Asm. Robert Rivas

(1) Existing law vests the Department of Transportation with full possession and control of the state highway system and associated property. Existing law generally requires proceeds from the sale of excess state highway property to be made available for other highway purposes. Existing law generally provides for the California Transportation Commission to program available funding for transportation capital projects, other than state highway rehabilitation projects, through the state transportation improvement program process, with available funds subject to various fair share distribution formulas. Existing law, in certain cases, requires the commission to instead reallocate funds from canceled state highway projects to other projects within the same county and exempts those funds from the fair share distribution formulas that would otherwise apply. This bill would require the net proceeds from the sale of any excess properties originally acquired for a replacement alignment for State Highway Route 101 in the County of Monterey, known as the former Prunedale Bypass, to be reserved in the State Highway Account for programming and allocation by the commission, with the concurrence of the Transportation Agency for Monterey County, for other state highway projects in that county, as specified. The bill would exempt these funds from the distribution formulas that otherwise apply to transportation capital improvement funds. (2) Existing law describes the authorized routes in the state highway system and establishes a process for adoption of a highway on an authorized route by the California Transportation Commission. Existing law requires the commission to relinquish to local agencies state highway segments that have been deleted from the state highway system by legislative enactment or have been superseded by relocation, and in certain other cases. This bill would authorize the commission to relinquish to the City of Salinas a segment of State Highway Route 183, under certain conditions.

This measure would urge specified state departments and the Attorney General to use their authority to ensure that health care service plans and health insurers subject to their authority comply with the federal Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008.

Existing law requires that an action for recovery of damages suffered as a result of childhood sexual abuse, as defined, be commenced within 8 years of the date the plaintiff attains the age of majority or within 3 years of the date the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered that the psychological injury or illness occurring after the age of majority was caused by sexual abuse, whichever occurs later, and provides that certain of those actions may not be commenced on or after the plaintiff's 26th birthday. Existing law also prohibits confidentiality provisions within a settlement agreement arising from a claim of childhood sexual abuse. This bill would expand the definition of childhood sexual abuse, which would instead be referred to as childhood sexual assault. This bill would increase the time limit for commencing an action for recovery of damages suffered as a result of childhood sexual assault to 22 years from the date the plaintiff attains the age of majority or within 5 years of the date the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered that the psychological injury or illness occurring after the age of majority was caused by sexual assault, whichever is later. This bill would also provide for the recovery of up to treble damages against certain defendants in these actions, and would revive time-lapsed claims in certain circumstances. Existing law, the Government Claims Act, generally requires the presentation of all claims for money or damages against local public entities. The Government Claims Act excludes from this requirement claims made for the recovery of damages suffered as a result of childhood sexual abuse, as defined, arising from conduct that occurred on or after January 1, 2009. This bill would change that reference from childhood sexual abuse to childhood sexual assault, as defined, and it would remove the requirement that the conduct occurred on or after that specified date. The bill would also make a conforming change to the provision governing confidentiality provisions in childhood sexual abuse claims.

