If a jurisdiction (city or county) misses the deadline to get their housing plan certified, they are not in compliance. From that time until they are certified, builders can submit applications for projects not in conformance with a jurisdiction's zoning or General Plan.
These can be way out of line with local zoning and ordinances.
It is difficult for the jurisdiction to deny these projects unless they declare in writing that at least one of five narrow circumstances that violate health and safety standards are not met.
This law has been around in California since 1990, but the first time it was used was October 2022, when the city of Santa Monica was declared out of compliance — even though it had been granted a deadline extension — and about 16 projects of 10 to 15 stories each got automatically approved, totalling 4000 units.
These heights and other conditions are completely out of line with what would otherwise be allowed in the Santa Monica neighborhood they’ll be sited in.
Builders Remedy is a punishment for non compliance, and strikes fear into cities to get their Housing Elements certified by their deadlines.
In Marin, we have until January 31st. Many cities and the county sent their Housing Elements in early, so they could be reviewed and adjusted before the deadline.
Marin county produced a detailed, thorough document, over 700 pages long.
In reply, the HCD sent a nine page letter asking for more information, including exactly where all the water would come from (?!) and why the county wasn’t placing low income housing on parcels 2-8 acres in size (we don’t have those). They also wanted an explanation of why there are pockets of wealthy white people, and pockets of low income POC. They wanted clarification on how the county could be sure that business addresses listed would be willing to convert their lots to housing. There was little guidance in the letter, leading to some confusion.
But it appears there will be enough time for the county to be certified by the deadline.
Other cities in Marin will not be so lucky. Mill Valley’s Housing Element (HE) contains hundreds of units based on repurposing “underutilized space” as housing. But they did so without confirming that properties agreed to the conversions.
Belvedere does not expect to make its deadline, according to a 10/26 story in the Ark Newspaper.
Once an HE is certified, the Builders Remedy window is closed. But for Santa Monica it’s too late, and they are going to have accept the gigantic structures they are stuck with.
So many cities in California will likely be out of compliance that the public will finally understand what it means to lose local control over zoning and their own planning. That is state overreach.
HOLLAND AND KNIGHT, A LAW FIRM FOR DEVELOPERS, CREATED THIS EXCELLENT LIST OF NEW LEGISLATION.
JUST THE LIST FOR LAWS TAKING EFFECT IN 2023:
HERE ARE 2017 laws: — the beginnings :
HERE ARE 2018-2019:
Text Below is from the top link, above
California's 2023 Housing Laws: What You Need to Know
Streamlined Approval for Housing on Commercially Zoned Sites, Parking and Density Reforms, and New Timelines for Post-Entitlement Permits Are Highlights of Big Year for Housing Law
By Holland & Knight Law
OCTOBER 10, 2022
As in previous years, the California Legislature enacted a large volume of housing production laws in the 2022 session, some of which may have a significant effect on housing production in 2023. (See Holland & Knight's previous annual recaps of California Housing Laws in the final section below.) This Holland & Knight alert takes a closer look at some of the most significant housing laws that the Legislature passed and that Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed into law, grouped into following categories
AB 2668 ("cleanup" of SB 35's streamlined ministerial approval process
Except where noted, the new laws take effect Jan. 1, 2023.
Cities sue state over new rules superseding local control rules over ADUs and lot-splitting
“The decision comes months after judges, citing fire risk, struck down approvals of a 1,119-home development in a fire-prone area of San Diego County and of a 19,300-home community on the southern flanks of the Tehachapi Mountains in Los Angeles County.
The developers of the project later reached an agreement with environmentalists to dedicate funding for fire protection and prevention and to build zero-emission homes. Tejon called lawsuit "frivolous," but it still had effect.
The devastating 2003 Cedar Fire, which caused traffic gridlock on local freeways, scorched an estimated 95% of the Fanita Ranch site.
BY BLAKE NELSONSTAFF REPORTER
OCT. 17, 2022 5:39 PM PT
Santee is facing another legal challenge to its long-planned Fanita Ranch housing development, after the City Council re-approved about 3,000 new homes through a process that blocks voters from overturning the move at the ballot box.
