Existing law, subject to exceptions, prohibits a person from making more than one application to purchase a handgun within any 30-day period. A violation of that prohibition is a crime. Existing law prohibits a firearms dealer from delivering a handgun to a person whenever the dealer is notified by the Department of Justice that within the preceding 30-day period the purchaser has made another application to purchase a handgun that does not fall within an exception to the 30-day prohibition. A violation of that delivery prohibition by the dealer is a crime. This bill would, effective July 1, 2021, make the 30-day prohibition and the dealer delivery prohibition described above also applicable to semiautomatic centerfire rifles. Existing law prohibits a licensed firearm dealer from selling a firearm to a person under 21 years of age. Existing law provides an exemption to this prohibition for the sale of a firearm, other than a handgun, to a person 18 years of age or older who has a valid hunting license, is a law enforcement officer, as specified, or is an honorably discharged member of the Armed Forces. Existing law makes a violation of this prohibition a crime. This bill would prohibit the sale of a semiautomatic centerfire rifle to any person under the age of 21, except a law enforcement officer or active duty member of the Armed Forces, as specified. The bill would state that its provisions are severable. By expanding the scope of existing crimes, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 26835 of the Penal Code proposed by AB 645 and SB 172 to be operative only if this bill and AB 645, SB 172, or both are enacted and this bill is enacted last. 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.
Sponsored bills
Existing law establishes and funds various research centers and programs in conjunction with the University of California. Under existing law the University of California has the authority to establish and administer a Firearm Violence Research Center to research firearm violence. The bill would, upon adoption of a specified resolution by the Regents of the University of California, require the center to develop multifaceted education and training programs for medical and mental health providers on the prevention of firearm-related injury and death, as specified. The bill would, upon adoption of that resolution, require the university to report, on or before December 31, 2020, and annually thereafter, specified information regarding the activities of, and financial details relating to, the program. The bill would also make conforming changes.
(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 prohibits an employer, who is required by law to give an employee a rest period during a workday, from requiring the employee to work during the rest period. Existing law requires an employer to pay the employee one additional hour of pay, at the employee's regular rate of compensation, for each rest period not provided. Existing law requires employers to provide a reasonable amount of break time to employees desiring to express milk for the employee's infant child. Existing law also requires an employer to make reasonable efforts to provide the employee with the use of a room, or other location, other than a bathroom, in close proximity to the employee's work area, for the employee to express milk in private. Existing law exempts an employer from the break time requirement if the employer's operations would be seriously disrupted by providing that time to employees desiring to express milk. Existing law subjects employers who violate these provisions to a civil penalty of $100 per violation and authorizes the Labor Commissioner to issue citations for those violations. This bill would instead require an employer to provide a lactation room or location that includes prescribed features and would require an employer, among other things, to provide access to a sink and refrigerator in close proximity to the employee's workspace, as specified. The bill would deem denial of reasonable break time or adequate space to express milk a failure to provide a rest period in accordance with state law. The bill would prohibit an employer from discharging, or in any other manner discriminating or retaliating against, an employee for exercising or attempting to exercise rights under these provisions and would establish remedies that include filing a complaint with the Labor Commissioner. The bill would authorize employers with fewer than 50 employees to seek an exemption from the requirements of these provisions if the employer demonstrates that the requirement posed an undue hardship by causing the employer significant difficulty or expense, as specified. The bill would require an employer who obtains an exemption to make a reasonable effort to provide a place for an employee to express milk in private, as specified. The bill would require an employer to develop and implement a policy regarding lactation accommodation and make it available to employees, as specified.
Existing law authorizes a school nurse or other designated school personnel to assist any pupil who is required to take, during the regular schoolday, medication prescribed for the pupil by a physician and surgeon or ordered for the pupil by a physician assistant, if the school district receives specified written statements from the physician and surgeon or physician assistant and from the parent, foster parent, or guardian of the pupil. Existing law, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, provides that a patient or a patient's primary caregiver who possesses or cultivates marijuana for personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician is not subject to conviction for offenses relating to possession and cultivation of marijuana. Existing law also requires the State Department of Public Health to establish a voluntary program for the issuance of identification cards to qualified patients who are entitled to the protections of the act. This bill would enact Jojo's Act, which would authorize the governing board of a school district, a county board of education, or the governing body of a charter school maintaining kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive, to adopt, at a regularly scheduled meeting of the governing board or body, a policy, as provided, that allows a parent or guardian of a pupil to possess and administer medicinal cannabis, as defined, at a schoolsite to the pupil who is a qualified patient entitled to the protections of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, excluding cannabis, as defined, in a smokeable or vapeable form. The bill would authorize the policy to be amended or rescinded for any reason at a regularly scheduled meeting, as specified, and for exigent circumstances at a special meeting, as specified. The bill, for pupil records collected for the purpose of administering medicinal cannabis, would require those records to be treated as medical records and subject to all provisions of state and federal law governing the confidentiality and disclosure of medical records. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.
