Existing law prohibits the governing authority of a school or other institution from unconditionally admitting any person as a pupil of any private or public elementary or secondary school, childcare center, day nursery, nursery school, family daycare home, or development center, unless prior to their admission to that institution they have been fully immunized. Existing law requires the documentation of immunizations for certain diseases, including, among others, measles, mumps, pertussis, and any other disease deemed appropriate by the State Department of Public Health, as specified. Existing law authorizes certain exemptions from these provisions subject to specified conditions. This bill, the Cancer Prevention Act, would declare that pupils in the state are advised to adhere to current immunization guidelines, as recommended by specified health entities, regarding full human papillomavirus (HPV) immunization before admission or advancement to the 8th grade level of any private or public elementary or secondary school. The bill would, upon a pupil's admission or advancement to the 6th grade level, require the governing authority to submit to the pupil and their parent or guardian a notification containing a statement about that public policy and advising that the pupil adhere to current HPV immunization guidelines before admission or advancement to the 8th grade level, as specified. The bill would require that the notification also include a statement containing certain health information. The bill would incorporate that notification into existing provisions relating to notifications by school districts. By creating new notification duties for school districts, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires the Trustees of the California State University and, subject to a resolution, the Regents of the University of California to require the first-time enrollees at those institutions who are 18 years of age or younger to provide proof of full immunization against the hepatitis B virus prior to enrollment, with certain exemptions. This bill would declare the public policy of the state that students who are 26 years of age or younger are advised to adhere to current immunization guidelines, as specified, regarding full HPV immunization before first-time enrollment at an institution of the California State University, the University of California, or the California Community Colleges. The bill would make a conforming change to a consultation-related provision. Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care, and makes a willful violation of the act a crime. Existing law provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Department of Insurance. Existing law requires a health care service plan contract or health insurance policy issued, amended, or renewed on or after January 1, 2002, as specified, to provide coverage for an annual cervical cancer screening test, including an HPV screening test that is approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) . This bill would expand the coverage requirement for an annual cervical cancer screening test to disability insurance policies that provide coverage for hospital, medical, or surgical benefits and would require a health care service plan contract, or a disability insurance policy that provides coverage for hospital, medical, or surgical benefits, issued, amended, or renewed on or after January 1, 2024, to provide coverage without cost sharing for the HPV vaccine for persons for whom the vaccine is FDA approved. Because a willful violation of the bill's requirements relative to health care service plans would be a crime, 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Sponsored bills
Existing law includes the terms "mentally retarded persons," "mentally retarded children," "retardation," and "handicap." This bill, The Dignity for All Act, would make nonsubstantive changes to those provisions to eliminate this obsolete terminology. The bill would repeal obsolete provisions of law.
The Planning and Zoning Law requires each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for its physical development, and the development of certain lands outside its boundaries, that includes, among other mandatory elements, a housing element. That law allows a development proponent to submit an application for a development that is subject to a specified streamlined, ministerial approval process not subject to a conditional use permit, if the development satisfies certain objective planning standards. Existing law, the Zenovich-Moscone-Chacon Housing and Home Finance Act, establishes the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee within the Department of Housing and Community Development. Existing law requires the committee to allocate state low-income housing tax credits in conformity with state and federal law that establishes a maximum rent that may be charged to a tenant for a project unit constructed using low-income housing tax credits. This bill would require that a housing development project be a use by right upon the request of an applicant who submits an application for streamlined approval, on any land owned by an independent institution of higher education or religious institution on or before January 1, 2024, if the development satisfies specified criteria, including that the development is not adjoined to any site where more than one-third of the square footage on the site is dedicated to industrial use. The bill would define various terms for these purposes. Among other things, the bill would require that 100% of the units, exclusive of manager units, in a housing development project eligible for approval as a use by right under these provisions be affordable to lower income households, except that 20% of the units may be for moderate-income households, and 5% of the units may be for staff of the independent institution of higher education or the religious institution that owns the land, provided that the units affordable to lower income households are offered at affordable rent, as set in an amount consistent with the rent limits established by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee, or affordable housing cost, as specified. The bill would authorize the development to include ancillary uses on the ground floor of the development, as specified. This bill would specify that a housing development project that is eligible for approval as a use by right under the bill is also eligible for a density bonus, incentives, or concessions, or waivers or reductions of development and parking standards, except as specified. The bill would require a development subject to these provisions to provide off-street parking of up to one space per unit, unless a state law or local ordinance provides for a lower standard of parking, in which case the law or ordinance applies. The bill would prohibit a local government from imposing any parking requirement on a development subject to these provisions if the development is located within one-half mile walking distance of public transit, either a high-quality transit corridor or a major transit stop, as those terms are defined, or it is within one block of a car share vehicle. This bill would require a local government that determines a proposed development is in conflict with any objective planning standards, as specified, to provide the developer with written documentation explaining those conflicts under a specified timeframe. The bill would provide that the development shall be deemed to satisfy the required objective planning standards if the local government fails to provide the requisite documentation explaining any conflicts. The bill would authorize a local government to conduct a design review, as described, only if the design review focuses on compliance with the requisite criteria of a streamlined, ministerial review process. The bill would prohibit a local government from using a design review, as specified, from inhibiting, chilling, or precluding a streamlined, ministerial approval. The bill would require a local government to issue a subsequent permit for developments approved under the provisions of this act. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. The California 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 does not apply to the ministerial approval of projects. This bill, by requiring approval of certain development projects as a use by right, would expand the exemption for ministerial approval of projects under CEQA. The bill would repeal its provisions as of January 1, 2036. By adding to the duties of local planning officials with respect to approving certain development projects, 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.
Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, authorizes a development proponent to submit an application for a multifamily housing development that is subject to a streamlined, ministerial approval process, as provided, and not subject to a conditional use permit, if the development satisfies specified objective planning standards, including, among others, that the development proponent has committed to record, prior to the issuance of the first building permit, a land use restriction or covenant providing that any lower or moderate-income housing units required, as specified, remain available at affordable housing costs, as defined, or rent to persons and families of lower or moderate income for no less than specified periods of time. Existing law repeals these provisions on January 1, 2026. This bill would authorize the Department of General Services to act in the place of a locality or local government, at the discretion of that department, for purposes of the ministerial, streamlined review for development in compliance with the above-described requirements on property owned by or leased to the state. The bill would extend the operation of the streamlined, ministerial approval process to January 1, 2036. The bill would provide that the streamlined, ministerial approval process does not apply to applications for developments proposed on qualified sites, defined as a site that is located within an equine or equestrian district and meets certain other requirements, that are submitted on or after January 1, 2024, but before July 1, 2025. This bill would modify the above-described objective planning standards, including by revising the standard that prohibits a multifamily housing development from being subject to the streamlined, ministerial approval process if the development is located in a coastal zone to apply only if the development that is located in the coastal zone meets any one of specified conditions. The bill would require a development that is located in a coastal zone that satisfies the specified conditions to obtain a coastal development permit. The bill would require a public agency with coastal development permitting authority to approve a coastal development permit if it determines that the development is consistent with all objective standards of the local government's certified local coastal program, as specified. The bill would provide that the changes made by this act would apply in a coastal zone on or after January 1, 2025. This bill would modify the objective planning standard that prohibits a development subject to the streamlined, ministerial approval process from being located in a high fire severity zone by deleting the prohibition for a development to be located within a high or very high fire hazard severity zone as indicated on maps adopted by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, and would instead prohibit a development from being located with the state responsibility area, as defined, unless the site has adopted specified standards. The bill would also remove an exception for sites excluded from specified hazard zones by a local agency, as specified. This bill would also provide an alternative definition for "affordable rent" for a development that dedicates 100% of units, exclusive of a manager's unit or units, to lower income households. The bill would, among other modifications, delete the objective planning standards requiring development proponents to pay at least the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and utilize a skilled and trained workforce and would instead require a development proponent to certify to the local government that certain wage and labor standards will be met, including a requirement that all construction workers be paid at least the general prevailing rate of wages, as specified. The bill would require the Labor Commissioner to enforce the obligation to pay prevailing wages. By expanding the crime of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would specify that the requirements to pay prevailing wages, use a workforce participating in an apprenticeship, or provide health care expenditures do not apply to a project that consists of 10 or fewer units and is not otherwise a public work. Existing law requires a local government to approve a development if the local government determines the development is consistent with the objective planning standards. Existing law requires, if the local government determines a submitted development is in conflict with any of the objective planning standards, the local government to provide the development proponent written documentation of the standards the development conflicts with and an explanation for the conflict within certain timelines depending on the size of the development. Existing law, the Housing Accountability Act, prohibits a local agency from disapproving a housing development project, as described, unless it makes specified written findings. This bill would instead require approval if a local government's planning director or equivalent position determines the development is consistent with the objective planning standards. The bill would make conforming changes. The bill would require all departments of the local government that are required to issue an approval of the development prior to the granting of an entitlement to also comply with the above-described streamlined approval requirements within specified time periods. The bill would prohibit a local government from requiring, prior to approving a development that meets the requirements of the above-described streamlining provisions, compliance with any standards necessary to receive a postentitlement permit or studies, information, or other materials that do not pertain directly to determining whether the development is consistent with the objective planning standards applicable to the development. The bill would, for purposes of these provisions, establish that the total number of units in a development includes (1) all projects developed on a site, regardless of when those developments occur, and (2) all projects developed on sites adjacent to a site developed pursuant to these provisions if, after January 1, 2023, the adjacent site had been subdivided from the site developed pursuant to these provisions. Existing law requires, before submitting an application for a development subject to the