Read;  SB 4        UPDATE 06/28/23  State Asm Housing and Community Development

This bill would require that a housing development project be a use by right upon the request of an applicant who submits an application for streamlined approval, on any land owned by an independent institution of higher education or religious institution on or before January 1, 2024, if the development satisfies specified criteria, including that the development is not adjoined to any site where more than one-third of the square footage on the site is dedicated to industrial use. 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-income households, and 5% of the units may be for staff of the independent institution of higher education or the religious institution that owns the land, provided that the units affordable to lower-income households are offered at affordable rent, as set in an amount consistent with the rent limits established by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee, or affordable housing cost, as specified. The bill would authorize the development to include ancillary uses on the ground floor of the development, as specified.

Read:  SB 684

STATUS:  06/21/23 From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on L. GOV. (Ayes 8. Noes 0.) (June 21). Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.

The Planning and Zoning Law contains various provisions requiring a local government that receives an application for certain types of qualified housing developments to review the application under a streamlined, ministerial approval process depending on the type of housing development, as specified. Existing law, known as the Starter Home Revitalization Act of 2021, requires a city or county to approve an application for a small home lot housing development project, as defined, on a proposed site to be subdivided unless the city or county makes a finding related to the development’s compliance with certain requirements or the development’s specific, adverse public health or safety impact.

This bill would require a local agency to ministerially approve, without discretionary review or a hearing, a parcel map or a tentative and final map for a housing development project that meets specified requirements. In this regard, the bill would require the housing development to consist of 10 or fewer single-family residential units, meet certain minimum density requirements, and be located on a lot zoned for multifamily or single-family residential development that is no larger than 5 acres and is substantially surrounded by qualified urban uses.

The bill would also require a local agency to issue a building permit for a subdivision if, among other requirements, the applicant received a tentative map approval or parcel map approval for the subdivision pursuant to the bill’s provisions described above.

Read: SB 4      UPDATE  2023-06-08 Assembly Referred to Coms. on H. & C.D. and NAT. RES.

AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 18, 2023
AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 28, 2023
AMENDED IN SENATE FEBRUARY 22, 2023

CF 23-0002-S30

COMMUNICATION FROM THE CHIEF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST and RESOLUTION (YAROSLAVSKY – RAMAN) relative to establishing the City’s position regarding SB (Senate Bill) 4 (Wiener), which expresses the intent to enact legislation to address streamlining the creation of affordable low and moderate-income housing on faith-based lands.

Recommendation for Council action, SUBJECT TO THE CONCURRENCE OF THE MAYOR:

ADOPT the accompanying RESOLUTION to include in the City’s 2023-24 State Legislative Program SUPPORT for SB 4 (Wiener) which expresses the intent to enact legislation to address streamlining the creation of affordable low and moderate income housing on faith-based lands.

Community Impact Statement: Yes

Against:
Tarzana Neighborhood Council

Against unless Amended:
Sherman Oaks Neighborhood Council

(Rules, Elections, and Intergovernmental Relations Committee waived consideration of the above matter)

Continue reading →

Read: January 31, 2023 Memo

On September 28, 2022, the Governor signed Assembly Bills (AB) 2334, 1551, and 682, three bills that make various amendments and clarifications to State Density Bonus Law, Government Code (GC) Section 65915. State Density Bonus Law is implemented through the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance, primarily Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) Section 12.22 A.25, as amended.

This memo describes the changes, clarifications, and additions to State Density Bonus Law, and will serve as interim guidance for staff and project applicants on the implementation of AB 2334, 1551, and 682 until the time the LAMC is updated to include these provisions, or this memo is otherwise superseded. Staff and interested parties are encouraged to refer to state law in Government Code Section 65915 for additional information, as the memo is not exhaustive. Further, this memorandum provides a summary of pertinent sections for reference purposes only and is not intended to conflict with State Law.

Read:  ZA Memorandum No. 142 

The California Legislature adopted Senate Bill (SB) 897 and Assembly Bill (AB) 2221, both concerning accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs). These bills take effect on January 1, 2023, and amend Government Code Sections (GCS) 65852.2, 65852.22, and 65852.23, and Health and Safety Code Section 17980.12.

