Existing law provides that recorded covenants, conditions, restrictions, or private limits on the use of land contained in instruments affecting the transfer or sale of any interest in real property that, among other things, restrict the number, size, or location of the residences that may be built on the property, are not enforceable against the owner of an affordable housing development, as defined, if an approved restrictive covenant affordable housing modification document has been recorded in the public record, as provided. As part of this process, existing law requires the owner to submit to the county recorder a copy of the original restrictive covenant and any documents the owner believes necessary to establish that the property qualifies as an affordable housing development and requires the county counsel to determine, among other things, if the property qualifies as an affordable housing development and if a modification document may be recorded. Existing law provides that these provisions do not authorize any development that is not otherwise consistent with local general plans, zoning ordinances, and any applicable specific plan. This bill would extend those provisions to a housing development that is owned or controlled by an entity or individual that has submitted a development project application to redevelop an existing commercial property, and the development project includes residential uses permitted by state housing laws or local land use and zoning regulations and would make various conforming changes. The bill would additionally make these provisions applicable to covenants, conditions, restrictions, or private limits contained in a reciprocal easement agreement, as provided, and include instruments affecting the transfer or sale of any interest in real property that prohibits the number, size, or location of residences that may be built on the property or restricts or prohibits the residential uses of the property. The bill would further provide that these provisions do not authorize any development that is not otherwise consistent with state housing laws. By imposing additional duties on county officials, 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) Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, requires each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for its physical development, and the development of certain lands outside its boundaries, that includes, among other mandatory elements, a housing element. That law allows a development proponent to submit an application for a development that is subject to a specified streamlined, ministerial approval process not subject to a conditional use permit, if the development satisfies certain objective planning standards, including that the development is a multifamily housing development that contains two or more residential units. This bill would deem an adaptive reuse project a use by right in all zones, regardless of the zoning of the site, and subject to a streamlined, ministerial review process if the project meets specified requirements, subject to specified exceptions. In this regard, an adaptive reuse project, in order to qualify for the streamlined, ministerial review process, would be required to be proposed for an existing building or structure that is less than 50 years old or meets certain requirements regarding the preservation of historic resources, including the signing of an affidavit declaring that the project will comply with the United States Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation for, among other things, the preservation of exterior facades of a building or structure that face a street, or receive federal or state historic rehabilitation tax credits, as specified. The bill would require an adaptive reuse project to meet specified affordability criteria. In this regard, the bill would require an adaptive reuse project for rental housing to include either 8% of the unit for very low income households and 5% of the units for extremely low income households or 15% of the units for lower income households. For an adaptive reuse project for owner-occupied housing, the bill would require the development to offer either 30% of the units at an affordable housing cost to moderate-income households or 15% of the units at an affordable housing cost to lower income households. For an adaptive reuse project including mixed uses, the bill would require at least one-half of the square footage of the adaptive reuse project to be dedicated to residential uses. The bill would prohibit an adaptive reuse project from being permitted in industrial zones that do not permit residential uses. The bill would provide, among other things relating to projects involving adaptive reuse, that parking is not required for the portion of a project consisting of a building subject to adaptive reuse that does not have existing onsite parking. The bill would authorize an adaptive reuse project subject to these provisions to include the development of new residential or mixed-use structures on undeveloped areas and parking areas located on the same parcel as the proposed repurposed building, or on the parcels adjacent to the proposed adaptive reuse project site if certain conditions are met. The bill would subject an adaptive reuse project approved by a local government pursuant to these provisions to specified labor standards, including certain labor prevailing wage, apprenticeship, skilled and training workforce, and health care expenditure requirements, and would require development proponents to certify compliance with certain labor standards under penalty of perjury. By requiring certain development proponents of an adaptive reuse project to sign an affidavit regarding the preservation of historic resources and requiring development proponents to certify compliance with certain labor standards under penalty of perjury, the bill would expand the crime of perjury and therefore impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize a local government to adopt an ordinance, as specified, to, among other things, specify the process and requirements applicable to adaptive reuse projects, as specified, and would require an adaptive reuse project to comply with all objective planning standards found in the ordinance. The bill would specify that nothing in its provisions relating to adaptive reuse projects is intended to preempt the adoption and implementation of a local ordinance that provides alternative procedures and substantive requirements for adaptive reuse projects, provided that the local ordinance does not prohibit an applicant from electing to pursue an adaptive reuse project, as specified. The bill would require a local agency that has not adopted an above-described ordinance to ministerially without discretionary review approve or disapprove applications for a permit to create or serve an adaptive reuse project, as specified. The bill would, if a local government's planning director or equivalent position determines that the adaptive reuse project submitted pursuant to these provisions is consistent with the objective planning standards, require the local government to approve the adaptive reuse project within specified