Under the Planning and Zoning Law, the legislative body of a county or city may adopt ordinances that, among other things, regulate the use of buildings, structures, and land, as provided. The Subdivision Map Act vests the authority to regulate and control the design and improvement of subdivisions in the legislative body of a local agency and sets forth procedures governing the local agency's processing, approval, conditional approval or disapproval, and filing of tentative, final, and parcel maps. Existing law requires a local agency to consider ministerially a specified proposed housing development or to ministerially approve a parcel map for an urban lot split if the development or parcel meets specified requirements, including, that the development or parcel is not located within a historic district or property included on the State Historic Resources Inventory or within a site that is designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district pursuant to city or county ordinance, as specified. Existing law authorizes a local agency to impose specified objective standards on the development or parcel created by an urban lot split, except as specified. With respect to ministerial review of a proposed housing development under the above-described provisions, this bill would, if the other specified requirements are met, instead require a local agency to consider ministerially the development that is not located in either a contributing structure within a historic district included on the State Historical Resources Inventory or within a historic property or district pursuant to city or county ordinance or in a parcel individually listed as a historical resource included in the State Historical Resources Inventory or within a property individually designated or listed as a city or county landmark under a city or county ordinance. The bill would also authorize a local agency to adopt objective standards for the purposes of maintaining the historical value of a historic district listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, as specified. With respect to an urban lot split under the above-described provisions, this bill would, if the other specified requirements are met, instead require a local agency to ministerially approve the urban lot split if the parcel is not located within a historic landmark property included on the State Historical Resources Inventory or within a site that is designated or listed as a city or county landmark pursuant to a city or county ordinance. The bill would additionally require that the proposed urban lot split not require demolition or alteration of specified structures. By imposing additional duties on local agencies, 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 Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022 (act) , until January 1, 2033, authorizes a development proponent to submit an application for an affordable housing development or a mixed-income housing development that meets specified objective standards and affordability and site criteria, including being located within a zone where office, retail, or parking are a principally permitted use. The act makes a development that meets those objective standards and affordability and site criteria a use by right and subject to one of 2 streamlined, ministerial review processes depending on, among other things, the affordability requirements applicable to the project. The act requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to undertake at least 2 studies, one completed on or before January 1, 2027, and one completed on or before January 1, 2031, on the outcomes of the act. This bill would provide that, for purposes of determining whether a property or site satisfies the criteria, objective development standards, or other requirements for receiving streamlined, ministerial review under the act, a local government's review of the property or site is limited to the area described as being physically disturbed by construction in the application for streamlined, ministerial review and does not include, unless expressly stated otherwise, other contiguous or noncontiguous areas even if under the ownership or control of the project proponent. The bill would provide that easements for public right-of-way, public or private utilities, or other public improvements in, under, or over the property shall not make the property ineligible to receive streamlined, ministerial review for either affordable or mixed-income housing developments. This bill would also expand the eligibility for the above-described streamlined, ministerial review for mixed-income housing developments to include developments located in a campus development zone, as defined, as long as the development meets certain affordability requirements and objective standards, as provided. The bill would require the outcomes of projects built under campus development zones to be reported in the January 1, 2031, outcomes report. The bill would also make related findings and declarations. 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 does not apply to the approval of ministerial projects. By expanding the scope of projects eligible for streamlined, ministerial approval as described above, this bill would expand the scope of the exemption from CEQA for ministerial projects. Existing law includes certain setback requirements in the objective standards that a mixed-income development project must meet to be subject to the above-referenced streamlined, ministerial review process. In this regard, existing law requires all parking to be set back at least 25 feet. This bill would instead impose that setback requirement only on parking that is aboveground. By changing the criteria local agencies must follow for the approval of certain development projects, 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 Planning and Zoning 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 specified mandatory elements, a housing element. Existing law requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to determine whether the housing element is in substantial compliance with those provisions. Existing law requires the department to designate jurisdictions as prohousing pursuant to emergency regulations adopted by the department, as prescribed. Existing law requires that jurisdictions that are prohousing and that are in substantial compliance with specified provisions be awarded additional points or preference in the scoring of applications for specified state programs. Existing law defines "prohousing local policies" for these purposes and specifies a nonexhaustive list of examples of those policies, including local financial incentives for housing and adoption of zoning allowing for use by right for residential and mixed-use development. This bill would include in the definition of "prohousing local policies" policies that keep people housed, and would include additional examples of prohousing local policies under the above-described provisions, as specified. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65589.9 of the Government Code proposed by AB 36 to be operative only if this bill and AB 36 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Existing law provides that recorded covenants, conditions, restrictions, or private limits on the use of land contained in instruments affecting the transfer or sale of any interest in real property that, among other things, restrict the number, size, or location of the residences that may be built on the property, are not enforceable against the owner of an affordable housing development, as defined, if an approved restrictive covenant affordable housing modification document has been recorded in the public record, as provided. As part of this process, existing law requires the owner to submit to the county recorder a copy of the original restrictive covenant and any documents the owner believes necessary to establish that the property qualifies as an affordable housing development and requires the county counsel to determine, among other things, if the property qualifies as an affordable housing development and if a modification document may be recorded. Existing law provides that these provisions do not authorize any development that is not otherwise consistent with local general plans, zoning ordinances, and any applicable specific plan. This bill would extend those provisions to a housing development that is owned or controlled by an entity or individual that has submitted a development project application to redevelop an existing commercial property, and the development project includes residential uses permitted by state housing laws or local land use and zoning regulations and would make various conforming changes. The bill would additionally make these provisions applicable to covenants, conditions, restrictions, or private limits contained in a reciprocal easement agreement, as provided, and include instruments affecting the transfer or sale of any interest in real property that prohibits the number, size, or location of residences that may be built on the property or restricts or prohibits the residential uses of the property. The bill would further provide that these provisions do not authorize any development that is not otherwise consistent with state housing laws. By imposing additional duties on county officials, 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.
