Housing

Existing law, the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act, authorizes specified adult persons to petition a civil court to create a voluntary CARE agreement or a court-ordered CARE plan and implement services, to be provided by county behavioral health agencies, to provide behavioral health care, including stabilization medication, housing, and other enumerated services, to adults who are currently experiencing a severe mental illness and have a diagnosis identified in the disorder class schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, and who meet other specified criteria. Existing law authorizes a specified individual to commence the CARE process, known as the original petitioner. Existing law authorizes the court to dismiss a case without prejudice when the court finds that a petitioner has not made a prima facie showing that they qualify for the CARE process. Existing law requires the court to take prescribed actions if it finds that a prima facie showing has been made, including, but not limited to, setting the matter for an initial appearance on the petition. Existing law requires the court, if it determines the parties have entered or are likely to enter into a CARE agreement, to either approve or modify the CARE agreement and continue the matter at a progress hearing in 60 days, or continue the matter for 14 days to allow the parties additional time to enter into an agreement. Existing law prohibits a person from being tried or adjudged to punishment while that person is mentally incompetent. Existing law requires the court to, for a person found mentally incompetent and not charged with certain offenses, among other things, determine whether restoring the person to mental competence is in the interests of justice. Existing law requires the court to, if restoring the person to mental competence is not in the interests of justice, conduct a hearing, as specified, and determine the person's eligibility for diversion. Under existing law, if the court determines, at the first hearing, that the person is ineligible for diversion, the court is required to hold a hearing to determine the person's other options, including the CARE program. Existing law authorizes a court to refer an individual from, among other things, assisted outpatient treatment or conservatorship proceedings, as specified, to CARE Act proceedings. Existing law provides that if the individual is referred from assisted outpatient treatment, the county behavioral health director or their designee shall be the petitioner, whereas if the referral is from conservatorship proceedings, the conservator or proposed conservator is the petitioner. This bill would allow the court to make a prima facie determination without conducting a hearing. The bill, in the first hearing to determine competence to stand trial, would authorize the court to consider the petitioner's eligibility for both diversion and the CARE program. The bill would authorize the court to refer the petitioner to the CARE Act court if the defendant or counsel for the defendant agrees to the referral and the court has reason to believe the petitioner may be eligible for the CARE program. If the petitioner is not accepted into the CARE program or if the CARE Act court refers the petitioner back to criminal court, as specified, the bill would require the criminal court to conduct a hearing to determine whether the petitioner is eligible for a diversion program. The bill would authorize the county behavioral health agency and jail medical providers to share confidential medical records and other relevant information with the court for the purpose of determining likelihood of eligibility for behavioral health services and programs. The bill would authorize the court to call additional progress hearings after 60 days. The bill would also include persons suffering from bipolar I disorder with psychotic features, except for psychosis related to current intoxication, in the disorder class. The bill would additionally authorize a court to refer an individual from felony proceedings, as specified, to the CARE Act program. The bill would authorize a CARE Act court to consider a referral as a petition for participation in the CARE program if certain requirements are met. The bill would make additional technical and conforming changes. Existing law requires the Judicial Council to develop a mandatory form for use to file a CARE process petition with the court, and requires the petition to be signed under penalty of perjury and include either an affidavit of a licensed behavioral health professional, as defined, or evidence that the respondent was detained for a minimum of 2 intensive treatments, as specified. The bill would additionally include a nurse practitioner and physician assistant as a licensed behavioral health professional for purposes of individuals authorized to prepare an affidavit supporting a CARE process petition. By increasing various duties on county behavioral health agencies, 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

