(1) Existing law requires a local agency to declare land either "surplus land" or "exempt surplus land," as supported by written findings, before the local agency may take any action to dispose of it consistent with an agency's policies or procedures and defines terms for these purposes. Existing law generally requires a local agency, before disposing or negotiating to dispose of surplus land, to provide a written notice of the availability of the surplus land to specified entities and housing sponsors. Existing law provides that an agency is not required to follow the requirements for the disposal of surplus land for "exempt surplus land." Existing law defines "exempt surplus land" to include certain types of land, including, surplus land totaling 10 or more acres, consisting of either a single parcel, or 2 or more adjacent or nonadjacent parcels combined for disposition to one or more buyers pursuant to a plan or ordinance adopted by the legislative body of the local agency, or a state statute and certain surplus land that is a former military base, known as the Alameda Naval Air Station, if specified conditions are met. 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, among other entities, the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation. This bill would revise the definition of "exempt surplus land" to remove the reference to buyers and instead mean 2 or more adjacent or nonadjacent parcels combined for disposition to one or more persons or entities, as specified. The bill would also exempt surplus land that is a former military base that was conveyed by the federal government to a local agency or a local reuse authority, and that is all or any portion of the Concord Naval Weapons Station, if certain requirements are met, including that the former military base has an aggregate area greater than 5 acres and that before disposition of the land, the local agency or local reuse authority has entered into a disposition and development agreement that stipulates that at least 25% of the aggregate residential units permitted to be developed will be restricted to lower income households with an affordable housing cost or affordable rent for a minimum of 55 years for rental housing and 45 years for owner-occupied housing, as specified. The bill would regulate actions challenging the disposition and would prescribe penalties for violations of these provisions. The bill would also regulate the actions of the local agency or local reuse authority, including, among other things, requiring the local agency or local reuse authority to include in the annual report the status of development of residential units on the former military base, as specified. (2) 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. This bill would provide that specified environmental review documents satisfy the requirements of CEQA for any project within the portion of the Concord Naval Weapons Station included within the boundaries of the area plan for the Concord Community Reuse Project, as provided, that has land use types that are consistent with the area plan land use types and locations for those land use types that are consistent with the area plan diagram and the project does not cause the aggregate development in the area plan to exceed the area plan maximum planning areawide total, as specified. The bill would further provide that a project that contains land use types that are consistent with the area plan land use types in locations that are not consistent with the area plan diagram would be subject to review pursuant to CEQA, and would be limited to review of the location of land use types that are not consistent with the area plan diagram, as provided. In any action or proceeding challenging a project described above, the bill would require a project applicant to pay any additional costs incurred by the courts in hearing cases relating to the challenge of the project and would require a lead agency to lodge a copy of the certified record of proceedings with the superior court within 10 calendar days after being served with a complaint or a petition for a writ of mandate. Because the bill imposes new duties on local agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the Judicial Council, on or before July 1, 2027, to adopt rules of court that require any action or proceeding brought to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the approval of any project within the plan area or any environmental impact review for any project within the plan area, including any potential appeals to the court of appeal or the California Supreme Court, to be resolved to the extent feasible within 270 calendar days of the filing of the certified record of proceedings with the court. The bill would make these provisions severable. (3) This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City of Concord. (4) 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. (5) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law generally regulates classes of insurance, including residential property insurance. Existing law requires an insurer, in the case of a total loss to the primary insured structure under a policy of residential property insurance, for at least the next two annual renewal periods, but no less than 24 months of coverage from the date of the loss, to renew the policy under certain circumstances, including that the total loss to the primary insured structure was caused by a disaster. Existing law prohibits an insurer from canceling or refusing to renew a policy of residential property insurance for a property located in a ZIP Code within or adjacent to a fire perimeter for one year after the declaration of a state of emergency, if the cancellation or nonrenewal is based solely on the fact that the insured structure is located in an area in which a wildfire has occurred. This bill would instead require an insurer to renew the policy of residential property insurance, under the above-described circumstances, for at least the next three annual renewal periods, but no less than 36 months of coverage from the date of the loss. The bill would also prohibit an insurer from canceling or refusing to renew a policy of residential property insurance for a property located in a ZIP Code within or adjacent to a fire perimeter for two years after the declaration of a state of emergency.