Existing law governs the obligations of tenants and landlords. Existing law authorizes a tenant to deduct the payment made to a public utility or publicly owned utility or a district from the rent, as specified. Existing law prohibits a lessor who has retaliated against a lessee for exercising the lessee's prescribed rights from recovering possession of a dwelling, causing the lessee to quit involuntarily, increasing the rent, or decreasing services within 180 days of the occurrence of specified events relating to tenability, if the lessee is not in default on their rent, as specified. Existing law presumes that the hiring of real property is renewed for a specified amount of time, under specified circumstances. For any residential tenancy commenced, renewed, or continuing on a month-to-month or other periodic basis, on or after January 1, 2026, this bill would require a landlord or their agent to allow the tenant to opt out of paying for any subscription from a third-party internet service provider for specified services in connection with the tenancy. If the landlord or their agent violates this provision, the bill would authorize the tenant to deduct the cost of the subscription from the rent. The bill would prohibit a landlord or their agent from retaliating against a tenant for exercising their rights pursuant to this bill and consistent with the above-described provision on retaliation, as provided.
Existing law establishes the California Community Colleges, under the administration of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, as one of the segments of postsecondary education in this state. Existing law establishes community college districts throughout the state and authorizes them to operate campuses and provide instruction to students. This bill would provide that a community college district is not required to comply with the zoning ordinances of a city, county, or city and county, for a university housing development project constructed on property owned or leased by a community college district if specific requirements are met. If the project includes units for faculty and staff, the bill would require the community college district to ensure that a portion of the units of the project are made available at affordable rents to extremely low income faculty and staff and lower income faculty and staff. 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.
Existing law provides that 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 or fails to perform a condition or covenant of the lease under which the property is held, among other reasons. Existing law requires a tenant be served a 3 days' notice in writing to cure a default or perform a condition of the lease, or return possession of the property to the landlord, as specified. Existing law, until January 1, 2030, prohibits an owner of residential real property from terminating a tenancy without just cause, as specified. This bill would, until January 20, 2029, enact the Social Security Tenant Protection Act of 2025 (the Act) . The Act would authorize a tenant of residential real property to assert Social Security hardship as an affirmative defense in an unlawful detainer proceeding based on the nonpayment of rent. The Act would define "Social Security hardship" as a loss of income due to an interruption in the payment of Social Security benefits due to the action or inaction of the federal government. The Act would require a tenant asserting Social Security hardship as an affirmative defense to provide, to the satisfaction of the court, evidence that Social Security payments typically received by the tenant's household have been terminated, delayed, or reduced due to no fault of the tenant and that the hardship prevented the tenant from paying the rent. If the tenant successfully provides this evidence, the Act would require the court to issue a stay of the unlawful detainer action, as specified. The Act would not relieve a tenant of their obligation to pay past due rent, and it would require a tenant, within 14 days of the Social Security benefits being restored, to either pay all past due rent or enter into a mutually agreed upon payment plan with the owner of the residential real property. If the tenant pays all past due rent or enters into a payment plan with the owner, the Act would require the court to either dismiss the unlawful detainer action with prejudice or set aside the judgment against all named and unnamed defendants in the action. The Act would further require the Judicial Council, by January 1, 2027, to adopt or modify forms as needed to implement the Act.
