This House Resolution formally recognizes the importance of affordable homeownership for California families, particularly those with lower incomes, and highlights how nonprofit-led programs help build generational wealth and reduce economic disparities. The document emphasizes that existing state programs like CalHome support the construction and preservation of affordable homes through competitive funding to cities, counties, indigenous communities, and nonprofit builders such as Habitat for Humanity. While the resolution does not create new laws or funding, it serves as an official acknowledgment of homeownership's role in improving educational outcomes, health, civic participation, and neighborhood stability. The text also notes California's significant housing deficit and racial wealth gaps as context for why expanding affordable ownership opportunities is a priority for state policy.
The Planning and Zoning Law requires a city or county to adopt a general plan for land use development that includes, among other things, a housing element containing specified information, including an analysis of its special housing, emergency shelter, and supportive housing needs, as defined. Existing law defines the term "target population" for purposes of requirements applicable to the housing element to include certain persons, including persons with low incomes who have one or more disabilities and individuals eligible for specified developmental disability services. This bill, the Unseen and Unheard Housing Act, would provide that the definition of the term "target population" for the purposes of requirements applicable to the housing element, as described above, may include victims of domestic violence, victims of sexual assault, and victims of human trafficking, as specified.
Existing law, the Mobilehome Residency Law, prescribes various terms and conditions of tenancies in mobilehome parks. The law defines "mobilehome park" for these purposes to mean an area of land where 2 or more mobilehome sites are rented, or held out for rent, to accommodate mobilehomes used for human habitation. The law caps the amount by which management of a qualified mobilehome park may increase the gross rental rate for a tenancy over the course of any 12-month period. The cap is the lower of 5% of the lowest gross rental rate charge for a tenancy at any time during the preceding 12 months or 3% of that amount plus the percentage change in the cost of living. Under that law, a mobilehome park is subject to that cap if it is located within and governed by the jurisdictions of 2 or more incorporated cities. This bill would instead make any mobilehome park subject to that cap. The bill would make conforming changes related to these provisions.
Existing law authorizes the establishment of the South Bay Regional Housing Trust, a joint powers authority, by the County of Los Angeles and any or all of the cities within the jurisdiction of the South Bay Cities Council of Governments, with the stated purpose of funding housing to assist the homeless population and persons and families of extremely low, very low, and low income within the South Bay Cities region. Existing law authorizes the South Bay Regional Housing Trust to, among other things, fund planning and construction of housing of all types and tenures for the homeless population and persons and families of extremely low, very low, and low income. This bill would expand the authority of the trust to also include funding the preservation of housing for these purposes. The bill would also expand the authority of the trust to include funding planning, construction, and preservation of housing for persons and families of moderate income, as defined, using any private resources and specified public resources. Existing law requires that the South Bay Regional Housing Trust be governed by a board of directors consisting of an appropriate number of directors, to be determined by the governing board of the South Bay Cities Council of Governments. Existing law requires the board of directors to include mayors, council members, or County of Los Angeles supervisors, as described. Existing law requires that the board of directors to elect a chairperson and a vice chairperson from among its members at the first meeting held in each calendar year. Existing law requires the governing board of the South Bay Cities Council of Governments to appoint the board of directors and, in the case of a vacancy on the board of directors, qualified individuals to fill the vacancy, as specified. This bill would instead require the joint powers agreement to establish the number of directors of the trust and the process for appointing directors and filling vacancies. The bill would additionally authorize the board of directors to include persons appointed and designated as alternate members of the board of directors, as specified. The bill would require all directors and alternates to be subject to the board of directors' adopted conflict of interest code. The bill would prohibit each alternate that is currently not an elected official from participating as a voting member in more than 75% of all meetings in a calendar year. The bill would instead require the board of directors to elect a chairperson and a vice chairperson from among its members at the first meeting held in either the calendar or fiscal year. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for South Bay Cities region of the County of Los Angeles.