(1) Existing federal law governing immigration authorizes the importation of an alien as a nonimmigrant agricultural worker, known as an H-2A worker, if specified requirements are met, including that the employer furnish housing, as provided. Existing state law establishes various housing programs administered by the Department of Housing and Community Development, including the Joe Serna, Jr. Farmworker Housing Grant Program, pursuant to which the department provides, subject to availability of funds, grants and loans to specified entities for the construction or rehabilitation of housing for agricultural employees and their families or for the acquisition of manufactured housing, as provided. Existing state law, the California Community Services Block Grant Program, requires the Department of Community Services and Development to administer the federal Community Services Block Grant funds to provide financial assistance for activities designed to have a measurable and potentially major impact on causes of poverty in a community or areas of a community where poverty is a particularly acute problem. Existing law authorizes this funding to assist programs that, among other things, meet the needs of migrant and seasonal farmworkers and their families, such as improved housing and sanitation, including the provision and maintenance of emergency and temporary housing and sanitation facilities. This bill would prohibit the provision of state funding, as defined, for the purposes of funding predevelopment of, developing, or operating any housing used to comply with the federal law requirement to furnish housing to H-2A workers and would require an employer, as defined, or other recipient of state funding who utilizes state funding for these purposes to reimburse the state or state agency that provided the funding in an amount equal to the amount of that state funding expended for those purposes. The bill would exempt from these provisions any contract or other enforceable agreement pursuant to which the state or a state agency provides funding that was entered into prior to January 1, 2020. The bill would also make various conforming changes to other laws. (2) The Planning and Zoning Law requires that the housing element of a city's or county's general plan include, among other things, that the housing element of a city's or county's general plan include, among other things, an analysis of any special housing needs, including the needs of, among others, farmworkers. Existing law exempts certain housing developments from conditional use permits and requires those developments to be subject to certain streamlined approval processes, as specified. Existing law, the Employee Housing Act, requires a person operating employee housing, as defined, to obtain a permit to operate that housing from the agency that enforces the act, which may either be the Department of Housing and Community Development or a city, county, or city and county that assumes responsibility for enforcing the act. The act generally reserves local use zone requirements to local governments except as provided, including requiring a specified streamlined approval process for certain improvements related to employee housing for agricultural employees. A violation of the act is a misdemeanor. This bill would provide that a tenant residing in agricultural employee housing, as defined, has all rights applicable to a person residing in employee housing under existing provisions, including the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and specified provisions relating to tenant rights. The bill would require the department to establish and administer, as specified, an application and review process for certifying that a person is an affordable housing organization qualified to operate specified agricultural employee housing. The bill also would require the department to establish and maintain a roster of all certified affordable housing organizations. The bill would, as an exception to the provision reserving local use zone requirements to local governments, authorize a development proponent to submit an application for an agricultural employee housing development that is subject to a streamlined, ministerial approval process, as specified, and that is not subject to a conditional use permit if certain requirements are met, including that the agricultural employee housing will be maintained and operated by a qualified affordable housing organization that has been certified by the department, as specified. The bill would require a local government to notify the development proponent in writing if the local government determines that the development does not meet those requirements by a specified time; otherwise, the development would be deemed to comply with the requirement that the development not be located on certain types of hazardous or conservation sites, as specified. The bill would authorize a specified local government entity to conduct a development review or public oversight of the development, as provided. The bill would provide that agricultural employee housing approved pursuant to the provision providing for a streamlined, ministerial approval process is not subject to the density limitations otherwise required to be considered an agricultural land use and exempt from local approval, taxes, and fees, as described above. The bill would also require, as a condition of that approval process, the qualified affordable housing organization and the landowner to obligate themselves and any successors in interest to maintain the affordability of the proposed agricultural employee housing, as specified, for not less than 35 years. If that organization does not continue to operate and maintain the housing for the time period agreed to satisfy that condition, the bill would require the landowner who obtained approval of the housing to select an alternative certified person within 90 days, and would subject the landowner to an unspecified administrative penalty if the landowner fails to do so. By increasing the duties of local officials with respect to the Employee Housing Act, and by expanding the scope of an existing crime with respect to violations of the Employee Housing Act, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would make related findings and declarations, and would include findings that the 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 bill would make various conforming changes. The Employee Housing Act deems employee housing consisting of no more than 36 beds in a group quarters or 12 units or spaces designed for use by a single family or household to be an agricultural land use for purposes of specified provisions of the act. The act provides that, for the purpose of all local ordinances, employee housing is prohibited from being deemed a use that implies that the employee housing is an activity that differs in any other way from an agricultural use. The act prohibits a local government from requiring a conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other zoning clearance for the employee housing, or from subjecting the employee housing to certain taxes or fees that are not required for other agricultural activities in that zone. The act, for the purposes of any contract, deed, or covenant for the transfer of real property, requires employee housing consisting of no more than 36 beds in a group quarters or 12 units or spaces designed for use by a single family or household to be considered an agricultural use of property. This bill, for purposes of the above-described provisions of the act, would deem employee housing that is approved pursuant to the above-described provisions of the bill providing for a streamlined, ministerial approval process, an agricultural land use. The bill would modify the prohibition on a local government requiring a zoning clearance for the employee housing to, instead, prohibit a local government from requiring a zoning clearance that is discretionary for the employee housing. The bill, as an exception to the requirement that employee housing be deemed an agricultural use for purposes of all local ordinances, would authorize a local government to subject an agricultural employee housing development, approved pursuant to the above-described provisions of the bill providing for a streamlined, ministerial approval process, to specified written objective development standards. The bill, as an exemption to the prohibition on a local government subjecting employee housing to certain taxes or fees that are not required for other agricultural activity in that zone, would authorize a local government to impose fees and other exactions otherwise authorized by law that are essential to provide necessary public services and facilities to an agricultural employee housing development. The bill, for the purposes of any contract, deed, or covenant for the transfer of real property, would require employee housing, approved pursuant to the provisions of the bill providing for a streamlined, ministerial approval process, to be considered an agricultural use of property. The bill would provide that if any owner, who invokes the above-described provisions or the provisions of the bill providing for a streamlined, ministerial approval process, fails to maintain a permit to operate throughout the first 10 consecutive years following the issuance of the original certificate of occupancy, the public agency that has waived any taxes, fees, assessments, or charges, as specified, is authorized to recover certain amounts of those taxes, fees, assessments, or charges. 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 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. CEQA does not apply to the approval of ministerial projects. Because the approval process established by the bill is streamlined and ministerial in nature, the approval of projects subject to this process are exempt from CEQA. The bill, additionally, would prohibit the approval of a development and the application of development standards pursuant to specified provisions of the bill from being deemed a discretionary act within the meaning of CEQA. 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.