above-described streamlined, ministerial approval process, the development proponent to submit to the local government a notice of its intent to submit an application, as described. For developments proposed in a census tract that is designated either as a moderate resource area, low resource area, or an area of high segregation and poverty, as described, this bill would require local governments to provide, within 45 days of receiving a notice of intent and before the development proponent submits an application for the proposed development that is subject to the streamlined, ministerial approval process, for a public meeting, as described, to provide an opportunity for the public and the local government to comment on the development. The bill would require this public meeting to be held by the jurisdiction's planning commission if the development proposal is located within a city with a population greater than 250,000 or an unincorporated area of a county with a population of greater than 250,000. Existing law authorizes the local government's planning commission or any equivalent board or commission responsible for review and approval of development projects, or as otherwise specified, to conduct any design review or public oversight of the development. This bill would remove the above-described authorization to conduct public oversight of the development and would only authorize design review to be conducted by the local government's planning commission or any equivalent board or commission responsible for design review. By imposing additional duties on local officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for specified reasons.
Existing law dissolved redevelopment agencies and community development agencies as of February 1, 2012, and provides for the designation of successor agencies to, among other things, wind down the affairs of the dissolved redevelopment agencies and make payments due for enforceable obligations. Existing law, among other powers granted to successor agencies generally, additionally vests the successor agency to the former Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco with the authority, rights, and powers of that former redevelopment agency solely for the purpose of issuing bonds or incurring other indebtedness, subject to the approval of the oversight board of the successor agency, to finance the construction of affordable housing and infrastructure required by specified development agreements. Under existing law, these bonds and indebtedness are considered indebtedness incurred by the dissolved redevelopment agency secured by moneys deposited in the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund established for that agency. This bill would expand this authority to include bonds issued and other indebtedness incurred to finance the development, construction, repair, renovation, or reconstruction of affordable housing units that are or remain affordable to, and occupied by, persons and families of low-, moderate-, extremely low, and very low income households for at least 55 years for rental units and 45 years for owner-occupied units, subject to specified conditions and authorizations. The bill would specify the security requirements for the bonds issued or other indebtedness incurred to finance the development, construction, repair, renovation, or reconstruction of affordable housing units. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City and County of San Francisco. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 34177.7 of the Health and Safety Code proposed by AB 143 and SB 143 to be operative only if this bill and either of those bills are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Existing law requires a constitutional amendment submitted to the people by the Legislature to appear on the ballot of the first statewide election occurring at least 131 days after the adoption of the proposal. The Legislature adopted Senate Constitutional Amendment 2 (SCA 2) of the 2021–22 Regular Session, which, if approved by the voters, would repeal provisions of the California Constitution that prohibit the development, construction, or acquisition of a low-rent housing project, as defined, by any state public body unless the project is approved by a majority of the qualified electors in the jurisdiction in which the project is proposed. The Legislature adopted Assembly Constitutional Amendment 5 (ACA 5) of the 2023–24 Regular Session, which, if approved by the voters, would repeal a provision of the California Constitution that provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California and would instead provide that the right to marry is a fundamental right. Pursuant to the existing law described above, SCA 2 and ACA 5 are scheduled to appear on the ballot at the March 5, 2024, statewide primary election. Assembly Constitutional Amendment 1 (ACA 1) of the 2023–24 Regular Session, if approved by the voters, would amend and add provisions of the California Constitution to do both of the following for specified purposes relating to real property: (1) create an additional exception to the 1% limit on the ad valorem tax rate on real property that would authorize a local jurisdiction to levy an ad valorem tax to service bonded indebtedness incurred, if the proposition proposing that tax is approved by 55% of the voters in that local jurisdiction; and (2) authorize a local jurisdiction to impose, extend, or increase a sales and use tax, if the proposition proposing that tax is approved by 55% of the voters in that local jurisdiction. ACA 1, if approved by the voters, would also amend the California Constitution to prohibit a special district from incurring any indebtedness or liability exceeding any applicable statutory limit, as prescribed by the statutes governing the special district. Pursuant to the existing law described above, if adopted by the Legislature, ACA 1 would appear on the ballot at the March 5, 2024, statewide primary election. This bill would call a special election to be consolidated with the statewide general election scheduled for November 5, 2024, and would require the submission of SCA 2 and ACA 5 to the voters at that election. The bill would also require the submission of ACA 1 to the voters at that election if ACA 1 is adopted by the Legislature. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an act calling an election.
