(1) The Planning and Zoning Law authorizes a local agency to provide, by ordinance, for the creation of accessory dwelling units in single-family and multifamily residential zones and requires such an ordinance to impose standards on accessory dwelling units, including, among others, lot coverage. Existing law also requires such an ordinance to require the accessory dwelling units to be either attached to, or located within, the living area of the proposed or existing primary dwelling, or detached from the proposed or existing primary dwelling and located on the same lot as the proposed or existing primary dwelling. This bill would delete the provision authorizing the imposition of standards on lot coverage and would prohibit an ordinance from imposing requirements on minimum lot size. The bill would revise the requirements for an accessory dwelling unit by providing that the accessory dwelling unit may be attached to, or located within, an attached garage, storage area, or an accessory structure, as defined. (2) Existing law requires a local agency to ministerially approve or deny a permit application for the creation of an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit within 120 days of receiving the application. This bill would instead require a local agency to ministerially approve or deny a permit application for the creation of an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit within 60 days from the date the local agency receives a completed application if there is an existing single-family or multifamily dwelling on the lot, and would authorize the permitting agency to delay acting on the permit application if the permit application is submitted with a permit application to create a new single-family or multifamily dwelling on the lot, as specified. (3) Existing law prohibits the establishment by ordinance of minimum or maximum size for an accessory dwelling unit, or size based upon a percentage of the proposed or existing primary dwelling, if the limitations do not permit at least an efficiency unit to be constructed. This bill would instead prohibit the imposition of those limitations if they do not permit at least an 800 square foot accessory dwelling unit that is at least 16 feet in height with 4-foot side and rear yard setbacks to be constructed. This bill would additionally prohibit the imposition of limits on lot coverage, floor area ratio, open space, and minimum lot size if they prohibit the construction of an accessory dwelling unit meeting those specifications. (4) Existing law requires ministerial approval of a building permit to create within a zone for single-family use one accessory dwelling unit per single-family lot, subject to specified conditions and requirements. This bill would instead require ministerial approval of an application for a building permit within a residential or mixed-use zone to create the following: (1) one accessory dwelling unit and one junior accessory dwelling unit per lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling if certain requirements are met; (2) a detached, new construction accessory dwelling unit that meets certain requirements and would authorize a local agency to impose specified conditions relating to floor area and height on that unit; (3) multiple accessory dwelling units within the portions of an existing multifamily dwelling structure provided those units meet certain requirements; or (4) not more than two accessory dwelling units that are located on a lot that has an existing multifamily dwelling, but are detached from that multifamily dwelling and are subject to certain height and rear yard and side setback requirements. (5) Existing law requires a local agency to submit its accessory dwelling unit ordinance to the Department of Housing and Community Development within 60 days after adoption and authorizes the department to review and comment on the ordinance. This bill would instead authorize the department to submit written findings to a local agency as to whether the local ordinance complies with state law, and would require the local agency to consider the department's findings and to amend its ordinance to comply with state law or adopt a resolution with specified findings. The bill would require the department to notify the Attorney General that the local agency is in violation of state law if the local agency does not amend its ordinance or adopt a resolution with specified findings. (6) This bill would also prohibit a local agency from issuing a certificate of occupancy for an accessory dwelling unit before issuing a certificate of occupancy for the primary residence. (7) This bill would require a local agency that has not adopted an ordinance for the creation of junior accessory dwelling units to apply the same standards established by this bill for local agencies with ordinances. (8) This bill would make other conforming changes, including revising definitions and changes clarifying that the above-specified provisions regulating accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units also apply to the creation of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units on proposed structures to be constructed. (9) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65852.2 of the Government Code proposed by AB 881 and SB 13 to be operative only if this bill and either or both AB 881 and SB 13 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (10) 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) 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. Existing law prohibits a local agency from requiring additional information from an applicant that was not specified in that list. The Mitigation Fee Act requires a local agency that establishes, increases, or imposes a fee as a condition of approval of a development project to, among other things, determine a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. This bill would require a city, county, or special district to maintain on its internet website, as applicable, a current schedule of fees, exactions, and affordability requirements imposed by the city, county, or special district, including any dependent special district, applicable to a proposed housing development project, all zoning ordinances and development