annual assessment to the commissioner. Existing law requires a finance lender or broker licensee to comply with requirements related to the conduct of his or her business. Existing law exempts specified types of entities or financial instruments from regulation under the California Finance Lenders Law. Existing law authorizes the commissioner to take specified disciplinary actions against a licensee, including ordering the licensee to cease specified activity or suspending or revoking the license of the licensee. Existing law, known commonly as a Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE program) , authorizes a public agency, by making specified findings, to authorize public agency officials and property owners to enter into voluntary contractual assessments to finance the installation of distributed generation renewable energy sources or energy or water efficiency improvements that are permanently fixed to real property. Existing law requires a public agency to comply with specified requirements before permitting a property owner to participate in any program established pursuant to those provisions, including that the property owner's participation would not result in the total amount of any annual property taxes and assessments exceeding 5% of the property's market value, and that the property owner is provided with specified financial documents and other forms. Existing law authorizes a private entity to administer a PACE program on behalf of, and with the written consent of, a public agency. Existing state law, the California Financial Information Privacy Act, prohibits a financial institution from selling, sharing, transferring, or otherwise disclosing nonpublic personal information to, or with, nonaffiliated 3rd parties without the explicit prior consent from the consumer to whom the information relates. This bill would rename the "California Finance Lenders Law" the "California Financing Law," and would require specified criteria related to the assessment contract to be satisfied before a program administrator approves an assessment contract for recordation by a public agency, including that all property taxes on the applicable property be current, the applicable property to not have specified debt recorded, that the property owner be current on specified debt and to have not been a party to a bankruptcy proceeding within a specified time, that the financing of the assessment, as well as the total value of all debt on the property, not exceed a specified amount, and that the terms of the assessment contract not exceed certain limitations. This bill would, commencing on April 1, 2018, prohibit a program administrator from approving an assessment contract for funding and recording by a public agency unless the program administrator makes a reasonable good faith determination that the property owner has a reasonable ability to pay the PACE assessments, subject to specified requirements and procedures. The bill would require a program administrator to comply with the requirements of the California Financial Information Privacy Act. The bill would, commencing on January 1, 2019, require a program administrator that administers a PACE program on or behalf of a public agency to be licensed by the commissioner under the California Financing Law. The bill would require a program administrator to comply with licensure requirements that are similar to those of a finance lender or broker as described above. The bill would require a program administrator licensee to comply with similar requirements to those of finance lenders and brokers as to the conduct of his or her business, including display of his or her license, location of his or her business, maintenance and preservation of his or her records, reporting, including filing a specified annual report under oath, prohibiting making false or misleading statements, and advertising. By expanding the crime of perjury, this bill would impose state-mandated local program. The bill would provide that the exemptions described above do not apply to a program administrator. The bill would require a program administrator to establish and maintain a process for the enrollment of a PACE solicitor and a PACE solicitor agent, including requiring a PACE solicitor or a PACE solicitor agent to meet specified minimum background checks, and would prohibit a program administrator from enrolling a PACE solicitor or a PACE solicitor agent if the program administrator makes specified findings. The bill would require a program administrator to establish and maintain a process to promote and evaluate the compliance of a PACE solicitor and a PACE solicitor agent with applicable law, and to establish and maintain a process to cancel the enrollment of a PACE solicitor or PACE solicitor agents who fail to meet minimum qualifications. The bill would require a program administrator to establish and maintain a training program for PACE solicitor agents, in accordance with certain requirements. The bill would authorize the commissioner to take disciplinary actions against a program administrator that are similar to the disciplinary provisions described above for a finance lender or broker, including authorizing the commissioner to conduct an examination under oath, and would subject a program administrator to the enforcement authority of the commissioner for specified violations. The bill would authorize the commissioner, if during the course of an inspection, examination, or investigation of a program administrator the commissioner has cause to believe that the program administrator, PACE solicitor, or PACE solicitor agent may have committed a violation of the California Financing Law or that certain conditions are met, to take specified actions to investigate a PACE solicitor or a PACE solicitor agent, including authorizing the commissioner to conduct an examination under oath. The bill would authorize the commissioner to take disciplinary actions against a PACE solicitor or a PACE solicitor agent that violates any provision of the California Financing Law, subject to certain requirements and procedures. The bill would provide that if the person subject to an investigation under these provisions complies with the commissioner's demands, or otherwise reaches a mutually agreeable resolution of any issues, then any examinations and correspondence related to that investigation is confidential. This bill would require a program administrator to submit to the commissioner information beneficial to evaluating various aspects of the PACE program to be included in a specified annual report, as provided. The bill would authorize the commissioner, by rule, to require a program administrator to use a real-time registry or database system for tracking PACE assessments and the bill would require costs associated with the real-time registry or database system to be apportioned among licensed program administrators, as specified. The bill would include findings that the changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern and is not a municipal affair, and shall therefore apply equally to all cities, including charter cities. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. 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.
