Existing law, subject to an appropriation in the annual Budget Act, requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to provide, under the Transitional Housing Program, funding to counties for allocation to child welfare services agencies to help young adults who are 18 to 24 years of age, inclusive, secure and maintain housing, with priority given to young adults formerly in the state's foster care or probation systems. Existing law, subject to an appropriation in the annual Budget Act, also requires the department to allocate funding to counties under the Housing Navigation and Maintenance Program to help young adults who are 18 to 24 years of age, inclusive, secure and maintain housing, with priority given to young adults currently or formerly in the foster care system. This bill would extend the age of eligibility for the Housing Navigation and Maintenance Program to young adults who are 18 to 28 years of age, inclusive, and would, instead, give priority to nonminor dependents and young adults formerly in the state's foster care or probation system, as defined. The bill would specify the eligible uses of the funding allocated to a county child welfare agency under the Housing Navigation and Maintenance Program. Existing law requires a child welfare agency that accepts any distribution of money under either program to report certain data to the department on an annual basis, including specified information relating to the number of homeless youth served and the number of former or current foster youth served, as defined. This bill would revise those reporting requirements to instead require information about the number of young adults served, including the number of young adults formerly in the state's foster care or probation system, as defined, and would require additional information to be reported under the Housing Navigation and Maintenance Program related to housing vouchers, as specified.
Existing law, the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act, authorizes specified adult persons to petition a civil court to create a voluntary CARE agreement or a court-ordered CARE plan and implement services, to be provided by county behavioral health agencies, to provide behavioral health care, including stabilization medication, housing, and other enumerated services, to adults who are currently experiencing a severe mental illness and have a diagnosis identified in the disorder class schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, and who meet other specified criteria. Existing law authorizes specified individuals to file a petition to commence the CARE process, including, but not limited to, a spouse, parent, sibling, child, grandparent, or an individual who stands in loco parentis to the respondent. Existing law requires the court to issue an order relieving the original petitioner if the petitioner is someone other than the director of a county behavioral health agency or their designee and appoint the director or their designee as the successor petitioner. Existing law requires the original petitioner to have specified rights to notice of proceedings if the petitioner is a parent or specified family member or the person with whom the respondent resides. Existing law authorizes the court to allow the original petitioner to participate in the respondent's CARE proceedings to the extent the respondent consents. This bill would authorize the original petitioner to provide specified information regarding the respondent, including the respondent's condition, treatment history, and housing status. The bill would require the CARE team to review specified parts of the provided information, including that relevant to the respondent's care and treatment, and would authorize the court to consider that information in evaluating the respondent's progress and compliance, among other things. The bill would specify that the respondent's consent is not required to receive this information from the original petitioner and that submission of this information does not confer party status on the original petitioner or create a right to direct treatment decisions, obtain discovery, access confidential records, receive protected health information, attend confidential proceedings, or otherwise participate in the proceedings without the respondent's consent, except as expressly provided by law.
Existing law provides that in a civil action brought by a plaintiff to challenge a housing development project that meets or exceeds the requirements for low- or moderate-income housing, a defendant may seek an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish an undertaking as security for costs and damages that may be incurred by the defendant if the bringing of the action would result in preventing or delaying the project, as specified. Existing law limits the liability of the plaintiff who must furnish the undertaking to $500,000. Existing law also permits a defendant in a civil action challenging the approval or permitting of a priority housing development project, as defined, to bring a special motion to strike the pleading. Existing law requires the court to deny the motion to strike if the court determines, based on the pleadings, affidavits, and administrative record if applicable, that the plaintiff has established a probability of prevailing on the claim. This bill would increase the above-referenced liability limit to $1,000,000. The bill would also generally apply the above provisions to priority care developments, as defined, that provide supportive housing or other housing assistance in connection with behavioral health services and other specified purposes. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 529.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure proposed by SB 916 to be operative only if this bill and SB 916 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
