Existing law, the Contractors State License Law, establishes the Contractors State License Board to license and regulate contractors and establishes the registrar of contractors as the executive officer and secretary of the board. Existing law requires the registrar, upon receipt of the Labor Commissioner's finding of a willful or deliberate violation of the Labor Code by a licensee or transmission to the board of citations or other actions taken by the Division of Occupational Safety and Health, to initiate disciplinary action against the licensee within 18 months. This bill would authorize the Attorney General to bring a civil action to impose discipline upon, to deny an application for, or to deny continued maintenance of, a contractor's license for failing to pay its workers the full amount of wages the workers are entitled to under state law or because the contractor has not fulfilled a wage judgment or is in violation of an injunction or court order regarding the payment of wages to its workers. The bill would require the Attorney General to notify the registrar before bringing a civil action and would authorize the board to intervene in a proceeding brought pursuant to the bill's provisions. The bill would require a court to issue an order directing the registrar to suspend or revoke, to deny an application for, or to deny the continued maintenance of, a contractor's license under terms specified by the court.
Existing law, the Floating Home Residency Law, prescribes various terms and conditions on tenancies in floating home marinas, as defined. Existing law, until January 1, 2030, prohibits management of a floating home marina located in the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, or Marin from increasing the gross rental rate for a tenancy for a floating home berth in a floating home marina more than 3% plus the percentage change in the cost of living, or 5%, whichever is lower, of the lowest gross rental rate charged for a tenancy at any time during the 12 months prior to the effective date of the increase. Existing law prohibits management of a floating home marina from increasing the rent of a new homeowner that purchases a floating home in the marina if the purchase qualifies as an in-place transfer, as defined. This bill would, until January 1, 2038, prohibit management of a floating home marina located in the County of Marin from increasing the above-described rent more than the percent change in the cost of living, as specified, over the course of any 12-month period. The bill would require management to provide notice of any rental rate increases to each homeowner, as specified. The bill would specify that its provisions apply to rent increases for a tenancy in a floating home marina occurring on or after July 1, 2025. The bill would provide that in the event that management increases the rent by more than the amount specified above between July 1, 2025, and January 1, 2026, then the applicable rent on January 1, 2026, is the rent as of July 1, 2025, plus the maximum permissible increase, and that management is not liable to the homeowner for any corresponding rent overpayment. This bill would, until January 1, 2038, in the event that an in-place transfer of a floating home involves the sale of a floating home subject to an existing lease with a 10-year or longer term or that was offered a lease of that term between 2 years and 6 months prior to the time of the sale, except as specified, permit management of a floating home marina located in the County of Marin to establish a new initial rental rate for a prospective homeowner, subject to specified conditions, including that the final sale price of the home provided to the marina owner shall be certified and substantiated in writing to be true under penalty of perjury by the buyer. By expanding the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would exempt specified floating home berths from the rental rate increase limitations. The bill would void any waiver of the rights provided under these provisions and would provide that its provisions do not affect specified authority of local governments. Existing law prohibits a homeowner from being charged a fee when obtaining a rental agreement on a floating home berth for a term of 12 months or a lesser period, or for charges other than rent, utilities, and incidental charges, as specified. This bill would, until January 1, 2038, for a floating home marina located in the County of Marin, require that fees for utilities and incidental reasonable charges reflect actual costs, and would require a marina owner to demonstrate for all fees charged to a homeowner that the service was, or is currently being, actually rendered. The bill would prohibit marina owners from charging a fee to a homeowner for enforcement of marina rules. This bill would make conforming changes. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the County of Marin. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law requires cities, counties, and continuums of care receiving state funding to address homelessness on or after January 1, 2024, to include families, people fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence, and unaccompanied women within the vulnerable populations for whom specific system supports are developed to maintain homeless services and housing delivery. Existing law also requires the cities, counties, and continuums of care to develop analyses and goals with victim service providers to address the specific needs of the above-described population with data measures not included within the Homeless Management Information System, in accordance with federal policies and specified guidelines. Existing law requires the Interagency Council on Homelessness to set and measure progress on goals to prevent and end homelessness among domestic violence survivors and their children and among unaccompanied women in California. This bill would specifically include women with children in the populations described above. The bill would require the