(1) Existing law, the Bergeson-Peace Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank Act, establishes the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (I-Bank) in the Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development. Existing law, among other things, authorizes the I-Bank to issue bonds, make loans, and provide financial assistance for various types of projects that qualify as economic development or public development facilities. This bill would enact the Community Stabilization Act. The bill would require the I-Bank to develop and administer a program to issue a security, and to cease issuing a security on January 1, 2030. The bill would specify that the purpose of the program is to help stabilize property values in disaster-affected areas by allowing qualified investors, as defined, to purchase tradable securities, with the funding allocated to qualifying investment entities that purchase and manage residential land until it can be resold at fair market value. The bill would require profits from the land investments to be shared among investors and the I-Bank according to certain percentages, with qualifying investment entities being reimbursed for their administrative costs. This bill would establish various requirements for the security, including that it be tradeable, comply with specified municipal bonding requirements, and that it be funded by investments made by qualified investors using funds available pursuant to the federal Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. The bill would require the security to repay the investment upon a liquidity event and within 7 years of the purchase of an investment property, and would describe a liquidity event as the refinance or sale of the investment property. This bill would require funds raised from the purchase of the security to be deposited in the Community Stabilization Fund, which would be created by the bill, and would require all moneys in the fund to be continuously appropriated to the I-Bank. The bill would require the I-Bank to allocate moneys in the fund to qualifying investment entities to be invested in the Counties of Los Angeles and Ventura and in those areas that are covered by a state of disaster declared by the Governor. The bill would require a qualifying investment entity to meet prescribed requirements, including that it be a specified entity, including, among others, a nonprofit organization, as provided. The bill would also impose various requirements on the qualifying investment entity relating to the purchase, maintenance, and sale of the investment property, including, among other things, limiting the purchase of property to residential property that has been damaged or destroyed by the wildfires that began on January 7, 2025, in the Counties of Los Angeles and Ventura, as specified. The bill would require the I-Bank to submit a final report on the program to the Legislature, the Governor, and the Department of Finance no later than January 1, 2034, as specified. By establishing a new continuously appropriated fund, the Community Stabilization Fund, this bill would make an appropriation. (2) This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Counties of Los Angeles and Ventura. (3) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Under existing law, a "heritage school" is a school that, among other things, offers education or academic tutoring, or both, in a world language and education on the culture, traditions, or history of a country other than the United States to children who are at least 4 years and 9 months of age and no older than 18 years of age and who attend a public or private full-time day school. Existing law exempts a heritage school from licensure by the State Department of Social Services as a child day care center, as specified. This bill would expand the definition of "heritage school" to also include a school that provides services to children younger than 4 years and 9 months of age who are enrolled in kindergarten, including transitional kindergarten, or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive. Existing law requires a heritage school, upon a pupil's enrollment in a heritage school, to provide a notice to the pupil's parent or guardian stating that the heritage school is exempt from childcare licensure and that attendance at a heritage school does not satisfy California's compulsory education requirements. This bill would require a heritage school, upon a pupil's enrollment in a heritage school, to also provide notice that the State Department of Education has no regulatory authority over heritage schools and does not monitor heritage school operations or instruction.

Existing law establishes the Infill Infrastructure Grant Program of 2019 (program) , which requires the Department of Housing and Community Development, upon appropriation of funds by the Legislature, to establish and administer a grant program to allocate those funds to eligible applicants to fund capital improvement projects that are an integral part of, or necessary to facilitate the development of, a qualifying infill project, qualifying infill area, or catalytic qualifying infill area. Existing law requires the department to administer a specified competitive application process for capital improvement projects for large jurisdictions, as defined. For these purposes, existing law defines a qualifying infill project to include a residential or mixed-use residential project located within an urbanized area on a vacant site where at least 75% of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with urban uses. This bill would expand the definition of qualifying infill project to include a residential or mixed-use residential project located within an urbanized area on a vacant site where at least 75% of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that have been previously developed with urban uses. Existing law requires the department to administer an over-the-counter application process for grants for capital improvement projects for small jurisdictions, as provided. For these purposes, existing law defines the term "qualifying infill area" as a contiguous area located within an urbanized area that meets one of specified alternative conditions, including that the capital improvement project for which funding is requested is necessary, as specified, to make the area suitable and available for residential development or to allow the area to accommodate housing for