(1) Existing law requires a natural person who, for specific compensation, makes more than 10 services of process within the state in one calendar year, or a corporation or partnership that derives compensation from service of process within the state, to file and maintain a verified certificate of registration as a process server with the county clerk of the county in which the person, corporation, or partnership resides or has its principal place of business, except as specified. Existing law requires each county clerk to maintain a register of process servers and assign a number and issue an identification card to each process server. This bill would, beginning January 1, 2027, require that the register of process servers maintained by a county clerk be publicly available. By imposing a new duty on county clerks, the bill would create a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law provides that a service of a summons in a civil action that complies with specified procedures is not invalid or ineffective solely because it was made by a person in violation of the requirements pertaining to registered process servers. Existing law provides that if a copy of the summons and complaint cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the person to be served, the summons may be served by leaving a copy at the person's dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address, in the presence of a person who is at least 18 years of age, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and complaint as specified. Existing law also authorizes a summons in an action for unlawful detainer to be served by posting if the court is satisfied that the party to be served cannot with reasonable diligence be served in any authorized manner other than publication, and that other specified conditions are met. Existing law requires the proof of service of a summons to contain specified information and documentation. This bill would define "reasonable diligence," for purposes of service of process in specified civil cases, to mean attempting personal delivery of the summons and complaint, in good faith, on at least three occasions on three different days at three different times. The bill would require the proof of service of a summons and complaint, if served personally, by substituted service, or by posting, if the summons is for an action for unlawful detainer of real property, to include at least one photograph, if such can be obtained without compromising the safety of the process server, of the site of the effectuated or attempted service and contain a readable stamp and global positioning system (GPS) coordinates indicating the date, time, and location of service. The bill would require the process server to provide a detailed statement on the proof of service, as specified, if there is no GPS or cellular signal available at the time and place of the effected or attempted service. The bill would make these requirements operative on January 1, 2027. (3) Existing law authorizes a court, on motion of a party and after notice to the other party, to set aside any void judgment or order. This bill would authorize a party that did not receive proper service of the summons and complaint to bring a motion to set aside or vacate a default or default judgment or for leave to defend the action or to move for dismissal. The bill would require a party that files a motion to set aside or vacate a default or default judgment to proffer evidence that service of the summons and complaint was not effected. The bill would provide that the party seeking the default or default judgment has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that service was lawful. The bill would require the court to take evidence and would require the court to conduct a hearing and receive oral testimony if requested by either party. The bill would specify that the above provisions would not limit any other available remedies under the law. The bill would make these provisions operative on January 1, 2027. (4) Existing law prescribes requirements for civil actions for unlawful detainer filed by landlords to remove tenants from their properties. Existing law requires that certain information be included in the complaint for unlawful detainer, including the method used to serve the defendant with the notice of termination of tenancy. This bill would additionally require the complaint to include information describing the date, time, and location of effected service of the termination notice. The bill would make this requirement operative on January 1, 2027. (5) 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
(1) Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, requires each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for its physical development, and the development of certain lands outside its boundaries, that includes, among other mandatory elements, a housing element. That law allows a development proponent to submit an application for a development that is subject to a specified streamlined, ministerial approval process not subject to a conditional use permit, if the development satisfies certain objective planning standards, including that the development is a multifamily housing development that contains two or more residential units. This bill would deem an adaptive reuse project a use by right in all zones, regardless of the zoning of the site, and subject to a streamlined, ministerial review process if the project meets specified requirements, subject to specified exceptions. In this regard, an adaptive reuse project, in order to qualify for the streamlined, ministerial review process, would be required to be proposed for an existing building or structure that is less than 50 years old or meets certain requirements regarding the preservation of historic resources, including the signing of an affidavit declaring that the project will comply with the United States Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation for, among other things, the preservation of exterior facades of a building or structure that face a street, or receive federal or state historic rehabilitation tax credits, as specified. The bill would require an adaptive reuse project to meet specified affordability criteria. In this regard, the bill would require an adaptive reuse project for rental housing to include either 8% of the unit for very low income households and 5% of the units for extremely low income households or 15% of the units for lower income households. For an adaptive reuse project for owner-occupied housing, the bill would require the development to offer either 30% of the units at an affordable housing cost to moderate-income households or 15% of the units at an affordable housing cost to lower income households. For an adaptive reuse project including mixed