The purpose of this Zoning Administrator’s Memorandum (ZA Memo) is to provide a summary of pertinent sections and amendments in these state laws and corresponding implementation in the City of Los Angeles. This summary is for reference and discussion purposes only and is not intended to conflict with state law. It reflects most, but does not cover all circumstances and may be subject to additional information, interpretation and consideration.

This ZA Memo clarifies the application of the City’s Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance, Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) 12.22 A.33, to meet the requirements of the state ADU laws taking effect on January 1, 2023. Furthermore, this memo supersedes any portion of previously issued ZA Memo 134 “Implementation of 2019 Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance and State ADU Law” which are in conflict and therefore superseded by state law.

Read: AB 2011 [ Approved by Governor  September 28, 2022. Filed with Secretary of State  September 28, 2022. ]

Enacts the “Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022” to create a ministerial, streamlined approval process for 100% affordable housing projects in commercial zones and for mixed-income housing projects along commercial corridors, as specified. The bill would also impose specified labor standards on those projects, including requirements that contractors pay prevailing wages, participate in apprenticeship programs, and make specified healthcare expenditures.

Senate Amendments
1) Delay implementation to July 1, 2023, and sunset this bill’s provisions on January 1, 2033.

2) Require HCD to conduct at least two studies of the outcomes of the bill by January 1, 2027 and January 1, 3031, respectively, that include the number of projects built, the number of units build, the jurisdictional and regional location of the housing, the relative wealth and access to resources of the communities in which they are built, the level of affordability, the effect on greenhouse gas emissions, and the creation of construction jobs that pay the prevailing wage.

3) Add an option for developers of mixed-income rental housing to provide 8% of the units for very low-income households and 5% of the units for extremely low-income households.

4) Require developers to provide relocation assistance for displaced small businesses.

5) Require a specified environmental assessment and mitigation of any hazards identified.

6) Allow local governments to exempt parcels from the bill if the local government identifies alternative sites that can be developed by right pursuant to the by criteria of this bill, such that there is no overall loss in units, no loss in affordable units, and that the new sites affirmatively further fair housing.

7) Make certain changes to conform to recent or proposed amendments to SB 35’s (Umberg), Chapter 318, Statutes of 2021, ministerial process.

8) Specify that this bill cannot apply to the following:

a) Sites where a neighborhood plan does not permit housing, and defines neighborhood plans to include specific plans, areas plans, precise plans, master plans, and urban village plans;
b) Sites that include industrial uses or are identified in local general plans as being for industrial uses;
c) Vacant sites in a very high hazard severity zone; and
d) Housing within 500 feet of a freeway or 3,200 feet of an oil or gas extraction facility or refinery.

9) Require, for a vacant site, that it does not contain tribal cultural resources that could be affected by the development and that were found pursuant to a consultation, and that those effects cannot be mitigated, as specified.

10) Specify that the 65 foot height limit within one-half mile of a major transit stop only applies in cities of greater than 100,000 and outside the coastal zone.

11) Enable a local government to require up to half of the ground floor of the new development be utilized as retail, and preclude development from using the density bonus process to avoid any local requirement to provide retail.

12) Allow local governments to adopt an ordinance to implement the bill, the adoption of which would not be subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

13) Require local agencies to report, in their Annual Progress Report to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), whether projects have utilized the provisions of this bill, and other pertinent information.

14) Allow HCD to enforce the provisions of this bill, including referring violations to the Attorney General.

Read:  AB 2295

This bill would deem a housing development project an allowable use on any real property owned by a local educational agency, as defined, if the housing development satisfies certain conditions, including other local objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards, as described. The bill would deem a housing development that meets these requirements consistent, compliant, and in conformity with local development standards, zoning codes or maps, and the general plan.