(1) The Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act generally requires the administrator for oil spill response, acting at the direction of the Governor, to implement activities relating to oil spill response, including emergency drills and preparedness, and oil spill containment and cleanup, and to represent the state in any coordinated response efforts with the federal government. Existing law requires the Governor to establish a California oil spill contingency plan that provides for an integrated and effective state procedure to combat the results of major oil spills within the state and that specifies state agencies to implement the plan. Existing law requires the administrator to submit to the Governor and the Legislature an amended California oil spill contingency plan that addresses marine oil spills, by January 1, 1993, and to submit revised plans every 3 years thereafter. Beginning January 1, 2017, and every 3 years thereafter, the administrator is required to submit an amended California oil spill contingency plan that addresses both marine and inland oil spills. This bill would define "nonfloating oil" for purposes of the act. The bill would require the administrator to hold, on or before January 1, 2022, a technology workshop that shall include the topic of technology for addressing nonfloating oil spills, and, in fulfilling specified duties, to consider information gained from technology workshops, as well as available scientific and technical literature concerning nonfloating oil spill response technology. The bill would require the administrator to include in the revision to the California oil spill contingency plan due on or before January 1, 2023, provisions addressing nonfloating oil. (2) Existing law authorizes an oil spill response organization (OSRO) to apply to the administrator for oil spill response for a rating of that OSRO's response capabilities. Upon receiving a completed application for rating, the administrator is required to review the application and rate the OSRO based on the OSRO's satisfactory compliance with criteria established by the administrator, including specified elements. This bill would require the administrator, on or before January 1, 2023, to revise criteria for OSROs determined by the administrator to be capable of addressing nonfloating oil spills so that the criteria are at least as protective as the nonfloating oil classification in the United States Coast Guard's OSRO Guidelines, and that those OSROs are required to be capable of providing equipment on the scene of an oil spill within an amount of time determined by the administrator to be consistent with achievement of best achievable protection for nonfloating oil. (3) Existing law requires an owner or operator of a facility, small marine fueling facility, or mobile transfer unit, or an owner or operator of a tank vessel, nontank vessel, or vessel carrying oil as secondary cargo, while operating in the waters of the state or where a spill could impact waters of the state, to have an oil spill contingency plan that complies with the rules, regulations, and policies established by the administrator for oil spill response, that meets specified minimum requirements, and that has been submitted to, and approved by, the administrator. Under existing law, a person who continues operations for which a contingency plan is required without an approved oil contingency plan or who knowingly fails to follow the material provisions of the applicable contingency plan is guilty of a misdemeanor. Commencing January 1, 2023, the bill would, if nonfloating oil is handled or transported, require that the oil spill contingency plan that is filed with and approved by the administrator identify at least one OSRO rated for nonfloating oil spill response. By expanding the scope of a crime under existing law, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (4) The Petroleum Industry Information Reporting Act of 1980 requires each major oil transporter, among others, to provide periodic reports to the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission containing designated information regarding petroleum supplies and price. Existing law makes specified information collected by the commission confidential, subject to certain exceptions. This bill would require the commission to request, from destination facilities, as defined, certain information regarding crude oil transported to or within California via rail car or marine vessel, and to quarterly prepare and make available to the public a report based on that collected information, as provided. The bill would authorize the commission to disclose specified confidential information to the administrator for oil spill response upon request for oil spill planning and preparedness purposes, and to first responders in the event of an accident or spill, as provided. (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.