The lawsuit was filed Friday in San Diego Superior Court by the same coalition of environmental groups that previously succeeded in delaying the project.
The suit accuses the city of breaking local laws in an effort to sidestep the development’s “longstanding unpopularity” and of not doing enough to guard against the threat of wildfire. The proposed site has burned at least 65 times in the last century, including in 2003 when most of it went up during the Cedar fire, attorneys wrote.
BRIG is challenging the city of Belvedere to hold Mallard Pointe Project development to application standards.
On February 23, 2022, the city determined that the developer’s “final” application “incomplete.” The City’s list of items missing from the application is over 10 pages in length! Both BRIG’s February 16, 2022 comment letter and the City’s “incompleteness” letter can be found on BRIG’s website www.brig94920.com. The developer has an additional ninety days, commencing on February 23, to submit the missing information to the City.
Parking Reform and Other Cost Reductions
AB 2097 (Assembly Member Laura Friedman) – No Parking Minimums within Half-Mile of Public Transit. This law prohibits public agencies from imposing minimum parking requirements on residential, commercial or other development projects located within a half-mile of public transit. Public agencies may only impose parking minimums on such projects if the agency can make certain written findings that the inability to impose parking requirements would have substantial negative impacts on 1) a jurisdiction's ability to meet its regional housing needs for low- and very low-income households; 2) a jurisdiction's ability to meet special housing needs for the elderly or persons with disabilities; 3) existing residential or commercial parking facilities located within a half-mile of the housing development project. While project opponents typically argue that a "lack of adequate parking" negatively impacts the surrounding community, AB 2097 requires such findings to be supported by a preponderance of the evidence and such determination and findings must be made within 30 days of receiving a complete project application. Additionally, the foregoing exception does not apply to (meaning that a jurisdiction cannot deny a parking reduction for) housing development projects, including but not limited to residential-only and mixed-use projects, if 1) a minimum of 20 percent of the units are dedicated to very low-, low- or moderate-income households, students, the elderly or persons with disabilities; 2) the development contains 20 residential units or less; or 3) the development is
is subject to other applicable parking reductions provided by law.
While the law provides flexibility for builders to respond to market conditions and voluntarily provide parking, such parking may be required by the public agency to require spaces for car-share vehicles to be shared with the public, or to charge parking owners for the parking stall. Additionally, public agencies may still require builders to provide electric vehicle supply equipment and/or accessible parking spaces that would otherwise apply to the development project. There has been some controversy regarding this law and whether it will result in less frequent use of the State Density Bonus Law to reduce parking in exchange for affordable housing. AB 2097 does not require any provision of affordable housing.
AB 2536 (Assembly Member Grayson) – Connection Fees and Capacity Charges. This law requires agencies to evaluate the amount of a new fee or capacity charge prior to levying it. The evaluation must include evidence to support that the fee or capacity charge does not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing service. All information constituting the evaluation must be made publically available at least 14 days prior to hearing on the new fees or capacity charge.
NEW HOUSING LAWS
COMING TO BALLOT 2024:
State Constitutional Amendment 2 (Sen. Ben Allen) – Repeal of Article 34. Enacted by a 1950 statewide ballot proposition as part of a backlash to federal investment in public housing, Article 34 of the California Constitution purports to give local voters the power to veto any "low rent housing project," as defined, receiving certain forms of public funding. The practical effect of this constitutional provision is somewhat blunted by clarifying statutory language which limits its scope. However, it continues to pose significant obstacles and increased costs for affordable housing developers and public agencies, who must carefully design projects and funding sources to ensure that projects are either exempt from Article 34 or comply with it, and affordable housing developers often must seek more costly sources of funding to avoid triggering its requirements. SCA 2, if approved by the voters at the 2024 statewide election, will repeal Article 34 in its entirety.