timeframes. The bill would require the local government staff or relevant local planning and permitting department, upon determining that the adaptive reuse project is in conflict with any of the objective planning standards, to provide the proponent written documentation of, among other things, which standard or standards the development conflicts with within specific timeframes. The bill would prohibit a local government from imposing any local development standard on any project that is an adaptive reuse that would require alteration of the existing building envelope, except as specified, whether or not the local government has adopted an ordinance. By requiring local governments to implement the streamlined, ministerial review process for adaptive reuse projects, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would, except as specified, exempt an adaptive reuse project from all impact fees that are not reasonably related to the impacts resulting from the change of use of the site from nonresidential to residential or mixed use and would require any fees charged to be roughly proportional to the difference in impacts caused by the change of use. This bill would authorize a city or county, or city and county, commencing in the 2026–27 fiscal year, to establish an adaptive reuse investment incentive program to pay adaptive reuse investment incentive funds to the proponent of an adaptive reuse project approved pursuant to the streamlined, ministerial process described above for up to 30 consecutive fiscal years, as specified. The bill would define "adaptive reuse investment incentive funds" to mean an amount up to or equal to the amount of ad valorem property tax revenue allocated to the participating local agency from the taxation of that portion of the total assessed value of the real and personal property of an adaptive reuse project property that is in excess of the qualified adaptive reuse project property's valuation at the time of the proponent's initial request for funding. The bill would define various other terms for these purposes, and would make findings and declarations related to its provisions. The bill would make its provisions operative on July 1, 2026. (2) Existing law, 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. CEQA does not apply to the approval of ministerial projects. This bill, by establishing the streamlined, ministerial review process described above, would exempt the approval of adaptive reuse projects subject to those processes from CEQA. The bill would also exempt specified findings regarding industrial uses and ordinances adopted to implement specified provisions from CEQA. (3) Existing 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 includes, among other mandatory elements, a housing element. Existing law requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to notify a city, county, or city and county, and authorizes the department to notify the Attorney General, that a city, county, or city and county is in violation of state law if the department finds that the housing element or an amendment to that element, or any specified action or failure to act, does not substantially comply with the law as it pertains to housing elements or that any local government has taken an action in violation of certain housing laws. This bill would make corrections to a housing law cross-reference relating to the adaptive reuse project process established by the bill, thereby making a violation of that adaptive reuse project process by a city, county, or city and county subject to the above-described notification requirements. (4) 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. (5) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65585 of the Government Code proposed by AB 650 to be operative only if this bill and AB 650 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (6) 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.
Existing law establishes the California Community Colleges, under the administration of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, as one of the segments of postsecondary education in this state. Existing law establishes community college districts throughout the state and authorizes them to operate campuses and provide instruction to students. This bill would provide that a community college district is not required to comply with the zoning ordinances of a city, county, or city and county, for a university housing development project constructed on property owned or leased by a community college district if specific requirements are met. If the project includes units for faculty and staff, the bill would require the community college district to ensure that a portion of the units of the project are made available at affordable rents to extremely low income faculty and staff and lower income faculty and staff. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.
Existing law provides that a tenant is guilty of unlawful detainer if the tenant continues to possess the property without permission of the landlord after the tenant defaults on rent or fails to perform a condition or covenant of the lease under which the property is held, among other reasons. Existing law requires a tenant be served a 3 days' notice in writing to cure a default or perform a condition of the lease, or return possession of the property to the landlord, as specified. Existing law, until January 1, 2030, prohibits an owner of residential real property from terminating a tenancy without just cause, as specified. This bill would, until January 20, 2029, enact the Social Security Tenant Protection Act of 2025 (the Act) . The Act would authorize a tenant of residential real property to assert Social Security hardship as an affirmative defense in an unlawful detainer proceeding based on the nonpayment of rent. The Act would define "Social Security hardship" as a loss of income due to an interruption in the payment of Social Security benefits due to the action or inaction of the federal government. The Act would require a tenant asserting Social Security hardship as an affirmative defense to provide, to the satisfaction of the court, evidence that Social Security payments typically received by the tenant's household have been terminated, delayed, or reduced due to no fault of the tenant and that the hardship prevented the tenant from paying the rent. If the tenant successfully provides this evidence, the Act would require the court to issue a stay of the unlawful detainer action, as specified. The Act would not relieve a tenant of their obligation to pay past due rent, and it would require a tenant, within 14 days of the Social Security benefits being restored, to either pay all past due rent or enter into a mutually agreed upon payment plan with the owner of the residential real property. If the tenant pays all past due rent or enters into a payment plan with the owner, the Act would require the court to either dismiss the unlawful detainer action with prejudice or set aside the judgment against all named and unnamed defendants in the action. The Act would further require the Judicial Council, by January 1, 2027, to adopt or modify forms as needed to implement the Act.