uses, the bill would require at least one-half of the square footage of the adaptive reuse project to be dedicated to residential uses. The bill would prohibit an adaptive reuse project from being permitted in industrial zones that do not permit residential uses. The bill would provide, among other things relating to projects involving adaptive reuse, that parking is not required for the portion of a project consisting of a building subject to adaptive reuse that does not have existing onsite parking. The bill would authorize an adaptive reuse project subject to these provisions to include the development of new residential or mixed-use structures on undeveloped areas and parking areas located on the same parcel as the proposed repurposed building, or on the parcels adjacent to the proposed adaptive reuse project site if certain conditions are met. The bill would subject an adaptive reuse project approved by a local government pursuant to these provisions to specified labor standards, including certain labor prevailing wage, apprenticeship, skilled and training workforce, and health care expenditure requirements, and would require development proponents to certify compliance with certain labor standards under penalty of perjury. By requiring certain development proponents of an adaptive reuse project to sign an affidavit regarding the preservation of historic resources and requiring development proponents to certify compliance with certain labor standards under penalty of perjury, the bill would expand the crime of perjury and therefore impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize a local government to adopt an ordinance, as specified, to, among other things, specify the process and requirements applicable to adaptive reuse projects, as specified, and would require an adaptive reuse project to comply with all objective planning standards found in the ordinance. The bill would specify that nothing in its provisions relating to adaptive reuse projects is intended to preempt the adoption and implementation of a local ordinance that provides alternative procedures and substantive requirements for adaptive reuse projects, provided that the local ordinance does not prohibit an applicant from electing to pursue an adaptive reuse project, as specified. The bill would require a local agency that has not adopted an above-described ordinance to ministerially without discretionary review approve or disapprove applications for a permit to create or serve an adaptive reuse project, as specified. The bill would, if a local government's planning director or equivalent position determines that the adaptive reuse project submitted pursuant to these provisions is consistent with the objective planning standards, require the local government to approve the adaptive reuse project within specified timeframes. The bill would require the local government staff or relevant local planning and permitting department, upon determining that the adaptive reuse project is in conflict with any of the objective planning standards, to provide the proponent written documentation of, among other things, which standard or standards the development conflicts with within specific timeframes. The bill would prohibit a local government from imposing any local development standard on any project that is an adaptive reuse that would require alteration of the existing building envelope, except as specified, whether or not the local government has adopted an ordinance. By requiring local governments to implement the streamlined, ministerial review process for adaptive reuse projects, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would, except as specified, exempt an adaptive reuse project from all impact fees that are not reasonably related to the impacts resulting from the change of use of the site from nonresidential to residential or mixed use and would require any fees charged to be roughly proportional to the difference in impacts caused by the change of use. This bill would authorize a city or county, or city and county, commencing in the 2026–27 fiscal year, to establish an adaptive reuse investment incentive program to pay adaptive reuse investment incentive funds to the proponent of an adaptive reuse project approved pursuant to the streamlined, ministerial process described above for up to 30 consecutive fiscal years, as specified. The bill would define "adaptive reuse investment incentive funds" to mean an amount up to or equal to the amount of ad valorem property tax revenue allocated to the participating local agency from the taxation of that portion of the total assessed value of the real and personal property of an adaptive reuse project property that is in excess of the qualified adaptive reuse project property's valuation at the time of the proponent's initial request for funding. The bill would define various other terms for these purposes, and would make findings and declarations related to its provisions. The bill would make its provisions operative on July 1, 2026. (2) Existing law, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA does not apply to the approval of ministerial projects. This bill, by establishing the streamlined, ministerial review process described above, would exempt the approval of adaptive reuse projects subject to those processes from CEQA. The bill would also exempt specified findings regarding industrial uses and ordinances adopted to implement specified provisions from CEQA. (3) Existing law requires each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and specified land outside its boundaries, that includes, among other mandatory elements, a housing element. Existing law requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to notify a city, county, or city and county, and authorizes the department to notify the Attorney General, that a city, county, or city and county is in violation of state law if the department finds that the housing element or an amendment to that element, or any specified action or failure to act, does not substantially comply with the law as it pertains to housing elements or that any local government has taken an action in violation of certain housing laws. This bill would make corrections to a housing law cross-reference relating to the adaptive reuse project process established by the bill, thereby making a violation of that adaptive reuse project process by a city, county, or city and county subject to the above-described notification requirements. (4) The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. (5) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65585 of the Government Code proposed by AB 650 to be operative only if this bill and AB 650 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (6) 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 specified reasons.