AB 2011 (Assembly Member Buffy Wicks) and SB 6 (Sen. Anna Caballero) – Housing Development on Commercially Zoned Sites. The centerpiece of this year's housing production legislation are two different laws that aim to advance residential development on sites currently zoned and planned for commercial and retail use. Particularly notable is Assembly Bill (AB) 2011, which provides a streamlined ministerial approval pathway, comparable to Senate Bill (SB) 35 of 2017, for qualifying multifamily projects on commercial zoned land that pay prevailing wages and meet specified affordable housing targets. A previous Holland & Knight alert provides a high-level analysis of the two laws to help project applicants and property owners identify whether these laws should be explored further to advance housing production on commercially zoned sites, a long-discussed goal in the state and throughout the country. Unlike most other laws, these laws do not take effect until July 1, 2023.
AB 2295 (Assembly Member Richard Bloom) – Educational Employee Housing. This law addresses the dire need for teacher housing. It will allow a qualifying rental housing development project to be an "allowable use," entitled to certain exemptions from applicable local regulations, if the development is located on real property owned by an "educational agency" (a school district or county office of education). A qualifying development must comply with most "objective" zoning, subdivision and design review standards, but is entitled to be exempt from any use, density and height limitations that would preclude a residential development of at least 35 feet in height, and a minimum density ranging from 10 to 30 dwelling units per acre depending upon whether the jurisdiction is metropolitan, suburban or unincorporated. A qualifying development is also exempt from various requirements regarding the disposal of surplus land. To qualify:
The law does not take effect until Jan. 1, 2024, and the bill would require the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to provide a specified notice to the planning agency of each county and city on or before Jan. 31, 2023. The law sunsets Jan. 1, 2033.
This law should avoid the need for zoning changes for some projects, but it does not create an exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or other streamlined permitting pathway, so it might be best combined with other applicable laws such as SB 35 or AB 2011, or in jurisdictions where avoiding an anti-housing voter referendum is a key consideration.
SB 886 (Senator Scott Wiener) – CEQA Exemption for Qualifying University Housing Development Projects. SB 886, intended to provide a CEQA exemption for university student and faculty housing, received significant attention and support from the many Californians who were dismayed to see CEQA litigation used to bar the University of California, Berkeley from making admissions offers to new students. By the end of the legislative process, however, the same Legislature that acted to rescue UC-Berkeley from CEQA litigation had laden SB 886's simple CEQA exemption with numerous qualifying conditions. Under SB 886, a student housing project or a faculty and staff housing project carried out by a public university on real property owned by the public university can qualify for a CEQA exemption, but only if it meets numerous criteria. including:
AB 2668 (Assembly Member Grayson) – SB 35 "Cleanup." AB 2668 makes a series of technical and clarifying changes to SB 35 of 2017, a law that provides for streamlined ministerial approval of qualifying housing and mixed-use projects that conform to objective zoning requirements, pay prevailing wages and meet minimum affordable housing requirements.
For further information on SB 35's streamlined ministerial approval process, see Holland & Knight's previous alerts on the firm's legal victories using SB 35 to achieve project approvals: "Holland & Knight First in California to Secure Housing Approval Through Litigation Under Streamlining Law," Sept. 11, 2020; and "California Court of Appeal Sides with Holland & Knight Clients in Landmark Housing Case," April 26, 2021.)
New Housing Laws
VETO: Safety was deliberately prevented in Newsom’s SB 182 VETO (would have required evacuation routes for new construction) https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/SB-182.pdf
ALMOST PASSED: SB 1292, which deliberately discourages trying to avoid building in hazard zones https://openstates.org/ca/bills/20212022/SB1292/
LAWS PASSED -- PARTIAL LIST, THEY KEEP COMING
AB 68 by Assemblymember Sharon Quirk-Silva (D-Fullerton) – Department of Housing and Community Development: California Statewide Housing Plan: annual reports.
AB 215 by Assemblymember David Chiu (D-San Francisco) – Planning and Zoning Law: housing element: violations.
AB 345 by Assemblymember Sharon Quirk-Silva (D-Fullerton) – Accessory dwelling units: separate conveyance.