The bill, among other things, would authorize the land used for the development of the housing development to be jointly used or jointly occupied by the local educational agency and any other party, subject to specified requirements. The bill would exempt a housing development project subject to these provisions from various requirements regarding the disposal of surplus land. The bill would make these provisions effective on January 1, 2024, except that the bill would require the Department of Housing and Community Development to provide a specified notice to the planning agency of each county and city on or before January 31, 2023. The bill would repeal its provisions on January 1, 2033.

Read: SB 886

This bill would, until January 1, 2030, exempt from CEQA a university housing development project, as defined, carried out by a public university, as defined, on real property owned by the public university if the project meets certain requirements, including that each building within the project is certified as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) platinum or better by the United States Green Building Council, that the project’s construction impacts are fully mitigated, and that the project is not located, in whole or in part, on certain types of sites, including a site that is within a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by a 1% annual chance flood or within a regulatory floodway as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, as provided. The bill, with respect to a site that is within a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by a 1% annual chance flood or within a regulatory floodway, would prohibit a local government from denying an application on the basis that a public university did not comply with any additional permit requirement, standard, or action adopted by that local government applicable to the site if the public university is able to satisfy all applicable federal qualifying criteria in order to demonstrate that the site meets these criteria and is otherwise eligible to be exempt from CEQA pursuant to the above requirements.

By imposing additional duties on local governments, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would provide that a university housing development project is not exempt from CEQA if, among other things, the project would require the demolition of specified housing or a historic structure that is listed on a national, state, or local historic register. The bill would require the public university to hold at least one noticed public hearing to hear and respond to public comments before determining that the university housing development project is exempt under the bill’s provisions.

The bill would require the lead agency, before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each building within a project, to obtain the LEED certification of the building, and to make a determination that all construction impacts of the project have been fully mitigated and issue a notice of that determination. The bill would require the lead agency to file the LEED certification and the notice with the Office of Planning and Research and the county clerk of the county in which the project is located. The bill would require the Office of Planning and Research and the county clerk to make the certification and notice available to the public. To the extent that this bill would impose additional duties on a local agency, including the county clerk, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Read:  AB 2234 

STATUS: Became law  09/28/22 Chaptered by Secretary of State – Chapter 651, Statutes of 2022

DCP, State Housing Update

Assembly Bill (AB) 2234 | Post-Entitlement Phase Permits

Adds requirements for cities during the post-entitlement phase, including posting of online information, digital processing, and new timelines for non-discretionary permits to be deemed complete and appealed.

Assembly Bill (AB) 2334 | Density Bonus: Very Low Vehicle Travel Areas

Allows 100% affordable housing projects to receive added height and unlimited density if the project is located in an urbanized very low vehicle travel area, where at least 80% of the units are restricted to lower income and no more than 20% are for moderate income households.

Note: This bill defines “very low vehicle travel area” to mean an urbanized area, as defined by the Census Bureau, where the existing residential development generates vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita that is below 85% of either regional or city VMT per capita.

SUMMARY

This bill requires a local agency to post information related to postentitlement phase permits for housing development projects, process those permits in a specified time period depending on the size of the housing development, and establish a digital permitting system if the local agency meets a specific population threshold.
Senate Amendments

1) Increase the population threshold that a local agency must meet in order to trigger the digital permitting requirements, and allows local agencies subject to the requirement to delay implementation if certain criteria are met.

2) Provide that the bill applies to permits applied for subsequent to both discretionary and ministerial entitlements, and make other technical and clarifying changes.

COMMENTS

This bill replicates elements of the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA) and applies those provisions to the non-discretionary postentitlement permit approval process for housing developments. Specifically, this bill borrows from and applies the following concepts in the PSA to non-discretionary postentitlement housing development permits reviewed by local agencies:

Deemed Complete Timeframe. The PSA requires public agencies to determine if a development proposal is complete within 30 days and to provide specified feedback to an applicant if the proposal is not complete. This bill requires public agencies to determine whether an application for a postentitlement phase housing development permit is complete, and provide specified information to the applicant within 15 days after the agency receives the application.

