Housing reform laws: enforcement actions: fines and penalties.

Header changed from enrolled bill format (Assembly/Senate passage dates, blank Governor receipt date) to chaptered format with 'STATE OF CALIFORNIA AUTHENTICATED ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIAL' and 'CHAPTER 496' designation.

Page numbers shifted from 94 to 93 and page headers changed from 'AB 712' to 'Ch. 496' throughout the document.

The legislative counsel's digest was reflowed with different line breaks and indentation but contains identical substantive content.

The approval block changed from a blank date field to the recorded approval date of October 10, 2025, with the Governor's signature mark.

In subsection (a), the phrase 'the rights established by housing reform laws' was simplified to 'housing reform laws' in both paragraph (1) and paragraph (2), making the intent statement more direct without changing the core meaning.

In subsection (d)(4), the definition of 'planning period' was cleaned up: a redundant cross-reference to paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 65588 was removed, and the remaining citation was corrected to reference paragraphs (2) and (3) of subdivision (e) of Section 65588.

In subsection (b)(2)(A)(ii)(I), the drafting error 'the same statute housing reform law' was corrected to 'the same housing reform law.'

Applicants must now provide written notice to the local agency at least 60 days before commencing an action. The notice must identify the factual elements of the dispute and the legal theory forming the basis for the allegation that the local agency violated a housing reform law.

Any period of limitation (statute of limitations) for actions under any California law is extended by 60 days beginning on the date the applicant provides the written notice to the local agency indicating intent to commence an action.

The mandatory fine against a local agency is now conditioned on the applicant having provided the required 60-day written notice. The court 'shall, consistent with subclause (II), impose a fine,' meaning the fine cannot be imposed without proper notice.

A new rule provides that for repeat-violation fines, any subsequent violation of the same housing reform law is considered to have occurred within the same planning period if the local agency does not have a housing element in substantial compliance under Section 65585.03.

The condition for triggering the fine now requires that the Attorney General or DHCD advised the local agency of a violation of 'a specific housing reform law' rather than just 'a violation of law in substantially the same manner.'

The definition of 'planning period' is expanded to explicitly mean the time period between the due date for one housing element and the due date for the next housing element for each revision according to the applicable schedule in Section 65588(e)(2) and (3).

The action now must be brought to enforce the public agency's compliance with a housing reform law 'as applied to the applicant's housing development project,' rather than enforcing a housing reform law generally. This ties the remedy more tightly to the specific project at issue.

New subdivision (2)(C) states that nothing in the fee and fine provisions limits the application of Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5 or limits the availability of fees to a successful party under that section, ensuring existing fee-shifting rights are preserved.

The definition of 'housing reform law' was simplified by removing an enumerated list of specific statutes (Section 65585(j), the Permit Streamlining Act, Sections 65913.3, 65913.3.1, 65913.6, and provisions under Sections 66020 and 66021) and a non-limiting clause. The definition now relies solely on the general functional language describing laws that establish protections or impose limitations on public agencies for housing development projects.

The fine amount for projects of four or fewer units was reformatted from '$50,000' to 'fifty thousand dollars ($50,000)' per standard legislative drafting conventions, and a cross-reference to the fine multiplier was simplified from a full statutory citation to 'clause (i).'

A duplicate word in the definition ('proscribe, proscribes') was corrected to just 'proscribes.'

The amendment to Section 65913 of the Government Code, which contained legislative findings and declarations about the affordable housing shortage, has been removed entirely. The digest previously noted these were nonsubstantive changes.

A new minimum fine of $50,000 per violation is imposed when a local agency was advised in writing by the Attorney General or HCD before the lawsuit that its decision would violate law, but only if the housing development project consists of four or fewer units. Previously, all projects were subject to the same minimum fines under Section 65589.5.

The cross-reference for repeat violation fines (five-times multiplier) now specifies 'clause (i)' of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (k) of Section 65589.5, making the reference more precise.

The fiscal committee designation changed from 'no' to 'yes,' indicating the bill now carries state fiscal implications, likely due to the new $50,000 minimum fine provision.

Added an entirely new Section 65914.2 to the Government Code establishing minimum uniform remedies against public agencies found to have violated housing reform laws, expanding the bill from a nonsubstantive edit to a substantive enforcement mechanism.

Requires courts to impose fines on local agencies when an applicant prevails in an action to enforce a housing reform law. The minimum fine is set by reference to Section 65589.5(k)(1)(B), and if the same agency was previously found to have violated the same statute within the same planning period, the fine must be at least five times that minimum.

Entitles a prevailing housing development applicant to reasonable attorney's fees and costs in any action brought against a public agency to enforce a housing reform law.

Prohibits public agencies from requiring a housing development applicant to indemnify, defend, or hold harmless the agency in any action alleging the agency violated the applicant's rights under a housing reform law. Any such requirement is declared void and unenforceable as against public policy.

Defines 'housing reform law' broadly as any law or regulation that establishes rights, safeguards, streamlining benefits, time limitations, or other protections for housing development applicants, or imposes procedural or substantive limitations on a public agency for the benefit of such projects. Specifically references provisions in Section 65585(j), the Permit Streamlining Act, Sections 65913.3, 65913.3.1, 65913.6, and provisions under which relief is sought pursuant to Sections 66020 or 66021.

Exempts applicants from the requirement to present a claim before seeking the fine (notwithstanding Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 3.6 of Title 1 of the Government Code, which normally requires claim presentation for monetary relief against public entities).

The fiscal committee designation changed from 'no' to 'yes,' indicating the bill now has state fiscal implications due to the new fine and attorney's fee provisions.