AB 447 by Assemblymember Tim Grayson (D-Concord) – California Debt Limit Allocation Committee: income taxes: low-income housing tax credits.
AB 491 by Assemblymember Christopher Ward (D-San Diego) – Housing: affordable and market rate units.
AB 571 by Assemblymember Chad Mayes (I-Rancho Mirage) – Planning and zoning: density bonuses: affordable housing.
AB 602 by Assemblymember Tim Grayson (D-Concord) – Development fees: impact fee nexus study.
AB 634 by Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo (D-Los Angeles) – Density Bonus Law: affordability restrictions.
AB 721 by Assemblymember Richard Bloom (D-Santa Monica) – Covenants and restrictions: affordable housing.
AB 787 by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino) – Planning and zoning: housing element: converted affordable housing units.
AB 838 by Assemblymember Laura Friedman (D-Glendale) – State Housing Law: enforcement response to complaints.
AB 948 by Assemblymember Chris Holden (D-Pasadena) – Bureau of Real Estate Appraisers: disclosures: demographic information: reporting: continuing education.
AB 1029 by Assemblymember Kevin Mullin (D-South San Francisco) – Housing elements: prohousing local policies.
AB 1043 by Assemblymember Isaac Bryan (D-Los Angeles) – Housing programs: rental housing developments: affordable rent.
AB 1095 by Assemblymember Ken Cooley (D-Rancho Cordova) – Affordable rental and owner-occupied housing: equity in state and local programs.
AB 1297 by Assemblymember Chris Holden (D-Pasadena) – California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank: public and economic development facilities: housing.
AB 1304 by Assemblymember Miguel Santiago (D-Los Angeles) – Affirmatively further fair housing: housing element: inventory of land.
AB 1398 by Assemblymember Richard Bloom (D-Santa Monica) – Planning and zoning: housing element: rezoning of sites: prohousing local policies.
AB 1466 by Assemblymember Kevin McCarty (D-Sacramento) – Real property: discriminatory restrictions.
AB 1584 by the Committee on Housing and Community Development – Housing omnibus.
SB 263 by Senator Susan Rubio (D-Baldwin Park) – Real estate applicants and licensees: education requirements: fair housing and implicit bias training.
SB 290 by Senator Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) – Density Bonus Law: qualifications for incentives or concessions: student housing for lower income students: moderate-income persons and families: local government constraints. SB 381 by Senator Anthony Portantino (D-La Cañada Flintridge) – Surplus residential property: priorities, procedures, price, and fund: City of South Pasadena.
SB 478 by Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) – Planning and Zoning Law: housing development projects. SB 591 by Senator Josh Becker (D-Menlo Park) – Senior citizens: intergenerational housing developments.
SB 728 by Senator Robert Hertzberg (D-Van Nuys) – Density Bonus Law: purchase of density bonus units by nonprofit housing organizations.
SB 791 by Senator Dave Cortese (D-San Jose) – California Surplus Land Unit.
The Governor previously signed:
AB 1174 by Assemblymember Tim Grayson (D-Concord) – Planning and zoning: housing: development application modifications, approvals, and subsequent permits.
SB 8 by Senator Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) – Housing Crisis Act of 2019.
SB 9 by Senator Toni G. Atkins (D-San Diego) – Housing development: approvals.
SB 10 by Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) – Planning and zoning: housing development: density.
SB 396 forestry in committee SB396 would allow PG&E to access your private property to chop down your trees without your permission, without review by a qualified expert, and without…” and “If SB 396 is passed, the Assembly will find that is has allowed PG&E to chop down any Strike Tree along its 25,500 miles of power lines in High ...” etc. Also, unless requested otherwise in advance by landowner, PG&E free to leave chunks and debris on property.
TITLE 7. PLANNING AND LAND USE [65000 - 66499.58] (Heading of Title 7 amended by Stats. 1974, Ch. 1536. ) DIVISION 1. PLANNING AND ZONING ARTICLE 10.5. Open-Space Lands [65560 - 65570]
The Legislature finds and declares as follows:
(a) That the preservation of open-space land, as defined in this article, is necessary not only for the maintenance of the economy of the state, but also for the assurance of the continued availability of land for the production of food and fiber, for the enjoyment of scenic beauty, for recreation and for the use of natural resources.