Existing law requires the Department of Justice to maintain a statewide telecommunications system for use by law enforcement agencies. Existing law also requires the Attorney General, upon the advice of an advisory committee, to adopt policies, practices and procedures, and conditions of qualification for connection to the system. Existing law, the California Values Act, generally prohibits, with exceptions, a California law enforcement agency from using its moneys or personnel to investigate, detain, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes. This bill would, commencing January 1, 2020, consistent with the California Values Act, prohibit subscribers to the system from using information other than criminal history information transmitted through the system for immigration enforcement purposes, as defined. The bill would also prohibit subscribers to the system from using the system for purposes of investigating violations of a specified federal law if a violation of that federal law is the only criminal history in an individual's record. The bill would, commencing July 1, 2021, with exceptions, require any inquiry submitted through the statewide telecommunications system for information other than criminal history information to include a reason for the inquiry. The bill would also, commencing July 1, 2021, authorize the Attorney General, and personnel they so authorize, to conduct investigations, as provided, as the Attorney General deems appropriate to monitor compliance with these provisions.

Existing law authorizes the governing boards of 2 or more school districts to enter into an agreement, for a term not to exceed 5 school years, for the interdistrict attendance of pupils who are residents of the school districts. Existing law, regardless of whether there is an interdistrict attendance agreement or permit, prohibits a school district of residence from prohibiting the transfer of a pupil who is a child of an active military duty parent to the school district of proposed enrollment if the school district of proposed enrollment approves the application for transfer. This bill would require a school district of residence to approve an intradistrict transfer request for a victim of an act of bullying, as provided. The bill would prohibit a school district of residence, regardless of whether there is an agreement or permit, from prohibiting the interdistrict transfer of a victim of an act of bullying if there is no available school for an intradistrict transfer and the school district of proposed enrollment approves the application for transfer. By requiring school districts to approve intradistrict transfers for victims of bullying, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require a school district of proposed enrollment that elects to accept an interdistrict transfer pursuant to these provisions to accept all pupils who apply to transfer under these provisions until the school district is at maximum capacity. The bill would require a school district of proposed enrollment to ensure that pupils admitted under these provisions are selected through an unbiased process that prohibits an inquiry into or evaluation or consideration of whether or not a pupil should be enrolled based on specified characteristics. The bill would require, upon request of the parent or guardian, a school district of enrollment to provide transportation assistance for a pupil who is a child of an active military duty parent or a victim of an act of bullying, if the pupil is also eligible for free or reduced-price meals. The bill would otherwise authorize a school district of enrollment to provide transportation assistance for a pupil in one of those categories. 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) The California Financing Law (CFL) provides for the licensure and regulation of finance lenders and brokers by the Commissioner of Business Oversight. The CFL prohibits anyone from engaging in the business of a finance lender or broker without obtaining a license. A willful violation of the CFL is a crime, except as specified. Under existing law, a licensee who lends any sum of money is authorized to contract for and receive charges at a maximum rate that does not exceed specified sums on the unpaid principal balance per month, ranging from 2 12 % to 1%, based on the consumer loan amount, as specified. This provision, however, does not apply to any loan of a bona fide principal amount of $2,500 or more, as determined in accordance with a provision governing regulatory ceilings and evasion of the CFL. The CFL also authorizes a licensee, as an alternative to the above-described rate charges for consumer loan amounts, to instead contract for and receive charges at the greater of a rate not exceeding 1.6% per month on the unpaid principal balance or a rate not exceeding 5 56 of 1% per month, plus a specified percentage per month, as established by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, on advances to member banks under federal law, or if there is no single determinable rate, the closest counterpart of this rate. Under existing