standards, and annual fee reports or annual financial reports, as specified. The bill would require a city, county, or special district to provide on its internet website an archive of impact fee nexus studies, cost of service studies, or equivalent, as specified. By requiring a city or county to include this information on its internet website, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law requires the department to update and provide a revision of the California Statewide Housing Plan to the Legislature every 4 years, as provided. Existing law requires that these revisions contain specified segments, including a comparison of the housing need for the preceding 4 years with the amount of building permits issued and mobilehome units sold in those fiscal years. This bill, for the next revision of the plan on or after January 1, 2020, and each subsequent revision thereafter, would require that revisions of the plan include a 10-year housing data strategy, as provided. The bill would require the department, in establishing the 10-year housing strategy, to establish a workgroup that includes representatives from the Department of Technology, metropolitan planning organizations, local governments, relevant academic institutions, and nonprofits. The bill would require the 10-year housing data strategy to include, among other things, an evaluation of data priorities, a strategy for how to achieve more consistent terminology for housing data across the state, and an assessment of the quality of data submitted by annual reports and recommendations based on that assessment. (3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, prohibits housing discrimination, including discrimination through public or private land use practices, decisions, or authorizations, based on specified personal characteristics, including source of income. Existing law defines the term "source of income" for purposes of the provisions relating to discrimination in housing accommodations described above, to mean lawful, verifiable income paid directly to a tenant or paid to a representative of a tenant. Existing law specifies that for the purposes of this definition, a landlord is not considered a representative of a tenant. This bill would instead define the term for purposes of those provisions, to mean verifiable income paid directly to a tenant or to a representative of a tenant, or paid to a housing owner or landlord on behalf of a tenant, including federal, state, or local public assistance and housing subsidies, as specified. The bill would also specify that for the purposes of this definition, a housing owner is not considered a representative of a tenant. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 12927 of the Government Code proposed by AB 1497 and SB 222 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1497 or SB 222 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 12955 of the Government Code proposed by SB 222 to be operative only if this bill and SB 222 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Existing law establishes the Department of Motor Vehicles in the Transportation Agency and sets forth the powers and duties of the department, including, but not limited to, vehicle registration and the issuance and renewal of driver's licenses. Existing law defines a "person," for the purposes of these and related provisions, as a natural person, firm, copartnership, association, limited liability company, or corporation. Under existing law, a violation of, or failure to comply with, any provision of the Vehicle Code is unlawful and constitutes an infraction, unless otherwise provided. This bill would make it unlawful for any person to sell, or offer for sale, an appointment with the department, as specified. Because a violation of this provision would be an infraction, the 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.
Existing law regulates the terms and conditions of residential tenancies, and prohibits a landlord from demanding or receiving security for a rental agreement for residential property, however denominated, in an amount or value in excess of an amount equal to 2 months' rent, in the case of unfurnished residential property, and an amount equal to 3 months' rent, in the case of furnished residential property, in addition to any rent for the first month paid on or before initial occupancy. This bill, notwithstanding that provision and as specified, would prohibit a landlord from demanding or receiving security from a service member who rents residential property in which the service member will reside in an amount or value in excess of an amount equal to one months' rent, in the case of unfurnished residential property, or in excess of an amount equal to 2 months' rent, in the case of furnished residential property, as specified. The bill would also prohibit a landlord from refusing to enter into a rental agreement for residential property with a prospective tenant who is a service member because this provision prohibits the landlord from demanding a greater amount of security.
Existing law authorizes traffic to be restricted through or around the work on streets and highways whenever the traffic would endanger the safety of workers or the work would interfere with, or endanger the movement of, traffic through the work zone. Existing law authorizes traffic in work zones to be regulated by warning signs, lights, appropriate control devices, or by a person or persons controlling and directing the flow of traffic. This bill would require the Department of Transportation to update guidance by July 1, 2021, to specify the appropriate use of positive protection measures with the goal of isolating workers or work zones from traffic. The bill would require the department to provide compensation for the use of a safety device where the updated guidance allows, but does not require, the optional safety device when requested by a contractor on a public works project. The bill would require the department to submit a report to the Legislature by January 1, 2024, that includes findings and recommendations on the use of positive protection measures used pursuant to these provisions. The bill would make legislative findings and declarations in support of these provisions.