(b) That discouraging premature and unnecessary conversion of open-space land to urban uses is a matter of public interest and will be of benefit to urban dwellers because it will discourage noncontiguous development patterns which unnecessarily increase the costs of community services to community residents.
(c) That the anticipated increase in the population of the state demands that cities, counties, and the state at the earliest possible date make definite plans for the preservation of valuable open-space land and take positive action to carry out such plans by the adoption and strict administration of laws, ordinances, rules and regulations as authorized by this chapter or by other appropriate methods.
(d) That in order to assure that the interests of all its people are met in the orderly growth and development of the state and the preservation and conservation of its resources, it is necessary to provide for the development by the state, regional agencies, counties and cities, including charter cities, of statewide coordinated plans for the conservation and preservation of open-space lands.
(e) That for these reasons this article is necessary for the promotion of the general welfare and for the protection of the public interest in open-space land.”
Here is the State's legal position on the intrinsic value of open space with planned growth https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=1.&title=7.&part=&chapter=3.&article=10.5
Open space around Lucas Valley Eichlers serves as a fire break
SB 828, Wiener. Land use: housing element.
(1) The Planning and Zoning Law requires a city or county to adopt a general plan for its jurisdiction that contains certain mandatory elements, including a housing element. Existing law requires a planning agency to submit a draft of the housing emptions from the council’s projections, including, if available, specified data factors for the region, including, data relating to the percentage of renter’s households that are overcrowded and vacancy rates for healthy housing market functioning and regional mobility. Existing law requires the department, after consulting with the council of governments, to determine, in writing, the data assumptions for each of the data factors provided, as well as the methodology the department will use. This bill would additionally require the council of governments to provide data on the overcrowding rate for a comparable housing market, and would define the vacancy rate for a healthy rental housing market for those purposes to be no less than 5%.
Existing law, to the extent that sufficient data is available as provided, requires each council of governments, or delegate subregion as applicable, to include specified factors to develop the methodology that allocates regional housing needs including, among other factors, the opportunities and constraints regarding development of addition housing in each member jurisdiction, such as lands preserved or protected from urban development under existing federal or state programs, or both, designed to protect open space, farmland, environmental habitats, and natural resources on a long-term basis. This bill would revise this factor to also include lands zoned or designated for agricultural protection or preservation that are subject to a local ballot measure that was approved by the voters of that jurisdiction that prohibits or restricts their conversion to nonagricultural uses. (4) By expanding the duties of local governments relating to the housing element program and the final regional housing need plan, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(1) The Planning and Zoning Law requires a city or county to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the city or county and specified lands outside its boundaries that includes, among other things, a housing element. That law requires the planning agency of a city or county to provide by April 1 of each year an annual report to the legislative body of the city or county, the Office of Planning and Research, and the Department of Housing and Community Development that includes, among other specified information, the status of the general plan and progress in its implementation. This bill would additionally require that this annual report include information on the progress of the city or county in adopting or amending its general plan or local open-space element in compliance with its obligations to consult with California Native American tribes, and to identify and protect, preserve, and mitigate impacts to specified places, features, and objects, pursuant to specified law. ( , (A) a requirement that the development not be located on specified sites, including those within a coastal zone, very high fire hazard severity zone, delineated earthquake fault zone, or special flood hazard area, and sites designated as prime farmland, wetlands, or a habitat for a protected species, and (B) a requirement that the development be consistent with objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards in effect at the time that the development is submitted to the local government.
CEQA exempts from its requirements certain residential, employment center, and mixed-use development projects meeting specified criteria, including that the project is located in a transit priority area and that the project is undertaken and is consistent with a specific plan for which an environmental impact report has been certified.
This bill would additionally exempt those projects located in a very low vehicle travel area, as defined.