law, these provisions do not apply to a loan of a bona fide principal amount of $2,500 or more, as specified. The CFL further authorizes a licensee to contract for and receive an administrative fee of a specified amount that varies with the bona fide principal amount of the loan. This bill, entitled the Fair Access to Credit Act, would authorize a finance lender, with respect to a loan of a bona fide principal amount of $2,500 or more but less than $10,000, to contract for or receive charges at a rate not exceeding an annual simple interest rate of 36% plus the Federal Funds Rate. The bill would require finance lenders making loans subject to these provisions to, among other requirements, report each borrower's payment performance to at least one consumer reporting agency that compiles and maintains files on consumers on a nationwide basis and to also offer, at no cost to the borrower, a credit education program or seminar that has been previously reviewed and approved by the commissioner, in accordance with specific requirements. The bill would further specify that a licensee may contract for and receive an administrative fee, as described above, in addition to these charges. (2) Under the CFL, certain principles apply in determining whether a loan is a loan of a bona fide principal amount under specified provisions and whether the regulatory ceiling provision is used for purposes of evading the CFL. This bill would apply these principles to loans of a bona fide principal amount of $2,500 or more but less than $10,000. The bill would also apply these principles to any fees paid to a licensee for the privilege of participating in an open-end credit program. (3) Existing law prohibits licensees subject to the CFL from entering into a contract for a consumer loan that provides for a scheduled repayment of principal over more than the maximum terms set forth in relation to the respective size of the loan. Among other things, this provision prohibits a loan of at least $3,000 but less than $5,000 from exceeding a maximum term of 60 months and 15 days. This bill would increase the maximum principal loan amount under the above schedule to $10,000. The bill would also prohibit a licensee from entering into a contract for a consumer loan that is at least $2,500 but less than $10,000 that provides for a scheduled repayment of principal that is less than 12 months. The bill would also specify that the maximum loan term of 60 months and 15 days does not apply to a loan secured by real property of a bona fide principal amount of at least $5,000. The bill would also prohibit a licensee from charging, imposing, or receiving any penalty for the prepayment of a loan under the CFL, except as specified. (4) The CFL regulates a specific type of consumer loan known as an open-ended loan. The CFL prescribes the amount upon which charges authorized by the CFL may be based, the amount of a minimum monthly payment, the amount of fees, costs, and expenses a licensee may receive, and the amount to be delivered by the licensee at the time the open-ended loan is made. The CFL applies these provisions only to a loan of a bona fide principal amount not exceeding $5,000, as specified. This bill would apply those provisions to an open-ended loan in a bona fide principal amount not exceeding $10,000, as specified. The bill would make conforming and nonsubstantive changes. By expanding the application of the CFL to cover more loans, the bill would expand the scope of an existing crime, thereby imposing 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 authorizes a board of supervisors of a county to establish a central inventory of all surplus governmental property located in the county. This bill would, instead, require each county and each city to make a central inventory of specified surplus land and excess land identified pursuant to law on or before December 31 of each year. The bill would require the city or county to make a description of each parcel and its present uses a matter of public record and to report this information to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) no later than April 1 of each year, beginning April 1, 2021, as provided, but would authorize HCD to delay implementation of this requirement for one year. The bill would require a county or city, upon request, to provide a list of its surplus governmental properties to a citizen, limited dividend corporation, housing corporation, or nonprofit corporation without charge. This bill would require HCD to provide the information reported to it by a city or county, as described above, to the Department of General Services for inclusion in a digitized inventory of all state-owned parcels that are in excess of state needs. The bill would authorize HCD to adopt, amend, or repeal standards, forms, and definitions to implement the provisions of this bill and exempt those standards, forms, and definitions from the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. By adding to the duties of local officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, 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.