The Manufactured Housing Act of 1980 sets forth various standards relating to manufactured homes, mobilehomes, special purpose commercial coaches, and commercial coaches, including, but not limited to, construction and alteration of those homes. Existing law, including the Manufactured Housing Act of 1980 and the Uniform Commercial Code–Secured Transactions, defines the term "manufactured home" for various purposes to mean a structure that, among other things, is transportable in one or more sections, is 8 body feet or more in width, or 40 body feet or more in length, in the traveling mode, or, when erected on site, is 320 or more square feet, and is built on a permanent chassis. This bill would modify that definition to mean a structure that was constructed on or after June 15, 1976, with or without a foundation system, and has the same meaning as defined in specified federal law. Existing law, pursuant to the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, authorizes the Department of Housing and Community Development to assume responsibility for the enforcement of manufactured home and mobilehome construction and safety standards relating to any issue with respect to which a federal standard has been established. Existing law also authorizes the department to adopt regulations to ensure acceptance by the United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development of California's plan for the administration and enforcement of federal manufactured home and mobilehome safety and construction standards. Existing law makes any person who knowingly violates any provision of the Manufactured Housing Act of 1980 or any rule or regulation issued pursuant to that act, except as specified, guilty of a misdemeanor. This bill would require the department, by July 1, 2027, to review, revise, and adopt regulations to permit the construction, installation, sale, and occupancy of a manufactured home built without a permanent chassis in parity with those applicable to a manufactured home built with a permanent chassis. The bill would exempt those regulations from the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. The bill would also require the department to report to the Legislature by July 1, 2027, on the status of the above-described regulations. This bill would require the department, by July 1, 2029, to prepare and submit a report to the Legislature evaluating the statutory and administrative changes necessary to regulate, finance, title, tax, and protect homeowners in divided-tenure and leasehold homeownership arrangements, as specified, and to contract with appropriate outside parties who shall consult with certain entities, including county assessors and recorders, in preparing that report. By imposing additional duties on local officials, and by expanding the scope of 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law provides that in a civil action brought by a plaintiff to challenge a housing development project that meets or exceeds the requirements for low- or moderate-income housing, a defendant may seek an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish an undertaking as security for costs and damages that may be incurred by the defendant if the bringing of the action would result in preventing or delaying the project, as specified. Existing law authorizes the court to limit the amount of the undertaking or to decline to require the plaintiff to furnish an undertaking if the court determines that, based on evidence submitted by the plaintiff, furnishing an undertaking would cause the plaintiff to suffer undue economic hardship. This bill would make these provisions applicable to a student housing development, as defined. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 529.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure proposed by SB 1344 to be operative only if this bill and SB 1344 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Existing law, commonly referred to as the Density Bonus Law, requires a city or county to provide a developer that proposes a housing development, as defined, within the city or county with a density bonus, other incentives or concessions, and waivers or reductions of development standards, as specified, if the developer agrees to construct specified units and meets other requirements. Existing law, among other things, requires compliance with certain affordability requirements, including requiring that the applicant agree to ensure, and that the city, county, or city and county ensure, that a for-sale unit that qualified the applicant for the award of the density bonus is either (1) initially sold to and occupied by a person or family of very low, low, or moderate income, as specified, or (2) if the unit is not purchased by an income-qualified person or family within 180 days after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the unit is purchased by a qualified nonprofit housing corporation, as provided. This bill would additionally allow the applicant and the city, county, or city and county to comply with the above-described affordability requirements with respect to a for-sale unit by ensuring that the unit is purchased by a nonprofit housing corporation, as specified, for properties to be sold to and occupied by extremely low, very low, or lower income families who participate in a below market interest rate loan program, as described. By adding to the duties of local agencies to implement the Density Bonus Law, 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.