Existing law specifies that a hiring of residential real property, for a term not specified by the parties, is deemed to be renewed at the end of the term implied by law unless one of the parties gives written notice to the other of that party's intention to terminate. Existing law requires an owner of a residential dwelling to give notice at least 60 days prior to the proposed date of termination, or at least 30 days prior to the proposed date of termination if any tenant or resident has resided in the dwelling for less than one year, as specified. Existing law requires any notice given by an owner to be given in a prescribed manner, to contain certain information, and to be formatted, as specified. This bill would, with certain exceptions, prohibit an owner, as defined, of residential real property from terminating a tenancy without just cause, as defined, which the bill would require to be stated in the written notice to terminate tenancy when the tenant has continuously and lawfully occupied the residential real property for 12 months, except as provided. The bill would require, for certain just cause terminations that are curable, that the owner give a notice of violation and an opportunity to cure the violation prior to issuing the notice of termination. The bill, if the violation is not cured within the time period set forth in the notice, would authorize a 3-day notice to quit without an opportunity to cure to be served to terminate the tenancy. The bill would require, for no-fault just cause terminations, as specified, that the owner, at the owner's option, either assist certain tenants to relocate, regardless of the tenant's income, by providing a direct payment of one month's rent to the tenant, as specified, or waive in writing the payment of rent for the final month of the tenancy, prior to the rent becoming due. The bill would require the actual amount of relocation assistance or rent waiver provided to a tenant that fails to vacate after the expiration of the notice to terminate the tenancy to be recoverable as damages in an action to recover possession. The bill would provide that if the owner does not provide relocation assistance, the notice of termination is void. The bill would except certain properties and circumstances from the application of its provisions. The bill would require an owner of residential property to provide prescribed notice to a tenant of the tenant's rights under these provisions. The bill would not apply to residential real property subject to a local ordinance requiring just cause for termination adopted on or before September 1, 2019, or to residential real property subject to a local ordinance requiring just cause for termination adopted or amended after September 1, 2019, that is more protective than these provisions, as defined. The bill would void any waiver of the rights under these provisions. The bill would repeal these provisions as of January 1, 2030. Existing law governs the hiring of residential dwelling units and requires a landlord to provide specified notice to tenants prior to an increase in rent. Existing law, the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, prescribes statewide limits on the application of local rent control with regard to certain properties. That act, among other things, authorizes an owner of residential real property to establish the initial and all subsequent rental rates for a dwelling or unit that meets specified criteria, subject to certain limitations. This bill would, until January 1, 2030, prohibit an owner of residential real property from, over the course of any 12-month period, 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. The bill would prohibit an owner of a unit of residential real property from increasing the gross rental rate for the unit in more than 2 increments over a 12-month period, after the tenant remains in occupancy of the unit over a 12-month period. The bill would exempt certain properties from these provisions. The bill would require the Legislative Analyst's Office to submit a report, on or before January 1, 2030, to the Legislature regarding the effectiveness of these provisions. The bill would provide that these provisions apply to all rent increases occurring on or after March 15, 2019. The bill would provide that in the event that an owner increased the rent by more than the amount specified above between March 15, 2019, and January 1, 2020, the applicable rent on January 1, 2020, shall be the rent as of March 15, 2019, plus the maximum permissible increase, and the owner shall not be liable to the tenant for any corresponding rent overpayment. The bill would authorize an owner who increased the rent by less than the amount specified above between March 15, 2019, and January 1, 2020, to increase the rent twice within 12 months of March 15, 2019, but not by more than the amount specified above. The bill would void any waiver of the rights under these provisions. The Planning and Zoning Law requires the owner of an assisted housing development in which there will be an expiration of rental restrictions to, among other things, provide notice of the proposed change to each affected tenant household residing in the assisted housing development subject to specified procedures and requirements, and to also provide specified entities notice and an opportunity to submit an offer to purchase the development prior to the expiration of the rental restrictions. This bill would authorize an owner of an assisted housing development, who demonstrates, under penalty of perjury, compliance with the provisions described above with regard to the expiration of rental restrictions, to establish the initial unassisted rental rate for units without regard to the cap on rent increases discussed above, but would require the owner to comply with the above cap on rent increases for subsequent rent increases in the development. The bill would authorize an owner of a deed-restricted affordable housing unit or an affordable housing unit subject to a regulatory restriction contained in an agreement with a government agency limiting rental rates that is not within an assisted housing development to establish the initial rental rate for the unit upon the expiration of the restriction, but would require the owner to comply with the above cap on rent increases for subsequent rent increases for the unit. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2030. The bill would void any waiver of the rights under these provisions. By requiring an owner of an assisted housing development to demonstrate compliance with specified provisions under penalty of perjury, this bill would expand the existing crime of perjury and thus 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.
