Existing law provides that a trustee's sale of property under a power of sale contained in a deed of trust or mortgage on real property containing one to 4 residential units is not final until the earliest of various time periods. Existing law provides specified eligible bidders, defined to include eligible tenant buyers, prospective owner-occupants, and eligible nonprofit corporations with certain attributes, various rights in connection with those sales, and sets forth procedures for eligible bidders to submit bids after those sales. Existing law authorizes the Attorney General, a county counsel, a city attorney, or a district attorney to bring an action to enforce these provisions as specified. This bill would instead provide that a trustee's sale of eligible property, as defined, is not final until the earliest of various time periods. The bill would change the term "eligible tenant buyer" to "eligible tenant bidder," and would redefine the term "eligible bidder" to remove prospective owner-occupants and to mean an eligible tenant bidder or an eligible community bidder, as defined. The bill would add an additional attribute to the eligible nonprofit corporations portion of "eligible community bidder." The bill would authorize the persons described above to seek a civil penalty to enforce these provisions, as specified. The bill would make conforming changes.
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 or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA, until January 1, 2033, exempts from its requirements certain actions for affordable housing projects that meet specified requirements, including confirmation by a public agency that, among other things, the project site satisfies specified requirements and a vacant project site does not contain tribal cultural resources that could be affected by the development that were found pursuant to a consultation and the effects of which cannot be mitigated, as provided. This bill would extend the operation of the above-described exemption to January 1, 2037, and would expand the exemption to also include a public university or public college housing project, as defined, that meets specified requirements. Because the bill would extend the operation of the exemption and would increase duties on a lead agency related to the expansion of this exemption, the 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.
(1) The Planning and Zoning Law requires a local agency or state agency to compile one or more lists that specify in detail the information required from any applicant for a postentitlement phase permit, as defined. Existing law also establishes time limits for completing reviews regarding whether an application for a postentitlement phase permit is complete and compliant, and whether to approve or deny an application. Existing law requires the time limits to be tolled, if the local agency or state agency requires review of the application by an outside entity, until the outside entity completes the review and returns the application, as specified. This bill would prohibit a local agency or state agency from requiring or requesting more than 2 plan check and specification reviews in connection with an application for a building permit, as part of its review. The bill would authorize a local agency or state agency to deny an application that is not compliant with the permit standards following 2 plan check and specification reviews. The bill would also authorize an applicant to request additional submittals of applications that are not compliant with the permit standards. The bill, if a local agency or state agency finds that a complete application is noncompliant, would prohibit a local agency or state agency from requesting or requiring any action or inaction as a result of a building inspection undertaken to assess compliance with the applicable building permit standards that would represent a deviation from a previously approved building plan or similar approval for the building permit, except as specified. This bill would remove the above-described tolling requirements relating to outside entity reviews and, instead, would require, if federal or state law requires review of the application by another public agency that is independent of the local agency or state agency before the local agency or state agency is authorized to act on the application, the time limits to be tolled for the application until the public agency completes the review and returns the application to the local agency or state agency. The bill would require the local agency or state agency to notify the applicant of the tolling, as specified. (2) Existing law, if a postentitlement phase permit is determined to be incomplete or noncompliant, requires a local agency or state agency to provide a process for an applicant to appeal that decision in writing to the governing body of the agency or, if there is no governing body, to the director of the agency, as provided by that agency. Existing law requires the city or county to provide that the right of appeal is to the governing body or, at their option, the planning commission, or both. Existing law requires a local agency or state agency to provide a final written determination on the appeal not later than 60 business days after receipt of the applicant's written appeal, for housing development projects with 25 units or fewer, and not later than 90 business days for a housing development projects with 26 units or more. Existing law also specifies that the fact that an appeal is permitted to both the planning commission and to the governing body does not extend the specified time period. This bill would revise those timelines to not later than 30 business days for housing development projects with 25 units or fewer and 45 business days for housing development projects with 26 units or more. The bill would remove the specification that the fact that an appeal is permitted to both the planning commission and to the governing body does not extend the specified time period. The bill would remove the requirement that, if a postentitlement phase permit is determined to be incomplete or noncompliant, a local agency or state agency provide a process for an applicant to appeal that decision to the director of the agency if there is no governing body, as provided by that agency. The bill would remove the requirement that a city or county provide that the right of appeal is to the governing body or, at their option, the planning commission, or both. This bill would authorize the applicant to seek a writ of mandate to compel approval of the application, if the applicant's appeal is denied, or a decision on the appeal is not made within the timelines provided, or an appeals process is not provided as required. By imposing additional duties on local agencies regarding postentitlement phase permits, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) Existing law, the Housing Accountability Act, among other things, prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning approval in a manner that renders infeasible, a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households unless the local agency makes written findings as to one of certain sets of conditions, as specified. The act also requires, when a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, that