The Insurance Rate Reduction and Reform Act of 1988, an initiative measure enacted by Proposition 103, as approved by the voters at the November 8, 1988, statewide general election, prohibits specified insurance rates from being approved or remaining in effect that are excessive, inadequate, unfairly discriminatory, or otherwise in violation of the act. Under the act, rates and premiums for automobile insurance are determined based on specified factors, including the insured's driving safety record. Existing law authorizes the provisions of Proposition 103 to be amended by a statute that furthers the purposes of the act and is enacted by the Legislature with a 23 vote. This bill, the Consumer Driving Data Protection Act of 2026, would authorize a consumer to opt to use telematics to establish their driving record, thus amending Proposition 103. The bill would prohibit the use of telematics data for a purpose other than rating private passenger automobile insurance. The bill would require a rate application under which telematics would be used to establish an insured's driving record to include specified materials related to the insurer's telematics program. This bill would prohibit an insurer that uses telematics from taking specified actions, including conditioning eligibility for a discount upon participation in a telematics program, unless the discount is approved by the commissioner. The bill would also set forth written consent and privacy requirements for the collection and use of telematics data. The bill would authorize the commissioner to impose specified penalties for violations of the bill's provisions, including civil penalties and suspension of an insurer's telematics program. This bill would require an insurance provider or third-party vendor to take specified actions with respect to the telematics data, including immediately deleting the data once a rating has been assigned to the consumer and obtaining an express written or electronic signature of a consumer on a notice meeting specified conditions. The bill would additionally prohibit an insurance provider or third-party vendor from keeping the telematics data for longer than 6 months and collecting audio or visual recordings of the occupants of the vehicle or persons outside the vehicle, among other specified prohibitions. The bill would declare that its provisions further the purposes of Proposition 103. 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.
Existing law relating to housing development approval requires a local agency to compile a list of information needed to approve or deny a postentitlement phase permit, to post an example of a complete, approved application and an example of a complete set of postentitlement phase permits for at least 5 types of housing development projects in the jurisdiction, as specified, and to make those items available to all applicants for these permits no later than January 1, 2024. Existing law establishes time limits for completing reviews regarding whether an application for a postentitlement phase permit is complete and compliant and consequences for a local agency that fails to meet that timeline, as provided. Existing law defines "postentitlement phase permit" to, among other things, include a range of permits issued by a local agency. This bill would require a state agency to comply with the above-described provisions relating to postentitlement phase permits applicable to a local agency. The bill would require a state agency to make the information list, as described above, and the above-described examples of a complete, approved application and a complete set of postentitlement phase permits available on the agency's internet website by January 1, 2026. The bill would deem a postentitlement phase permit approved, and all related reviews complete, if a state agency fails to meet the time limits for review of an application for that permit. The bill would revise the definition of "postentitlement phase permit" for purposes of these provisions to, among other things, include permits issued by a state agency and any postentitlement review by a state agency that is necessary to begin construction of a development that is intended to be at least 23 residential, excluding certain discretionary and ministerial permits and reviews and subject to specified exceptions, and would define the term "state agency" for these purposes. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law provides for the creation by local ordinance, or by ministerial approval if a local agency has not adopted an ordinance, of accessory dwelling units in areas zoned for single-family or multifamily dwelling residential use in accordance with specified standards and conditions. Existing law prohibits a local agency from issuing a certificate of occupancy for an accessory dwelling unit before the local agency issues a certificate of occupancy for the primary dwelling. This bill, notwithstanding that prohibition, would require a local agency to issue a certificate of occupancy for an accessory dwelling unit constructed in a county that is subject to a proclamation of a state of emergency made by the Governor on or after February 1, 2025, even if the primary dwelling has not yet been issued a certificate of occupancy, if certain requirements are met, including that the primary dwelling was substantially damaged or destroyed by an event referenced in the state of emergency proclamation. By imposing new duties on local agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires a permitting agency to either approve or deny an application to create or serve an accessory dwelling unit within 60 days from the date the permitting agency receives a completed application if there is an existing single-family or multifamily dwelling on the lot. Existing law deems the application approved if the local agency has not approved or denied the completed application within 60 days. Under existing law, if the permit application to create or serve an accessory dwelling unit is submitted with a permit application to create or serve a new single-family or multifamily dwelling on the lot, the permitting agency may delay approving or denying the permit application for the accessory dwelling unit until the permitting agency approves or denies the permit application to create or serve the new single-family or multifamily dwelling, as provided. The California Coastal Act of 1976, which is administered by the California Coastal Commission, requires any person wishing to perform or undertake any development in the coastal zone, as defined, to obtain a coastal development permit from a local government or the commission, except as provided. Existing law specifies that the laws governing accessory dwelling units do not supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the act, except as specified. This bill would create an exception to the above provision by requiring a local government or the commission, as specified, to either approve or deny a coastal development permit application for an accessory dwelling unit within 60 days of receiving a completed application. The bill would, notwithstanding that 60-day time limit, authorize the commission, if a coastal development permit application to create or serve an accessory dwelling unit is submitted with a coastal development permit application to create or serve a new single-family or multifamily dwelling on the lot, to delay approving or denying the coastal development permit application for the accessory dwelling unit until the commission approves or denies the coastal development permit application to create or serve the new single-family or multifamily dwelling. Under the bill, and except under the circumstance described above, if the commission has not approved or denied a completed application within 60 days, the application would be deemed approved. 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. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law requires a mortgage servicer to comply with applicable federal guidance regarding borrower options following a forbearance relating to the COVID-19 emergency. This bill would authorize a borrower who is experiencing financial hardship that prevents the borrower from making timely payments on a specified residential mortgage loan due directly to the wildfire disaster described in the proclamation of a state of emergency issued by Governor Gavin Newsom on January 7, 2025, or the federally declared disaster, declared on January 8, 2025, related to the Eaton Wildfire, the Palisades Fire, and the Straight-line Winds, to request forbearance on their residential mortgage loan, as prescribed. The bill would limit eligibility for that forbearance to loans that are secured by residential real property improved by 4 or fewer residential units. The bill would require the borrower to affirm that they are experiencing a financial hardship due to the wildfire disaster. Because the bill would expand the crime of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would, except as specified, require a mortgage servicer to offer mortgage payment forbearance of a period of up to an initial 90 days, which shall be extended at the request of the borrower in 90-day increments, up to a maximum forbearance period of 12 months. The bill would also prohibit a mortgage servicer from assessing any late fees to the borrower's account or charging a default rate of interest during the forbearance period. The bill would provide that the forbearance period includes any period of forbearance related to the wildfire disaster that a mortgage servicer has provided to a borrower before the effective date of these provisions. The bill would require a mortgage servicer to report the credit obligations of borrowers under a disaster-related forbearance plan in compliance with the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act. For accounts granted disaster-related mortgage payment relief, the bill would prohibit mortgage servicers from furnishing information during the forbearance period indicating that the payments are in forbearance and would require them to report the credit obligation or account as current or delinquent, as specified. The bill would prohibit a mortgage servicer from initiating any judicial or nonjudicial foreclosure process, moving for a foreclosure judgment or order of sale, or executing a foreclosure-related eviction or foreclosure during the period of forbearance. This bill would require the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation to post specified information on its website including links to the provisions of servicing guidelines pertaining to disaster-related forbearance relief for federally backed loans and a dedicated telephone number for borrowers seeking assistance. 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 declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
