Existing law dissolved redevelopment agencies and community development agencies, and provides for the designation of successor agencies that are required to wind down the affairs of the dissolved redevelopment agencies and to, among other things, make payments due for enforceable obligations, as defined. Existing law provides that the city, county, or city and county that authorized the creation of a redevelopment agency may elect to retain the housing assets and functions previously performed by the redevelopment agency. Existing law requires that any funds transferred to the city, county, or city and county or the entity assuming the housing functions of the former redevelopment agency, together with any funds generated from housing assets, to be maintained in a separate Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund to be used in accordance with applicable housing-related provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law, except as specified. Existing law requires the housing successor annually to provide an independent financial audit of the fund to its governing body, and to post on its Internet Web site specified information. This bill would require that posted information to also include, as specified, an inventory of homeownership units assisted by the former redevelopment agency or the housing successor that are subject to covenants or restrictions or to an adopted program that protects the former redevelopment agency's investment of moneys from the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund.
Sponsored bills
Existing property tax law establishes a partial welfare exemption for property used exclusively for rental housing and related facilities that are owned and operated by either of any certain types of nonprofit entities or veterans' organizations that meet specified exemption requirements, if either of certain qualifying criteria are met. Existing law requires the partial exemption to be equal to that percentage of the value of the property that the portion of the property serving lower income households represents of the total property in any year. Existing law requires the owner of the property, in order to be eligible for the exemption, to certify that the funds that would have been necessary to pay property taxes are used to maintain the affordability of, or reduce rents otherwise necessary for, the units occupied by lower income households. This bill would define "related facilities" for purposes of the exemption. This bill would provide that the partial exemption be equal to that percentage of the value of the property that is equal to the percentage that the number of units serving lower income households represents of the total number of residential units in any year. This bill would, on or after January 1, 2015, prohibit a local government from entering into a payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) agreement with a property owner of a low-income housing project that is eligible for the exemption described above, and would make any PILOT agreement entered into in violation of this provision void and unenforceable. The bill would require any outstanding ad valorem tax, interest, or penalty that was levied between January 1, 2012, and January 1, 2015, inclusive, as a result of a PILOT agreement to be canceled, and any tax, interest, or penalty, as so levied, that was paid prior to January 1, 2015, to be refunded. The bill would prohibit an escape or supplemental assessment from being levied on the basis that payments made under a PILOT agreement were, or are being, used in a manner incompatible with the certification requirement. This bill would become operative only if AB 1761 of the 2013–14 Regular Session is enacted and takes effect on or before January 1, 2015.
Existing property tax law establishes a partial welfare exemption for property used exclusively for rental housing and related facilities that are owned and operated by either of any certain types of nonprofit entities or veterans' organizations that meet specified exemption requirements, if either of certain qualifying criteria are met. Existing law requires the owner of the property, in order to be eligible for the exemption, to certify that the funds that would have been necessary to pay property taxes are used to maintain the affordability of, or reduce rents otherwise necessary for, the units occupied by lower income households. This bill would, on or after January 1, 2015, prohibit a local government from entering into a payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) agreement with a property owner of a low-income housing project, and would make any PILOT agreement entered into in violation of this provision void and unenforceable. The bill would establish a conclusive presumption that any payments made under a PILOT agreement entered into before January 1, 2015, comply with the certification requirement described above and were or are used to maintain the affordability of, or reduce rents otherwise necessary for, the units occupied by lower income households. The bill would define a PILOT agreement to mean any agreement entered into between a local government and a property owner of a low-income housing project that requires the owner of the low-income housing project to pay the local government a charge, as provided, and would define a "low-income housing project" to mean a low-income housing project that is eligible for the exemption described above. This bill would become operative only if SB 1203 of the 2013–14 Regular Session is enacted and takes effect on or before January 1, 2015.