Substantive Review Timeframe. The PSA requires public agencies to approve or disapprove a development project within a specified timeframe (generally 60 to 180 days) depending on the type of CEQA review that applies to the development approval and the type of approval conferred by the public agency. This bill requires local agencies to review and approve non-discretionary postentitlement housing development permits within 30 to 60 days depending on the size of the project.

According to the Author

“AB 2234 will improve communication systems by requiring local jurisdictions to publish an online checklist for applications to be deemed complete and maintain this checklist online for the public.

Read: AB 2334

Read about: SB 684 — Building Homeownership, California YIMBY

DCP, State Housing Update

Assembly Bill (AB) 2334 | Density Bonus: Very Low Vehicle Travel Areas Allows 100% affordable housing projects to receive added height and unlimited density if the project is located in an urbanized very low vehicle travel area, where at least 80% of the units are restricted to lower income and no more than 20% are for moderate-income households.

Note: This bill defines “very low vehicle travel area” to mean an urbanized area, as defined by the Census Bureau, where the existing residential development generates vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita that is below 85% of either regional or city VMT per capita.

STATUS: Became law 09/28/22 Chaptered by Secretary of State – Chapter 653, Statutes of 2022

SUMMARY

Allows a housing development project in 17 specified counties to receive added height and unlimited density if the project is located in an urbanized very low vehicle travel area, at least 80 percent of the units are restricted to lower-income households, and no more than 20 percent are for moderate-income households.

Senate Amendments

Include chaptering amendments to address a conflict with AB 682 and limit the bill’s provisions to the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Ventura, Sacramento, and Santa Barbara.

COMMENTS

Density bonus law: The density bonus law was originally enacted in 1979 as an incentive to encourage housing developers to produce affordable units which can be offered at below-market rates. In return for including a certain percentage of affordable units, housing developers receive the ability to add additional units for their project above the jurisdiction’s allowable zoned density for the site (thus the term “density bonus”). In order to qualify for a density bonus, a developer of multifamily housing (5+ units) must agree to build housing that includes at least one of the following:

1) 10% of all units for lower-income households;
2) 5% of all units for very low-income households,
3) Specified senior housing;
4) 10% of all units in a common interest development for moderate-income individuals and families;
5) 10% of all units for transition-age foster youth, disabled veterans, or individuals experiencing homelessness; or
6) 20% of all units for lower-income students within a student housing development.

The affordability requirements for units built via density bonus run for a minimum of 55 years. Additionally, the density bonus law specifies concessions and incentives (e.g., setback requirements) around development standards and reduced vehicle parking requirements that projects can receive to offset the cost of building affordable units. Both market rate and 100 percent affordable housing projects can use the provisions, and all local governments are required to adopt a density bonus ordinance. However, failure to adopt an ordinance does not exempt a local government from complying with state density bonus law.

The housing-climate nexus. California is facing dual crises: a rapidly warming climate due to greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and a housing crisis stemming from an undersupply of housing which the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) recently attributed to “decades of underproduction underscored by exclusionary policies” in its 2022 update to the Statewide Housing Plan1. Housing affordability remains a major challenge for many of California’s most economically-vulnerable households, and, according to data from the 2019 American Communities Survey, over half of the state’s renters are considered cost-burdened, which is defined as paying more than 30 percent of their income towards housing.

At the same time, in order to meet the state’s GHG reduction goals, it is crucial that we rapidly reduce emissions across a variety of sectors, including housing and transportation. In terms of transportation, lowering vehicle miles traveled (VMT) remains an important objective, and Appendix C of the State’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan update states: “California must reduce vehicle miles of travel (VMT) – alongside improvements in vehicle and fuel technology – in order to meet our ambitious greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals for the transportation sector.” The document goes on to highlight infill development as a strategy for longer-term VMT reductions.

Similarly, HCD’s 2022 Statewide Housing Plan update lists one of the state’s objectives as the production of more “affordable and climate-smart housing”. Among the specific actions listed under this objective is the encouragement of “new housing development in existing communities to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and mitigate climate change while simultaneously addressing housing need.”2 Efforts to increase production of dense urban infill housing also support climate adaptation objectives by providing more housing options in city centers and alleviating cost pressures that push households to suburban and rural areas that tend to face higher wildfire risks.