Existing law, commencing July 1, 2025, requires a public or private school that serves pupils in any of grades 7 to 12, inclusive, and that issues pupil identification cards to have printed on the identification cards the number for the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline. Existing law requires a public or private institution of higher education that issues student identification cards to have printed on either side of the student identification cards the telephone number for the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. This bill, commencing July 1, 2026, would require public schools that serve pupils in any of grades 7 to 12, inclusive, and public institutions of higher education that issue pupil identification cards to additionally have printed on the identification cards the telephone number and text line for a specified LGBTQ+ suicide hotline, as provided.
Existing law establishes the 15-member Student Aid Commission, with prescribed membership, including 3 public members, as the primary state agency for the administration of state-authorized student financial aid programs available to students attending all segments of postsecondary education. This bill would, on the date that a public member's term expires, replace one of the public members with a member who has knowledge, expertise, or experience in accessing the educational benefits available to veterans of the Armed Forces of the United States.
Existing law defines the crime of burglary as entering specified buildings, places, or vehicles with the intent to commit grand or petty theft or a felony. Existing law clarifies that a structure designed for habitation is being used for dwelling purposes if, at the time of the burglary, it was not occupied solely because a disaster caused the occupants to leave the premises. This bill would specify that neither the fact that the structure entered has been damaged by a natural or other disaster, nor the extent of the damage, shall preclude conviction. Existing law defines looting as the commission of certain offenses during and within an affected county in a state of emergency or local emergency, as specified. Existing law includes any 2nd-degree burglary or grand theft in the definition of looting, and makes looting based on those offenses punishable by either imprisonment in a county jail for one year or as a felony. Existing law also makes the crime of looting based on petty theft punishable as a misdemeanor. Existing regulations define an "evacuation area" as a geographic area from which civilians have been evacuated pursuant to an evacuation order and where movement and entry are controlled by fire and law enforcement personnel having jurisdictional authority. Existing regulations define an "evacuation warning" as alerting community members in a defined area of a potential threat to life or property. This bill would recast the offense of looting to include first degree burglary, 2nd degree burglary, grand theft, trespass, and theft from a vehicle, when those offenses are committed in an evacuation zone, to the crime of looting. The bill would also, for the purposes of the offense of looting, define an evacuation zone to include an evacuation area or an area subject to an evacuation warning, and to include any residential dwelling units in such an area for a period of one year after the evacuation order, or up to 3 years if the property is undergoing construction. The bill would impose increased penalties for these offenses committed within an evacuation zone, as specified. By increasing the punishment of specified crimes, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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. This bill would make the operation of its provisions contingent upon the enactment of Senate Bill 571 of the 2025–26 Regular Session.
Existing law, the Permit Streamlining Act, requires a public agency to determine whether an application for a development project is complete within specified time periods, as specified. The act requires a public agency that is the lead agency for a development project to approve or disapprove that project within specified time periods. Existing law, the California Emergency Services Act, among other things, authorizes the governing body of a city, county, or city and county to proclaim a local emergency under certain circumstances, as specified, and grants political subdivisions various powers and authorities in periods of local emergency. This bill would require a city, county, or city and county to approve or deny a complete application, within 10 business days of receipt of the application, for a building permit or an equivalent permit for any of the specified structures intended to be used by a person until the rebuilding or repair of an affected property is complete. By imposing new duties on local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. 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.
Existing law requires the Governor to create an Interagency Council on Homelessness, consisting of specified members. Among other goals, existing law requires the council to serve as a facilitator and create partnerships among federal, state, and local governments, nonprofit entities working to end homelessness, homeless services providers, and the private sector, for the purpose of arriving at specific strategies to end homelessness. Existing law also requires the council to make policy and procedural recommendations to legislators and other governmental entities. This bill would require the council to coordinate with representatives from LGBTQ+ communities to identify recommended policies and best practices for providing inclusive and culturally competent services to LGBTQ+ people experiencing homelessness and develop recommendations to, among other things, expand data collection to understand the needs and experiences of LGBTQ+ people in state homelessness programs, as defined. The bill would require the council, on or before July 1, 2027, to submit a report to specific committees of the Legislature on these recommendations.