Existing law, the Mental Health Services Act (hereafter, the MHSA) , an initiative measure, was approved by the voters in November 2004 as Proposition 63. The MHSA establishes the Mental Health Oversight and Accountability Commission, and imposes a tax of 1% on incomes above $1,000,000 for the purpose of financing new or expanded mental health services. Under the MHSA, the former State Department of Mental Health is required, among other things, to distribute funds for local assistance for designated mental health programs according to a local plan. Existing law requires the State Department of Health Care Services to implement the mental health services provided under the Adult and Older Adult Mental Health System of Care Act, which provides, among other things, funds for counties to provide mental health services and related supportive housing or housing assistance necessary to stabilize homeless, mentally ill persons or mentally ill persons at risk of being homeless. The MHSA permits amendment by the Legislature by a23 vote of each house if the amendment is consistent with and furthers the intent of the MHSA, and also permits the Legislature to clarify procedures and terms of the MHSA by a majority vote. Existing law establishes the California Housing Finance Fund in the State Treasury, and authorizes the transfer of construction loan funds to the construction lender or to the contractor as necessary to meet draws for progress payments pursuant to rules and regulations of the California Housing Finance Agency. Existing law authorizes the agency to make loans to finance affordable housing, including residential structures, housing developments, multifamily rental housing, special needs housing, as defined, and other forms of housing permitted by provisions regulating housing and community development. Existing law authorizes the agency to issue revenue bonds, in accordance with specified requirements, for the purpose of financing the acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, refinancing, or development of special needs housing, including, but not limited to, supportive housing intended to benefit persons identified as having special mental health needs, including housing intended to meet the housing needs of persons eligible for mental health services funded in whole or in part under the MHSA. Existing law requires the agency, in consultation with the State Department of Mental Health and the State Department of Housing and Community Development, and other agencies and interested parties, to prepare and present to the Legislature a plan for the development, acquisition, construction, and rehabilitation of supportive housing projects using up to $75,000,000 annually in funding from the Mental Health Services Act, as provided under the Governor's Executive Order S-07-06. Under existing law, by executive order, the State Department of Mental Health, in consultation with the California Mental Health Directors Association, is directed to allocate up to $75,000,000 in Mental Health Services Act funds each year to finance the capital costs associated with the development, acquisition, construction, and rehabilitation of permanent supportive housing for individuals with mental illness. The bill would require the agency, with the concurrence of the State Department of Health Care Services, to release unencumbered Mental Health Services Fund moneys dedicated to the MHSA housing program upon the request of the respective county, and would require these counties to use these moneys to provide housing assistance, as defined, to identified target populations, including persons with a serious mental disorder. The bill would make findings and declarations regarding the need to encourage counties, the agency, and the State Department of Health Care Services to continue partnering in the development of supportive housing, and to ensure county mental health departments are able to more fully utilize the MHSA funds for supportive housing and other housing assistance purposes. This bill would declare that it clarifies procedures and terms of the Mental Health Services Act.
(1) Existing law exempts a limited-equity housing cooperative or a workforce housing cooperative trust from provisions of existing law governing subdivided land transactions that are applicable to stock cooperatives if the limited-equity housing cooperative or workforce housing cooperative trust complies with specified conditions. This bill would revise the conditions for the exemption, among other things, to require that each party that executes a regulatory agreement with the cooperative satisfy itself that the rights of the cooperative members are provided adequate protection, as specified. By expanding the applicability of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law prohibits the sale or lease of lots or parcels within a subdivision that is subject to a blanket encumbrance unless the encumbrance includes a specified release clause or certain conditions are met. This bill would authorize the sale or lease of an individual interest in a defined stock cooperative or limited-equity housing cooperative that is subject to a blanket encumbrance if specified conditions are met. (3) The Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act establishes procedures for elections. This bill would exempt a stock cooperative with bylaws that provide that all members and shareholders automatically become directors of the homeowners' association from the procedures applicable to the election of directors of the homeowners' association. (4) 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, until January 15, 2015, specifically authorizes a value-pricing and transit development demonstration program involving high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes to be conducted, administered, developed, and operated on State Highway Routes 10 and 110 in the County of Los Angeles by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) under certain conditions. This bill would revise and recast these provisions and would extend the program indefinitely. The bill would specify additional requirements for agreements between LACMTA, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of the California Highway Patrol that identify the respective obligations and liabilities of each party relating to the program and clear and concise procedures for law enforcement. The bill would require the agreements to provide for reimbursement of state agencies from toll revenues of the costs incurred in the implementation or operation of the program and the maintenance of state highway facilities in connection with the program and would require remaining revenue to be used for improvements to the transportation corridor from which the revenue was generated. The bill would require LACMTA and the Department of Transportation to report to the Legislature by January 31, 2015, on various aspects and effects of the program. The bill would also authorize LACMTA to issue bonds pursuant to the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission Revenue Bond Act at any time to finance any costs necessary to implement the program and to finance any expenditures payable from the revenues generated from the program.