the local agency base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that 2 specified conditions exist. Existing law defines the term "disapprove the housing development project" for these purposes to include any instance in which a local agency takes certain actions or fails to comply with certain requirements, including the time limits described above. Existing law makes a local agency's failure to meet the above-described time limits relating to postentitlement phase permits a violation of the Housing Accountability Act. This bill would, instead, make a violation of the above-described provisions relating to postentitlement phase permits, among others, a violation of the Housing Accountability Act. The bill would also revise the definition of "disapprove the housing development project" under the Housing Accountability Act to include any instance in which a local agency fails to comply with any of the provisions described above relating to postentitlement phase permits. By requiring local agencies to take certain actions, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (4) The bill would make other conforming changes and would provide that certain changes are declaratory of existing law. (5) 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. (6) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65589.5 of the Government Code proposed by SB 1072 to be operative only if this bill and SB 1072 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (7) 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 prohibits mobilehome park management from terminating a tenancy except for specified reasons, including, among other reasons, failure of the homeowner or resident to comply with a reasonable rule or regulation of the park that is part of the rental agreement. Existing law provides that an act or omission of a homeowner or resident does not constitute a failure to comply with a reasonable rule or regulation until management has given the homeowner written notice of the alleged rule or regulation violation and the homeowner or resident has failed to adhere to the rule or regulation within seven days. Existing law further provides these provisions do not relieve management from its obligations to demonstrate that a rule or regulation has in fact been violated. This bill would, instead, require that the management serve the homeowner with the written notice, as prescribed, and would require the notice to include the language of each rule or regulation for which the homeowner is alleged to be in violation, along with specific facts, as provided, and any action required to adhere to the rule or regulation. The bill would, instead, provide that these provisions do not relieve the management from its burden of demonstrating that a rule or regulation has in fact been in fact violated.
Existing law, the State Bar Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of attorneys by the State Bar of California, a public corporation. The act requires an attorney to strictly maintain client confidences and to preserve client secrets at their own peril. This bill would prohibit an attorney from delegating the practice of law to generative artificial intelligence. The bill would require an attorney who uses generative artificial intelligence to assist in the practice of law to, among other things, not enter confidential, personal identifying, and other nonpublic information into a generative artificial intelligence system, as specified. The bill would also require an attorney to take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of generative artificial intelligence outputs and to correct any erroneous or hallucinated output in any material used by the attorney. Existing law requires every pleading, petition, written notice of motion, or other similar paper to be signed by the attorney of record, or if a party is unrepresented, by the party, thereby certifying to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief that it is not being presented primarily for an improper purpose and that the claims, defenses, and legal and factual contentions are warranted, as specified. This bill would prohibit a brief, pleading, motion, or any other paper filed in any court from containing any citations that an attorney responsible for submitting the pleading has not personally verified, including any citation provided by generative artificial intelligence. Existing law, the California Arbitration Act, provides a statutory framework for the enforcement of contractual arbitration under California law. The act establishes that a written agreement to submit a present or future controversy to arbitration is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable, except as specified. The act defines a neutral arbitrator as one who is selected jointly by the parties or by the parties' arbitrators, or is appointed by the court if the parties or their arbitrators cannot jointly select an arbitrator. The act requires a person selected to serve as a neutral arbitrator to disclose all matters that could cause a person aware of the facts to reasonably entertain a doubt as to the proposed neutral arbitrator's impartiality. This bill would prohibit an arbitrator from delegating any part of their decisionmaking process to any generative artificial intelligence tool, and would prohibit an arbitrator from relying on information generated by generative artificial intelligence outside the record without making appropriate disclosures to the parties beforehand, as specified. The California Constitution establishes the Judicial Council, and requires the Judicial Council to adopt rules for court administration, practice, and procedure, and to undertake certain responsibilities with regard to court facilities. This bill would require the Judicial Council to publicly revisit a specified standard of judicial administration to incorporate any necessary changes reflecting the further development of generative artificial intelligence. Existing law requires the State Bar to create a program to certify alternative resolution firms, providers, or practitioners. Existing law requires the program to include procedures to verify, among other things, that a firm, provider, or practitioner has procedures in place for persons to make complaints regarding the failure of an arbitrator or mediator of the firm, provider, or practitioner to comply with ethical standards, as applicable, and procedures to remedy failures of arbitrators or mediators to comply with those standards. This bill would instead require the State Bar to adopt procedures for the State Bar or a professional organization to receive, investigate, and resolve any complaints that a certified firm, provider, or practitioner failed to comply with the applicable ethical standards of conduct, as specified. The bill would require complaint proceedings to occur in private and be confidential. After a decision on a complaint, the bill would authorize the State Bar to publicly disclose information or records concerning complaint proceedings that do not reveal confidential or privileged communications. The bill would exempt information, records, or communications provided under these provisions from disclosure under the Public Records Act. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.
