Existing law, commonly referred to as the Density Bonus Law, requires a city or county to provide a developer that proposes a housing development, as defined, within the city or county with a density bonus, other incentives or concessions, and waivers or reductions of development standards, as specified, if the developer agrees to construct, among other options, specified units and meets other requirements. This bill would prohibit land improved with an operating hotel or motel from being valued, for purposes of establishing, adjusting, or resetting ground rent under an existing lease, based on density bonuses, concessions or incentives, or waivers, as specified, unless those density increases are entitled and vested as of the valuation date, as provided. The bill would also prohibit its provisions from being construed to alter the requirements for obtaining a density bonus, as specified.
The Uniform Commercial Code-Secured Transactions (UCC) generally regulates the perfection of certain security interests, including a financing statement filed as a fixture filing. This bill would prohibit the filing of a financing statement against owner-occupied residential real property in a manner that purports to create or otherwise perfect a security interest in, or otherwise encumber, title to that owner-occupied residential real property and would make a person who knowingly files, or causes to be filed, a financing statement in violation of the bill liable to the owner of the owner-occupied residential real property identified in the financing statement, as specified.
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.
Existing law prescribes the general responsibilities and roles of the Department of Housing and Community Development and the California Housing Finance Agency in carrying out state housing policies and programs. Existing law establishes various programs to promote development of affordable housing for tenants and homeowners, including the Multifamily Housing Program, low-income housing tax credits, and the Joe Serna, Jr. Farmworker Housing Grant Program. This bill would, by January 1, 2028, require the department and the agency to develop and implement strategies, as specified, to promote the movement of tenants of deed-restricted affordable housing into home ownership through existing home ownership programs implemented by the department or the agency.
The Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022, until January 1, 2033, authorizes a development proponent to submit an application for a mixed-income housing development along a commercial corridor that satisfies specified site criteria, affordability criteria, and objective development standards, and deems a housing development that meets those requirements a use by right and subject to streamlined, ministerial review. Existing law prohibits the objective standards from precluding a development from being built at specified residential density required and from requiring the development to reduce unit size to meet the objective standards. This bill would also prohibit the objective standards from prohibiting or otherwise limiting mixed-use development, as defined, in a housing development project. By changing the criteria local agencies must follow for the approval of certain development projects, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022 defines various terms for purposes of the act. This bill would make nonsubstantive changes to those definition provisions. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law provides for the establishment of district agricultural associations and authorizes a district agricultural association to engage in various activities, including to purchase, acquire, hold, sell, exchange, or convey any interest in real property with the approval of the Department of General Services. This bill would specify that the above-described authorization includes the construction and maintenance of affordable housing, as defined, and the construction and maintenance of housing affordable for persons and families of low or moderate income, as defined. Existing law authorizes a district agricultural association, with the approval of the Department of General Services, to lease for the use of its real property, or any portion of that property, to any person or public body for whatever purpose approved by the board of directors of the association, including the construction and maintenance of housing affordable to persons and families of low or moderate income, as defined, and limits a lease to not more than 55 years. This bill would specify that the above-described authorization includes the construction and maintenance of affordable housing, as defined, and would increase the maximum duration of a lease to not more than 99 years. This bill would require an affordable housing development constructed or maintained on real property purchased, acquired, held, sold, exchanged, conveyed, or leased by a district to have a recorded deed restriction that ensures, for a period of at least 55 years, that 100% of the units, except as specified, are dedicated to persons and families of low or moderate income, as defined, at an affordable rent, as defined. Existing law prohibits the Department of Housing and Community Development from making grants or loans pursuant to the Joe Serna, Jr. Farmworker Housing Grant Program on or after January 1, 2020, for the purpose of funding predevelopment of developing or operating any housing that is rented, sold, or subleased to certain entities who employ at least one H-2A worker until the expiration of a regulatory agreement or affordability covenant, as applicable. Existing law requires a person or entity who receives a grant or loan under that grant program on or after January 1, 2020, and expends any of those funds for housing that is rented, sold, or subleased to those certain entities until the expiration of the regulatory agreement or affordability covenant, as applicable, to reimburse the department, as specified. Existing law also prohibits state funding from being provided to an employer or its agent who employs at least one H-2A worker for the purposes of funding predevelopment of, developing, or operating any housing, and requires an employer or other recipient of state funding who uses state funding for those purposes to reimburse the state or state agency, as provided. This bill would expressly specify that those prohibitions and requirements apply to the authorized district agricultural association transactions and construction and maintenance actions described above and to funds, state subsidies allocated, and real property purchased, acquired, held, sold, exchanged, or conveyed by a district agricultural association, as specified. Existing law provides that any violation of the Food and Agricultural Code is a misdemeanor, except as otherwise specified. By creating a new crime, 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.