CEQA exempts from its requirements agricultural employee housing projects, affordable housing projects, and housing projects on infill sites that meet certain requirements, including, among others, the site is not located within the boundaries of a state conservancy.
This bill would allow the location of agricultural employee housing projects, affordable housing projects, and housing projects on infill sites to be located within the boundaries of a state conservancy in order to be exempt. The bill would revise and recast the areas in which those exempt projects cannot be located, as provided.
This bill instead would require that the location of a residential project on an infill site be no more than 5 acres. The bill would additionally exempt those residential projects located in a very low vehicle travel area, as defined.
Lead Authors: Committee on Housing (S) - (Senators Wiener (Chair), Bates, Caballero, Durazo, McGuire, Moorlach, Morrell, Roth, Skinner, Umberg, and Wieckowski) SB 1030, Committee on Housing. Housing. (1) Existing law requires each county and each city to make a central inventory of all surplus land, as defined, and certain lands in excess of its foreseeable needs, identified as provided, on or before December 31 of each year and to make a description of each parcel and its present use a matter of public record. Existing law requires each county and each city to provide a list of its surplus land and excess land to, among other entities, a citizen upon request and without charge. This bill would revise this provision to instead require a county or city to provide a list of surplus land and excess land to an individual upon request and without charge. (2) The Housing Accountability Act, among other things, prohibits a local agency from disapproving a housing development project that complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria in effect at the time the application was deemed complete, unless the local agency bases its decision on written findings supported by the preponderance of the evidence on the record that specified conditions exist, as provided. The act defines “deemed complete” for these purposes to mean that the applicant has submitted a preliminary application, as specified. That act also prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or from conditioning approval in a manner that renders infeasible, a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households or an emergency shelter unless the local agency makes written findings, based on the preponderance of the evidence, that one or more specified conditions exist. This bill would revise the definition of “deemed complete” to include the submission of a completed application if the applicant has not submitted a preliminary application. The Housing Accountability Act authorizes specified persons to bring an action to enforce its provisions. If the court finds that one of 3 specified conditions is met, the act requires the court to issue an order or judgment compelling compliance with the act within 60 days, as provided. Upon a determination that the local agency has failed to comply with the order or judgment within 60 days, the act authorizes the court to impose specified fines. Existing law generally requires the local agency to deposit the fine in a local housing trust fund, but authorizes the local agency to elect to instead deposit the fine in the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund, if SB 2 of the 2017–18 Regular Session was enacted, or otherwise in the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund. This bill would delete references to the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund in the Housing Accountability Act. The bill would also make various technical changes to the act.
Cities have planners to make sure things grow at the right pace for them. Marin has very little buildable land in its cities. If the numbers were smaller, and just for low income housing,
But this is for every income category. And we don’t decide how much and where — the numbers have been assigned to us and our city councils and planners and Board of Supervisors are scrambling to look for land that can hold large developments. These aren’t small numbers of new housing. In Marin it’s 4500 units, a population increase of about 15%. How can mill valley add 865 units with only 25 buildable lots?
The city has to make an inventory, called a housing element, and it’s due soon. If the city doesn’t pick the land, the state picks for us. Right now, in Mill Valley, places like Grilly's and Malugani, and even the Goodman's hardware store are on the list. (all ironic: an affordable restaurant, a local service, and the only large independent hardware store for building materials in the area) Not because they’re for sale. Because they’re considered 'underutilized space." There could be three story housing there.
But if they can’t find enough private land for development, city owned property, like parking lots, school land, parks, and golf courses. A separate law was passed to rezone public golf courses for housing. In Mill Valley, the municipal golf course is an open area, planned place of refuge for residents in case of fire. 15% might be left open to the public. The rest will be densely packed.
Density means covering land with buildings, and there isn’t the same room for tree cover. And if we don't do it? All it will take us signing a piece of paper and you can build whatever you want. Add in a couple of low income units and your utility hookups are free. You don’t have to provide much, if any, parking.
There’s a vision of California that makes every town flow into the next, to force our cities into allowing building.