Incentivizing Affordable Infill Housing to Support California’s Climate Change Mitigation Goals: California has taken a number of steps to promote more sustainable urban infill housing, including through the use of the density bonus law. Specifically, in 2019 the Legislature passed and Governor Newsom signed into law AB 1763 (Chiu), a bill that allowed for an enhanced density bonus for certain affordable housing projects located within one-half mile of a major transit stop. AB 1763 allows affordable housing projects to receive unlimited density and a height increase of 33 feet or three stories. To receive this enhanced density bonus, at least 80 percent of the units must be reserved for lower-income households, and no more than 20 percent can be for moderate-income individuals and families.

While AB 1763 made it easier to build dense, affordable housing near transit, many parts of the state lack the level of public transportation service necessary to qualify for the enhanced density bonus the legislation allowed. However, within these areas of the state, it is still important to promote housing in urbanized areas that allow residents to reduce their reliance on vehicle travel. This bill proposes to expand AB 1763’s enhanced density bonus provisions to cover very low vehicle travel areas in urbanized areas where existing residential development generates VMT that is below 85%t of either the region or city’s per capita VMT. Additionally, the bill’s provisions are limited to housing developments located in the following 17 counties: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Ventura, Sacramento, and Santa Barbara.

The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) recently released maps that indicate very low VMT areas within certain regions. Specifically, the maps include regional VMT calculations within Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). Additionally, under SB 743 (Steinberg, 2013), guidelines for evaluating transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) were updated to better assess transportation-related environmental impacts of proposed development projects. A number of California cities and counties have already produced maps of VMT in their jurisdiction under SB 743, which could be used to implement this bill. In rural areas outside of an MPO, the county’s VMT calculations would be used to determine what areas are considered very low VMT.

According to the Author

“We have seen firsthand the essential role affordable housing has played during the pandemic, providing shelter, support, and community to some of our state’s most vulnerable groups—including seniors and veterans, teachers and firefighters, disabled persons, and the far too many working families that cannot afford the rising cost of market rents. With a gap of 1.2 million homes affordable to low-income households and roughly 150,000 people experiencing homelessness every day, the state must continue to strengthen policies that increase the number of affordable units being constructed.

AB 2334 promotes housing construction by expanding California’s Density Bonus Law, creating opportunities for 100% affordable housing developments to earn an enhanced density bonus in areas with low vehicle miles traveled. This bill will address the state’s affordability crisis and further environmental sustainability goals.” Arguments in Support This bill’s sponsor, California Housing Consortium argues that this bill “will increase the supply of affordable housing by allowing all location-efficient 100% affordable housing developments qualify for the enhanced density bonus.” CHC also notes that it will further sustainability through infill development. The Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley also writes in support of the measure that we can expect both more affordable housing and for the housing units produced to be located in places that will result in lower transportation costs for residents.

1 https://statewide-housing-plan-cahcd.hub.arcgis.com/
2 https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/94729ab1648d43b1811c1698a748c136

CP 21-1414

City Council instructed the Planning Department and Department of Building and Safety, with assistance from the City Attorney and members of the subdivision committee, to prepare a memorandum prior to December 31, 2021, that shall be used by all Departments and agencies until such time as a local implementation ordinance is adopted inclusive of the above-mentioned precepts;

FURTHER MOVED that the City Council instruct the Planning Department, with the assistance of the subdivision committee, to recommend objective standards for specified geography to maintain unique needs for lot design and midpoint width, parking, limits on total dwelling units on substandard streets, and when the development fails to comply with LAMC 12.21 -C1 (g).