cities, counties, and continuums of care developing the analyses and goals described above to the Interagency Council on Homelessness. The bill would require the Interagency Council on Homelessness to post the analyses and goals on its website. By imposing new duties on cities and counties, 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law, the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022 (act) , until January 1, 2033, authorizes a development proponent to submit an application for an affordable housing development or a mixed-income housing development that meets specified objective standards and affordability and site criteria, including being located within a zone where office, retail, or parking are a principally permitted use. The act makes a development that meets those objective standards and affordability and site criteria a use by right and subject to one of 2 streamlined, ministerial review processes depending on, among other things, the affordability requirements applicable to the project. The act requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to undertake at least 2 studies, one completed on or before January 1, 2027, and one completed on or before January 1, 2031, on the outcomes of the act. This bill would provide that, for purposes of determining whether a property or site satisfies the criteria, objective development standards, or other requirements for receiving streamlined, ministerial review under the act, a local government's review of the property or site is limited to the area described as being physically disturbed by construction in the application for streamlined, ministerial review and does not include, unless expressly stated otherwise, other contiguous or noncontiguous areas even if under the ownership or control of the project proponent. The bill would provide that easements for public right-of-way, public or private utilities, or other public improvements in, under, or over the property shall not make the property ineligible to receive streamlined, ministerial review for either affordable or mixed-income housing developments. This bill would also expand the eligibility for the above-described streamlined, ministerial review for mixed-income housing developments to include developments located in a campus development zone, as defined, as long as the development meets certain affordability requirements and objective standards, as provided. The bill would require the outcomes of projects built under campus development zones to be reported in the January 1, 2031, outcomes report. The bill would also make related findings and declarations. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA does not apply to the approval of ministerial projects. By expanding the scope of projects eligible for streamlined, ministerial approval as described above, this bill would expand the scope of the exemption from CEQA for ministerial projects. Existing law includes certain setback requirements in the objective standards that a mixed-income development project must meet to be subject to the above-referenced streamlined, ministerial review process. In this regard, existing law requires all parking to be set back at least 25 feet. This bill would instead impose that setback requirement only on parking that is aboveground. By changing the criteria local agencies must follow for the approval of certain development projects, 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law, the California Coastal Act of 1976 (the Coastal Act) , among other things, requires anyone wishing to perform or undertake any development in the coastal zone, except as specified, in addition to obtaining any other permit required by law from any local government or from any state, regional, or local agency, to obtain a coastal development permit, as provided. The Coastal Act generally requires each local government, as specified, to prepare a local coastal program, for certification by the California Coastal Commission. Existing law also imposes an analogous requirement on port governing bodies to prepare port master plans, for certification by the commission. With regard to local coastal programs and port master plans, existing law provides that an amendment determined to be de minimis by the executive director of the commission, after notice in the agenda of the next scheduled commission meeting, becomes a part of the certified program or plan 10 days after the commission meeting if 3 or more members of the commission do not object to the de minimis determination. This bill would make de minimis amendments to local coastal programs and port master plans effective upon adjournment of that meeting if 3 or more members of the commission do not object to the de minimis determination. The Coastal Act authorizes the commission to impose specified administrative penalties on a person, including a landowner, who is in violation of any provision of the act other than public access, and separate administrative penalties for violations relating to public access. Regarding the violations of the act unrelated to public access, existing law requires the commission staff to annually prepare and present a written report to the full commission that includes specified information related to the imposition of those penalties and to annually provide the written report to the Legislature, as prescribed. This bill would require the commission staff to prepare and present a written report to the full commission every 5 years instead of annually, as specified, and would require the report to address public access violations as well. The bill would require the report to include, in addition, the number of violations referred to the Attorney General, the number of pending violations at the end of the reporting period, and summaries of violations that were resolved that are both illustrative of the commission's enforcement workload and that provided significant public benefit. This bill would repeal an obsolete reporting requirement that concerned violations of the act related to public access.