Existing law requires that any building with a dwelling unit maintain certain characteristics in order to be tenantable, including the maintenance of adequate heating and hot water systems that conform to the standard of quality set by applicable law. This bill would add a stove and refrigerator that are maintained in good working order and are capable of safely generating heat for cooking purposes and capable of safely storing food, respectively, to the list of characteristics required for the dwelling unit to be tenantable for leases entered into, amended, or extended on or after January 1, 2026. The bill would require a landlord to repair or replace a stove or refrigerator that is subject to recall by the manufacturer or a public entity within 30 days of receiving notice that the stove or refrigerator is subject to recall. The bill would also authorize a tenant and landlord to mutually agree when the lease is signed if the tenant chooses to provide and maintain their own refrigerator, subject to certain conditions. The bill would prohibit the application of these new requirements for certain types of dwelling units, including permanent supportive housing, as defined. Existing law authorizes a tenant to repair dilapidations rendering their premises untenantable if the landlord has neglected to repair those dilapidations, subject to certain conditions, or vacate the premises, as specified. This bill would provide that the above-described requirement on a landlord to repair or replace a recalled stove or refrigerator does not prohibit a tenant from exercising any remedy authorized as described above.
Existing law, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) , establishes the Civil Rights Department to enforce civil rights laws with respect to housing and employment and to protect and safeguard the right of all persons to obtain and hold employment without discrimination based upon specified characteristics or status. The FEHA makes certain discriminatory employment and housing practices unlawful, and authorizes a person claiming to be aggrieved by an alleged unlawful practice to file a verified complaint with the department. The FEHA requires the department to make an investigation in connection with a filed complaint alleging facts sufficient to constitute a violation of the FEHA, and requires the department to endeavor to eliminate the unlawful practice by conference, conciliation, and persuasion. Existing law authorizes a complaint to be filed by an aggrieved person or the department on behalf and as representative of a group or class if the alleged unlawful practice adversely affects, in a similar manner, a group or class of persons of which the aggrieved person is a member. This bill would define the term "group or class complaint" for purposes of the FEHA. Existing law tolls the time for a complainant to file a civil action alleging a violation of specified civil rights provisions commencing with the filing of a complaint with the department until the department files a civil action for the alleged violation or until one year after the department issues written notice that it has closed its investigation without filing a civil action. This bill would additionally toll the time for a complainant to file a civil action if the complainant timely appeals to the department the closure of their complaint until one year after the department issues written notice that it remains closed following the appeal. Existing law authorizes the director to bring a civil action in the name of the department, acting in the public interest, on behalf of an aggrieved person if conference, conciliation, mediation, or persuasion fails to eliminate an unlawful practice. Existing law imposes a deadline of one or 2 years for the department to bring a civil action, as specified. Existing law requires those deadlines to be tolled during a dispute resolution proceeding. This bill would additionally require those deadlines to be tolled pursuant to a written agreement by the complainant and the department, during the pendency of a petition to compel, and for the duration of an appeal to the department for the closure of a complaint. Under existing law, if the department does not file a civil action, the department is required to promptly issue the person claiming to be aggrieved a right-to-sue notice upon request, as specified, or upon completion of its investigation and not later than one year after the filing of the complaint. For a complaint treated as a group or class complaint, existing law requires the department to issue a right-to-sue notice upon completion of its investigation and not later than 2 years after the filing of the complaint. Existing law requires these deadlines to be tolled during a dispute resolution proceeding. Under this bill, if the department determines that an aggrieved person's complaint relates to a complaint filed in the name of the director or a group or class complaint, as specified, the department would be required to issue a right-to-sue notice after the director's or group or class complaint has been fully and finally disposed of and all administrative proceedings, civil actions, appeals, or related proceedings have terminated. The bill would require this deadline and the above-described deadlines relating to issuing a right-to-sue notice to additionally be tolled pursuant to a written agreement by the complainant and the department, during the pendency of a petition to compel, and for the duration of an appeal to the department for the closure of a complaint. Existing law authorizes the department, in the case of failure to eliminate specified violations relating to housing discrimination that have occurred, or that are about to occur, as specified, to bring a civil action in the name of the department. Existing law authorizes the action to be filed in any county where the unlawful practice is alleged to have been committed, the records relevant to that practice are maintained and administered, the aggrieved party would have resided, or the defendant's residence or principal office is located, as specified. This bill would remove the above-described provisions specifying the counties where the civil action may be filed.
Existing law establishes procedures relating to an action for unlawful detainer, and sets timelines regarding the filing of a complaint and the defendant's response, including a demurrer or motion to strike, as specified. The hearing on such a motion is required to occur within 5 to 7 court days after its filing, unless good cause is shown, in which case the hearing may occur on a later date on notice prescribed by the court. This bill would instead limit the court's authority to set a later hearing for a noticed motion. The bill would permit the court to order the hearing held on a later date upon the written stipulation of the parties or upon good cause shown in the case of a residential or commercial tenancy, not to exceed 10 court days after the first date set for a hearing on the motion in the case of a commercial tenancy.