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 specified units and meets other requirements. Existing law, among other things, requires compliance with certain affordability requirements, including requiring that the applicant agree to ensure, and that the city, county, or city and county ensure, that a for-sale unit that qualified the applicant for the award of the density bonus is either (1) initially sold to and occupied by a person or family of very low, low, or moderate income, as specified, or (2) if the unit is not purchased by an income-qualified person or family within 180 days after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the unit is purchased by a qualified nonprofit housing corporation, as provided. This bill would additionally allow the applicant and the city, county, or city and county to comply with the above-described affordability requirements with respect to a for-sale unit by ensuring that the unit is purchased by a nonprofit housing corporation, as specified, for properties to be sold to and occupied by extremely low, very low, or lower income families who participate in a below market interest rate loan program, as described. By adding to the duties of local agencies to implement the Density Bonus Law, 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.
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, 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.
(1) The Planning and Zoning Law requires a local agency or state agency to compile one or more lists that specify in detail the information required from any applicant for a postentitlement phase permit, as defined. Existing law also establishes time limits for completing reviews regarding whether an application for a postentitlement phase permit is complete and compliant, and whether to approve or deny an application. Existing law requires the time limits to be tolled, if the local agency or state agency requires review of the application by an outside entity, until the outside entity completes the review and returns the application, as specified. This bill would prohibit a local agency or state agency from requiring or requesting more than 2 plan check and specification reviews in connection with an application for a building permit, as part of its review. The bill would authorize a local agency or state agency to deny an application that is not compliant with the permit standards following 2 plan check and specification reviews. The bill would also authorize an applicant to request additional submittals of applications that are not compliant with the permit standards. The bill, if a local agency or state agency finds that a complete application is noncompliant, would prohibit a local agency or state agency from requesting or requiring any action or inaction as a result of a building inspection undertaken to assess compliance with the applicable building permit standards that would represent a deviation from a previously approved building plan or similar approval for the building permit, except as specified. This bill would remove the above-described tolling requirements relating to outside entity reviews and, instead, would require, if federal or state law requires review of the application by another public agency that is independent of the local agency or state agency before the local agency or state agency is authorized to act on the application, the time limits to be tolled for the application until the public agency completes the review and returns the application to the local agency or state agency. The bill would require the local agency or state agency to notify the applicant of the tolling, as specified. (2) Existing law, if a postentitlement phase permit is determined to be incomplete or noncompliant, requires a local agency or state agency to provide a process for an applicant to appeal that decision in writing to the governing body of the agency or, if there is no governing body, to the director of the agency, as provided by that agency. Existing law requires the city or county to provide that the right of appeal is to the governing body or, at their option, the planning commission, or both. Existing law requires a local agency or state agency to provide a final written determination on the appeal not later than 60 business days after receipt of the applicant's written appeal, for housing development projects with 25 units or fewer, and not later than 90 business days for a housing development projects with 26 units or more. Existing law also specifies that the fact that an appeal is permitted to both the planning commission and to the governing body does not extend the specified time period. This bill would revise those timelines to not later than 30 business days for housing development projects with 25 units or fewer and 45 business days for housing development projects with 26 units or more. The bill would remove the specification that the fact that an appeal is permitted to both the planning commission and to the governing body does not extend the specified time period. The bill would remove the requirement that, if a postentitlement phase permit is determined to be incomplete or noncompliant, a local agency or state agency provide a process for an applicant to appeal that decision to the director of the agency if there is no governing body, as provided by that agency. The bill would remove the requirement that a city or county provide that the right of appeal is to the governing body or, at their option, the planning commission, or both. This bill would authorize the applicant to seek a writ of mandate to compel approval of the application, if the applicant's appeal is denied, or a decision on the appeal is not made within the timelines provided, or an appeals process is not provided as required. By imposing additional duties on local agencies regarding postentitlement phase permits, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) Existing law, the Housing Accountability Act, among other things, prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning approval in a manner that renders infeasible, a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households unless the local agency makes written findings as to one of certain sets of conditions, as specified. The act also requires, when a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, that the local agency base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that 2 specified conditions exist. Existing law defines the term "disapprove the housing development project" for these purposes to include any instance in which a local agency takes certain actions or fails to comply with certain requirements, including the time limits described above. Existing law makes a local agency's failure to meet the above-described time limits relating to postentitlement phase permits a violation of the Housing Accountability Act. This bill would, instead, make a violation of the above-described provisions relating to postentitlement phase