The Planning and Zoning Law, until January 1, 2036, authorizes a development proponent to submit an application for a multifamily housing development that is subject to a streamlined, ministerial approval process, as provided, and not subject to a conditional use permit, if the development satisfies specified objective planning standards (streamlining process) . Existing law, for purposes of this streamlining process, authorizes a development proponent to request a modification to an approved development if submitted to the local government before the issuance of the final building permit required for construction of the development. Existing law requires a local government to approve a modification if it determines the modification is consistent with the objective planning standards in effect when the original development application was first submitted. Existing law requires evaluations of modifications for consistency with the objective planning standards to be made using the same assumptions and analytical methodology the local government originally used, as described. This bill would instead require the local government to approve a modification if it determines the modification is consistent with objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards that were in effect when the original development application or notice of intent was first submitted, as described. The bill would also require subsequent modifications to be evaluated for consistency using the same assumptions and analytical methodology the local government originally used, or that was used in a previous modification, as described. The bill would make conforming changes. Existing law provides that if a development proponent requests a modification, as described above, the time during which approval of the development remains valid is extended for the number of days between the submittal of a modification request and the date of its final approval, plus an additional 180 days to allow time to obtain a building permit. Existing law also further extends that time during the pendency of litigation, if any. This bill would provide that the litigation extension is not limited to the first request for a modification submitted by the development proponent. This bill would also make nonsubstantive changes. 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. By imposing additional duties on local officials, 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 Mobilehome Residency Law, prescribes various terms and conditions of tenancies in mobilehome parks. Existing law authorizes a local agency to be responsible for the enforcement of certain requirements governing mobilehome parks. This bill would specify that, in the event that a mobilehome park operator, owner, or management fails to, or elects not to, comply with federal law or other federal requirements imposed in connection with a federally approved housing program, the mobilehome park operator, owner, or management shall ensure ongoing compliance with the Mobilehome Residency Law, the prescribed provisions of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and all other applicable state and local laws and ordinances. If a mobilehome park operator, owner, or management fails to, or elects not to, conduct the age verification requirement under prescribed federal law, the bill would authorize a local agency to conduct age verification, as provided, and grant the local agency with the right to access and inspect records of the mobilehome park operator, owner, and management to conduct that verification.
Existing law establishes the Multifamily Housing Program, administered by the Department of Housing and Community Development, to provide financial assistance in the form of deferred payment loans to pay for the eligible costs of development of specified types of housing projects. Existing law requires that specified funds appropriated to provide housing for individuals and families who are experiencing homelessness or who are at risk of homelessness and who are inherently impacted by or at increased risk for medical diseases or conditions due to the COVID-19 pandemic or other communicable diseases be disbursed in accordance with the Multifamily Housing Program for specified uses, including acquisition or rehabilitation of motels, hotels, hostels, or other sites, as provided. This disbursement program is referred to as Homekey. Existing law, upon appropriation, requires Homekey awards to be expended within 8 months of the date of the award, as provided. This bill would, for Homekey awards made on or after July 1, 2026, require the department to consider allowing applicants that utilize funds for adaptive reuse projects if the adaptive reuse involves substantial rehabilitation, reconstruction, or demolition of an existing structure, as defined and specified.
Existing law requires a housing development project to be an allowed use as a transit-oriented housing development on any site zoned for residential, mixed, or commercial development within prescribed distances of a transit-oriented development stop if the development complies with specified requirements. Existing law applies these provisions to a local agency beginning July 1, 2026, unless the local agency adopts an ordinance or local transit-oriented development alternative plan, as specified. Existing law prescribes requirements for these plans, including requiring that the plan not reduce the capacity in any transit-oriented development zone in total units or residential floor area by more than 50%. Existing law defines various terms for these purposes. This bill would provide that a transit-oriented development alternative plan may reduce the capacity in up to one transit-oriented development zone in total units or residential floor area by more than 50% if certain requirements are met. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65912.161 of the Government Code proposed by AB 2576 to be operative only if this bill and AB 2576 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
The California Constitution establishes the Judicial Council, and requires the Judicial Council to adopt rules for court administration, practice, and procedure, and to undertake certain responsibilities with regard to court facilities. Existing law regulates the terms and conditions of residential tenancies. Existing law, after a tenant has continuously and lawfully occupied a residential real property for 12 months, prohibits the owner of the residential real property from terminating the tenancy without just cause and requires that just cause to be stated in the written notice to terminate tenancy. Under existing law, a tenant is guilty of unlawful detainer if the tenant continues to possess the property without permission of the landlord after the tenant defaults on rent, among other reasons. This bill would, by July 1, 2032, require the Judicial Council to assess the timeline by which each county court system has the ability to submit specified data points regarding unlawful detainer cases to the Judicial Council utilizing an automated data collection system. The bill would, beginning January 1, 2033, require each county court system identified by the Judicial Council as able to report to the Judicial Council utilizing the automated data collection system to submit the specified data points to the Judicial Council on a quarterly basis, aggregated by ZIP Code. The bill would require, on or before January 1, 2034, all county court systems to report the identified data points to the Judicial Council utilizing the automated data collection system on a quarterly basis, aggregated by ZIP Code of the premises that is the subject of the action. The bill would require, beginning January 1, 2034, and annually thereafter, the Judicial Council to format the information received pursuant to the provisions above in an electronic spreadsheet, as specified, and to publicly post the spreadsheet on its internet website. The bill would make implementation of its provisions contingent upon appropriation by the Legislature, as specified.
