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, the Planning and Zoning Law, requires each county and each 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. That law requires the planning agency of a city or county to provide by April 1 of each year an annual report to the Department of Housing and Community Development that includes, among other specified information, the agency's progress in meeting its share of regional housing needs and the number of units approved and disapproved in the prior year. This bill, beginning with the first annual report submitted after the due date for the 7th cycle revision of the housing element, would require that annual report to additionally include specified information regarding the special housing needs of families and persons in need of emergency shelter. The bill would require the report to include, among other information, a list of any federal, state, or local funding that has been allocated from specified programs and a description of any actions taken to conduct outreach to individuals who are unhoused to inform them about those resources. 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 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.
The Insurance Rate Reduction and Reform Act of 1988, an initiative measure enacted by Proposition 103, as approved by the voters at the November 8, 1988, statewide general election, prohibits specified insurance rates from being approved or remaining in effect that are excessive, inadequate, unfairly discriminatory, or otherwise in violation of the act. Under the act, rates and premiums for automobile insurance are determined based on specified factors, including the insured's driving safety record. Existing law authorizes the provisions of Proposition 103 to be amended by a statute that furthers the purposes of the act and is enacted by the Legislature with a 23 vote. This bill, the Consumer Driving Data Protection Act of 2026, would authorize a consumer to opt to use telematics to establish their driving record, thus amending Proposition 103. The bill would prohibit the use of telematics data for a purpose other than rating private passenger automobile insurance. The bill would require a rate application under which telematics would be used to establish an insured's driving record to include specified materials related to the insurer's telematics program. This bill would prohibit an insurer that uses telematics from taking specified actions, including conditioning eligibility for a discount upon participation in a telematics program, unless the discount is approved by the commissioner. The bill would also set forth written consent and privacy requirements for the collection and use of telematics data. The bill would authorize the commissioner to impose specified penalties for violations of the bill's provisions, including civil penalties and suspension of an insurer's telematics program. This bill would require an insurance provider or third-party vendor to take specified actions with respect to the telematics data, including immediately deleting the data once a rating has been assigned to the consumer and obtaining an express written or electronic signature of a consumer on a notice meeting specified conditions. The bill would additionally prohibit an insurance provider or third-party vendor from keeping the telematics data for longer than 6 months and collecting audio or visual recordings of the occupants of the vehicle or persons outside the vehicle, among other specified prohibitions. The bill would declare that its provisions further the purposes of Proposition 103. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.
(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.
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 establish the Workforce Housing Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Act, which would authorize a city or county to establish a workforce housing enhanced infrastructure financing district (district) if certain requirements are met, including the adoption of an infrastructure financing plan as specified. The bill would prescribe requirements applicable to those districts. Among these requirements, the bill would prescribe requirements for the construction of residential housing that meets specified occupancy and affordability criteria. The bill would provide definitions for its provisions. The bill would authorize the governing board to issue bonds, subject to approval by 23 of the voters voting on the proposition. The bill would prescribe requirements for the issuance of the bond pursuant to its provisions. The bill would further require a district, which finances affordable housing units through the bond, to maintain the housing units at affordable housing costs through a recorded covenant or restriction, as specified. By adding to the duties of local elections officials with respect to administering the above-described provisions, 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 prescribes various requirements regarding the formation, content, and enforcement of state and local public contracts. Existing law establishes, until January 1, 2027, for contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2017, a claim resolution process applicable to any claim by a contractor in connection with a public works project against a public entity, as specified. For purposes of these provisions, existing law defines "public entity" to include, among others, a city, including a charter city, and county, including a charter county. Existing law imposes various requirements on a public entity in relating to the claim resolution process, including, among other things, conducting a reasonable review of the claim and, within 45 days, providing the claimant a written statement identifying the disputed and undisputed portions of the claim. This bill would repeal the above-described January 1, 2027, repeal date, thereby extending the operation of these provisions indefinitely. By indefinitely extending the duties of local agencies in relation to the above-specified claim resolution process, 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, 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 requires that a housing development project, as defined, within a specified distance of a transit-oriented development stop, as defined, be an allowed use as a transit-oriented housing development on any site zoned for residential, mixed, or commercial development, if the development complies with certain, applicable requirements, as provided. Among these requirements, existing law prohibits a proposed development under these provisions from being located on sites where the development would require demolition of housing, or that was previously used for housing, that is subject to rent or price controls, as provided. This bill would additionally prohibit the development from being located on an existing parcel of land or site governed under the Mobilehome Residency Law, the Recreational Vehicle Park Occupancy Law, the Mobilehome Parks Act, or the Special Occupancy Parks Act. