Existing law authorizes a county to establish a homeless adult and family multidisciplinary personnel team, as defined, with the goal of facilitating the expedited identification, assessment, and linkage of homeless individuals to housing and supportive services within that county and to allow provider agencies to share confidential information for the purpose of coordinating housing and supportive services to ensure continuity of care. This bill would authorize a county to also establish a behavioral health multidisciplinary personnel team, as defined, with the goal of facilitating the expedited identification, assessment, and linkage of a justice-involved person, as defined, diagnosed with a mental illness to supportive services within that county while incarcerated and upon release from county jail and to allow provider agencies and members of the personnel team to share confidential information, as specified, for the purpose of coordinating supportive services to ensure continuity of care. The bill would require the sharing of information permitted under these provisions to be governed by protocols developed in each county, as specified. This bill would authorize a behavioral health multidisciplinary personnel team to designate a qualified person to be a member of the team for a particular case and would require a member who receives information or records regarding a justice-involved person in their capacity as a member of the team to be under the same privacy and confidentiality obligations and subject to the same confidentiality penalties as the person disclosing or providing the information or records. The bill would also require the information or records to be maintained in a manner that ensures the maximum protection of privacy and confidentiality rights.
Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, among other things, provides for the creation by ordinance, or by ministerial approval if the local agency has not adopted an ordinance, of an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) or a junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU) in accordance with specified standards and conditions. Existing law defines the term "junior accessory dwelling unit" for these purposes to mean a unit that is no more than 500 square feet in size and contained entirely within a single-family structure. This bill would revise the definition of a "junior accessory dwelling unit" to require the size of a JADU to be no more than 500 square feet of interior livable space. Existing law makes certain declarations of the Legislature's intent regarding the effect of an ADU ordinance. Existing law authorizes the Department of Housing and Community Development to review, adopt, amend, or repeal guidelines to implement uniform standards or criteria that supplement or clarify the terms, references, and standards for an ADU. This bill would revise the above-described declaration of legislative intent to additionally apply with respect to a JADU ordinance. The bill would also expand the department's authority to review, adopt, amend, or repeal guidelines to additionally grant that authority with respect to terms, references, and standards for JADUs. Existing law requires a local agency to submit an ADU ordinance to the Department of Housing and Community Development within 60 days after the adoption for department review, as specified. Under existing law, the standards applicable to an ADU under these provisions supersede a conflicting local ordinance, except as specified. This bill would similarly require a local agency to submit a JADU ordinance to the department within 60 days after adoption for department review and would require the department to notify the local agency if the ordinance is noncompliant with JADU ordinance requirements, as specified. The bill would nullify and void that ordinance if the local agency fails to submit a copy of that ordinance or respond to the department's findings that the ordinance is noncompliant, as specified. The bill would also specify that the standards applicable to a JADU supersede any conflicting local ordinance, except as specified. Existing law requires a local agency to consider ministerially a permit application for an ADU or a JADU within 60 days, as specified. If a local agency has not adopted an ADU ordinance, existing law requires a permit application for an ADU to be considered pursuant to this ministerial approval provision. Existing law prohibits a local ordinance, policy, or regulation, other than an ADU ordinance consistent with the laws governing approvals of ADUs, from being the basis for the delay or denial of a building permit or a use permit under this ministerial approval provision. If a local agency has not adopted a JADU ordinance, this bill would additionally require a permit application for a JADU to be considered pursuant to this ministerial approval provision, and would prohibit a local ordinance, policy, or regulation, other than a JADU ordinance consistent with the laws governing approvals of JADUs, from being the basis for the delay or denial of a building permit or a use permit under this ministerial approval provision. This bill would additionally require a permitting agency to determine whether an application for ADU or JADU is complete and provide written notice of the determination not later than 15 business days after the permitting agency received the application. If the permitting agency determines that an application is incomplete, the bill would require the permitting