(1) The Housing Accountability Act (the HAA) , among other things, requires a local agency that proposes to disapprove or impose specified conditions on a housing development project that complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria in effect at the time the application for the project is deemed complete, within the meaning of the Permit Streamlining Act, to make specified written findings based on a preponderance of the evidence in the record.
This bill would additionally require a local agency to make those findings if it proposes to disapprove or impose specified conditions on a housing development project that is determined to be complete, as provided, and would make other related conforming changes. The bill would provide that the HAA applies, in its entirety, to any application associated with a housing development project that is subject to a local agency's discretionary review and, except as specified, any application submitted pursuant to specified law or another review and approval process that is functionally the equivalent of a planning or entitlement approval, as provided. For purposes of an application that is not subject to the Permit Streamlining Act, the bill would specify that an application is deemed or determined to be complete at the time the application is submitted to the local agency. The bill would specify that the HAA does not prohibit a local government from requiring a conditional use permit for a housing development project to the extent the conditional use permit meets the requirements of the HAA. By increasing the duties on local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(2) Existing law provides that disapproving a housing development project for purposes of the HAA includes, among other things, any instance in which a local agency votes on the proposed housing development project application, or the local agency fails to comply with the time periods specified in the Permit Streamlining Act.
This bill would instead provide that disapproving a housing development project for purposes of the act includes any instance in which a local agency takes action on the proposed housing development project application and disapproves the project.
(3) The HAA requires a local agency that considers a proposed housing development project to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with applicable law to provide the applicant with a written document, within a specified amount of time, identifying the provisions the application is not in compliance with and an explanation of the reasons for the decision.
This bill would require a local agency that determines an application that was revised after the agency's initial denial is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with applicable law to provide a similar written document within 30 days providing an explanation of the reasons for the decision. By requiring local agencies to provide additional specified written documents and explanations, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(4) The HAA defines "housing development project" to mean a use consisting of residential units only, specified mixed-use developments, and transitional housing or supportive housing.
The bill would define "housing development project" for purposes of the HAA to also include an accessory dwelling unit.
(5) The HAA requires a local agency that proposes to impose a condition on a housing development project that the project be developed at a lower density to base its decision upon specified findings. The act defines "lower density" to mean any conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing.
The bill would specify that lower density includes a condition requiring a reduction in the number of bedrooms, but does not include any conditions that ensure that residential uses of the housing development project are used for residential and not commercial uses, and would clarify that project means a housing development project.
(6) Existing law authorizes a court to issue a writ of mandate, known as a "traditional writ of mandate," to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins or to compel the admission of a party to the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which the party is entitled, and from which the party is unlawfully precluded, as provided. Existing law also provides for the issuance of a writ, known as a "writ of administrative mandate," for the purpose of inquiring into the validity of any final administrative order or decision made as the result of a proceeding in which by law a hearing is required to be given, evidence is required to be taken, and discretion in the determination of facts is vested in an inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or officer, as provided.
Existing law authorizes the applicant to bring an action to enforce the HAA, and authorizes a court to issue an order or judgment directing the local agency to approve the housing development project or emergency shelter if the court finds that the local agency acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development project or emergency shelter and, if the local agency fails to comply with such an order within 60 days, impose fines, as specified. Existing law requires the court to award reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit to the plaintiff or petitioner, unless an exception applies. Existing law requires that an action brought to enforce the HAA be brought by seeking a writ of administrative mandate.
This bill would instead require that an action brought to enforce the HAA be brought by seeking either a writ of traditional mandate or a writ of administrative mandate, as applicable. In an action brought seeking a traditional writ of mandate, the bill would authorize a court to award remedies under the HAA, as described above, if it finds that the local agency improperly disapproved or imposed a condition on an application necessary for a housing development project subject to the HAA.
(7) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65589.5 of the Government Code proposed by AB 1743 and SB 330 to be operative only if this bill and either or both AB 1743 and SB 330 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
(8) 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.

Statutes affected:
SB592: 65589.5 GOV, 65589.5 GOV, 65589.5 GOV, 65589.5 GOV
02/22/19 - Introduced: 65589.5 GOV, 65589.5 GOV, 65589.5 GOV, 65589.5 GOV
03/27/19 - Amended Senate: 65589.5 GOV, 65589.5 GOV, 65589.5 GOV, 65589.5 GOV
06/13/19 - Amended Assembly: 65589.5 GOV, 65589.5 GOV, 65589.5 GOV, 65589.5 GOV
07/03/19 - Amended Assembly: 65589.5 GOV, 65589.5 GOV, 65589.5 GOV, 65589.5 GOV
08/12/19 - Amended Assembly: 65589.5 GOV, 65589.5 GOV, 65589.5 GOV, 65589.5 GOV
08/26/19 - Amended Assembly: 65589.5 GOV, 65589.5 GOV, 65589.5 GOV, 65589.5 GOV
09/06/19 - Amended Assembly: 65589.5 GOV, 65589.5 GOV, 65589.5 GOV, 65589.5 GOV
09/09/19 - Amended Assembly: 65589.5 GOV, 65589.5 GOV, 65589.5 GOV, 65589.5 GOV