Existing law requires that any building with a dwelling unit maintain certain characteristics in order to be tenantable, including the maintenance of adequate heating and hot water systems that conform to the standard of quality set by applicable law. This bill would add a stove and refrigerator that are maintained in good working order and are capable of safely generating heat for cooking purposes and capable of safely storing food, respectively, to the list of characteristics required for the dwelling unit to be tenantable for leases entered into, amended, or extended on or after January 1, 2026. The bill would require a landlord to repair or replace a stove or refrigerator that is subject to recall by the manufacturer or a public entity within 30 days of receiving notice that the stove or refrigerator is subject to recall. The bill would also authorize a tenant and landlord to mutually agree when the lease is signed if the tenant chooses to provide and maintain their own refrigerator, subject to certain conditions. The bill would prohibit the application of these new requirements for certain types of dwelling units, including permanent supportive housing, as defined. Existing law authorizes a tenant to repair dilapidations rendering their premises untenantable if the landlord has neglected to repair those dilapidations, subject to certain conditions, or vacate the premises, as specified. This bill would provide that the above-described requirement on a landlord to repair or replace a recalled stove or refrigerator does not prohibit a tenant from exercising any remedy authorized as described above.
Existing law, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) , establishes the Civil Rights Department to enforce civil rights laws with respect to housing and employment and to protect and safeguard the right of all persons to obtain and hold employment without discrimination based upon specified characteristics or status. The FEHA makes certain discriminatory employment and housing practices unlawful, and authorizes a person claiming to be aggrieved by an alleged unlawful practice to file a verified complaint with the department. The FEHA requires the department to make an investigation in connection with a filed complaint alleging facts sufficient to constitute a violation of the FEHA, and requires the department to endeavor to eliminate the unlawful practice by conference, conciliation, and persuasion. Existing law authorizes a complaint to be filed by an aggrieved person or the department on behalf and as representative of a group or class if the alleged unlawful practice adversely affects, in a similar manner, a group or class of persons of which the aggrieved person is a member. This bill would define the term "group or class complaint" for purposes of the FEHA. Existing law tolls the time for a complainant to file a civil action alleging a violation of specified civil rights provisions commencing with the filing of a complaint with the department until the department files a civil action for the alleged violation or until one year after the department issues written notice that it has closed its investigation without filing a civil action. This bill would additionally toll the time for a complainant to file a civil action if the complainant timely appeals to the department the closure of their complaint until one year after the department issues written notice that it remains closed following the appeal. Existing law authorizes the director to bring a civil action in the name of the department, acting in the public interest, on behalf of an aggrieved person if conference, conciliation, mediation, or persuasion fails to eliminate an unlawful practice. Existing law imposes a deadline of one or 2 years for the department to bring a civil action, as specified. Existing law requires those deadlines to be tolled during a dispute resolution proceeding. This bill would additionally require those deadlines to be tolled pursuant to a written agreement by the complainant and the department, during the pendency of a petition to compel, and for the duration of an appeal to the department for the closure of a complaint. Under existing law, if the department does not file a civil action, the department is required to promptly issue the person claiming to be aggrieved a right-to-sue notice upon request, as specified, or upon completion of its investigation and not later than one year after the filing of the complaint. For a complaint treated as a group or class complaint, existing law requires the department to issue a right-to-sue notice upon completion of its investigation and not later than 2 years after the filing of the complaint. Existing law requires these deadlines to be tolled during a dispute resolution proceeding. Under this bill, if the department determines that an aggrieved person's complaint relates to a complaint filed in the name of the director or a group or class complaint, as specified, the department would be required to issue a right-to-sue notice after the director's or group or class complaint has been fully and finally disposed of and all administrative proceedings, civil actions, appeals, or related proceedings have terminated. The bill would require this deadline and the above-described deadlines relating to issuing a right-to-sue notice to additionally be tolled pursuant to a written agreement by the complainant and the department, during the pendency of a petition to compel, and for the duration of an appeal to the department for the closure of a complaint. Existing law authorizes the department, in the case of failure to eliminate specified violations relating to housing discrimination that have occurred, or that are about to occur, as specified, to bring a civil action in the name of the department. Existing law authorizes the action to be filed in any county where the unlawful practice is alleged to have been committed, the records relevant to that practice are maintained and administered, the aggrieved party would have resided, or the defendant's residence or principal office is located, as specified. This bill would remove the above-described provisions specifying the counties where the civil action may be filed.