permits, among others, a violation of the Housing Accountability Act. The bill would also revise the definition of "disapprove the housing development project" under the Housing Accountability Act to include any instance in which a local agency fails to comply with any of the provisions described above relating to postentitlement phase permits. By requiring local agencies to take certain actions, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (4) The bill would make other conforming changes and would provide that certain changes are declaratory of existing law. (5) 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. (6) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65589.5 of the Government Code proposed by SB 1072 to be operative only if this bill and SB 1072 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (7) 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 Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, governs the management and operation of common interest developments. Existing law places various limits and prohibitions on the governing documents, as defined, relative to an owner's separate interest within those developments. This bill would declare void and unenforceable any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of any interest in a common interest development, or provision of a governing document that effectively prohibits or restricts the owner of a separate interest from completing a residential window replacement project or impose any requirements on California Energy Code-compliant windows, as specified. The bill's provisions would not apply to certain provisions that impose reasonable installation restrictions on a residential window replacement project that do not significantly increase the cost of a residential window replacement project or significantly decrease the energy efficiency of a residential window replacement project, except as specified. This bill would prohibit an association from subjecting a residential window replacement project to design review or any other form of approval if the association's governing documents do not place reasonable restrictions on a residential window replacement project. This bill, for specified residential window replacement projects that propose the replacement of windows, would require an association to impose certain conditions on the project, including a requirement that the owner obtain approval from the association. The bill would require an association to approve a project if the owner agrees to certain requirements in writing, including that the owner comply with the association's governing documents, engage a licensed contractor for the installation, obtain any required local or state permits required for the project, and pay for the costs associated with the installation. (2) The Planning and Zoning Law authorizes the legislative body of any county or city to adopt ordinances that regulate the use of buildings, structures, and land as between industry, business, residences, open space, and other purposes. This bill would require a city, county, or city and county to administratively approve an application for a residential window replacement project. The bill would prohibit a city, county, or city and county from requiring discretionary review or a hearing for a residential window replacement project. The bill would also prohibit a city, county, or city and county from denying an application for a residential window replacement project and a local government that is both a city and county from imposing any conditions on certain windows proposed in a housing development project, except as specified. The bill would limit the application of these provisions under certain circumstances, including if a residential building is individually designated on the California Register of Historical Resources prior to the date the application for a residential window replacement project is submitted. By adding to the duties of local governments, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) The bill would make its provisions severable. (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 make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City and County of San Francisco. (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 a specified reason.
Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, provides for the adoption and administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules and regulations by counties and cities and the implementation of those general plans as may be in effect in those counties or cities. In that regard, existing law requires each local agency, by January 1, 2025, to develop a program for the preapproval of accessory dwelling unit plans. This bill would require each local agency, as defined, to develop a program for the preapproval of single-family and multifamily residential housing plans, whereby the local agency accepts single-family and multifamily plan submissions for preapproval and approves or denies the preapproval applications, as specified. The bill would require a large jurisdiction, as defined, to develop this program by July 1, 2027, and a small jurisdiction, as defined, to develop a program by January 1, 2029. The bill would require the local agency to post preapproved single-family or multifamily residential housing plans and the contact information of the applicant on the local agency's internet website. This bill would require a local agency to either approve or deny ministerially an application for a single-family or multifamily residential housing unit within 30 days if the lot meets certain conditions and the application utilizes specified plans that have been preapproved by the local agency or that are identical to a plan used in an application approved by the local agency. The bill would prohibit the preapproval program from applying to single-family or multifamily residential housing plans intended for use in certain communities and developments, as specified. Existing 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. Existing law requires the annual report to include, among other things, the city's or county's progress in meeting its share of regional housing needs, as specified. 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. To the extent that the ministerial review process established by the bill would apply to final, discretionary approval of an application for a single-family or multifamily housing unit, the bill would exempt those projects from CEQA. This bill, beginning on April 1, 2028, for large jurisdictions and beginning on April 1, 2030, for small jurisdictions, would require the local agency to include in its annual report the number of units of residential housing that are approved using a preapproved housing plan pursuant to this act. By imposing new duties on local agencies with regard to developing a preapproval program and its annual report, the bill would create 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