Planning and zoning: housing development: higher education institutions and religious institutions. Sponsors Sen. Scott Wiener [D] Sen. Anna Caballero [D] higher education or religious institution that partners with a qualified developer on any land owned in fee simple by the applicant on or before January 1, 2020, if the development satisfies specified criteria. The bill would define various terms for these purposes. Among other things, the bill would require that 100% of the units, exclusive of manager units, in a housing development project eligible for approval as a use by right under these provisions be affordable to lower income households, except that 20% of the units may be for moderate-incomehouseholds. households, provided that all the units are provided at affordable rent or affordable housing cost, as specified. This bill would specify that a housing development project that is eligible for approval as a use by right under the bill is also eligible for a density bonus or other incentives or concessions, except as specified. The bill would require a development subject to these provisions to provide off-street parking of up to one space per unit, unless a local ordinance provides for a lower standard of parking, in which case the ordinance applies. The bill would prohibit a local government from imposing any parking requirement on a development subject to these provisions if the development is located within one-half mile walking distance of a high-quality transit corridor or major transit stop, as those terms are defined, and within one block of a car share vehicle. This bill, by requiring approval of certain development projects as a use by right, would expand the exemption for ministerial approval of projects under CEQA.
Existing law provides for various incentives intended to facilitate and expedite the construction of affordable housing, including the Density Bonus Law, which requires, when an applicant proposes a housing development within the jurisdiction of a local government, that the city, county, or city and county provide the developer 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, among other things, agrees to construct a specified percentage of units for very low, low-, or moderate-income households or qualifying residents. This bill would prohibit a local agency from requiring the replacement of religious-use parking spaces that a developer of a religious institution affiliated housing development project proposes to eliminate as part of that housing development project. The bill would prohibit the number of religious-use parking spaces requested to be eliminated from exceeding 50% of the number that are available at the time the request is made. The bill would prohibit a local agency from requiring the curing of any preexisting deficit of the number of religious-use parking spaces as a condition of approval of a religious institution affiliated housing development project. The bill would require a local agency to allow the number of religious-use parking spaces that will be available after completion of a religious institution affiliated housing development project to count toward the number of parking spaces otherwise required for approval.
The bill would prohibit a local agency from denying a housing development project proposed by a religious institution, or a developer working with a religious institution, solely on the basis that the project will reduce the total number of parking spaces available at the place of worship provided that the total reduction does not exceed 50% of existing parking spaces. The bill would authorize a local agency to require up to one parking space per unit for a religious institution affiliated housing development project. The bill would include findings that the 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.
ABSTRACT 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, notwithstanding any local restrictions on adopting zoning ordinances, authorize a local government to adopt an ordinance to zone any parcel for up to 10 units of residential density per parcel, at a height specified in the ordinance, if the parcel is located in a transit-rich area or an urban infill site, as those terms are defined. The bill would prohibit a local government from adopting an ordinance pursuant to these provisions on or after January 1, 2029. The bill would specify that an ordinance adopted under these provisions, and any resolution to amend the jurisdiction's General Plan, ordinance, or other local regulation adopted to be consistent with that ordinance, is not a project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. The bill would prohibit an ordinance adopted under these provisions from superceding a local restriction enacted or approved by a local initiative that designates publicly owned land as open-space land or for park or recreational purposes. The bill would impose specified requirements on a zoning ordinance adopted under these provisions, including a requirement that the zoning ordinance clearly demarcate the areas that are subject to the ordinance and that the legislative body make a finding that the ordinance is consistent with the city or county's obligation to affirmatively further fair housing. The bill would require an ordinance to be adopted by a 23 vote of the members of the legislative body if the ordinance supersedes any zoning restriction established by local initiative. The bill would prohibit an ordinance adopted under these provisions from reducing the density of any parcel subject to the ordinance and would prohibit a legislative body from subsequently reducing the density of any parcel subject to the ordinance. The bill would prohibit a residential or mixed-use residential project consisting of 10 or more units that is located on a parcel zoned pursuant to these provisions from being approved ministerially or by right or from being exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, except as specified. 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. BILL SPONSORS (6)
(1) The Planning and Zoning Law requires the legislative body of a city or county to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan that includes various elements, including, among others, a housing element and a safety element for the protection of the community from unreasonable risks associated with the effects of various geologic and seismic hazards, flooding, and wildland and urban fires. Existing law requires the housing element to be revised according to a specific schedule. Existing law requires the planning agency to review and, if necessary, revise the safety element upon each revision of the housing element or local hazard mitigation plan, but not less than once every 8 years to identify new information relating to flood and fire hazards and climate adaptation and resiliency strategies applicable to the city or county that was not available during the previous revision of the safety element. Existing law requires that the Office of Planning and Research, among other things, coordinate with appropriate entities, including state, regional, or local agencies, to establish a clearinghouse for climate adaptation information for use by state, regional, and local entities, as provided.