Existing law specifies that a hiring of residential real property, for a term not specified by the parties, is deemed to be renewed at the end of the term implied by law unless one of the parties gives written notice to the other of that party's intention to terminate. Existing law requires an owner of a residential dwelling to give notice at least 60 days prior to the proposed date of termination, or at least 30 days prior to the proposed date of termination if any tenant or resident has resided in the dwelling for less than one year, as specified. Existing law requires any notice given by an owner to be given in a prescribed manner, to contain certain information, and to be formatted, as specified. This bill would, with certain exceptions, prohibit an owner, as defined, of residential real property from terminating a tenancy without just cause, as defined, which the bill would require to be stated in the written notice to terminate tenancy when the tenant has continuously and lawfully occupied the residential real property for 12 months, except as provided. The bill would require, for certain just cause terminations that are curable, that the owner give a notice of violation and an opportunity to cure the violation prior to issuing the notice of termination. The bill, if the violation is not cured within the time period set forth in the notice, would authorize a 3-day notice to quit without an opportunity to cure to be served to terminate the tenancy. The bill would require, for no-fault just cause terminations, as specified, that the owner, at the owner's option, either assist certain tenants to relocate, regardless of the tenant's income, by providing a direct payment of one month's rent to the tenant, as specified, or waive in writing the payment of rent for the final month of the tenancy, prior to the rent becoming due. The bill would require the actual amount of relocation assistance or rent waiver provided to a tenant that fails to vacate after the expiration of the notice to terminate the tenancy to be recoverable as damages in an action to recover possession. The bill would provide that if the owner does not provide relocation assistance, the notice of termination is void. The bill would except certain properties and circumstances from the application of its provisions. The bill would require an owner of residential property to provide prescribed notice to a tenant of the tenant's rights under these provisions. The bill would not apply to residential real property subject to a local ordinance requiring just cause for termination adopted on or before September 1, 2019, or to residential real property subject to a local ordinance requiring just cause for termination adopted or amended after September 1, 2019, that is more protective than these provisions, as defined. The bill would void any waiver of the rights under these provisions. The bill would repeal these provisions as of January 1, 2030. Existing law governs the hiring of residential dwelling units and requires a landlord to provide specified notice to tenants prior to an increase in rent. Existing law, the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, prescribes statewide limits on the application of local rent control with regard to certain properties. That act, among other things, authorizes an owner of residential real property to establish the initial and all subsequent rental rates for a dwelling or unit that meets specified criteria, subject to certain limitations. This bill would, until January 1, 2030, prohibit an owner of residential real property from, over the course of any 12-month period, increasing the gross rental rate for a dwelling or unit more than 5% plus the percentage change in the cost of living, as defined, or 10%, whichever is lower, of the lowest gross rental rate charged for the immediately preceding 12 months, subject to specified conditions. The bill would prohibit an owner of a unit of residential real property from increasing the gross rental rate for the unit in more than 2 increments over a 12-month period, after the tenant remains in occupancy of the unit over a 12-month period. The bill would exempt certain properties from these provisions. The bill would require the Legislative Analyst's Office to submit a report, on or before January 1, 2030, to the Legislature regarding the effectiveness of these provisions. The bill would provide that these provisions apply to all rent increases occurring on or after March 15, 2019. The bill would provide that in the event that an owner increased the rent by more than the amount specified above between March 15, 2019, and January 1, 2020, the applicable rent on January 1, 2020, shall be the rent as of March 15, 2019, plus the maximum permissible increase, and the owner shall not be liable to the tenant for any corresponding rent overpayment. The bill would authorize an owner who increased the rent by less than the amount specified above between March 15, 2019, and January 1, 2020, to increase the rent twice within 12 months of March 15, 2019, but not by more than the amount specified above. The bill would void any waiver of the rights under these provisions. The Planning and Zoning Law requires the owner of an assisted housing development in which there will be an expiration of rental restrictions to, among other things, provide notice of the proposed change to each affected tenant household residing in the assisted housing development subject to specified procedures and requirements, and to also provide specified entities notice and an opportunity to submit an offer to purchase the development prior to the expiration of the rental restrictions. This bill would authorize an owner of an assisted housing development, who demonstrates, under penalty of perjury, compliance with the provisions described above with regard to the expiration of rental restrictions, to establish the initial unassisted rental rate for units without regard to the cap on rent increases discussed above, but would require the owner to comply with the above cap on rent increases for subsequent rent increases in the development. The bill would authorize an owner of a deed-restricted affordable housing unit or an affordable housing unit subject to a regulatory restriction contained in an agreement with a government agency limiting rental rates that is not within an assisted housing development to establish the initial rental rate for the unit upon the expiration of the restriction, but would require the owner to comply with the above cap on rent increases for subsequent rent increases for the unit. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2030. The bill would void any waiver of the rights under these provisions. By requiring an owner of an assisted housing development to demonstrate compliance with specified provisions under penalty of perjury, this bill would expand the existing crime of perjury and thus 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.