additional income levels, and that the area may be included on an inventory of land in the housing element, as specified. This bill would expand the definition of "qualifying infill area" to additionally include a contiguous area located within an urbanized area for which the capital improvement project for which funding is requested under the program, as described above, is necessary and integral to make the area suitable and available for residential development pursuant to the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022, which subjects a housing development to streamlined, ministerial approval under certain circumstances, as specified. Existing law requires the department, in its review of applications, to rank affected qualifying infill areas and catalytic qualifying infill areas based on specified criteria, including the qualifying infill area's or catalytic qualifying infill area's inclusion of, or proximity to, a train station or major transit stop and the proximity of housing to existing or planned parks, employment or retail centers, schools, or social services. This bill would revise these provisions to require the department to additionally rank applications, as described above, based on the qualifying infill area's inclusion of, or proximity or accessibility to on-demand transit services, as specified, or walkability to essential services or businesses and based on the catalytic qualifying infill area's inclusion of, or proximity or accessibility to walkability to essential services or businesses. The bill would additionally revise these provisions to require the department's ranking to be based on the proximity of housing to services, rather than social services. Existing law requires a qualifying infill project, qualifying infill area, or catalytic qualifying infill area for which a capital improvement project grant can be awarded under the program to meet specified conditions, including, among others, being located in an area designated for mixed-use or residential development, as specified. This bill would additionally allow the project to be located in an area that allows for mixed-use or residential development pursuant to a housing development that is in compliance with certain provisions deeming a housing development an allowable use or subject to streamlined, ministerial approval. Existing law defines various terms for the purposes of the program, including, "capital improvement project," "catalytic qualifying infill area," "eligible applicant," "urbanized area," and "urban uses." This bill would revise these definitions. The bill would additionally define the terms "on-demand transit service," "major transit stop," and "walkability."

Existing law establishes the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which is permitted to adjudge children who have suffered abuse or neglect to be dependents of the court under certain circumstances, and prescribes various hearings and other procedures for these purposes. Existing law requires the county welfare department to submit reports at the first regularly scheduled review hearing after a dependent minor has attained 16 years of age and at the last regularly scheduled review hearing before a dependent minor attains 18 years of age, and at every regularly scheduled review hearing thereafter, verifying that the county welfare department has provided certain information, documents, and services to the minor or nonminor. Existing law prohibits the court from terminating dependency jurisdiction over a nonminor dependent until the county welfare department has submitted a report verifying specified information, documents, and services have been provided to the nonminor, including the nonminor's family history and placement history. This bill would additionally require the above-described assistance include providing the minor or nonminor the last known whereabouts of their parents and siblings and the last known contact information for them. The bill would require that the minor or nonminor have the option to decline this information. By increasing the duties of county welfare departments, 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. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 391 of the Welfare and Institutions Code proposed by AB 2764 to be operative only if this bill and AB 2764 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.

Existing law, the Sargent Shriver Civil Counsel Act, requires legal counsel to be appointed to represent low-income parties in civil matters involving critical issues affecting basic human needs in courts selected by the Judicial Council. The act requires the Judicial Council to develop one or more programs to provide competitive grants to provide legal counsel to low-income persons who require legal services in civil matters involving specific types of civil matters, including, among others, housing-related matters, probate conservatorships, guardianships, and domestic violence and civil harassment restraining orders. Existing law requires the Judicial Council to consider various factors, including, among others, the unmet need for legal services in the geographic area to be served, in selecting and renewing participating programs. Existing law requires program applicants to, among other things, describe how the program would be administered and the means by which the program would serve the particular needs of the community, such as by providing representation to limited-English-speaking clients. This bill would require courts to provide the Judicial Council each month with information regarding unlawful detainer cases, as specified, aggregated by ZIP Code. The bill would require the Judicial Council to make that information publicly available online every 4 months.