Existing law requires the State Department of Public Health to develop a plan with recommendations and guidelines for counties to use in the case of a significant air quality event, as defined, caused by wildfires or other sources, including establishing policies and procedures that address respiratory protection and other protective equipment and devices and providing information to residents on what they should do if the air quality index hits a significant threshold. Existing law requires a county to develop a county-specific plan that addresses all of the recommendations and guidelines of the plan developed by the department. This bill would require the department's plan to be completed on or before June 30, 2027, posted on the department's internet website within 7 days of completion, and distributed within 14 days of completion to specified local and state entities and officers. The bill would require the county-specific plan to incorporate a process to conduct outreach and communicate to the public and with key stakeholders specified information about the plan. The bill would require, after a county-specific plan or a regional multicounty plan is approved by the county's board of supervisors, a copy of the plan to be distributed to specified local officers and to the local and state public health directors. The bill would require the department to post a copy of each county-specific plan or regional multicounty plan after a plan is adopted by each county within 14 days of receiving each plan. By imposing a higher level of service on local officers, the 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law, the Mitigation Fee Act, imposes various requirements with respect to the establishment, increase, or imposition of a fee by a local agency as a condition of approval of a development project. Existing law requires a local agency that imposes a fee on a housing development for the purpose of mitigating vehicular traffic impacts to set the rate for that fee, if the housing development satisfies all of certain prescribed characteristics, to reflect a lower rate of automobile trip generation associated with such housing developments in comparison with housing developments without the prescribed characteristics, unless the local agency adopts findings after a public hearing establishing that the housing development, even with those characteristics, would not generate fewer automobile trips than a housing development without those characteristics. This bill would require those findings to be supported by substantial evidence in the record before or as part of the housing development project approval process. Existing law specifies one of those prescribed characteristics described above is that the housing development provides either the minimum number of parking spaces required by the local ordinance, or no more than one onsite parking space for zero- to 2-bedroom units, and 2 onsite parking spaces for 3 or more bedroom units, whichever is less. Under existing law, another prescribed characteristic is that convenience retail uses, as specified, are located within 12 mile of the housing development. This bill would revise the characteristic relating to parking spaces, to instead, specify that the housing development provides no more than one onsite parking space for zero- to 2-bedroom units, and 2 onsite parking spaces for 3 or more bedroom units. The bill would eliminate the characteristic related to convenience retail uses, and instead would add a characteristic that the housing development is located within 12 mile from 3 or more specified locations, including, among other locations, a supermarket or grocery store, a pharmacy or drugstore, or a restaurant, as defined. Existing law authorizes a local agency, if a housing development does not satisfy all the prescribed characteristics, to charge a fee that is proportional to the estimated rate of automobile trip generation associated with the housing development. This bill would eliminate that express authorization. By imposing a mandate on local agencies that approve housing development projects with regard to impact fees, 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law makes a person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or willfully and maliciously harasses another person and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for the person's safety, or the safety of the person's immediate family, guilty of the crime of stalking, punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony. This bill would expand the meaning of "credible threat" to include threats to a person's pet, service animal, emotional support animal, or horse. By changing the definition of a crime, 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
(1) Existing law, the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, governs the management and operation of common interest developments. Existing law makes any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, or other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of any interest in a planned development, and any provision of a governing document, that either effectively prohibits or unreasonably restricts the construction or use of an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit on a lot zoned for single-family residential use, as specified, void and unenforceable. If the governing documents require association approval before a member may make a physical change to the member's separate interest or to the common area, existing law requires an association to satisfy specified requirements, including to provide a fair, reasonable, and expeditious procedure for making its decision in reviewing and approving or disapproving a proposed physical change, as described above. This bill would make any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, or other instrument, and any provision of a governing document, void and unenforceable to the extent that it prohibits, or includes conditions that have the effect of prohibiting, a substantially similar reconstruction of a residential structure, as specified, that was destroyed or damaged in a disaster, as defined. The bill would require a court to award reasonable attorney's fees to the owner of a separate interest in a common interest development who prevails in an action to enforce the above-described provisions. This bill would require any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, or other instrument, and any provision of a governing document that subjects a substantially similar reconstruction of a residential structure that was destroyed or damaged in a disaster to review by a body to be processed and approved, as specified. The bill would defined various terms for these purposes. The bill would require the body to, among other things, determine whether an application is complete or incomplete and to provide written notice of this determination to the applicant no later than 30 calendar days after the body receives the application. Once an application is deemed complete, the bill would require the body to conduct any review of the proposed modification to the separate interest within 45 calendar days, as specified. If a body finds that a complete application is noncompliant, the bill would require the body to provide the applicant with a list of items that are noncompliant and a description of how the application can be remedied by the applicant, as described. If an application is determined to be incomplete or noncompliant, the bill would require the body to provide a process for the applicant to appeal that decision, as specified. The bill would require a court to award reasonable attorney's fees to the