• Read:  Bill SB 8  for language and status
• Read:  City Fact Sheet on SB 8

Existing law, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, requires a housing development project be subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when a preliminary application is submitted, except as specified. The act defines “housing development project” to mean a use consisting of residential units only, mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses with at least 2/3 of the square footage designated for residential use, and transitional or supportive housing.

This bill would clarify, for various purposes of the act, that “housing development project” includes projects that involve no discretionary approvals, projects that involve both discretionary and nondiscretionary approvals, and projects that include a proposal to construct a single dwelling unit. The bill would specify that this clarification is declaratory of existing law, except that the clarification does not affect a project for which an application was submitted to the city, county, or city and county before January 1, 2022.

Existing law specifies that the act does not prohibit a housing development project from being subject to ordinances, policies, and standards adopted after the preliminary application was submitted in certain circumstances, including when the housing development project has not commenced construction within 2.5 years following the date that the project received final approval.

This bill would specify that the act does not prohibit a housing development project that is an affordable housing project, as defined, from being subject to ordinances, policies, and standards adopted after the preliminary application was submitted if the project has not commenced construction within 3.5 years.

Existing law prohibits an affected county or an affected city from approving a housing development project that requires the demolition of occupied or vacant protected units, as defined, unless the developer agrees to provide the occupants of any protected units with relocation benefits and a right of first refusal for a comparable unit available in the new housing development affordable to the household at an affordable rent or an affordable housing cost.

This bill would limit the requirement to provide relocation benefits and a right of first refusal to only the occupants of protected units that are lower income households, as defined. The bill would also specify that the requirement to provide relocation benefits and a right of first refusal does not apply to an occupant of a short-term rental that is rented for a period of fewer than 30 days. The bill would exempt from these provisions, a housing development project for which an application was submitted after January 1, 2019, but before January 1, 2020, that is located in a jurisdiction with a population of under 31,000, and that has adopted a rent or price control ordinance.

This bill would exempt certain protected units from the above requirement to provide a right of first refusal, including a development project that consists of a single residential unit located on a site where a single protected unit is being demolished. The bill would also exempt protected units in a housing development where 100% of the units are reserved for lower income households, not including any manager’s units, unless the occupant of a protected unit qualifies for residence in the new development and the occupant is not precluded from occupancy due to unit size limitations or other requirements of one or more funding source of the housing development.

Existing law requires the department to determine the affected cities and affected counties for purposes of the act, by June 30, 2020, and authorizes the department to update the list of affected cities and affected counties once on or after January 1, 2021, as specified. Existing law provides that the department’s determinations remain valid until January 1, 2025.

This bill would authorize the department to update the list of affected cities and affected counties a 2nd time on or after January 1, 2025. The bill would provide that the department’s determinations remain valid until January 1, 2030.

Existing law prohibits an affected county or affected city from reducing the intensity of land use within an existing general plan land use designation, specific plan land use designation, or zoning district below what was allowed and in effect on January 1, 2018.

This bill would clarify that this prohibition applies to the general plan land use designations, specific plan land use designations, and zoning districts in effect at the time of the proposed change.

Existing law specifies that the act does not prohibit an affected county or an affected city from changing a land use designation or zoning ordinance to a less intensive use if the city or county concurrently changes the development standards, policies, and conditions applicable to other parcels within the jurisdiction to ensure that there is no net loss in residential capacity.

This bill would define “concurrently” to mean that the action is approved at the same meeting of the legislative body or, if the action that would result in a net loss of residential capacity is requested by an applicant for a housing development project, within 180 days. The bill would, in the case of an initiative measure, define “concurrently” to mean that the action is included in the initiative in a manner that ensures the added residential capacity is effective at the same time as the reduction in residential capacity.

Existing law makes the act inoperative on January 1, 2025.

This bill would extend the operation of the act until January 1, 2030. By extending the duties of local officials and a crime with respect to housing, 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

This bill would incorporate additional changes to Sections 65940 and 65941.1 of the Government Code proposed by SB 37 to be operative only if this bill and SB 37 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.