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.
Existing law governs the hiring of residential dwelling units. Existing law, the Tenant Protection Act of 2019, prohibits, until January 1, 2030, an owner of residential real property from terminating the tenancy of certain tenants without just cause, either at-fault or no-fault of the tenant. The act exempts certain types of residential real properties from that prohibition, including, among others, housing that has been issued a certificate of occupancy within the previous 15 years. This bill would exclude housing built to replace a previous housing unit that was subject to the Tenant Protection Act of 2019, was substantially damaged or destroyed by a disaster, as defined, and was issued a certificate of occupancy before that housing unit was substantially damaged or destroyed, from the above-described exemption from the just cause requirements. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1946.2 of the Civil Code proposed by AB 1529 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1529 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Existing law governs the hiring of residential dwelling units and requires a landlord to provide specified notice to tenants prior to an increase in rent. Existing law, the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, prescribes statewide limits on the application of local rent control with regard to certain properties. That act, among other things, authorizes an owner of residential real property to establish the initial and all subsequent rental rates for a dwelling or unit that meets specified criteria, subject to certain limitations. This bill would make it unlawful for any person to sell, license, or otherwise provide to 2 or more persons a rental pricing algorithm, as defined, with the intent or reasonable expectation that it be used by 2 or more persons, as specified, to set rental terms, as defined, for residential premises. The bill would make it unlawful for a person to set or adopt rental terms based on the recommendation of a rental pricing algorithm if the person knows or should know that the rental pricing algorithm processes nonpublic competitor data, as defined, to set rental terms and that the pricing algorithm or the recommendation of the algorithm was used by another person to set or recommend a rental term for residential premises in the same market. Existing law establishes the Attorney General as the head of the Department of Justice, with charge of all legal matters in which the state is interested, except as specified. Existing law imposes various requirements on the Attorney General related to consumer protection, including, among others, the supervision of charitable trusts and the enforcement of antitrust laws. This bill would authorize the Attorney General, and the city attorney or county counsel in the jurisdiction in which the rental unit is located, to file a civil action for a violation of the bill, as specified, and would authorize a person who is harmed by a violation of the bill to file a civil action, as specified.
Existing law, the California Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly Act, regulates residential care facilities for the elderly. A violation of the act is a crime. Existing law provides for the Medi-Cal program, administered by the State Department of Health Care Services, under which qualified low-income persons are provided with health care services. The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid Program provisions. Existing law provides for the State Supplementary Program for the Aged, Blind and Disabled (SSP) , which requires the State Department of Social Services to contract with the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services to make payments to SSP recipients to supplement Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments made available pursuant to the federal Social Security Act. Under existing regulation, residential facilities for the elderly are prohibited from charging recipients of SSI payments more than a specific set rate for basic services. Existing law requires an individual under these provisions to satisfy certain financial eligibility requirements to be eligible for Medi-Cal, including, among other things, that the individual's countable income does not exceed an income standard equal to a specified amount, plus an income disregard of specified amounts, subject to certain exceptions. This bill would prohibit a residential care facility for the elderly that is contracted to receive Medi-Cal reimbursement for services provided to a resident enrolled in Medi-Cal from charging that resident a room and board rate exceeding the difference between their income, as defined, and the personal and incidental needs allowance set by the department for recipients of SSI/SSP in nonmedical out-of-home care. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would, for the purposes of determining Medi-Cal eligibility, exclude the difference between the resident's income and the rate charged by a residential care facility for the elderly and retained by the resident from countable income. The bill would state that the exclusion does not apply to the portion of the difference retained by the resident that exceeds the personal and incidental needs allowance set by the department for recipients of SSI/SSP in nonmedical out-of-home care. Because counties are required to make Medi-Cal eligibility determinations, and this bill would alter Medi-Cal eligibility by changing the income disregard amounts and would increase the responsibility of counties in determining Medi-Cal eligibility, 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