agency to provide the applicant with a list of incomplete items and a description of how the application can be made complete in the written notice and authorize the applicant to cure and address the application, as specified. The bill would require the permitting agency, if a permit application is determined to be incomplete or is denied, to provide a process for the applicant to appeal that decision, as provided, and would require the permitting agency to provide a final written determination by not later than 60 business days after receipt of the written appeal. Existing law imposes limits on construction, connection, and impact fees and capacity charges imposed on an ADU, including prohibiting impact fees upon the development of an ADU based on if the ADU is 750 square feet and requiring that any impact fee on an ADU of 750 square feet or more be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit. Existing law prohibits a local agency, special district, or water corporation from requiring the applicant to install a new or separate utility connection between an ADU and the utility or imposing a related connection fee or capacity charge for specified ADUs, except as specified. This bill would revise these provisions to additionally apply to construction, connection, and impact fees and capacity charges imposed on a JADU. The bill would revise the above-described limitation on impact fees to, instead, prohibit impact fees upon the development of an ADU that has 750 square feet of interior livable space or less or JADU that has 500 square feet of interior livable space or less, and to require that any impact fee on an ADU that has more than 750 square feet of interior livable space be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit. Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement against construction within the boundaries of the school district for the purpose of funding the construction or reconstruction of a school facility, subject to specified limitations. Under existing law, the fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement may only apply to specified constructions, including residential construction if the resulting assessable space exceeds 500 square feet. This bill would specify that an ADU or a JADU that contains less than 500 square feet of interior livable space does not increase assessable space by 500 square feet under these provisions. Existing law prohibits a local agency from establishing by ordinance a maximum square footage for an attached or detached ADU that is either less than 850 square feet or 1,000 square feet for an ADU that provides more than one bedroom. Existing law also prohibits a local agency from establishing by ordinance any requirement for a zoning clearance or separate zoning review or any other minimum or maximum size for an ADU, size based upon a percentage of the proposed or existing primary dwelling, or limits on lot coverage, floor area ratio, open space, front setbacks, and minimum lot size, for attached or detached dwellings that does not permit at least an 800-square foot ADU with four-foot side and rear yard setbacks. This bill would revise these size limitations to be based on the square feet of interior living space of the ADU. Existing law requires a local agency to ministerially approve a building permit application within a residential or mixed-use zone for specified ADUs or JADUs, including one detached, new construction, ADU that does not exceed 4-foot side and rear yard setbacks for a lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling. For these ADUs and JADUs, existing law authorizes a local agency to impose specified height limitations and total floor area limitations of no more than 800 square feet. Existing law prohibits a local agency from imposing a requirement that an ADU install a fire sprinkler if a sprinkler is not required for the primary residence. This bill would require a local agency to ministerially approve a building permit application for a combination of the specified ADUs or JADUs and revise the total area limitation to be based on the square feet of interior livable space. The bill would revise the prohibition on requiring fire sprinkler installation, as described above, to additionally apply to a JADU. This bill would make other technical and conforming changes to the provisions governing the review and approval of ADUs and JADUs. By imposing additional duties on local planning 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.
The Planning and Zoning Law, among other things, provides for the creation of junior accessory dwelling units by local ordinance, or, if a local agency has not adopted an ordinance, by ministerial approval, in accordance with specified standards and conditions. Existing law requires an ordinance that provides for the creation of a junior accessory dwelling unit to, among other things, require owner-occupancy in the single-family residence in which the junior accessory dwelling unit is permitted. Under this bill, that owner-occupancy requirement would apply only if the junior accessory dwelling unit has shared sanitation facilities with the existing structure. The bill would require an ordinance that provides for the creation of a junior accessory dwelling unit to require that a rental of a junior accessory dwelling unit be for a term longer than 30 days. By imposing new duties on local governments with respect to the approval of junior accessory dwelling units, 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.
