Laserfiche WebLink
<br />DRAFT 2025 Legislative Positions <br /> <br />4 | P a g e <br />Updated 4.21.2025 <br />councils of <br />governments <br />meet and consult with the council of governments regarding <br />the assumptions and methodology to be used by the <br />department to determine the region’s housing needs at least <br />26 months prior to the scheduled revision of the housing <br />element and before developing the existing and projected <br />housing need for a region. This bill would require the <br />department to meet and consult with the council of <br />governments, as described above, pursuant to prescribed <br />deadlines. For the 7th revision of the housing element, the bill <br />would require the department to meet and consult with each <br />council of governments at least 38 months prior to the <br />scheduled revision, except for specified councils of <br />governments. <br /> <br />7 SB 677 (Wiener) <br /> <br />Housing <br />development: <br />streamlined <br />approvals <br />This bill would make a number of changes to the housing <br />development and lot split provisions previously enacted <br />through SB 9. The bill would also make a number of changes <br />to the streamlined ministerial approval process for affordable <br />housing developments as enacted through SB 35. Among the <br />bill provision would be to void HOA and private rules that <br />block SB 9 projects, allow development on parcels with <br />disaster-destroyed low-income units, and increases duplex <br />size limits from 800 to 1,750 sq. ft. The bill would prohibit <br />impact fees on smaller units and prohibit rent restrictions or <br />owner-occupancy requirements. The bill would simplify <br />applications, ease lot size and setback rules, and prohibit <br />excessive driveway or access demands. Local agencies must <br />submit SB 9 ordinances to HCD for review and respond to <br />compliance issues within 30 days. For SB 35, the bill would <br />lower the affordable housing threshold from 50% to 20% in <br />certain areas, limit which historic sites can block projects, and <br />require more frequent progress checks by HCD. The bill also <br />shifts the burden of proof to local agencies when denying <br />projects on environmental grounds. <br />Oppose None/Oppose <br />Page 32 of 682