Click on the green highlight to view official documents and reports for UPDATE STATUS

SB 828 (Wiener)

This bill would prohibit the prior underproduction of housing in a city or county from the previous cycle and stable population numbers in a city or county from the previous cycle from being used as a justification for a determination or a reduction in the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need. The bill would also require the final regional housing need plan to demonstrate government efforts to reverse racial and wealth disparities throughout a region by assigning additional weight to local governments that meet specified criteria in the distribution of the regional housing needs allocation for all income categories.

AB 2913 (Wood)

This bill bill, until January 1, 2024, would instead provide that a permit would remain valid for purposes of the California Building Standards Law if the work on the site authorized by that permit is commenced within 3 years after its issuance, or if the work authorized on the site by the permit is suspended or abandoned for a period of up to 3 years after the time the work is commenced. issuance. The bill bill, until January 1, 2024, would authorize the building official to grant, in writing, one or more extensions of time for periods of not more than 180 days per extension upon a written request by the permittee that demonstrates justifiable cause for the extension. The bill would also make conforming changes to the above-described provisions.

AB 2890 (Ting)

This bill would instead require a local agency that has or has not adopted an ordinance to consider a permit application for the creation of an accessory dwelling unit within 60 days. The bill would provide that, if a local agency imposes an owner-occupancy restriction, the frequency of monitoring owner occupancy shall not be monitored more frequently than annually, shall be based on specified published documents, and would further define “owner-occupant” for purposes of that requirement.

AB 2797 (Bloom)

This bill would require that any density bonus, concessions, incentives, waivers or reductions of development standards, and parking ratios to which an applicant is entitled under the Density Bonus Law be accommodated under the California Coastal Act of 1976, but in a manner that harmonizes the Density Bonus Law and specified provisions of that act relating to coastal resources planning and management policies. permitted in a manner that is consistent with that law and the California Coastal Act of 1976. This bill would also declare the intent of the Legislature in this regard.

AB 2753 (Friedman)

This bill would additionally require a city or county to provide the applicant with a determination as to the amount of density bonus and any parking ratios requested by the applicant for which the development is eligible and whether the applicant has provided adequate information to make a determination as to any incentives, concessions, or waivers or reductions development standards requested by the applicant. The bill would require that this determination be based on the development project at the time the application is deemed complete and that the city or county adjust the amount of density bonus and parking ratios awarded based on any changes to the project during the course of development. By adding to the duties of local planning officials in considering applications for density bonuses and other incentives or concessions, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

AB 2372 (Gloria)

This bill would authorize a city council or county board of supervisors to establish a procedure by ordinance to grant a developer of an eligible housing development, upon the request of the developer, a floor area ratio bonus, calculated as provided, in lieu of a density bonus awarded on the basis of dwelling units per acre. The bill would define “eligible housing development” as a development that meets specified criteria related to residential use, location, zoning, replacement of units, and affordability. The bill would prohibit the city council or county board of supervisors from imposing any parking requirement on an eligible housing development in excess of specified ratios. The bill would require a city or county that adopts a floor area ratio bonus ordinance to allow an applicant seeking to develop an eligible residential development to calculate impact fees based on square feet, instead of on a per unit basis. The bill would also authorize an applicant for a floor area ratio bonus to submit a proposal for specified additional incentives or concessions, as provided.

AB 2341 (Mathis)

This bill would would, until January 1, 2024, specify that, except as provided, the aesthetic effects of projects meeting certain requirements are not significant effects on the environment for purposes of CEQA and that the lead agency is not required to evaluate the aesthetic effects of those projects.

AB 2263 (Friedman)

This bill would require a local agency to provide specified reductions in required parking for certain development projects in which a designated historical resource, as defined in the bill, is being converted or adapted, unless otherwise required by local ordinance. Because the bill imposes new duties on local agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

AB 2162 (Chiu)

This bill would require that supportive housing be a use by right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including commercial zones permitting multifamily uses, if the proposed housing development meets specified criteria criteria, and would require a local government to approve, within specified periods, a supportive housing development that complies with these requirements. The bill would require that a developer of supportive housing provide the planning agency with a plan for providing supportive services, with documentation demonstrating that supportive services will be provided onsite to residents in the project and describing those services, as provided. The bill would prohibit the local government from imposing any minimum parking requirement for units occupied by supportive housing residents if the development is located within ½ mile of a public transit stop. The bill would specify that its provisions do not (1) preclude or limit the ability of a developer to seek a density bonus from the local government or (2) expand or contract the authority of a local government to adopt or amend an ordinance, charter, general plan, specific plan, resolution, or other land use policy or regulation that promotes the development of supportive housing.

AB 1804 (Berman)

This bill would revise the above-described categorical exemption to include proposed residential and mixed-use housing projects occurring within an unincorporated area of a county. Because a lead agency would be required to determine the applicability of this exemption, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill also would require the office to recommend proposed regulatory amendments for the implementation of these provisions and would require the secretary to certify and adopt the changes on or before January 1, 2020.