This bill would require the safety element, upon the next revision of the housing element or the hazard mitigation plan, on or after June 1, 2022, whichever occurs first, to be reviewed and updated as necessary to include a comprehensive retrofit strategy to reduce the risk of property loss and damage during wildfires, as specified, and would require the planning agency to submit the adopted strategy to the Office of Planning and Research for inclusion into the above-described clearinghouse. The bill would also require the planning agency to review and, if necessary, revise the safety element upon each revision of the housing element or local hazard mitigation plan, but not less than once every 8 years, to identify new information relating to retrofit updates applicable to the city or county that was not available during the previous revision of the safety element. By increasing the duties of local officials, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law requires the general plan to include a land use element that designates the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of the land for, among other purposes, housing, business, and industry. Existing law additionally requires the general plan to include a housing element and requires each local government to review and revise its housing element, as specified.
This bill would require a city or county that contains a very high fire risk area, as defined, upon each revision of the housing element on or after June 1, 2022, to amend the land use element of its general plan to contain, among other things, the locations of all very high fire risk areas within the city or county and feasible implementation measures designed to carry out specified goals, objectives, and policies relating to the protection of lives and property from unreasonable risk of wildfire. The bill would require the city or county to complete a review of, and make findings related to, wildfire risk reduction standards, as defined, upon each subsequent revision of the housing element, as provided. The bill would require the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection to review the findings and make recommendations, as provided. The bill would additionally require the Office of the State Fire Marshal, in consultation with the Office of Planning and Research and the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, by January 1, 2023, to adopt wildfire risk reduction standards that meet certain requirements and reasonable standards for third-party inspection and certifications for a specified enforcement program. The bill would also require the Office of the State Fire Marshal to, by January 1, 2024, update the maps of the very high fire hazard severity zones, as specified. The bill would require the Office of the State Fire Marshal to convene a working group of stakeholders, as specified, to assist in this effort and to consider specified national standards. Existing law requires county or city zoning ordinances to be consistent with the general plan of the county or city, as specified.
This bill would require a city or county that contains a very high fire risk area, within 12 months following the amendment of the city or county’s land use element, to adopt a very high fire risk overlay zone or otherwise amend its zoning ordinance so that it is consistent with the general plan, as specified. This bill would additionally prohibit the legislative body of a city or county that contains a very high fire risk area, upon the effective date of the revision of the city or county’s land use element, from entering into a development agreement for property that is located within a very high fire risk area, approving specified discretionary permits or other discretionary entitlements for projects located within a very high fire risk area, or approving a tentative map or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required for a subdivision that is located within a very high fire risk area, unless the city or county makes specified findings based on substantial evidence in the record.
work toward https://www.gibsondunn.com/california-governor-newsom-signs-three-important-new-bills-into-law-impacting-residential-zoning-and-development/ Statewide Housing Plan DENSITY BONUS LAWS https://www.planningreport.com/2021/08/25/what-s-not-sb-9-10-california-state-housing-bills-now-pending SB 9/10
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB2371/id/2199774 Climate change mitigation 2020 AB 2371, as amended, Friedman. Climate change: Office of Planning and Research: science advisory team: climate adaptation and hazard mitigation.