FURTHER MOVED that the City Council instruct the Planning Department, as part of SB9 implementation, to develop recommendations on changes in grade, adjustments to building pads, hauling, private streets providing frontage and access for parcels other than those created by lot splits, and the removal of protected and desirable trees without replacement;

FURTHER MOVED that the City Council instruct the Planning Department to prepare a report to clarify exemptions for high-fire hazard severity zones, protected species’ habitats, horse keeping, substandard roadways, and/or other geographic areas as determined for which the implementation of SB 9 would result in a specific, adverse impact;

Lastley, MOVED that the City Council instruct the Planning Department, with the assistance of the City Attorney and the Department of Building and Safety, to begin developing a work program for the preparation of the implementation ordinance for SB 9.

Click on the BLUE HIGHLIGHT to view official documents

• 03/31/2022 Community Impact Statement submitted by North Westwood Neighborhood Council.  Refer to CP 21-1414
• 03/10/2022 Community Impact Statement submitted by Westwood Neighborhood Council. Refer to CP 21-1414
• 03/10/2022 Community Impact Statement submitted by Westwood Neighborhood Council. Refer to CP 21-1414
• 03/09/2022 Community Impact Statement submitted by Chatsworth Neighborhood Council.  Refer to CP 21-1414
• 03/04/2022 Community Impact Statement submitted by Empowerment Congress North Area NDC.  Refer to CP 21-1414
• 02/14/2022 Community Impact Statement submitted by Studio City Neighborhood Council.   Refer to CP 21-1414
• 02/08/2022 Council action final. Refer to CP 21-1414
• 02/08/2022 Council adopted item, as amended, forthwith.   Council Action 02/08/2022
• 02/04/2022 City Clerk scheduled item for Council on February 8, 2022.  Motion 12/01/2021
• 02/03/2022 Planning and Land Use Management Committee waived consideration of item .  Motion 12/01/2021
• 01/19/2022 Community Impact Statement submitted by Los Feliz Neighborhood Council, Los Feliz Neighborhood Council.  Refer to CP 21-1414
• 01/15/2022 Community Impact Statement submitted by Empowerment Congress West Area Neighborhood Development Council.  Refer to CP 21-1414
• 12/17/2021 Community Impact Statement submitted by Tarzana Neighborhood Council.  Refer to CP 21-1414
• 12/17/2021 Community Impact Statement submitted by Northridge West Neighborhood Council.  Refer to CP 21-1414
• 12/17/2021 Community Impact Statement submitted by Tarzana Neighborhood Council.  Refer to CP 21-1414
• 12/14/2021 Community Impact Statement submitted by Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council.  Refer to CP 21-1414
• 12/14/2021 Community Impact Statement submitted by Sherman Oaks NC.  Refer to CP 21-1414
• 12/13/2021 Community Impact Statement submitted by Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council.  Refer to CP 21-1414
• 12/09/2021 Community Impact Statement submitted by Encino Neighborhood Council.  Refer to CP 21-1414
• 12/09/2021 Community Impact Statement submitted by NC Valley Village.  Refer to CP 21-1414
• 12/07/2021 Community Impact Statement submitted by Westwood Neighborhood Council.   Refer to CP 21-1414
• 12/01/2021 Motion referred to Planning and Land Use Management Committee.  Motion 12/01/2021

• 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.

Planning and zoning: general plan: housing development AB-3107

Currently, many cities have yuge areas of commercial zoning where office buildings and stores are OK, but housing isn’t. AB3107 would allow homes in these areas if 20% of them are affordable.

The 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.

This bill, notwithstanding any inconsistent provision of a city’s or county’s general plan, specific plan, zoning ordinance, or regulation, would require that a housing development be an authorized use on a site designated in any element of the general plan for commercial uses if certain conditions apply. Among these conditions, the bill would require that the housing development be subject to a recorded deed restriction requiring that at least 20% of the units have an affordable housing cost or affordable rent for lower income households, as those terms are defined, and located on a site that satisfies specified criteria. The bill would require the city or county to apply certain height, density, and floor area ratio standards to a housing development that meets these criteria. The bill would require a jurisdiction to comply with these requirements only until it has completed the rezoning, required as described above, for the 6th revision of its housing element. The bill would repeal these provisions as of January 1, 2030.