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, 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.
Existing law requires each city and county within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley to amend its general plan relative to the data and analysis contained in the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan, as specified and to amend its zoning ordinance consistent with the general plan. Existing law prohibits the legislative body of a city or county within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley from entering into a development agreement for property that is located within a flood hazard zone after the amendments described above are complete unless the city or county makes a specified finding. Among the possible findings, is that the local flood agency has made adequate progress on construction of a flood protection system that will result in flood protection equal to or greater than the urban level of flood protection in urban or urbanizing areas intended to be protected by the system, which, except as provided, shall be achieved by 2025 for urban and urbanizing areas protected by project levees. Existing law similarly prohibits each city and county within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley from approving a discretionary permit or other discretionary entitlement that would result in the construction of a new building or construction that would result in an increase in allowed occupancy for an existing building, or a ministerial permit that would result in the construction of a new residence, for a project that is located within a flood hazard zone after the amendments described above are complete unless the city or county makes a specified finding. Among the possible findings, is that the local flood agency has made adequate progress toward the urban level of flood protection as described above. Existing law similarly requires the legislative body of each city and county within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley to deny approval of a tentative map or a parcel map for a subdivision that is located within a flood hazard zone after the amendments described above are complete unless the city or county makes a specified finding. Among the possible findings, is that the local flood agency has made adequate progress toward the urban level of flood protection as described above. This bill would include in the exceptions to the requirement that the urban level of flood protection be achieved for urban and urbanizing areas protected by project levees by 2025, specified areas located in the City of Marysville, the City of Sacramento, the County of Sacramento, the County of Sutter, and the County of Yuba that shall, instead, be required to achieve the urban level of flood protection by 2030. The bill would authorize the Department of Water Resources to require a city or county listed above to contribute its fair and reasonable share of any property damage caused by a flood in its respective jurisdiction, as specified, until the city or county finds the area has met the urban level of flood protection. The bill would make a related technical change. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the County of Sacramento, County of Sutter, County of Yuba, City of Marysville, and City of Sacramento.
(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, that contains certain mandatory elements, including a housing element. Existing law requires that the housing element consist of an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing, as specified. Existing law requires that the housing element include, among other things, an assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints that are relevant to the meeting of these needs, including an inventory of land suitable for residential development, as provided. Existing law, for the 4th and subsequent revisions of the housing element, requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to determine the existing and projected need for housing for each region, as specified, and requires the appropriate council of local governments, or the department for cities and counties without a council of governments, to adopt a final regional housing need plan that allocates a share of the regional housing need to each locality in the region. Existing law requires the inventory of land to be used to identify sites throughout the community that can be developed for housing within the planning period and that are sufficient to provide for the jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need. Existing law requires each local government to revise its housing element in accordance with a specified schedule. Existing law, the Housing Accountability Act, among other things, requires a local agency that proposes to disapprove a housing development project, as defined, or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density to base its decision on written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence that specified conditions exist if that project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete. The act authorizes the applicant, a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the housing development project or emergency shelter, or a housing organization to bring an action to enforce the act's provisions, as provided, and provides for penalties if the court finds that the local agency is in violation of specified provisions of the act. This bill would require that a housing development project, as defined, within a specified distance of a transit-oriented development (TOD) 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 applicable requirements, as specified. Among these requirements, the bill would require a project to include at least 5 dwelling units and establish requirements concerning height limits, density, and residential floor area ratio in accordance with a development's proximity to specified tiers of TOD stops, as provided. The bill would require that, for