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.
The Planning and Zoning law requires each planning agency to prepare and the legislative body of each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city that includes specified elements, including a housing element. The law requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to designate jurisdictions as prohousing, as specified. The law requires that jurisdictions that have adopted a housing element that has been found by the department to be in substantial compliance with specified requirements and that have been designated as prohousing based on their adoption of prohousing local policies, as defined, be awarded additional points or preference in the scoring of program applications for certain programs. Existing law authorizes the legislative body of a city or county to designate a proposed enhanced infrastructure financing district to finance public capital facilities or other specified projects of communitywide significance that provide significant benefits to the district or the surrounding community, including, among other things, the acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of housing for persons of very low, low, and moderate income for rent or purchase, as specified. Existing law authorizes an infrastructure financing plan to contain a provision for the division of taxes levied upon taxable property in the area included within the district, and authorizes the public financing authority of the district to issue bonds, as provided. This bill would authorize a city or county that is designated as prohousing to establish a prohousing enhanced infrastructure financing district if certain requirements are met, as specified. The bill would prescribe requirements applicable to those districts. The bill would expand the definition of "prohousing local policies" for purposes of the above-described provisions to include the establishment of one of these districts, and would require that the jurisdiction that established, and projects located within, a district receive enhanced points or preference than the baseline provided to other prohousing jurisdictions.
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.
Existing property tax law provides, pursuant to a requirement of the California Constitution, that the property tax base year value of real property that is substantially damaged or destroyed by a disaster, as declared by the Governor, may be transferred to a comparable property located within the same county that is acquired or newly constructed, or to replacement property reconstructed on the site of the damaged or destroyed property, within 5 years after the disaster as a replacement property. This bill would authorize the county board of supervisors of any county proclaimed by the Governor to be in a state of emergency, or otherwise determined or declared by the Governor to be in a state of disaster, on or after January 1, 2026, but before January 1, 2031, to extend both of the above-described time periods to transfer by up to 3 years. The bill would apply to the determination of base year values for lien dates occurring on or after January 1, 2026, and before January 1, 2034. Existing law requires the state to reimburse local agencies annually for certain property tax revenues lost as a result of any exemption or classification of property for purposes of ad valorem property taxation. This bill would provide that, notwithstanding those provisions, no appropriation is made and the state shall not reimburse local agencies for property tax revenues lost by them pursuant to the bill. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
Existing law requires, by December 31, 2026, the State Air Resources Board, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, as provided, to develop a framework for measuring the average carbon intensity of the materials used in the construction of new buildings, including those for residential uses. Existing law requires, by December 31, 2028, the state board to develop a comprehensive strategy for the state's building sector to achieve a 40% net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of building materials, as specified, as soon as possible, but no later than December 31, 2035. Existing law authorizes the state board to establish an embodied carbon trading system, as defined, in compliance with these requirements, as provided. This bill would require the state board to determine whether using building materials with lower embodied carbon would be cost effective during the first 2-year period of their use compared to using conventional building materials before implementing the above-described provisions. If the state board determines that using building materials with lower embodied carbon would not be cost effective during the first 2-year period of their use compared to using conventional building materials, the bill would require the state board to delay or suspend, as applicable, implementation of those provisions for not less than 5 years, not to exceed 10 years in total.
Existing law prohibits an agency from disclosing personal information that would link the information to the individual unless, among other things, the information is provided to a governmental entity by law, or the disclosure is to the individual to whom the information pertains. Existing law makes vital records related to adoptions, other than a newly issued birth certificate, available only upon the order of the superior court of the county of residence of the adopted child or of the county granting the order of adoption. This bill would authorize, beginning on July 1, 2028, the disclosure of an original birth certificate, as defined, to an adopted person, or descendant, as defined, of a deceased adopted person, would require the State Registrar to provide a copy of the original birth certificate to those persons, and would establish a process to request an original birth certificate, as specified. The bill would also require the State Registrar to create and make available to a birth parent a contact preference form on or before July 1, 2028, containing certain elections that would be available for release when a request for an original birth certificate is made. Existing law requires the clerk of the court to report the decree to the State Registrar within 5 days after a decree of adoption. Existing law requires the State Registrar to generate a new birth certificate when the State Registrar receives a report of adoption from a specified court or when the State Registrar receives a specified court order. Existing law requires the new birth certificate to bear certain information and be identical to the certificate issued to the natural parents, except, when requested by the adopting parents, the certificate is required to omit the facility of birth and the race and color of the parents. This bill would remove the adopted parents exception described above that required the certificate to omit the facility of birth and the race and color of the parents. Existing law authorizes the adopting parents to request an amended certificate that omits, among other things, the city and county of birth, or the color and race of the parents. This bill would repeal that authorization.