Existing property tax law, pursuant to constitutional authorization, provides for a "welfare exemption" for property used exclusively for religious, hospital, scientific, or charitable purposes and that is owned or operated by certain types of nonprofit entities, if certain qualifying criteria are met. That law provides a partial welfare exemption in the case of residential rental property used for lower income households, as specified, calculated as that percentage of the value of the property that is equal to the percentage that the number of units serving lower income households represents of the total number of residential units. This bill would provide a partial welfare exemption in the case of certain residential rental property used for low- and moderate-income households. The partial exemption would be equal to that percentage of the value of the property that is equal to the percentage that the number of units serving low- and moderate-income households, as defined, represents of the total number of residential units, as provided. The bill would require an owner to make specified certifications relating to the use of the property. By expanding the duties of local tax officials, and by expanding the crime of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would declare that its provisions are 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 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. 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 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.
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 to 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. This bill, the Tenant Protections for Immigrant Families Act of 2026 (Act) , would, until January 1, 2030, prohibit an owner of residential real property, as defined, from initiating or continuing an unlawful detainer action to evict a tenant whose income, ability to obtain income, or financial support is impacted by immigration enforcement activities until no sooner than 90 days after the tenant or household member's detention-related hardship ends, as specified. The bill would require a court to stay the proceeding of a pending unlawful detainer action against a covered tenant if certain conditions are satisfied, including that the tenant provides the court with specified documentation, such as a signed declaration of detention-related hardship that includes a specified statement, that the tenant or household member suffered a detention-related hardship that prevented them from paying the unpaid rent alleged in the unlawful detainer action. Any person who knowingly provides false information in the declaration of detention-related hardship would be subject to a civil fine of up to $1,500. Under the bill, if a tenant has raised detention-related hardship as an affirmative defense, an owner of residential real property may request an evidentiary hearing regarding the tenant's detention-related hardship stay of the unlawful detainer action, at which the tenant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence their detention-related hardship. The bill would prohibit the owner from charging or collecting any late fees, interest, or other penalties related to the nonpayment of rent by a tenant subject to these provisions. Within 90 days after the end of the detention-related hardship, the bill would require the tenant to either pay all past due rent or enter into a mutually agreed upon payment plan with the owner of the residential real property. For purposes of the Act, this bill would define "immigration enforcement activities" to include any efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal immigration law, including any federal criminal immigration law that penalizes a person's presence in, entry or reentry to, or employment in, the United States. The bill would define "detention-related hardship" to mean, among other things, loss of income or financial support by the tenant or household member due to detention, arrest, or ordered removal of a tenant or household member by any federal law enforcement agency. This bill would prohibit a landlord from charging a tenant subject to these provisions fees assessed for the late payment of that rental debt. The bill would prohibit a person from selling or assigning any unpaid debt as a result of detention-related hardship. The bill would prohibit a housing provider or tenant screening company from using an alleged debt as a result of detention-related hardship as a negative factor for the purpose of evaluating a prospective housing application or as the basis for refusing to rent a dwelling unit to an otherwise qualified prospective tenant. The bill would delete similar provisions related to debts as a result of COVID-19 rental debt. The bill would require the Judicial Council to review its existing forms and develop new forms to effectuate these provisions. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2030.
Existing law authorizes a borrower to request forbearance on their residential mortgage loan for a period of 12 months if, among other things, the borrower affirms that they are experiencing financial hardship that prevents them from making timely payments on the loan due directly to the wildfire disaster described in the proclamation of a state of emergency issued by Governor Gavin Newsom on January 7, 2025, or the federally declared disaster, declared on January 8, 2025, related to the Eaton Wildfire, the Palisades Fire, and the Straight-line Winds. Existing law requires an applicant requesting forbearance on their residential mortgage loan to affirm that they are experiencing a financial hardship due to the wildfire disaster. Existing law requires that request to be made before the earlier of either 6 months after the date upon which the state of emergency is terminated or January 7, 2027. Existing law requires a borrower to be notified by the mortgage servicer within 10 business days whether their request for forbearance has been approved. Existing law prohibits any late fees from being assessed to the borrower's account during the period of forbearance, and the borrower from being charged a default rate of interest. This bill would extend the period of mortgage forbearance to 24 months and extend the latest possible deadline for a borrower's request for forbearance to January 7, 2029. The bill would require an applicant requesting forbearance on their residential mortgage loan to further affirm that the property securing the loan is uninhabitable due to the wildfire disaster. Because the bill would expand the crime of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. If the borrower has requested an extension of a forbearance period that would result in a total forbearance period of more than 12 months, the bill would authorize a mortgage servicer to request certain related documentation from the borrower, as specified. The bill would extend the amount of time the mortgage servicer has to notify the borrower whether their request for forbearance has been approved to 21 days or longer, as specified. During the period in which the borrower is waiting to be notified, the bill would prohibit any late fees from being assessed to the borrower's account, and the borrower from being charged a default rate of interest. Existing law requires a mortgage servicer to disclose to a borrower to whom a forbearance has been granted that the forborne mortgage payments are required to be repaid. Existing law prohibits requiring a borrower who was current on the residential mortgage loan when they entered forbearance to make a lump sum payment. This bill would require a mortgage servicer to offer the borrower the option to defer repayment of forborne amounts to the end of the loan term, as specified. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