Existing law, the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, governs the management and operation of common interest developments by an association. Existing law requires the board of an association to provide general notice of a proposed rule change at least 28 days before making the rule change, in accordance with certain procedures. Existing law, however, permits the board to make an emergency rule change if it determines that the change is required to address an imminent threat to public health or safety, or an imminent risk of substantial economic loss to the association, as prescribed. This bill would make nonsubstantive changes to that provision. Existing law, the Common Interest Development Open Meeting Act, prohibits the board of a common interest development from taking action on any item of business outside of a board meeting. Existing law also prohibits the board from conducting a meeting via a series of electronic transmissions, except in specified emergency circumstances. This bill would prohibit a majority of the directors of the board, outside an authorized meeting, from using a series of communications of any kind, directly or through intermediaries, to discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item of business within the board's subject matter jurisdiction, except in an emergency. The bill would also exempt from this prohibition certain informational and ministerial communications. Existing law authorizes the board to adjourn to, or meet solely in, executive session to consider litigation and other specified matters. Existing law requires any matter discussed in executive session to be generally noted in the minutes of the immediately following meeting that is open to the entire membership. This bill would require discussions regarding ongoing litigation to have the case name, case number, and name of the court included as part of the executive session meeting minutes. This bill would require, if open session meetings of the board are electronically recorded using audio, or audio and video, that the recordings be considered a record of the association and be made available to members on the same basis as written meeting minutes. The bill would exempt a recording used solely for the purpose of creating meeting minutes and would authorize that the recording be deleted 12 months after the meeting minutes are completed. The bill, for meetings that are being recorded, would require notice to be given at the beginning of every open session of the board that the meeting is being recorded. Existing law requires the minutes, minutes proposed for adoption that are marked to indicate draft status, or a summary of the minutes of a board meeting, other than an executive session, to be available to members within 30 days of the meeting and distributed to a member upon request and upon reimbursement of the association's cost for making that distribution. This bill would prohibit the imposition of a charge for minutes that are distributed electronically. The bill would allow minutes posted on the association website to meet minute distribution requirements. The bill would require the minutes, or proposed minutes, to include specified information, including the date and time of the meeting. The bill would require an association to make the minutes available to a member who requests a physical copy of the minutes. Existing law requires an association to distribute an annual budget report 30 to 90 days before the end of its fiscal year that contains specified information. This bill would require the annual budget report to also include a statement listing any active litigation in which the association is named as a party, as specified.
Existing law allows for an eligible person to be excused from jury service only for undue hardship upon themselves or the public, as defined by the Judicial Council. Existing rules of court allow a person with a disability or their representative to seek a permanent medical excuse from jury service and require the individual to submit a written request accompanied by a supporting letter, memo, or note from a treating health care provider, as specified. This bill would, commencing January 1, 2028, authorize a person 80 years of age or older to seek a permanent excuse from jury service due to a medical impairment without providing a supporting letter, memorandum, or note from a treating health care provider. The bill would require the court to permanently excuse a person who seeks the above-described permanent excuse from jury service upon the jury commissioner's receipt of a written attestation stating that the person has an impairment, as specified. The bill would authorize the Judicial Council to adopt or amend a rule of court and publish related judicial forms as necessary to implement these provisions.
(1) Existing law, the Joint Exercise of Powers Act, authorizes 2 or more public agencies, by agreement, to form a joint powers authority to exercise any power common to the contracting parties, as specified. Existing law authorizes the agreement to set forth the manner by which the joint powers authority will be exercised. This bill, by January 1, 2028, would require the County of Sacramento, the City of Sacramento, the City of Elk Grove, the City of Rancho Cordova, the City of Citrus Heights, and the City of Folsom to participate in and work together to establish a joint powers authority, pursuant to the Joint Exercise of Powers Act, designed to make a meaningful difference for people experiencing housing insecurity and homelessness across the County of Sacramento. In this regard, the bill would require the above-specified local governments together to, among other things, bring the oversight and functions of the Sacramento City and County Continuum of Care under the jurisdiction of the joint powers authority, while maintaining the federally required composition and integrity of the continuum of care. The bill would require the joint powers authority to, among other things, provide direction to the continuum of care lead agency. The bill would specify that a local jurisdiction retains oversight and accountability over funding decisions, projects, and programs administered by the jurisdiction, including contracting for prevention, outreach, sheltering, and housing. The bill would declare that these provisions are severable. The bill would make findings and declarations relating to its provisions. By requiring the above-described local governments to establish the joint powers authority, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for County of Sacramento. The bill would make additional related findings and declarations. (2) 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.
Existing law, until January 1, 2030, authorizes the Counties of Alameda and Los Angeles to implement a program for the disposal of abandoned recreational vehicles. Existing law imposes specified conditions on this authority, including, among other things, requiring a public agency, immediately after removal of the recreational vehicle, to notify the Stolen Vehicle System of the Department of Justice of the removal. This bill would also authorize any public agency within the Counties of Alameda and Los Angeles or a state agency, as specified, to implement a program to dispose of these recreational vehicles within the County of Alameda or the County of Los Angeles and would extend this authorization until January 1, 2032. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Counties of Alameda and Los Angeles.
