AB 2750 amends Government Code Section 65941.1, which governs the preliminary application process for housing development projects in California. The bill largely restates existing law and is described in the digest as making a nonsubstantive change. The section requires a housing applicant to submit a detailed set of project information—such as site location, existing uses, site plans, land uses, parking, environmental constraints, historic or cultural resources, affordable housing units, bonus units, subdivision approvals, ownership consent, coastal-zone information, demolition details, site maps, and public easements—in order to be deemed to have filed a preliminary application.
The bill also preserves and clarifies the process for requesting preliminary fee and exaction estimates. A development proponent may ask a city, county, or city and county for a good-faith estimate of fees and exactions, which the local agency must provide within 30 business days. The bill further allows applicants to request fee schedules from other fee-imposing entities, such as school districts, special districts, and local publicly owned utilities, and requires those schedules to be provided without delay or upon request, depending on the entity.
AB 2750 would continue to require local agencies to maintain checklists and application forms for preliminary applications, while prohibiting those forms from asking for information beyond what the statute expressly lists. It also retains the rule that if a project changes by 20 percent or more in residential units or construction square footage, the applicant must resubmit the preliminary application information. In addition, the bill keeps the 180-day deadline for filing a complete development application after the preliminary application is submitted, along with the 90-day cure period if the agency finds the application incomplete.
The bill’s legal impact is limited because it does not appear to change substantive land use policy or create new approval standards; instead, it updates and restates the procedural framework for preliminary housing applications under state housing law. It affects housing developers, cities, counties, city and county governments, and other public agencies that impose development-related fees, while also touching environmental, coastal, and tribal cultural resource review considerations embedded in the preliminary application process.
There is little evidence of controversy in the available record. The digest labels the bill a majority-vote measure with no appropriation and no fiscal committee referral, and there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided. Based on the text, the bill appears to be technical and procedural rather than policy-shifting, so the general sentiment is best characterized as neutral or routine, with no identified opposition or debate in the materials provided.
AB 2750 would amend Government Code Section 65941.1, the statute governing preliminary applications for housing development projects, but the digest states the change is nonsubstantive. The bill would leave intact the existing framework requiring applicants to submit extensive project information before a preliminary application is deemed filed, including environmental, coastal, affordable housing, subdivision, and cultural resource details. It would also preserve the statutory timelines for local agencies to provide fee and exaction estimates and for applicants to complete the follow-up development application process. The practical effect is to maintain and restate current procedural requirements for housing project applicants and local permitting agencies, rather than to alter substantive land use standards or approval authority.
The available materials suggest a neutral, routine reception. The bill is identified as a majority-vote measure, with no appropriation and no fiscal committee referral, and there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes showing debate or opposition. Because the measure is described as a nonsubstantive amendment, it appears to be viewed as a technical cleanup or clarification bill rather than a controversial policy change.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided record. If any concerns were to arise from the text, they would likely center on the breadth of information required in preliminary applications, the 30-business-day deadline for fee estimates, the 180-day deadline for filing a complete development application, and the interaction between housing streamlining and environmental, coastal, or tribal cultural resource issues. However, the materials provided do not show any organized opposition, amendments, or disputed issues.