Existing law, the Housing Accountability Act, prohibits a local agency from disapproving a housing development project, as described, unless it makes certain written findings based on a preponderance of the evidence in the record. The act defines "disapprove the housing development project" as including any instance in which a local agency either votes and disapproves a proposed housing development project application, including any required land use approvals or entitlements necessary for the issuance of a building permit, or fails to comply with specified time periods. 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 the lead agency proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if the lead agency finds that the project will not have that effect. This bill, until January 1, 2031, would define "disapprove the housing development project" as also including any instance in which a local agency fails to make a determination of whether the project is exempt from CEQA or commits an abuse of discretion, as specified, or fails to adopt a negative declaration or addendum for the project, to certify an environmental impact report for the project, or to approve another comparable environmental document, if certain conditions are satisfied. Among other conditions, the bill would require a housing development project subject to these provisions to be located on a legal parcel or parcels within an urbanized area and to meet one or more of specified criteria, and to meet or exceed 15 dwelling units per acre. By imposing additional duties on local officials, the bill would create a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires a petition to enforce the Housing Accountability Act to be brought pursuant to a specified procedure and be filed no later than 90 days from the effective date of a decision of the local agency imposing conditions on, disapproving of, or any other final action taken on a housing development project. This bill, until January 1, 2031, would provide that a local agency's failure to make a determination that the project is exempt from CEQA, abuse of discretion, as defined, or failure to adopt, approve, or certify a negative declaration, addendum, environmental impact report, or comparable environmental review document, is deemed final for purposes of filing a petition to enforce the provisions of the act if the local agency did not make a final decision on whether to approve or disapprove a statutory or categorical exemption or a negative declaration, addendum, environmental impact report, or comparable environmental review document under CEQA, as specified, within a specified time period of the applicant's notice. 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 San Francisco Bay Area Regional Housing Finance Act, establishes the Bay Area Housing Finance Agency to raise, administer, and allocate funding for affordable housing in the San Francisco Bay area, as defined, and provide technical assistance at a regional level for tenant protection, affordable housing preservation, and new affordable housing production. Existing law requires the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority and executive board of the Association of Bay Area Governments to form an advisory committee composed of 9 representatives with knowledge and experience in the areas of affordable housing finance and development, tenant protection, and housing preservation. This bill would require the authority and executive board to form an advisory committee composed of at least 9 and no more than 11 representatives with knowledge and expertise in the areas of affordable housing finance, construction workforce, and development, tenant protection, and housing preservation. The act provides the authority with various powers, including the power to place a measure on the ballot to raise revenue and allocate funds throughout the San Francisco Bay area, apply for and receive grants or loans from public and private entities, incur and issue bonds and other indebtedness, and otherwise incur liabilities or obligations. The act authorizes the authority to allocate and deploy financing to cities, counties, other public agencies within the San Francisco Bay area and private affordable housing developers to finance affordable housing development, as specified. This bill would specify that the authority is limited to placing only one measure on the ballot per election. The bill would also authorize the authority to deploy financing to nonprofit corporations to finance affordable housing development, as specified. Existing law authorizes a city or county, or an agency created pursuant to a joint powers agreement, to issue revenue bonds to defray the costs of acquiring home mortgages or making loans to lending institutions in order to enable them to make home mortgages, and the costs of studies and surveys, insurance premiums, underwriting fees, legal, accounting and marketing services incurred in connection with the issuance and sale of bonds, as specified. This bill would authorize the authority to issue mortgage revenue bonds, pursuant to provisions described above; acquire, hold, develop, operate, and dispose of real property; and create one or more California limited liability companies of which the authority is the sole member. (2) 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. This bill would exempt from CEQA any actions taken by the authority to raise, administer, or allocate funding for tenant protection, affordable housing preservation, or new affordable housing production or to provide technical assistance consistent with the authority's purpose. (3) Existing law authorizes the executive board of the authority to impose a commercial linkage fee, as defined, in an amount not to exceed ten dollars ($10) per square foot, within the San Francisco Bay area, as specified. Existing law requires the expenditures of proceeds from a commercial linkage fee be limited to affordable housing production, preservation, and tenant protection programs. This bill would authorize the expenditures of proceeds from a commercial linkage fee to include the authority's related administrative costs. (4) The act