Existing law, known commonly as a Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing program, authorizes a public agency, by making specified findings, to authorize public agency officials and property owners to enter into voluntary contractual assessments to finance the installation of distributed generation renewable energy sources or energy or water efficiency improvements that are permanently fixed to real property. Existing law similarly authorizes a community facilities district to be formed pursuant to an alternative procedure under which the district initially consists solely of territory proposed for annexation to the community facilities district in the future and territory is annexed and subjected to special taxes only upon unanimous approval of the owners, to finance and refinance the acquisition, installation, and improvement of energy efficiency, water conservation, and renewable energy improvements. Existing law authorizes a public agency, or an entity that administers a PACE financing program on behalf of and with the written consent of a public agency, to issue PACE bonds that are secured by voluntary contractual assessments, voluntary special taxes, or special taxes on property to assist property owners in financing the installation of distributed generation renewable energy sources, electric vehicle charging infrastructure, or energy or water efficiency improvements. The bill would require a program administrator, before a property owner executes an assessment contract, as defined, to make an oral confirmation that at least one owner of the property has a copy of specified documents and forms related to the contract, and to provide an oral confirmation of the key terms of an assessment contract with the property owner on the call or an authorized representative of the owner on the call that contains specified information. The bill would require a program administrator to record the oral confirmation, and to retain that recording for a specified period of time. The bill would require a program administrator to ask if the property owner would prefer the oral confirmation be provided in a language other than English, and would require the program administrator to deliver the oral confirmation in the property owner's language or via an interpreter chosen by the property owner in order for the contract to proceed, and would require the program administrator to provide the property owner with the translation of specified documents. This bill would prohibit a program administrator from waiving or deferring the first payment on an assessment contract, and would require that a property owner's first assessment payment be due no later than the fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the installation of the efficiency improvement is completed. The bill would prohibit a contractor or other 3rd party from advertising the availability of an assessment contract that is administered by a program administrator, or from soliciting property owners on behalf of the program administrator, unless specified requirements are met. The bill would prohibit a program administrator from providing direct or indirect cash payments or anything of a material value to a contractor or 3rd party that is in excess of the actual price charged to the property owner for the sale or installation of efficiency improvements financed by an assessment contract, except for reimbursement of bona fide and reasonable training expenses related to PACE financing, as provided. The bill would also prohibit a program administrator from providing direct or indirect cash payments or anything of a material value to a property owner that is explicitly conditioned upon the property owner entering into the assessment contract. The bill would prohibit a program administrator, contractor, or other 3rd party from making any representation as to the tax deductibility of an assessment contract, unless that representation is consistent with applicable state and federal law. The bill would prohibit a program administrator from providing information that discloses specified information relating to the property owner or the property. The bill would prohibit a contractor from providing a different price for a project financed by a PACE assessment than the contractor would provide if paid in cash by the property owner. Existing law prohibits a public agency from permitting a property owner to participate in a PACE program unless the property owner satisfies certain conditions and the property owner is given the right to cancel the contractual assessment at any time before midnight on the 3rd business day after certain events occur, without penalty or obligation, consistent with certain requirements. Existing law requires a home improvement contract to be in writing and to contain certain information, notices, and disclosures, including a statement that a consumer has a right to cancel or rescind the contract within 3 days, and authorizes the consumer to waive that right to cancel in the case of an emergency or immediately necessary repairs. The bill would make it unlawful to commence work under a home improvement contract if the property owner entered into the home improvement contract based on the reasonable belief that the work would be covered by the PACE program, and the property owner rescinds the PACE financing within the 3-day time period described above. The bill would require a contractor who violates that provision to restore the property to its original condition, and to return any money, property, and other consideration back to the property owner. The bill would authorize a property owner to waive his or her right to cancel for a contract that the property owner initiated for emergency repair or immediately necessary repair, as provided. The bill would require a program administrator, for each PACE program that it administers, to submit reports to the public agency by a specified time that contains specified information regarding that program. This bill would include findings that the changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern, and therefore shall apply to all cities and counties, including charter cities.