Existing law authorizes the Department of Housing and Community Development to make loans from the Mobilehome Park Purchase Fund, a continuously appropriated fund, to qualified mobilehome park residents, resident organizations, and nonprofit housing sponsors or local public entities to finance conversion of the parks to resident ownership to make monthly housing costs more affordable. Existing law also requires the provision of specified information to the department before making loans for mobilehome park conversions. This bill would change the name of the fund to the Mobilehome Park Rehabilitation and Purchase Fund. The bill would require the department to consider specified criteria in determining eligibility for, and the amount of, loans made from the fund to nonprofit housing sponsors or local public entities to acquire a mobilehome park. The bill would authorize loans to a resident organization or nonprofit housing sponsor to assist park residents with needed repairs or accessibility upgrades to the mobilehomes if specified criteria are met. The bill would also make conforming changes. By expanding the authorization to use continuously appropriated funds, this bill would make an appropriation. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
The Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act defines a common interest development and requires it to be managed by an association. The act requires an association to provide a fair, reasonable, and expeditious procedure for resolving a dispute between an association and a member involving their rights, duties, or liabilities under the act, the Nonprofit Mutual Benefit Corporation Law, or the association's governing documents. The act authorizes an association to develop its own procedure for these purposes and requires this procedure to satisfy specified minimum standards, including, among others, that a resolution of a dispute, pursuant to the procedure, binds the association and is judicially enforceable, and that an agreement, pursuant to the procedure, binds the parties and is judicially enforceable, as specified. The act also requires that the procedure provide a means by which the member and the association may explain their positions. This bill would additionally require the resolution or agreement under an association's procedure for resolving these disputes between an association and a member to be in writing and signed by both parties. The bill would authorize a member and an association to be assisted by an attorney or another person in explaining their positions at their own cost. The act also establishes an alternative procedure applicable to an association that does not otherwise provide a fair, reasonable, and expeditious dispute resolution procedure as described above. Under these provisions a procedure that, among other things, authorizes either party to request, in writing, the other party to meet and confer, prohibits the association from refusing a request to meet and confer, and requires the parties to meet and confer in good faith in an effort to resolve the dispute, is deemed a fair, reasonable, and expeditious dispute resolution procedure. The act provides that an agreement reached under this procedure binds the parties and is judicially enforceable if specified conditions are satisfied. This bill would additionally require the alternative procedure to provide either party the right to have an attorney or another person participate when meeting and conferring provided at their own cost. The bill would require an agreement reached under the alternative procedure that binds the parties and is judicially enforceable to be in writing and signed by both parties, as specified.