defines "authority revenues" to include, without limitation, revenues generated by any special tax, fee, or charge imposed by the authority, other than ad valorem property taxes. Existing law, the Revenue Bond Law of 1941, requires a local agency to annually publish a summary statement showing, among other things, the amount of gross revenues from revenue bonds. This bill would revise and recast the definition of "authority revenue" to also include loan repayments, investment income, or income derived from the ownership or operation of real property. The bill would provide for prioritization of spending of authority revenues. The bill would require the authority to publish the above-described summary statement not more than 9 months after the close of each fiscal year. (5) Existing law requires the authority to distribute regional housing revenue, as defined, in the form of a grant, loan, or other financing tool in a manner that achieves certain minimum shares over 5-year periods. In this regard, existing law requires 5% of those regional housing revenues for tenant protection programs for low- and moderate-income households, which includes, among other things, preeviction and eviction legal services and providing emergency rental assistance for lower income households. This bill would include homelessness prevention services, as specified, as an eligible expense under tenant protection programs for low- and moderate-income households. (6) Existing law requires the authority to distribute funds received through the authorized funding measures according to specified provisions, which in part require each county to adopt a county expenditure plan applicable to county housing revenue. Existing law requires, in order for the expenditure plan to be deemed complete, the expenditure plan to specify, among other things, a description of any specific project or program proposed to receive funding. This bill would additionally require the plan to demonstrate that the county has consulted with each city in the county, excluding cities that receive a direct allocation. (7) Existing law requires, if the authority proposes a measure that will generate revenues and that requires voter approval, the board of supervisors of the relevant county or counties to call a special election on the measure. Existing law requires each county included in the measure to use the exact ballot question, impartial analysis, and summary of the expenditure plan provided by the authority. Existing law requires these materials to include, among other things, an estimate of the number of affordable housing units to be built or preserved by household income category served, and a description of any specific projects planned to be funded. This bill would instead require each county included in the measure to use the election materials provided by the authority, including the exact ballot question, impartial analysis, and full text of the ballot measure for inclusion in the voter information pamphlet. The bill would make conforming changes. By changing the duties of local officials with respect to elections procedures for revenue measures on behalf of the authority, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (8) 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.
The Planning and Zoning Law requires each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city and requires that general plan to include, among other mandatory elements, a housing element. Existing law authorizes the Department of Housing and Community Development to notify the office of the Attorney General, that a city, county, or city and county is in violation of state law if the department finds that the housing element or an amendment to the housing element does not substantially comply with specified provisions of the Planning and Zoning Law, or that the local government has taken action or failed to act in violation of specified provisions of law relating to housing, including, among others, the Housing Accountability Act, the Density Bonus Law, and the Housing Crisis Act of 2019. Existing law provides that an intervention takes place when a nonparty becomes a party to an action or proceeding between other persons by, among other things, joining a plaintiff in claiming what is sought by the complaint. Existing law requires the court to permit a nonparty to intervene in the action or proceeding if a provision of law confers an unconditional right to intervene. This bill would permit both the department and the office of the Attorney General to intervene as a matter of unconditional right in any legal action addressing a violation of the specified housing laws described above, including, among others, the Housing Accountability Act, the Density Bonus Law, and the Housing Crisis Act of 2019.
Existing law regulates the terms and conditions of residential tenancies, and prohibits a landlord from demanding or receiving security for a rental agreement for residential property, however denominated, in an amount or value in excess of an amount equal to 2 months' rent, in the case of unfurnished residential property, and an amount equal to 3 months' rent, in the case of furnished residential property, in addition to any rent for the first month paid on or before initial occupancy. This bill would, beginning July 1, 2024, instead prohibit a landlord from demanding or receiving security for a rental agreement for residential property in an amount or value in excess of an amount equal to one month's rent, regardless of whether the residential property is unfurnished or furnished, in addition to any rent for the first month paid on or before initial occupancy. The bill, unless the prospective tenant is a service member, as defined, would prohibit a landlord from demanding or receiving security for a rental agreement for residential property in an amount or value in excess of 2 months' rent, in addition to any rent for the first month, if the landlord (1) is a natural person or a limited liability corporation in which all members are natural persons and (2) owns no more than 2 residential rental properties that collectively include no more than 4 dwelling units offered for rent.