(1) Existing state and federal law provides for the enforcement of laws related to elections. This bill would prohibit a peace officer from interfering with the administration of an election, as specified. This bill would authorize certain persons to enforce those prohibitions by filing a civil action, as specified. This bill would also prohibit any individual from permitting an agent of a law enforcement agency, as specified, to access, disrupt, modify, or take possession of rosters, combined rosters, or voter lists unless authorized by a court order or to investigate certain types of voting fraud. The bill would additionally require the Attorney General to provide guidance and information regarding how to respond to requests by law enforcement, as defined, to access areas where ballots are present. (2) Existing law requires an elections official, upon receiving a vote by mail ballot, to compare the signature on the identification envelope with the voter's prior signatures, and it also provides a mechanism by which a voter can verify their signature and cure this defect. Existing law provides that the processing of vote by mail ballots is open to the public and permits specified persons and organizations to observe this processing. This bill would prohibit a vote by mail observer from challenging a signature on a vote by mail ballot that has been verified by the voter. (3) Under existing law, it is a crime for a person in possession of a firearm, a uniformed peace officer, private guard, or security personnel, or any person wearing the uniform of a peace officer, guard, or security personnel, to be stationed in the immediate vicinity of, or posted at, a polling place without authorization from the appropriate elections official. It is also a crime for a person to hire or arrange for such a person to be stationed in the immediate vicinity of, or posted at, a polling place without authorization from the elections official. This bill would authorize the Secretary of State or Attorney General to object to authorization provided by the appropriate elections official, in which case the person stationed or posted at the polling place, or the person who hired or arranged for such a person to be stationed or posted at the polling place, is guilty of a crime. By expanding the scope of these crimes, the bill would create a state-mandated local program. (4) Existing law authorizes the Secretary of State, Attorney General, and any local elections official in the county in which the act occurs, to bring a civil action against an individual, business, or other legal entity that commits any specified act of tampering with a voting system or voting equipment before, during, or after an election. This bill would additionally authorize the Secretary of State, Attorney General, and the appropriate local elections official to bring a civil action against a person, business, or entity that takes a package containing ballots from the custody of an elections official. (5) Existing law makes it a crime for an individual to undertake a number of enumerated actions that would result in interference with an election, including displaying a container for the purpose of collecting ballots with the intent to deceive a voter into casting a ballot in an unofficial ballot box. This bill would also make it a crime to take a package containing voted ballots out of the custody of an elections official. By expanding the scope of this crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (6) Existing law requires the elections official of any county or city using a voting system to inspect the machines or devices at least once every 2 years. This bill would prohibit an individual from permitting an agent of a law enforcement agency, as defined, to access, disrupt, modify, or take possession of certified voting technology unless authorized by a court order. To the extent this bill would establish new procedures for the conduct of elections, it would create a state-mandated local program. (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 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. (8) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Existing law governs procedures for specified civil actions, including those brought pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Existing law requires a plaintiff to furnish an undertaking as security for costs and damages that may be incurred by the defendant under certain circumstances, such as when the plaintiff challenges a low- or moderate-income housing development project for the purpose of delaying or thwarting the project. This bill would provide that, in a civil action brought to challenge a project that will engage in fire prevention activities, including those brought pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, a defendant may seek an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish an undertaking as security for costs and damages that may be incurred by the defendant if the bringing of the action or seeking by the plaintiff of particular relief, including injunctive relief, would result in preventing or delaying the project. The bill would require the defendant to show that the action is without merit and that it was brought in bad faith, vexatiously, for the purpose of delay, or to thwart the project. The bill would permit a plaintiff in responding to such a motion to request that the amount of the undertaking be limited because it would result in economic hardship, as specified. This bill would authorize the court to order an undertaking not to exceed $500,000 or to decline to require an undertaking if the court finds that it would cause the plaintiff to suffer undue economic hardship. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Under existing law, the executive branch of state government includes the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency. This reorganization plan, as of July 1, 2026, would eliminate that agency and instead establish in state government the Business and Consumer Services Agency and the California Housing and Homelessness Agency, and would make conforming changes. The plan would provide that the California Housing and Homelessness Agency consists of specified departments. The plan would require the Secretary of California Housing and Homelessness to take various actions, including coordinating specified policies and programs, considering opportunities to align specified requirements and timelines, and coordinating with other departments and agencies, to achieve specified objectives. The plan would specify that the Business and Consumer Services Agency is headed by the Secretary of Business and Consumer Services, and require the California Housing and Homelessness Agency and the Business and Consumer Services Agency, as specified, to coordinate state policy, programs, and funding to help the state achieve its objectives related to housing, homelessness, and consumer protections and minimize service disruption due to the dissolution of the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency, as provided. This reorganization plan, as of July 1, 2026, would establish the Housing Development and Finance Committee within the California Housing and Homelessness Agency, headed by an executive director, and, upon appropriation, require all multifamily affordable housing programs, as defined, to be administered by the committee, as specified. This reorganization plan would establish within the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency a Housing Development and Finance Executive Committee for the purpose of centralizing affordable housing finance policymaking across state government. The plan would transfer the executive committee to the Housing Development Finance Committee effective July 1, 2026. The plan would require the executive committee to take various actions, including coordinating a cohesive and integrated housing finance system, overseeing the allocation of multifamily affordable housing programs, creating a consolidated application for multifamily affordable housing developers and a coordinated review process for the application of funds, and streamlining compliance monitoring of affordable multifamily rental housing developments, as specified. Existing law requires the Governor to establish the Interagency Council on Homelessness and requires the council to consist of specified members. Under existing law, there is an executive officer of the council who is under the direction of the Secretary of Business, Consumer Services, and Housing and the council is required to be staffed by employees of the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency. This reorganization plan would establish the California Interagency Council on Homelessness as an independent entity within the California Housing and Homelessness Agency and would rename the existing council as the California Interagency Executive Council on Homelessness and establish it within the California Interagency Council on Homelessness. This reorganization plan would authorize state agencies, departments, or entities to take actions prior to July 1, 2026, that are necessary to ensure that the provisions of the plan become operative on July 1, 2026, and are implemented in a timely fashion, as specified.

The California Constitution declares that all property is taxable and establishes or authorizes various exemptions from tax for real property, including a homeowners' exemption in the amount of $7,000 of the full value of a dwelling unless the dwelling receives another real property exemption. If the Legislature increases the homeowners' exemption, the California Constitution requires that the Legislature provide a benefit increase to qualified renters comparable to the average increase in benefits to homeowners. The California Constitution and existing property tax law establish a veterans' exemption in the amount of $4,000 for a veteran who meets certain military service requirements, including that the veteran is serving in or has served in and has been discharged under honorable conditions from one of specified branches of the United States military, and generally exempts from property taxation the same value of property of a deceased veteran's unmarried spouse and parents. The California Constitution authorizes and existing property tax law establishes a disabled veterans' exemption in the amount of $100,000 or $150,000 for the principal place of residence of a veteran or a veteran's spouse, including an unmarried surviving spouse, if the veteran, because of an injury incurred in military service, is blind in both eyes, has lost the use of 2 or more limbs, or is totally disabled, as those terms are defined, or if the veteran has, as a result of a service-connected injury or disease, died while on active duty in military service. Existing law prohibits receiving the veterans' exemption on property owned by an unmarried person who owns more than $5,000 of property or a married person who owns more than $10,000 of property. Existing law prohibits receiving the deceased veterans' exemption on property owned by a deceased veteran's unmarried spouse who owns more than $10,000 of property, a deceased veteran's unmarried parent who owns more than $5,000 of property, or a deceased veteran's married parent who owns more than $10,000 of property. This measure would add the United States Space Force to the military branches, the service in which satisfies the veterans' exemption military service requirement described above. This measure would allow a dwelling that receives the veterans' exemption or the disabled veteran's exemption to also receive the homeowners' exemption. The measure would authorize the Legislature to exempt property eligible for the veterans' exemption in an amount up to the full value of the property. If the Legislature increases the homeowners' exemption, the measure would require that the Legislature provide the same increase in the veterans' exemption, except as limited by the full value of the property. The bill would remove the above-described prohibitions on a property receiving the veterans' or deceased veterans' exemption based on the amount of property that a veteran or veteran's parent or spouse owns.