applicant who prevails in an action to enforce the above-described provisions. (2) Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, authorizes a development proponent to submit an application for a development that is subject to a specified streamlined, ministerial approval process if the development satisfies certain objective planning standards and certain procedures are followed, including that the proponent of the development project requires in contracts with construction contractors that specified standards will be met in project construction, as specified. Existing law requires the proponent of the development project to make a specified certification that certain labor standards will be met and requires the prime contractor to provide an affidavit under penalty of perjury, as specified. This bill would authorize a housing development proponent to submit an application for a housing development that is subject to a specified streamlined, ministerial approval process if the housing development satisfies certain objective standards, including that the housing development is located on a parcel on which a residential structure was destroyed or damaged in a disaster. The bill would require a local government to approve the development within 90 days of the submittal of the development if the local government's planning director or equivalent position determines that the development is consistent with specified objective planning standards. If the development is determined to be in conflict with those standards, the bill would require the local government staff or relevant local planning and permitting department that made the determination to provide the development proponent written documentation of which standard or standards the development conflicts with, and an explanation for the reason or reasons the development conflicts with that standard or standards, as specified. By mandating a higher level of service on local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would provide that an ordinance that precludes specified placements and uses of manufactured homes, mobilehomes, or recreational vehicles for use during the reconstruction or repair of any home damaged or destroyed in a disaster is unenforceable for a period of 3 years following the disaster declaration. The bill would require the housing development proponent to comply with certain labor standards, including that the housing development proponent will comply with the above-described labor standards, including the requirements that the development proponent make the specified certification and that the prime contractor provide an affidavit under penalty of perjury. By imposing certification and penalty of perjury requirements, this bill would expand the crime of perjury, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. (3) Existing law, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment, or to adopt a negative declaration if it determines that the project would not have that effect, as provided. CEQA does not apply to the approval of ministerial projects. This bill would provide that its streamlined, ministerial approval process for a housing development, as described above, offers an optional streamlined, ministerial approval process and does not affect the availability, applicability, or use of any other exemption from CEQA. To the extent that the streamlined, ministerial review process established by the bill would apply to the approval of a housing development that would otherwise be discretionary, the bill would expand the exemption for the ministerial approval of projects under CEQA. (4) 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. (5) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for specified reasons.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. This bill would require, on and after January 1, 2027, for a project, located in a geographic area for which the Governor declared a state of emergency on or after January 1, 2023, that is to maintain, repair, restore, demolish, or replace property or facilities damaged or destroyed by wildfire, and the project is not otherwise exempt from CEQA, as specified, the lead agency to prepare the record of proceeding concurrently with the administrative process. The bill would also require an action or proceeding brought to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the certification of an environmental impact report, or the adoption of a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration, for the project to be resolved, to the extent feasible, within 270 calendar days of the filing of the certified record of proceedings. The bill would require an applicant to agree to pay the costs of the trial court and court of appeal in hearing and deciding any action or proceeding brought under these provisions, as provided. The bill would require the Judicial Council to adopt rules of court to implement these requirements. The bill would require the project to be consistent with the applicable zoning and land use ordinances. By requiring a lead agency to prepare the record of proceedings concurrently with the administrative process, 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, requires each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and specified land outside its boundaries, that includes, among other specified mandatory elements, a housing element. Existing law requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to determine whether the housing element is in substantial compliance with those provisions. Existing law requires the department to designate jurisdictions as prohousing pursuant to emergency regulations adopted by the department, as prescribed. Existing law requires that jurisdictions that are prohousing and that are in substantial compliance with specified provisions be awarded additional points or preference in the scoring of applications for specified state programs. Existing law defines "prohousing local policies" for these purposes and specifies a nonexhaustive list of examples of those policies, including local financial incentives for housing and adoption of zoning allowing for use by right for residential and mixed-use development. This bill would include in the definition of "prohousing local policies" policies that keep people housed, and would include additional examples of prohousing local policies under the above-described provisions, as specified. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65589.9 of the Government Code proposed by AB 36 to be operative only if this bill and AB 36 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
