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.
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.
(1) 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. Existing law requires the general plan to include, among other mandatory elements, a housing element, and requires the housing element to include, among other things, an inventory of land suitable and available for residential development. Existing law requires, for the 4th and subsequent revisions of the housing element, the department to determine the existing and projected need for housing for each region, as specified. Existing law requires the department, in consultation with the council of governments, to determine the existing and projected need of housing for each region at least 2 years prior to the scheduled revision of the housing element, as provided. Existing law requires the department to meet and consult with the council of governments regarding the assumptions and methodology to be used to determine the region's housing needs at least 26 months prior to the scheduled revision of the housing element, as provided. This bill, except as specified, would extend the above-described timeline for the department to determine the existing and projected need of housing for each region from 2 years to 3 years prior to the scheduled revision of the housing element. The bill would require the department to meet and consult with the council of governments, as described above, pursuant to prescribed deadlines. For the 7th revision of the housing element, the bill would require the department to meet and consult with each council of governments at least 38 months prior to the scheduled revision, except for specified councils of governments. For the 8th and subsequent revisions of the housing element, the bill would require the department to meet and consult with each council of governments at least 38 months prior to the scheduled revision. (2) Existing law authorizes at least 2 or more cities and a county, or counties, at least 28 months prior to the scheduled housing element revision, to form a subregional entity to allocate the subregion's existing and projected housing need among its members. Existing law requires the council of governments to determine the share of regional housing need assigned to each delegate subregion at least 25 months prior to the scheduled revision. Existing law also requires the share allocated to the delegate subregion or subregions by a council of governments to be in a proportion consistent with the distribution of households assumed for the comparable time period of the applicable regional transportation plan. This bill would instead require the share allocated to the delegate subregion or subregions by a council of governments to be in a proportion consistent with the subregion's share of the current adopted final regional housing need allocation plan. (3) Existing law requires certain transportation planning agencies to prepare and adopt a regional transportation plan directed at achieving a coordinated and balanced regional transportation system. Existing law requires that each regional transportation plan include a sustainable communities strategy developed to achieve greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for the automobile and light truck sector for 2020 and 2035 established by the State Air Resources Board. Existing law requires each council of governments, or delegate subregion as applicable, to consider certain factors in developing the methodology that allocates regional housing needs, including each member jurisdiction's existing and projected jobs and housing relationship. This bill would require each council of governments, or delegate subregion as applicable, to consider, in addition to the above-described factors, the development pattern set forth in the region's sustainable communities strategy of its regional transportation plan. (4) Existing law states the intent of the Legislature that housing planning be coordinated and integrated with the regional transportation plan. To achieve this goal, existing law requires the allocation plan to allocate housing units within the region consistent with the development pattern included in the sustainable communities strategy. Existing law also requires the resolution approving the final housing need allocation plan to demonstrate that the plan is consistent with the sustainable communities strategy in the regional transportation plan, among other things. This bill would instead require the allocation plan to be informed by the development pattern included in the sustainable communities strategy. The bill would also require the resolution approving the final housing need allocation plan to demonstrate that the plan is, instead, informed by the sustainable communities strategy in the regional transportation plan, among other things. (5) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65584.01 of the Government Code proposed by SB 486 to be operative only if this bill and SB 486 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65584.03 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. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65584.04 of the Government Code proposed by SB 486 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. (6) By imposing additional requirements on a local entity, 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, 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, the Mobilehome Residency Law, governs the terms and conditions of residency in mobilehome parks and prescribes the content of a rental agreement for a tenancy. Existing law requires that a copy of the Mobilehome Residency Law be provided as an exhibit and incorporated into the rental agreement by reference, as specified. Existing law also requires that a copy of a specified notice containing the rights and responsibilities of homeowners and park managers be included in the rental agreement and requires management to provide a copy of the notice to all homeowners each year, as specified. Existing law requires these and other notices required by the Mobilehome Residency Law to be either personally delivered to the homeowner or sent by mail, as specified, to the homeowner, unless otherwise provided. Existing law allows all notices required by the Mobilehome Residency Law to be delivered before February 1 of each year to be combined into one notice, as specified. This bill would, instead, require notices required by the Mobilehome Residency Law to be delivered to both the homeowner and resident of the mobilehome. The bill would also authorize the notices required by the Mobilehome Residency Law to be delivered prior to February 1 of each year to be delivered by electronic mail if the homeowner or resident has provided affirmative, written consent, as defined. The bill would allow a homeowner or resident to revoke their consent to receive notices by electronic mail at any time, without any fee, charge, or penalty, and without any impact to the terms of their tenancy, as specified. The bill would require management to deliver personally or by mail to the homeowner or resident a notice stating that the homeowner or resident has agreed to receive notices by electronic mail and may revoke this agreement, as provided. This bill would make nonsubstantive changes reflective of existing law, as provided.
Existing law regulates the terms and conditions of residential tenancies, including generally limiting the amount of security that a landlord may demand or receive to an amount or value equivalent to one month's rent, as provided, and allowing a landlord to claim of the security only those amounts as are reasonably necessary for specified purposes. Existing law defines a security for these purposes as any payment, fee, deposit, or charge, including any payment, fee, deposit, or charge, except as specified, that is imposed at a tenancy's beginning to reimburse a landlord for costs associated with processing a new tenant or that is imposed as an advance payment of rent, used for any purpose. Existing law requires a landlord to provide a tenant a copy of an itemized statement, as specified, and return the security's remaining portion to the tenant by personal delivery or by first-class mail, postage prepaid, no later than 21 calendar days after the tenant has vacated the premises, as specified. Existing law authorizes a landlord and tenant to mutually agree to have the landlord deposit electronically the security's remaining portion to a bank account or other financial institution designated by the tenant or provide a copy of the itemized statement to an email account provided by the tenant. This bill would revise these provisions to generally require the landlord to return the security by personal delivery or by check made payable to the tenant. If the landlord received the security or rental payments from the tenant electronically, the bill would instead require the landlord to return the remainder of the security electronically, as specified, unless the landlord and tenant designated another method of return, by written agreement. If the landlord received the security or rental payments from the tenant electronically, the bill would require the landlord to notify the tenant in writing of the tenant's right to receive the security electronically pursuant to these provisions, as specified. The bill would also instead authorize the landlord and tenant to mutually agree, as specified, to provide the itemized statement by either email to an email account provided by the tenant or mail by first-class mail, postage prepaid, to an address provided by the tenant. If multiple adult tenants reside in the unit, the bill would require the landlord to return the remainder of the security by a check made payable to all adult tenants, as specified, and provide the itemized statement by personal delivery or first-class mail, postage prepaid, to any one of the adult tenants chosen by the landlord, unless the landlord and all adult tenants, at the commencement of the tenancy or at any time during or after the tenancy, enter into a mutual written agreement containing specified provisions.
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.