Under existing law, the California Emergency Services Act, the Governor is authorized to proclaim a state of emergency, as defined, under specified circumstances. The California Emergency Services Act also authorizes the governing body of a city, county, city and county, or an official designated by ordinance adopted by that governing body, to proclaim a local emergency, as defined. Existing law provides that a person has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and prevent another from disclosing, a confidential communication with specified persons, except in specified circumstances. This bill would enact the Law Enforcement Peer Support and Crisis Referral Services Program. The bill would authorize a local or regional law enforcement agency to establish a peer support and crisis referral program to provide an agencywide network of peer representatives available to aid fellow employees on emotional or professional issues. The bill would, for purposes of the act, define a "peer support team" as a team composed of law enforcement personnel, as defined, who have completed a peer support training course, as specified. The bill would provide that a law enforcement personnel, whether or not a party to an action, has a right to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a confidential communication between the emergency service personnel and a peer support team member, crisis hotline staff member, or crisis referral service, except under limited circumstances, including, among others, in a criminal proceeding, when disclosure is reasonably believed to be necessary to prevent death, substantial bodily harm, or commission of a crime, or when disclosure is consented to in writing. The bill would also provide that, except for an action for medical malpractice, a peer support team member providing peer support services as a member of a peer support team and the law enforcement agency that employs them are not liable for damages, as specified, relating to an act, error, or omission in performing peer support services, unless the act, error, or omission constitutes gross negligence or intentional misconduct. The bill would prohibit a peer support team member from providing peer support services in specified circumstances.
Existing law governs the procedure by which crime victims may obtain compensation from the Restitution Fund, a continuously appropriated fund. Existing law establishes eligibility for compensation when prescribed requirements are met and authorizes the California Victim Compensation Board to grant compensation from the fund for pecuniary loss when the board determines it will best aid the person seeking compensation. Existing law authorizes the board to provide compensation equal to the loss of income or loss of support, or both, that a victim or derivative victim incurs as a direct result of the victim's or derivative victim's injury or the victim's death. Under existing law, as amended by Proposition 35, the Californians Against Sexual Exploitation Act, an initiative measure approved by the voters at the November 6, 2012, statewide general election, a person who deprives or violates another person's personal liberty with the intent to obtain forced labor or services or who deprives or violates another person's personal liberty for the purpose of prostitution or sexual exploitation is guilty of human trafficking, a felony. This bill would authorize the board to provide compensation equal to loss of income or support that a victim incurs as a direct result of the victim's deprivation of liberty during the crime, if the qualifying crime is human trafficking, in an amount not exceeding the value of the victim's labor as guaranteed under California law for up to 40 hours per week, as specified. The bill would require the board to adopt guidelines on or before July 1, 2020, that allow the board to rely on evidence other than official employment documentation in considering and approving an application for loss of income or support, including any reliable corroborating information approved by the board. The bill would prohibit compensation for loss of income paid by the board if the qualifying crime is human trafficking from exceeding $10,000 per year that the services were performed, for a maximum of 2 years. By expanding the authorizations for use of moneys in the Restitution Fund, a continuously appropriated fund, this bill would make an appropriation. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 13957 of the Government Code proposed by AB 415 to be operative only if this bill and AB 415 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Existing law requires designated transportation planning agencies to, among other things, prepare and adopt a regional transportation plan. Existing law requires a regional transportation plan to include a policy element, an action element, a financial element, and, if the transportation planning agency is also a metropolitan planning organization, a sustainable communities strategy. Existing law requires each transportation planning agency to consider and incorporate into its regional transportation plan the transportation plans of cities, counties, districts, private organizations, and state and federal agencies, as appropriate. Existing law designates the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) as the regional transportation planning agency for the 9-county San Francisco Bay area, with various powers and duties relative to transportation planning, programming, and funding. This bill would authorize a city located within the jurisdiction of MTC to develop and implement a traffic signal optimization plan intended to reduce travel times, the number of stops, and fuel use. The bill would also require the Department of Transportation and a city that develops a traffic signal optimization plan pursuant to these provisions to coordinate on any adjustments to traffic signals owned or operated by the department.