Existing law requires a mortgage servicer to comply with applicable federal guidance regarding borrower options following a forbearance relating to the COVID-19 emergency. This bill would authorize a borrower who is experiencing financial hardship that prevents the borrower from making timely payments on a specified residential mortgage 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, to request forbearance on their residential mortgage loan, as prescribed. The bill would limit eligibility for that forbearance to loans that are secured by residential real property improved by 4 or fewer residential units. The bill would require the borrower to affirm that they are experiencing a financial hardship due to the wildfire disaster. Because the bill would expand the crime of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would, except as specified, require a mortgage servicer to offer mortgage payment forbearance of a period of up to an initial 90 days, which shall be extended at the request of the borrower in 90-day increments, up to a maximum forbearance period of 12 months. The bill would also prohibit a mortgage servicer from assessing any late fees to the borrower's account or charging a default rate of interest during the forbearance period. The bill would provide that the forbearance period includes any period of forbearance related to the wildfire disaster that a mortgage servicer has provided to a borrower before the effective date of these provisions. The bill would require a mortgage servicer to report the credit obligations of borrowers under a disaster-related forbearance plan in compliance with the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act. For accounts granted disaster-related mortgage payment relief, the bill would prohibit mortgage servicers from furnishing information during the forbearance period indicating that the payments are in forbearance and would require them to report the credit obligation or account as current or delinquent, as specified. The bill would prohibit a mortgage servicer from initiating any judicial or nonjudicial foreclosure process, moving for a foreclosure judgment or order of sale, or executing a foreclosure-related eviction or foreclosure during the period of forbearance. This bill would require the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation to post specified information on its website including links to the provisions of servicing guidelines pertaining to disaster-related forbearance relief for federally backed loans and a dedicated telephone number for borrowers seeking assistance. 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 declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
The Planning and Zoning Law provides for the creation of an accessory dwelling unit by local ordinance, or, if a local agency has not adopted an ordinance, by ministerial approval, in accordance with specified standards. The law requires a local agency to submit an accessory dwelling unit ordinance to the Department of Housing and Community Development within 60 days after adoption. The law authorizes the department to submit written findings to a local agency as to whether the ordinance complies with the standards. If the department finds that the ordinance does not comply with the standards, the law requires the department to provide a local agency reasonable time, no longer than 30 days, to respond to its findings. If the local agency does not amend its ordinance in response to those findings or does not adopt a resolution with findings explaining the reason the ordinance complies with the standards and addressing the department's findings, the law requires the department to notify the local agency and authorizes the department to notify the Attorney General that the local agency is in violation of state law. This bill would invalidate the ordinance if the local agency fails to submit a copy of the ordinance to the department within 60 days of adoption or fails to respond to the department's findings that the ordinance does not comply with the standards within 30 days, as described above.
Existing law establishes a low-income housing tax credit program pursuant to which the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) provides procedures and requirements for the allocation, in modified conformity with federal law, of state insurance, personal income, and corporation tax credit amounts to qualified low-income housing projects that have been allocated, or qualify for, a federal low-income housing tax credit, and farmworker housing. Existing law limits the total annual amount of the state low-income housing credit for which a federal low-income housing credit is required, as specified. That law authorizes a taxpayer to make an election in its application to the CTCAC to sell all or any portion of any credit allowed. This bill would instead authorize a taxpayer to make that election in the manner prescribed by the CTCAC, as provided.
Existing law, the Floating Home Residency Law, prescribes various terms and conditions on tenancies in floating home marinas, as defined. Existing law, until January 1, 2030, prohibits management of a floating home marina located in the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, or Marin from increasing the gross rental rate for a tenancy for a floating home berth in a floating home marina more than 3% plus the percentage change in the cost of living, or 5%, whichever is lower, of the lowest gross rental rate charged for a tenancy at any time during the 12 months prior to the effective date of the increase. Existing law prohibits management of a floating home marina from increasing the rent of a new homeowner that purchases a floating home in the marina if the purchase qualifies as an in-place transfer, as defined. This bill would, until January 1, 2038, prohibit management of a floating home marina located in the County of Marin from increasing the above-described rent more than the percent change in the cost of living, as specified, over the course of any 12-month period. The bill would require management to provide notice of any rental rate increases to each homeowner, as specified. The bill would specify that its provisions apply to rent increases for a tenancy in a floating home marina occurring on or after July 1, 2025. The bill would provide that in the event that management increases the rent by more than the amount specified above between July 1, 2025, and January 1, 2026, then the applicable rent on January 1, 2026, is the rent as of July 1, 2025, plus the maximum permissible increase, and that management is not liable to the homeowner for any corresponding rent overpayment. This bill would, until