The Housing Authorities Law establishes a housing authority within each county and city and authorizes the authority to, among other things, prepare, carry out, acquire, lease, and operate housing projects and housing developments for persons of low income, as provided. This bill would, unless required by federal law, and except as specified, prohibit a housing authority or other covered housing provider, as defined, from establishing or implementing any rules, policies, or procedures that impose term limits or work requirements, as defined, as a condition of eligibility for any covered housing or that impact the amount of the rent subsidy or assistance provided to covered housing tenants. The bill would, however, permit a covered housing provider to establish or implement a voluntary employment or job training program if specified conditions apply. The bill would provide that its provisions do not limit or alter the operation of specified federal housing programs and requirements.
Existing law authorizes a borrower to request forbearance on their residential mortgage loan for a period of 12 months if, among other things, the borrower affirms that they are experiencing financial hardship that prevents them from making timely payments on the 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. Existing law requires an applicant requesting forbearance on their residential mortgage loan to affirm that they are experiencing a financial hardship due to the wildfire disaster. Existing law requires that request to be made before the earlier of either 6 months after the date upon which the state of emergency is terminated or January 7, 2027. Existing law requires a borrower to be notified by the mortgage servicer within 10 business days whether their request for forbearance has been approved. Existing law prohibits any late fees from being assessed to the borrower's account during the period of forbearance, and the borrower from being charged a default rate of interest. This bill would extend the period of mortgage forbearance to 24 months and extend the latest possible deadline for a borrower's request for forbearance to January 7, 2029. The bill would require an applicant requesting forbearance on their residential mortgage loan to further affirm that the property securing the loan is uninhabitable due to the wildfire disaster. Because the bill would expand the crime of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. If the borrower has requested an extension of a forbearance period that would result in a total forbearance period of more than 12 months, the bill would authorize a mortgage servicer to request certain related documentation from the borrower, as specified. The bill would extend the amount of time the mortgage servicer has to notify the borrower whether their request for forbearance has been approved to 21 days or longer, as specified. During the period in which the borrower is waiting to be notified, the bill would prohibit any late fees from being assessed to the borrower's account, and the borrower from being charged a default rate of interest. Existing law requires a mortgage servicer to disclose to a borrower to whom a forbearance has been granted that the forborne mortgage payments are required to be repaid. Existing law prohibits requiring a borrower who was current on the residential mortgage loan when they entered forbearance to make a lump sum payment. This bill would require a mortgage servicer to offer the borrower the option to defer repayment of forborne amounts to the end of the loan term, as specified. 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.
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 (EIR) 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. The Permit Streamlining Act sets forth various procedures for the review and approval of development project applications. Among other things, the act requires a public agency that is the lead agency or a responsible agency for a development project to approve or disapprove the project within a specified period of time, which varies depending on the project's phase in the CEQA process. The act defines "development project" to include specified housing development projects, as provided. This bill would additionally require approval or disapproval of a housing development project within 30 days from the date of certification by the lead agency of the EIR, if the EIR is prepared pursuant to specified provisions of CEQA if certain other conditions are met. The bill would also define "housing development project" for the purposes of the Permit Streamlining Act and make additional conforming changes. By imposing additional duties on local agencies, 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, 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 and other incentives or concessions, as specified, if the developer agrees to construct, among other options, 20% of the total units, as defined, for lower income students in a student housing development that meets certain requirements. These requirements include, among other things, that all units in the student housing development be used exclusively for undergraduate, graduate, or professional students enrolled full time at an institution of higher learning, and the rent provided in the applicable units of the development for lower income students is calculated at 30% of 65% of the area median income for a single-room occupancy unit type. This bill, for the purposes of a student housing development being eligible for a density bonus and other incentives or concessions, would revise and recast the rent requirements for the applicable units of the development for lower income students. The bill would also require a city or county to provide an additional density bonus, as specified, for a student housing development that meets the requirements for being eligible for the above-described density bonus and meets other specified criteria, including that the development provides 24% of the total units to lower income students, and the applicant agrees to include additional rental units affordable to moderate-income students, as defined, provided that the resulting student housing development would not restrict more than 50% of the total units, as defined, to moderate-income or lower income students. By imposing new duties on local governments, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65915 of the Government Code proposed by AB 2433, SB 1383, or both, to be operative only if this bill and AB 2433, SB 1383, or both are enacted and this bill is enacted last. 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 establishes the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) in order to meet the public transit problems of the County of Santa Clara. Existing law authorizes the VTA to purchase or otherwise acquire property for transit-oriented joint development projects, as provided. This bill would authorize the VTA to similarly purchase or acquire property for an employee housing project, as defined, for VTA employees and members of the public, as specified. The bill would authorize the VTA to construct affordable rental housing for employees and affordable for-sale housing that promotes housing opportunities for VTA employees, as specified. The bill would require the VTA to submit an annual report to the Legislature on the use of the bill's provisions to develop housing, as specified. By requiring the VTA to submit a new report, 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, 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 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 authorizes the establishment of the South Bay Regional Housing Trust, a joint powers authority, by the County of Los Angeles and any or all of the cities within the jurisdiction of the South Bay Cities Council of Governments, with the stated purpose of funding housing to assist the homeless population and persons and families of extremely low, very low, and low income within the South Bay Cities region. Existing law authorizes the South Bay Regional Housing Trust to, among other things, fund planning and construction of housing of all types and tenures for the homeless population and persons and families of extremely low, very low, and low income. This bill would expand the authority of the trust to also include funding the preservation of housing for these purposes. The bill would also expand the authority of the trust to include funding planning, construction, and preservation of housing for persons and families of moderate income, as defined, using any private resources and specified public resources. Existing law requires that the South Bay Regional Housing Trust be governed by a board of directors consisting of an appropriate number of directors, to be determined by the governing board of the South Bay Cities Council of Governments. Existing law requires the board of directors to include mayors, council members, or County of Los Angeles supervisors, as described. Existing law requires that the board of directors to elect a chairperson and a vice chairperson from among its members at the first meeting held in each calendar year. Existing law requires the governing board of the South Bay Cities Council of Governments to appoint the board of directors and, in the case of a vacancy on the board of directors, qualified individuals to fill the vacancy, as specified. This bill would instead require the joint powers agreement to establish the number of directors of the trust and the process for appointing directors and filling vacancies. The bill would additionally authorize the board of directors to include persons appointed and designated as alternate members of the board of directors, as specified. The bill would require all directors and alternates to be subject to the board of directors' adopted conflict of interest code. The bill would prohibit each alternate that is currently not an elected official from participating as a voting member in more than 75% of all meetings in a calendar year. The bill would instead require the board of directors to elect a chairperson and a vice chairperson from among its members at the first meeting held in either the calendar or fiscal year. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for South Bay Cities region of the County of Los Angeles.