Existing law, until January 1, 2015, provides for the voluntary certification of massage practitioners and massage therapists by the California Massage Therapy Council. Existing law specifies the requirements for the council to issue to an applicant a certificate as a massage practitioner or massage therapist. Existing law authorizes a city, county, or city and county to impose certain requirements on massage establishments or businesses that are the sole proprietorship of an individual certified pursuant to existing state law or that employ or use only persons who are so certified. Existing law authorizes a city, county, or city and county to, among other things, adopt reasonable health and safety requirements, as specified, pertaining to those massage establishments or businesses, and to require an applicant for a business license to operate a massage business or establishment to fill out an application that requests relevant information, as specified. This bill would reenact, revise, and recast these provisions to, among other things, establish an interim board of directors to govern the council until September 15, 2015, and provide for the appointment of a new board of directors consisting of 13 members, as specified, whose 4-year terms would begin on that date. The bill would authorize the board to establish fees reasonably related to the costs of providing services and performing its duties, not to exceed $300. The bill would require the board to provide at least 90 days' advance notice prior to holding a meeting to vote upon a proposal to increase the certification fees, as specified, except as provided. The bill would also require the board to notify certificate holders of a board action that increases those fees. The bill would discontinue the issuance of new massage practitioner certificates after January 1, 2015, except as provided, but would authorize the renewal of massage practitioner certificates issued prior to January 1, 2015. The bill would require that all certificates issued pursuant to these provisions be subject to renewal every 2 years, except as provided. The bill would require the council to develop policies, procedures, rules, or bylaws governing the approval and unapproval of schools that provide education required for certification, as specified. The bill would authorize the council to deny an application for a certificate, or to discipline a certificate holder for a violation of these provisions, as specified. The bill would require the board to exercise its denial or discipline authority by means of fair and reasonable procedures that, among other things, provide the applicant or certificate holder with notice and an opportunity to be heard, as specified. The bill would provide that unprofessional conduct in violation of these provisions includes, among other things, engaging in sexually suggestive advertising related to massage services and engaging in sexual activity while providing massage services for compensation. The bill would, notwithstanding any other law, prohibit a city, county, or city and county from enacting or enforcing an ordinance that conflicts with these provisions or other corresponding specified provisions. However, the bill would authorize a city, county, or city and county to adopt or enforce local ordinances that govern zoning, business licensing, or reasonable health and safety requirements for establishments or businesses of a licensed or certified healing arts professional, including a certified massage therapist. The bill would also make clarifying and conforming changes regarding local regulation of massage establishments or businesses. The bill would authorize a court to issue an injunction or to provide any other relief it deems appropriate for violations of these provisions, as specified. The bill would provide that the powers and duties of the council are subject to review by the appropriate committees of the Legislature and would require the council to provide a specified report to these committees on or before June 1, 2016. The bill would provide that these provisions are issues of statewide concern, and therefore applicable statewide. The bill would also provide that its provisions are severable. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2017.
Existing law provides for the regulation of court interpreters, and requires the Judicial Council to designate the languages for which certification programs shall be established. Existing law provides that any person who interprets in a court proceeding using a language designated by the Judicial Council is required to be a certified court interpreter for the language used. Existing law authorizes the court, for good cause, to appoint an interpreter who does not hold an interpreter certificate for a designated language. Existing law authorizes a person who interprets in a court proceeding using a language not designated by the Judicial Council to be qualified by the court under qualification procedures and guidelines adopted by the Judicial Council, and to be designated as a registered interpreter if he or she passes an approved English fluency examination. Existing law requires interpreters to establish to the court that they meet the requirements described above under procedures adopted by the Judicial Council and also requires the court record to show that the interpreter is a certified interpreter or qualified as an interpreter for good cause or for a nondesignated language, as specified. This bill would additionally require a judge, in any proceeding in which the court appoints an interpreter who does not hold an interpreter certificate for a designated language, or who is qualified to interpret using a nondesignated language but is not registered, to have stated on the record a finding that a certified or registered interpreter is not available, the name of the interpreter, and a statement that he or she meets the qualification requirements specified above, and that the interpreter's oath was administered to the interpreter, as specified. The bill would also require a judge in any court proceeding, when using a certified or registered court interpreter, to have stated on the record the name of the interpreter, his or her current interpreter certification or registration number, the language to be interpreted, a statement that the certified or registered interpreter's identification has been verified by the court, and a statement that the interpreter's oath was administered to him or her, or that he or she has an oath on file with the court, as specified. The bill would require certified or registered interpreters to state similar information for the record in depositions where a judge is not present, as specified.