January 1, 2038, in the event that an in-place transfer of a floating home involves the sale of a floating home subject to an existing lease with a 10-year or longer term or that was offered a lease of that term between 2 years and 6 months prior to the time of the sale, except as specified, permit management of a floating home marina located in the County of Marin to establish a new initial rental rate for a prospective homeowner, subject to specified conditions, including that the final sale price of the home provided to the marina owner shall be certified and substantiated in writing to be true under penalty of perjury by the buyer. By expanding the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would exempt specified floating home berths from the rental rate increase limitations. The bill would void any waiver of the rights provided under these provisions and would provide that its provisions do not affect specified authority of local governments. Existing law prohibits a homeowner from being charged a fee when obtaining a rental agreement on a floating home berth for a term of 12 months or a lesser period, or for charges other than rent, utilities, and incidental charges, as specified. This bill would, until January 1, 2038, for a floating home marina located in the County of Marin, require that fees for utilities and incidental reasonable charges reflect actual costs, and would require a marina owner to demonstrate for all fees charged to a homeowner that the service was, or is currently being, actually rendered. The bill would prohibit marina owners from charging a fee to a homeowner for enforcement of marina rules. This bill would make conforming changes. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the County of Marin. 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 makes any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, or other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of any interest in a planned development, and any provision of a governing document, that either effectively prohibits or unreasonably restricts the construction or use of an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit on a lot zoned for single-family residential use, as specified, void and unenforceable. If the governing documents require association approval before a member may make a physical change to the member's separate interest or to the common area, existing law requires an association to satisfy specified requirements, including to provide a fair, reasonable, and expeditious procedure for making its decision in reviewing and approving or disapproving a proposed physical change, as described above. This bill would make any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, or other instrument, and any provision of a governing document, void and unenforceable to the extent that it prohibits, or includes conditions that have the effect of prohibiting, a substantially similar reconstruction of a residential structure, as specified, that was destroyed or damaged in a disaster, as defined. The bill would require a court to award reasonable attorney's fees to the owner of a separate interest in a common interest development who prevails in an action to enforce the above-described provisions. This bill would require any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, or other instrument, and any provision of a governing document that subjects a substantially similar reconstruction of a residential structure that was destroyed or damaged in a disaster to review by a body to be processed and approved, as specified. The bill would defined various terms for these purposes. The bill would require the body to, among other things, determine whether an application is complete or incomplete and to provide written notice of this determination to the applicant no later than 30 calendar days after the body receives the application. Once an application is deemed complete, the bill would require the body to conduct any review of the proposed modification to the separate interest within 45 calendar days, as specified. If a body finds that a complete application is noncompliant, the bill would require the body to provide the applicant with a list of items that are noncompliant and a description of how the application can be remedied by the applicant, as described. If an application is determined to be incomplete or noncompliant, the bill would require the body to provide a process for the applicant to appeal that decision, as specified. The bill would require a court to award reasonable attorney's fees to the applicant who prevails in an action to enforce the above-described provisions. (2) Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, authorizes a development proponent to submit an application for a development that is subject to a specified streamlined, ministerial approval process if the development satisfies certain objective planning standards and certain procedures are followed, including that the proponent of the development project requires in contracts with construction contractors that specified standards will be met in project construction, as specified. Existing law requires the proponent of the development project to make a specified certification that certain labor standards will be met and requires the prime contractor to provide an affidavit under penalty of perjury, as specified. This bill would authorize a housing development proponent to submit an application for a housing development that is subject to a specified streamlined, ministerial approval process if the housing development satisfies certain objective standards, including that the housing development is located on a parcel on which a residential structure was destroyed or damaged in a disaster. The bill would require a local government to approve the development within 90 days of the submittal of the development if the local government's planning director or equivalent position determines that the development is consistent with specified objective planning standards. If the development is determined to be in conflict with those standards, the bill would require the local government staff or relevant local planning and permitting department that made the determination to provide the development proponent written documentation of which standard or standards the development conflicts with, and an explanation for the reason or reasons the development conflicts with that standard or standards, as specified. By mandating a higher level of service on local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would provide that an ordinance that precludes specified placements and uses of manufactured homes, mobilehomes, or