the purposes of the Housing Accountability Act, a proposed development consistent with the applicable standards of these provisions as well as applicable local objective general plan and zoning standards be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with prescribed requirements, as specified. The bill would provide that a local government that denies a project meeting the requirements of these provisions located in a high-resource area, as defined, would be presumed in violation of the Housing Accountability Act, as specified, and immediately liable for penalties, beginning on January 1, 2027, as provided. These provisions would not apply to a local agency until July 1, 2026, except as specified, or within unincorporated areas of counties until the 7th regional housing needs allocation cycle. The bill would specify that a development proposed pursuant to these provisions is eligible for streamlined, ministerial approval pursuant to specified law, except that the bill would exempt a project under these provisions from specified requirements, and would specify that the project is required to comply with certain affordability requirements, under that law. This bill would require a proposed development to comply with specified demolition and antidisplacement standards; to not be 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; to include housing for lower income households, as specified; be consistent with specified height, noise, safety, and fire standards; and meet specified labor standards, as provided. The bill would also authorize a transit agency's board of directors to adopt agency TOD zoning standards for district-owned real property located in a TOD zone, which establish minimum zoning requirements for an agency TOD project, as specified. Prior to one year following the adoption of the 7th revision of the housing element, this bill would not apply the provisions relating to a housing development project to specified sites for which a local government has adopted an ordinance indicating the site's exclusion, as specified, including a site that is covered by a local TOD alternative plan, as defined, adopted by a local government. For the 7th and subsequent revisions of the housing element, the bill would authorize a local government to include a local TOD alternative plan in its housing element or adopt an alternative plan by ordinance, as specified. The bill would exempt a jurisdiction that has adopted a compliant local TOD alternative plan from the provisions relating to a housing development, as specified. This bill would require the Department of Housing and Community Development to oversee compliance with the bill's provisions and would require the department to promulgate standards on how to allow for capacity pursuant to these provisions to be counted in the inventory of land included within a county's or city's housing element, as specified. The bill would authorize each metropolitan planning organization to create a map of designated TOD stops and zones within its region by tier in accordance with these standards, which would have a rebuttable presumption of validity. The bill would authorize a local government to enact an ordinance to make its zoning code consistent with these provisions, as provided. The bill would require the local government to submit a draft of this ordinance to the department for review, at least 14 days prior to adoption of the ordinance. The bill would require the local government to submit a copy of this ordinance to the department within 60 days of enactment and would require the department to review the ordinance for compliance, as specified. If at any time the department finds an ordinance is out of compliance, and the local government does not take specified steps to address compliance, the bill would require the department to notify the local government in writing and authorize the department to notify the Attorney General, as provided. This bill would define various terms for its purposes and make related findings and declarations. This 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 increasing the duties of local officials, and by expanding the crime of perjury by requiring the certification of certain information related to labor standards, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) This bill would provide that its provisions are severable. (3) 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 specified reasons.
The California Constitution authorizes a county or city to make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws. Existing law establishes procedures for the enactment of ordinances by counties and cities and makes a violation of a county or city ordinance, as applicable, a misdemeanor unless by ordinance it is made an infraction. This bill would prohibit a local jurisdiction from adopting a local ordinance, or enforcing an existing ordinance, that prohibits a person or organization from providing support services, as specified, to a person who is homeless or assisting a person who is homeless with any act related to basic survival. The bill would define various terms for these purposes. 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 establishes procedures relating to an action for unlawful detainer, and sets timelines regarding the filing of a complaint and the defendant's response, including a demurrer or motion to strike, as specified. The hearing on such a motion is required to occur within 5 to 7 court days after its filing, unless good cause is shown, in which case the hearing may occur on a later date on notice prescribed by the court. This bill would instead limit the court's authority to set a later hearing for a noticed motion. The bill would permit the court to order the hearing held on a later date upon the written stipulation of the parties or upon good cause shown in the case of a residential or commercial tenancy, not to exceed 10 court days after the first date set for a hearing on the motion in the case of a commercial tenancy.