(1) Existing law, the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, which is administered by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, regulates the application, issuance, and suspension of alcoholic beverage licenses. Existing law authorizes licensed winegrowers and brandy manufacturers to exercise their license privileges away from their licensed premises at, or from, branch offices or warehouses or United States bonded wine cellars located away from the place of production or manufacture, subject to specified exceptions. One of the exceptions to this authorization is production or manufacture. This bill would specify that the exception of production or manufacture does not include mere storage of wine or topping of wine barrels, as specified. Existing law generally prohibits any person or licensee from having alcoholic beverages at a licensed premises other than those beverages that the license authorizes for sale, except as specified. Existing law authorizes the holder of any combination of a beer manufacturer's license, winegrower's license, craft distilled spirits manufacturer's license, or a brandy manufacturer's license for a single premises to have alcoholic beverages authorized under those licenses at the same time anywhere within the premises, as specified, if certain conditions are met, including that the manufacturer's licenses for the single premises are either all master licenses or all branch offices, and not a combination of a master license and a branch office. This bill would, notwithstanding the above-described provision, authorize the holder of a winegrower's license and a brandy manufacturer's license for the same premises, where one license is a master license and the other is a branch license, to store, age, conduct brandy tastings, and engage in sales for off-premises consumption. Existing law authorizes the issuance of a caterer's permit, upon application to the department, to a licensee under an on-sale general license, an on-sale beer and wine license, a club license, or a veterans' club license, that authorizes the holder of the permit to sell alcoholic beverages at specified locations and events. Existing law requires the permitholder to obtain consent from the department for each event in the form of a catering authorization and imposes a fee for the authorization based on the estimated attendance at each day of the event. Existing law imposes various limitations on the permits, including prohibiting a catering authorization from being issued for use at any one premises for more than 36 events in one calendar year, except as specified. This bill would similarly authorize a licensed winegrower to apply for, and the department to issue, an estate tasting event permit that would authorize the winegrower to exercise its tasting room privileges for wine manufactured by or for the winegrower at specified locations and all of the same privileges allowed under their license for the duration of the event, subject to local land use authority, as specified. The bill would require a permitholder to obtain consent from the department for each event in the form of an estate tasting event authorization and would impose a fee of $100 for each estate tasting event. The bill would prohibit an estate tasting event authorization from being issued for more than 36 events per licensee per calendar year. The bill would impose an annual fee for an estate tasting event permit of $200 and would authorize the permit to be transferable as part of the winegrower's license. (2) The California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act requires a beverage manufacturer to label a beverage container sold or offered for sale by that beverage manufacturer in the state with one of several specified redemption value messages by printing or embossing the beverage container or by affixing a clear stamp, label, or other device, as specified. This bill would authorize a beverage manufacturer to etch a required redemption value message on a beverage container. The act authorizes the department to require a beverage container intended for sale in the state to be printed, embossed, stamped, labeled, or otherwise marked with a scan code, a quick response (QR) code, or a universal product code (UPC) , or similar machine-readable indicia. The act prohibits a person from offering to sell, or selling, to a consumer a beverage container that has not been labeled as required by the act. Existing law provides that a violation of the act or a regulation adopted pursuant to the act is a crime. This bill would require those markings to be at least 12 inch in size. The bill would authorize the use of a chasing arrows symbol for a recyclable beverage container on the inside of a machine-readable label, as specified. By expanding the scope of a crime, the bill would impose state-mandated local program. The act exempts a beverage container included within the scope of the act beginning on January 1, 2024, from the act's labeling requirements until July 1, 2025. This bill would extend that exemption until July 1, 2026. The act exempts a beverage container included within the scope of the act beginning on January 1, 2024, that was filled and labeled before January 1, 2024, from the act's labeling requirements. This bill would instead exempt a beverage container included within the scope of the act beginning on January 1, 2024, that was filled and labeled before July 1, 2025. (3) 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.