recreational vehicles for use during the reconstruction or repair of any home damaged or destroyed in a disaster is unenforceable for a period of 3 years following the disaster declaration. The bill would require the housing development proponent to comply with certain labor standards, including that the housing development proponent will comply with the above-described labor standards, including the requirements that the development proponent make the specified certification and that the prime contractor provide an affidavit under penalty of perjury. By imposing certification and penalty of perjury requirements, this bill would expand the crime of perjury, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. (3) 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, or to adopt a negative declaration if it determines that the project would not have that effect, as provided. CEQA does not apply to the approval of ministerial projects. This bill would provide that its streamlined, ministerial approval process for a housing development, as described above, offers an optional streamlined, ministerial approval process and does not affect the availability, applicability, or use of any other exemption from CEQA. To the extent that the streamlined, ministerial review process established by the bill would apply to the approval of a housing development that would otherwise be discretionary, the bill would expand the exemption for the ministerial approval of projects under CEQA. (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) 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 various advisory boards and commissions in state government with specified duties and responsibilities. This bill would create the California Latino Commission to address the inequities faced by the Latino community in housing, education, economic mobility, labor, and health care. The commission would consist of 9 members who have demonstrated expertise in specified areas, including housing policy and advocacy and economic development. The bill would task the commission with, among other things, collecting and analyzing data, developing recommendations, and monitoring the implementation of state programs and policies affecting the Latino community, as specified. The bill would require the commission to work with other state agencies and to submit an annual report to the Governor and the Legislature. The bill would establish that the commission and its activities would be supported by appropriations by the Legislature from the General Fund and grants from federal and private sources. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2036.
(1) 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 (EIR) on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. Existing law exempts from CEQA a rezoning that implements the schedule of actions contained in an approved housing element, as specified. This bill would subject a rezoning that would allow for the construction of a bed and breakfast inn, motel, hotel, or other transient lodging to CEQA review even if the rezoning implements a schedule of actions contained in an approved housing element. The bill would specify that other transient lodging does not include a residential hotel, as defined, or a resident's use or marketing of a unit as short-term lodging, as defined, in a manner that is consistent with local law. (2) Existing law, for the approval of a proposed housing development project, as defined, that would otherwise be exempt from CEQA pursuant to a statutory exemption, or specified categorical exemptions adopted before January 1, 2026, but for a single disqualifying condition, as specified, limits the application of CEQA to the effects upon the environment that are caused solely by that single condition. For these projects, existing law requires the initial study or EIR to examine only those effects that the lead agency determines, based upon substantial evidence in the record, are caused solely by the single condition that makes the proposed project ineligible for a statutory or categorical exemption. This bill would exempt from that limited application of CEQA a housing development project that has a project site or parcel size that exceeds 4 acres, if the project is a builder's remedy project, as defined, and the project applicant applied, as specified. This bill would subject a project that includes a bed and breakfast inn, hotel, motel, or other transient lodging, as specified, to full CEQA review even if it would be eligible for the limited application of CEQA described above because of a single disqualifying condition. The bill would specify that other transient lodging does not include a residential hotel, as defined, or a resident's use or marketing of a unit as short-term lodging, as defined, in a manner that is consistent with local law. To the extent that this bill would impose new responsibilities on a lead agency, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) Existing law exempts from CEQA, except when located on natural and protected lands, a project that consists exclusively of a facility for advanced manufacturing, as specified. Existing law, the Administrative Procedure Act, sets forth the requirements for the adoption, publication, review, and implementation of regulations by state agencies. This bill would repeal the CEQA exemption for a project that consists exclusively of a facility for advanced manufacturing. The bill would instead exempt from CEQA a project that consists exclusively of a facility for manufacturing, producing, or assembling certain products, components, or systems, as provided, if, among other things, the project is not located within 300 feet of a sensitive receptor, as defined, and the project applicant demonstrates high road employment standards, as defined, and certifies to the lead agency that it will maintain those standards in the development, construction, and operation of the facility. Because a lead agency would be required to determine whether a project meets the high road employment standards, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission to develop and make available to lead agencies guidelines for evaluating whether a project applicant demonstrates high road employment standards. The bill would exempt the development of these guidelines from the Administrative Procedure Act. (4) This bill would appropriate $10,000 from the General Fund to the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation for implementation of this act. (5) 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. (6) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a bill providing for appropriations related to the Budget Bill.