The Planning and Zoning Law requires each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and of certain land outside its boundaries, and requires the general plan to contain specified mandatory elements. Existing law specifies that these provisions generally do not apply to a charter city, but requires a charter city to adopt a general plan that contains the mandatory elements, among other things. Existing law prescribes a process to challenge the validity of a general plan. Among other things, existing law requires a petitioner to request a hearing or trial, as specified. Existing law requires a court to set a date for the hearing or trial to be heard no later than 120 days after the filing of the request, as specified. Existing law authorizes a court to continue for a reasonable time the date of the hearing or trial upon written motion and finding of good cause. Existing law requires a court to grant the petitioner temporary relief if the court grants a continuance to a respondent, as specified. This bill would apply to the above-described process to challenge the validity of a general plan to a charter city and state that this is declaratory of existing law. The bill would limit the period for which a court may continue a trial or hearing, as described above, to no more than 60 days and would additionally authorize a court to grant a continuance on the court's own motion. The bill would extend the requirement that a court grant temporary relief, as described above, in any instance in which the court orders a continuance, rather than only if the court grants a continuance to a respondent. The bill would require the court to consider ordering additional temporary relief if the court has already granted temporary relief. Existing law requires the general plan to contain specified mandatory elements, including a housing element. Existing law requires the housing element to consist of an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. Existing law also requires the housing element to, among other things, identify adequate sites for housing, as provided, and to make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community. In preparation of the housing element, existing law requires the city and county to consider certain guidelines adopted by the department. Existing law requires the department to review, according to a specified procedure, any action or failure to act by the city, county, or city and county that it determines is inconsistent with an adopted housing element or certain other requirements, including any failure to implement any program actions included in the housing element. This bill would require, to the extent that a quantified development standard, as defined, in a general plan element is inconsistent with a quantified development standard in another element, the provisions of the most recently adopted element to supersede the previously adopted element. If a local agency has established a specific deadline to amend a local ordinance, development standard, condition, or policy applicable to quantified development standards, or timelines or processes relating to entitlement and permitting decisions, and the local agency has failed to make that amendment by the specified deadline, the bill would require the department to undertake the above-described review procedure. Existing law requires each city, county, or city and county to bring its housing element into conformity with certain requirements by a specified deadline. Existing law also requires a city, county, or city and county, upon a finding by a court that an action of a city, county, or city and county, which is required to be consistent with its general plan, does not comply with its housing element, to bring its action into compliance within 60 days. Existing law requires the court to retain jurisdiction throughout the period for compliance to enforce its decision and authorizes the court to extend the time period for compliance by an additional 60 days upon a determination that the 60-day period for compliance would place an undue hardship on the city, county, or city and county. This bill would extend the amount of time a city, county, or city and county has to bring its action into compliance to 120 days and would remove the above-described extension provision. The bill would also require the court to retain jurisdiction throughout the period for compliance with its order and to conform to certain requirements. The bill would authorize the court to grant a reasonable extension of time for the city, county, or city and county to comply if review by the Department of Housing and Community Development is required as part of the court order and that review is not timely completed, as specified. Existing law requires a court, if that court finds that a city, county, or city and county failed to complete a specified rezoning by a certain deadline, to issue an order or judgment, after considering the equities of the circumstances presented by all parties, compelling the local government to complete the rezoning within 60 days or the earliest time consistent with public hearing notice requirements in existence at the time the action was filed. Existing law also requires the court, if that court determines that its order or judgment is not carried out, to issue further orders to ensure that certain purposes and policies are fulfilled, including ordering, after considering the equities of the circumstances presented by all parties, that any required rezoning be completed within 60 days or the earliest time consistent with public hearing notice requirements in existence at the time the action was filed. Existing law also authorizes the court to impose sanctions on the city, county, or city and county if the court determines that its order or judgment is not carried out. This bill would extend the amount of time a local government has to complete the above-described rezoning under a court order or judgment to 120 days. The bill would also remove the requirement that a court issue further orders that any required rezoning be completed within 60 days or the earliest time consistent with public hearing notice requirements in existence at the time the action was filed. The bill would instead require that the court impose sanctions on the city, county, or city and county if the court determines that its order or judgment is not carried out. Existing law requires a county or city to bring the general plan or relevant mandatory element into compliance with state law within 120 days of a court issuing a final order or judgment in favor of a petitioner in any action brought to challenge the validity of that plan or element. Existing law also requires a county or city to bring its zoning ordinance into consistency with its general plan or relevant mandatory element within 120 days of bringing the general plan or relevant mandatory element into compliance with state law. Existing law authorizes a court to grant a county or city 2 extensions of time, as specified, to bring the general plan, relevant mandatory element, or zoning ordinance into compliance or consistency. Existing law requires a court, in the order or judgment, to include one or more specified remedies. Existing law also authorizes a court to grant these remedies as temporary relief, during a pendency of a challenge to the validity of a general plan, upon a showing of probable success on the merits, as specified. This bill would instead require, in any order or judgment issued in an action brought to challenge the validity of the general plan of any city, county, or city and county, or any mandatory element thereof that resolves whether those plans or elements substantially comply with certain requirements, that order or judgment to be immediately appealable, regardless of whether any final judgment has been issued. The bill would instead require a county or city to comply with the above-described requirements if the court finds that the general plan or mandatory element does not substantially comply with certain requirements. The bill would remove a court's above-described authority to grant a city or county 2 extensions of time. The bill would specify that the above-described remedies are not stayed during the pendency of an appeal of the order or judgment, but would authorize a court to stay remedies if there is a showing by a county or city that it would suffer irreparable harm. The bill would require, rather than authorize, a court to grant these remedies as temporary relief during a pendency of a challenge to the validity of the general plan. The bill would require that request for temporary relief to be made by noticed motion or application, as specified. 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.