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law, the Mobilehome Residency Law, requires the owner of a mobilehome park who lists for sale or offers to sell the mobilehome park to any party to provide written notice of the owner's intention to sell the mobilehome park to a resident organization formed by homeowners for purposes of converting the mobilehome park to condominium or stock cooperative ownership interests and for purchasing the mobilehome park, subject to specified conditions. This bill would repeal those provisions and would instead require management of a mobilehome park to give notice to each resident household in the park, resident organization, as defined, and specified public entities, as provided, if certain events demonstrating management's intent to sell occur, subject to specified exceptions. If that event is the receipt of an offer for the sale or transfer the park that management intends to accept or the conditional acceptance of an offer for the sale or transfer of the park, the bill would require the notice to include a statement from management that it has received an offer for sale, lease, or transfer of the park that it intends to accept, a statement of the homeowners' rights under the bill and the deadlines for exercising those rights, and the price, terms, and conditions of the offer management has conditionally accepted or plans to accept. This bill would authorize a resident organization or its assignee, to, no later than 120 days after notice of an offer that management intends to accept or conditional acceptance of an offer is sent, deliver a good faith, written purchase offer for the park to management, along with a statement that the homeowners of more than 50% of the mobilehomes in the park support the purchase offer. This bill would require management to consider the resident organization's proposed purchase offer and negotiate with the resident organization in good faith to determine whether a mutual agreement can be reached that results in the resident organization purchasing the park, and, if the offer is rejected, provide a good faith reason for the rejection. This bill would, if the resident organization's proposed purchase agreement matches the price and substantially the same terms and conditions as the offer management has conditionally accepted or plans to accept, grant the resident organization the right to purchase the park at the price, terms, and conditions stated in its proposed purchase agreement. The bill would provide specified requirements and restrictions on management and the resident organization with regard to the proposed purchase agreement. This bill would authorize a resident organization that represents 50% or more of the homeowners of the mobilehome park to, at its election and subject to rescission at any time, assign its rights under the bill to the municipality in which the resident organization is located, a housing authority located in the municipality, a state agency, or a qualified entity for the purpose of continuing the use of the property as a park. The bill would require the Department of Housing and Community Development to establish a process for certifying specified entities as qualified entities, as provided, and to maintain and update annually a list of qualified entities to be made available to management for the purpose of distributing notices to qualified entities. This bill would authorize a resident organization or public prosecutor, as specified, to bring an action against management that violates the bill for specified civil penalties and other relief. The bill would provide that its provisions shall be interpreted liberally and are severable.
Prospective federal law, the federal 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act (H.R. 6644) , prohibits a large institutional investor from purchasing, or entering into a contract to directly or indirectly purchase, any single-family home, except as specified. If the above-described federal legislation is enacted, this bill would authorize the Attorney General, district attorney, or county counsel to coordinate with the Secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Director of the United States Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Chair of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States in the implementation of federal regulations, as described, related to violations of federal law involving tenants residing in properties owned, maintained, and managed by institutional investors. Existing law establishes various real estate disclosure requirements applicable to the transfer of residential real property. Before entering into specified transactions relating to residential real property, including an individual sale of residential real property, this bill would require an institutional investor, as defined, to provide written notice of the institutional investor's intent to sell the property to each tenant at least 90 days before advertising the residential real property for sale in a multiple listing service, as specified. The bill would require the notice to include, among other things, a statement that the tenant has the right to remain in possession until the end of the lease term, except as specified. For sales of residential real property containing 1 to 4 residential dwelling units by an institutional investor, this bill would require the institutional investor to, among other things, only accept offers from prospective owner-occupants, including any tenant in possession, during the first 30 days after the property is listed for sale. The bill would require the prospective owner-occupant to submit with their offer an affidavit or declaration executed under penalty of perjury stating they are purchasing the residential real property as an owner-occupant, as described. The bill would subject a prospective owner-occupant or an institutional investor to criminal or civil liability. The bill would also require an institutional investor that sells residential real property to record, or cause to be recorded, a certification of compliance under penalty of perjury, as specified. The bill would require the failure to record the certificate of compliance to result in a civil penalty, as described. By expanding the scope of existing crimes, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would also authorize the Attorney General, district attorney, city attorney, and tenant to bring an action in the superior court to enforce the bill's provisions, and upon prevailing, would allow for injunctive relief and civil penalties, as specified. The bill would require its provisions to be construed consistently with the above-described federal act, if enacted, and would make its provisions severable. 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.