Existing law requires the Public Utilities Commission to adopt a process for each load-serving entity to file an integrated resource plan and a schedule for periodic updates to the plan to ensure that the load-serving entity meets, among other things, the state's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets and the requirement to procure at least 50% of its electricity from eligible renewable resources by December 31, 2030. Existing law requires a local publicly owned electric utility with an annual electrical demand exceeding 700 gigawatthours, on or before January 1, 2019, to adopt an integrated resources plan and a process for updating the plan at least once every 5 years to ensure that the utility satisfies, among other things, the state's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets and the requirement to procure at least 50% of its electricity from eligible renewable resources by December 31, 2030. This bill would require the commission and the governing boards of local publicly owned electric utilities to consider, as a part of the integrated resource plan process, the role of distributed energy resources and other specified energy- and efficiency-related tools, in helping to ensure that each load-serving entity or local publicly owned electric utility, as applicable, meets energy needs and reliability needs while reducing the need for new electricity generation and new transmission in achieving the state's energy goals at the least cost to ratepayers. Because this bill would impose additional duties on local publicly owned electric utilities, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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 a violation of an order or decision of the commission implementing the bill's requirements would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program by creating a new crime. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 454.52 of the Public Utilities Code proposed by AB 759 to be operative only if this bill and AB 759 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 specified reasons.
Existing federal law provides for allocation of federal funds through the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant program to eligible states. Existing law provides for the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program, under which, through a combination of state and county funds and federal funds received through the TANF program, each county provides cash assistance and other benefits to qualified low-income families. Existing federal law provides for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) , known in California as CalFresh, under which supplemental nutrition assistance benefits allocated to the state by the federal government are distributed to eligible individuals by each county. Existing federal law requires a state to establish an income and eligibility verification system for specified programs, including the CalWORKs and CalFresh programs, under which the information of a program applicant or recipient is matched with various databases. Existing law establishes criminal penalties for violation of certain provisions relating to, among other offenses, willfully and knowingly, with the intent to deceive, by means of a false statement or representation, or by failing to disclose a material fact, or by impersonation or other fraudulent device, obtaining or retaining aid through designated public social services. This bill would prohibit a person from being subject to criminal prosecution, as specified, for an overpayment or overissuance of benefits, obtained under the CalWORKs program or the CalFresh program, for any month in which the county human services agency was in receipt of any Income and Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) data match information indicating any potential for an overpayment or an overissuance and for which the county human services agency has not provided to the person a timely and adequate notice of action for the collection of the overpayment or the overissuance. The bill would provide that the county human services agency be deemed to be in receipt of the information following 45 days, or the combined total of 45 days and an authorized delay, as specified, from the date of the county human services agency's possession of that information. The bill would also make technical, nonsubstantive changes to the above provisions.
(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.
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.
(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.
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 and 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. Existing law, the Veterans' Bond Act of 2008, authorized, for purposes of financing a specified program for farm, home, and mobilehome purchase assistance for veterans, the issuance, pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law, of bonds in the amount of $900,000,000. This bill would enact the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2018, which, if adopted, would authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of $4,000,000,000 pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law. Of the proceeds from the sale of these bonds, $3,000,000,000 would be used to finance various existing housing programs, as well as infill infrastructure financing and affordable housing matching grant programs, as provided, and $1,000,000,000 would be used to provide additional funding for the above-described program for farm, home, and mobilehome purchase assistance for veterans, as provided. This bill would provide for submission of the bond act to the voters at the November 6, 2018, statewide general election in accordance with specified law. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
The Planning and Zoning Law requires a city, county, or city and county to ensure that its housing element inventory, as described, can accommodate its share of the regional housing need throughout the planning period. The law also prohibits a city, county, or city and county from reducing, requiring, or permitting the reduction of the residential density to a lower residential density that is below the density that was utilized by the Department of Housing and Community Development in determining compliance with housing element law, unless the city, county, or city and county makes written findings supported by substantial evidence that the reduction is consistent with the adopted general plan, including the housing element, and that the remaining sites identified in the housing element are adequate to accommodate the jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need. The city, county, or city and county may reduce the residential density for a parcel if it identifies sufficient sites, as prescribed, so that there is no net loss of residential unit capacity. This bill, among other things, would prohibit a city, county, or city and county from permitting or causing its inventory of sites identified in the housing element to be insufficient to meet its remaining unmet share of the regional housing need for lower and moderate-income households. The bill also would expand the definition of "lower residential density" if the local jurisdiction has not adopted a housing element for the current planning period or the adopted housing element is not in substantial compliance, as specified. The bill would additionally require a city, county, or city and county to make specified written findings if the city, county, or city and county allows development of any parcel with fewer units by income category than identified in the housing element for that parcel. Where the approval of a development project results in fewer units by income category than identified in the housing element for that parcel and the remaining sites in the housing element are not adequate to accommodate the jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need by income level, the bill would require the jurisdiction within 180 days to identify and make available additional adequate sites. The bill would provide that an action that creates an obligation to identify or make available additional adequate sites and the action to identify or make available those sites would not create an obligation under the California Environmental Quality Act to identify, analyze, or mitigate the environmental impacts of that subsequent action, as specified. By increasing the duties of local agencies, 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.