(1) Existing law, the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act (the act) , authorizes specified persons, including a person with whom the respondent resides, family members, and first responders, among others, to petition a civil court to create a voluntary CARE agreement or a court-ordered CARE plan and implement services, to be provided by county behavioral health agencies, to provide behavioral health care, including stabilization medication, housing, and other enumerated services, to adults who are currently experiencing a severe mental illness and have a diagnosis identified in the disorder class schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, and who meet other specified criteria. Existing law, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, authorizes a conservator of the person, of the estate, or of the person and the estate to be appointed for a person who is gravely disabled as a result of a mental health disorder or impairment by chronic alcoholism. Existing law requires the officer providing the conservatorship investigation, which may include a public guardian or a county mental health program, to investigate all available alternatives to conservatorship and to recommend conservatorship to the court only if no suitable alternatives are available. Existing law requires a conservatorship under these provisions to terminate after one year and specifies procedures if the conservator determines conservatorship is still required. This bill would authorize a conservator to, upon the termination of a conservatorship, request the court refer the conservatee to CARE court, as specified. (2) The act authorizes services and supports to be provided to adults who are currently experiencing a qualifying severe mental illness and who meet other specified criteria, including that the person is not clinically stabilized in ongoing voluntary treatment and is either unlikely to survive safely in the community without ongoing supervision and the person's condition is substantially deteriorating or the person is in need of services and supports to prevent a relapse or deterioration that would likely result in grave disability or serious harm to the person or others. This bill would authorize the court, beginning July 1, 2028, and if it dismisses a CARE petition because a respondent needs a higher level of services, to order the county to develop an exit plan for the respondent. The bill would require the State Department of Health Care Services, by July 1, 2028, to develop, with input from certain stakeholder groups, a CARE Act model exit plan that identifies appropriate services and ongoing monitoring of an individual with a petition dismissed because the individual needed a higher level of services. This bill would update the definition of a petitioner for the purposes of the act. (3) Existing law requires the Judicial Council to develop a mandatory form or forms to use to file a CARE process petition. Existing law requires the petition to be signed under the penalty of perjury and to contain specified information, including the petitioner's relationship to the respondent and either an affidavit of a licensed behavioral health professional stating the licensed behavioral health professional or their designee has examined or made multiple unsuccessful attempts to examine the respondent within 60 days of submission of the petition, or that the respondent was detained for a minimum of 2 intensive treatments pursuant to state law. This bill would extend the 60-day period for examination of the respondent to 120 days. The bill would also authorize a petition to include evidence that the respondent was either detained for a minimum of 2 involuntary holds in the last 120 days or that they were referred to a full service partnership program more than once, but was not enrolled due to inability or unwillingness to engage in the previous 120 days. (4) Existing law authorizes a court to terminate a respondent's participation in the CARE process if the court determines that the respondent is not participating in the CARE process or is not adhering to their CARE plan, as specified. Existing law authorizes the court to order an evaluation under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, as specified, to ensure the respondent's safety. Existing law requires the court to consider the respondent's failure to successfully complete their CARE plan and the reasons for that failure in a subsequent hearing under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, provided that the hearing occurs within 6 months of the termination of the CARE plan, and creates a presumption that the respondent needs additional intervention beyond the supports and services provided by the CARE plan. This bill would prohibit the court from terminating a respondent's participation in the CARE process solely due to a failure of the county or other local government entity to properly engage with the CARE process. (5) Existing law requires CARE Act proceedings to occur in person unless the court, in its discretion, allows a party or witness to appear remotely through the use of remote technology. Existing law authorizes the respondent to be in person for all hearings. This bill would instead authorize all parties and witnesses to appear remotely through the use of remotely technology. The bill would authorize the court with discretion to order a party or witness to appear in person if necessary. This bill would authorize the parties to agree to an alternative method of service for all subsequent reports and notices after the notice of initial appearance. This bill would require, by January 1, 2028, all counties to establish a process for electronic submission of CARE Act documents using a secured portal. By increasing the duties on county behavioral health agencies, the bill would create a state-mandated local program. (6) Existing law authorizes a provider of health care or a covered entity, as defined, to disclose to the county behavioral health agency any information, including protected health information, and mental health records excluding psychotherapy notes, in its possession about the respondent that is relevant to the county behavioral health agency's provision, coordination, or management or services or supports. Existing law specifies protections for this information and required procedures when such a disclosure is made. This bill would authorize a county behavioral health agency to disclose to a provider of health care or a covered entity any information, including protected health information, and mental health records, excluding psychotherapy notes, in its possession about the respondent that is relevant to the provider or entity's provision, coordination, or management of services and supports. The bill would also specify protections for this information and required procedures when such a disclosure is made. (7) Existing law requires the department to develop, in consultation with specified entities, an annual CARE Act report that includes specified information on CARE Act petitions, including the number of initial appearances, and information compiled from county behavioral health departments and courts. This bill would expand the information on CARE Act petitions to include the number of petitions submitted electronically as well as other specified information. The bill would also expand the data to be compiled from county behavioral health departments and courts to include the number of individuals who were enrolled in a Full Service Partnership program postreferral, among other things. The bill would also require the data collected from county behavioral health departments and courts to be collected for cases involving dismissed respondents, where available. (8) Existing law requires the California Health and Human Services Agency, or a designated department within the agency, to perform specified functions, including engaging an independent, research-based entity to advise on the development of data-driven process and outcome measures to guide the planning, collaboration, reporting, and evaluation of the CARE Act. This bill would require the agency to annually release a list of overperforming counties and shall annually provide written notice identifying areas of concern and opportunities for improvement to underperforming counties. This bill would also establish within the California Health and Human Services Agency the position of a CARE Court Ombudsperson, as specified. (9) 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.
