Missing Middle Townhome Ownership Act.
Vote required
Majority
Fiscal committee
No
Appropriation
No
Current location
Passed
Take action
Record your position on this measure.
Create an account to record your position, submit testimony, or contact your legislator.
Progress
Where this bill stands in the legislative process.
- Introduced
- Passed Assembly
- Passed Senate
- To Governor
- Became Law
Overview
The Missing Middle Townhome Ownership Act aims to streamline the approval process for townhome development projects in California. It allows developers to submit applications for these projects under a ‘ministerial’ approval process, meaning decisions are made automatically if they meet specific criteria, rather than requiring extensive public hearings or discretionary review. The bill establishes standards for townhome design, density, and parcel size, and clarifies the role of local agencies in approving or denying these projects, while also exempting San Francisco from the bill’s provisions. It also modifies CEQA application procedures for ministerial projects.
Key provisions
- Requires a ‘ministerial’ approval process for townhome development projects that meet specific criteria.
- Establishes minimum parcel size requirements for newly created townhome lots (600 square feet).
- Defines ‘townhome’ and ‘townhome development project’ with specific requirements regarding density, unit limits, and construction.
- Allows local agencies to disapprove townhome projects only if there’s a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety that cannot be mitigated.
- Exempts the City and County of San Francisco from the bill’s provisions.
- Modifies CEQA application procedures to align with the streamlined approval process.
- Requires new parcels to be served by public water and sewer systems.
- Specifies conditions under which an urban lot split may be permitted.
Who is affected
Bill text
Read the latest version inline or switch to a previous version.
Text extraction is in progress. View the official source.
Sponsors
Official sponsors from legislative records.
2 on record
Primary sponsor
Cosponsor
Arguments
Reasons offered for and against this legislation.
Arguments in favor
No arguments in favor have been submitted.
Submit yoursArguments opposed
No arguments opposed have been submitted.
Submit yours