Existing law, the Real Estate Law, provides for the licensure and regulation of real estate brokers and salespersons by the Real Estate Commissioner, the chief officer of the Department of Real Estate within the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency. Existing law provides various duties and obligations owed to a prospective purchaser of real property. A willful violation of the Real Estate Law is a crime. This bill would require a real estate broker or salesperson, or person acting on their behalf, who includes a digitally altered image, as defined, in an advertisement or other promotional material for the sale of real property to include a disclosure, as specified. If the advertisement or promotional material is posted on an internet website, the bill would require the same image without digital alteration to be included, as specified. By imposing new requirements on real estate licensees, the violation of which is a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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.
The Planning and Zoning Law requires a city or county to adopt a general plan for land use development that includes, among other things, a housing element. Existing law, commonly referred to as the Housing Element Law, prescribes requirements for a city's or county's preparation of, and compliance with, its housing element, and requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to review and determine whether the housing element substantially complies with the Housing Element Law, as specified. Existing law requires the housing element to include an analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including, among others, locally adopted ordinances that directly impact the cost and supply of residential development. Existing law also requires the analysis to demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality from meeting its share of the regional housing need. For adoption of the 7th and all subsequent revisions of the housing element, this bill would require the housing element to include, in addition to the above-described analysis, a potential and actual governmental constraints disclosure statement that contains, among other things, an identification of each new or amended potential or actual governmental constraint, or revision increasing the stringency of a governmental constraint, that was adopted after the due date of the previous housing element and before submittal of the current draft housing element to the department. By imposing new requirements upon local governments submitting a housing element, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would make related findings and declarations. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65583 of the Government Code proposed by SB 340 and AB 650, to be operative only if this bill and either or both of those bills are enacted and this bill is enacted last. 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.
Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, requires a city or county to adopt a general plan for land use development within its boundaries that includes, among other things, a housing element. The law requires the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to determine whether the housing element is in substantial compliance with specified provisions of that law. Existing law requires HCD to designate jurisdictions as prohousing pursuant to emergency regulations adopted by HCD, as prescribed, and to report those designations to the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation. Existing law specifies that these emergency regulations will remain in effect until HCD promulgates permanent prohousing regulations. This bill would instead require HCD to designate jurisdictions as prohousing pursuant to permanent regulations adopted by HCD to implement these provisions, as specified. Beginning with the 7th housing element cycle, upon request by a small rural jurisdiction, to the extent feasible, the bill would require HCD to evaluate materials from the small rural jurisdiction's housing element submission when determining whether the jurisdiction qualifies as prohousing, but only with respect to those small rural jurisdictions that have a compliant housing element. The bill would also prohibit HCD from requiring small rural jurisdictions to renew their prohousing designation for at least 4 years. The bill would define "small rural jurisdiction" for these purposes to mean either a city with a population of fewer than 25,000 persons or a county with a population of fewer than 200,000 persons. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65589.9 of the Government Code proposed by SB 262 to be operative only if this bill and SB 262 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
In a trial by a superior court of a question of fact, existing law requires the court to issue a statement of decision explaining the factual and legal basis for its decision upon the request of any party appearing at the trial made either within 10 days after the court announces a tentative decision, or, for a trial concluded in one calendar day or in less than 8 hours over multiple days, before the matter is submitted for decision. Existing law requires the statement of decision to be in writing, unless the parties agree otherwise, except that for a trial concluded in one calendar day or in less than 8 hours over multiple days, the statement of decision may be made orally in the presence of the parties. This bill would instead require a request for a statement of decision in all trials by court to be made in writing, or orally if there is an official record of the proceeding being transcribed, before the matter is submitted for decision. The bill would require the statement of decision to be served on all parties who appeared at the trial. The bill would authorize a court to issue a written statement of decision without a request from a party, and would authorize the court to order a party or parties to prepare a draft statement of decision. The bill would permit a party to make objections to a statement of decision, as specified. The bill would require the Judicial Council to adopt or amend all rules of court necessary to implement these provisions, and to prepare a form that a party may use to request a statement of decision, as specified. Existing law requires the court clerk to enter the court's judgment in a trial by the court immediately upon the filing of the court's decision in the trial. This bill would extend that deadline and instead require the clerk to enter judgment within 30 days after the filing of the court's decision, or, if a statement of decision was requested, within 30 days after the statement of decision becomes final. The bill's provisions would become operative on January 1, 2027.