(1) The Planning and Zoning Law authorizes a local agency to provide, by ordinance, for the creation of accessory dwelling units in single-family and multifamily residential zones and requires such an ordinance to impose standards on accessory dwelling units, including, among others, lot coverage. Existing law also requires such an ordinance to require the accessory dwelling units to be either attached to, or located within, the living area of the proposed or existing primary dwelling, or detached from the proposed or existing primary dwelling and located on the same lot as the proposed or existing primary dwelling. This bill would delete the provision authorizing the imposition of standards on lot coverage and would prohibit an ordinance from imposing requirements on minimum lot size. The bill would revise the requirements for an accessory dwelling unit by providing that the accessory dwelling unit may be attached to, or located within, an attached garage, storage area, or an accessory structure, as defined. (2) Existing law requires a local agency to ministerially approve or deny a permit application for the creation of an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit within 120 days of receiving the application. This bill would instead require a local agency to ministerially approve or deny a permit application for the creation of an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit within 60 days from the date the local agency receives a completed application if there is an existing single-family or multifamily dwelling on the lot, and would authorize the permitting agency to delay acting on the permit application if the permit application is submitted with a permit application to create a new single-family or multifamily dwelling on the lot, as specified. (3) Existing law prohibits the establishment by ordinance of minimum or maximum size for an accessory dwelling unit, or size based upon a percentage of the proposed or existing primary dwelling, if the limitations do not permit at least an efficiency unit to be constructed. This bill would instead prohibit the imposition of those limitations if they do not permit at least an 800 square foot accessory dwelling unit that is at least 16 feet in height with 4-foot side and rear yard setbacks to be constructed. This bill would additionally prohibit the imposition of limits on lot coverage, floor area ratio, open space, and minimum lot size if they prohibit the construction of an accessory dwelling unit meeting those specifications. (4) Existing law requires ministerial approval of a building permit to create within a zone for single-family use one accessory dwelling unit per single-family lot, subject to specified conditions and requirements. This bill would instead require ministerial approval of an application for a building permit within a residential or mixed-use zone to create the following: (1) one accessory dwelling unit and one junior accessory dwelling unit per lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling if certain requirements are met; (2) a detached, new construction accessory dwelling unit that meets certain requirements and would authorize a local agency to impose specified conditions relating to floor area and height on that unit; (3) multiple accessory dwelling units within the portions of an existing multifamily dwelling structure provided those units meet certain requirements; or (4) not more than two accessory dwelling units that are located on a lot that has an existing multifamily dwelling, but are detached from that multifamily dwelling and are subject to certain height and rear yard and side setback requirements. (5) Existing law requires a local agency to submit its accessory dwelling unit ordinance to the Department of Housing and Community Development within 60 days after adoption and authorizes the department to review and comment on the ordinance. This bill would instead authorize the department to submit written findings to a local agency as to whether the local ordinance complies with state law, and would require the local agency to consider the department's findings and to amend its ordinance to comply with state law or adopt a resolution with specified findings. The bill would require the department to notify the Attorney General that the local agency is in violation of state law if the local agency does not amend its ordinance or adopt a resolution with specified findings. (6) This bill would also prohibit a local agency from issuing a certificate of occupancy for an accessory dwelling unit before issuing a certificate of occupancy for the primary residence. (7) This bill would require a local agency that has not adopted an ordinance for the creation of junior accessory dwelling units to apply the same standards established by this bill for local agencies with ordinances. (8) This bill would make other conforming changes, including revising definitions and changes clarifying that the above-specified provisions regulating accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units also apply to the creation of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units on proposed structures to be constructed. (9) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65852.2 of the Government Code proposed by AB 881 and SB 13 to be operative only if this bill and either or both AB 881 and SB 13 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (10) 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) The Planning and Zoning Law authorizes a local agency, by ordinance, or, if a local agency has not adopted an ordinance, by ministerial approval, to provide for the creation of accessory dwelling units in single-family and multifamily residential zones in accordance with specified standards and conditions. Existing law requires any ordinance adopted by a local agency to comply with certain criteria, including that it require accessory dwelling units to be either attached to, or located within, the proposed or existing primary dwelling or detached if located within the same lot, and that it does not exceed a specified amount of total area of floor space. This bill would, instead, authorize the creation of accessory dwelling units in areas zoned to allow single-family or multifamily dwelling residential use. The bill would also revise the requirements for an accessory dwelling unit by providing that the accessory dwelling unit may be attached to, or located within, an attached garage, storage area, or other structure, and that it does not exceed a specified amount of total floor area. (2) Existing law generally authorizes a local agency to include in the ordinance parking standards for accessory dwelling units, including authorizing a local agency to require the replacement of parking spaces if a garage, carport, or covered parking is demolished to construct an accessory dwelling unit. Existing law also prohibits a local agency from imposing parking standards on an accessory dwelling unit if it is located within one-half mile of public transit. This bill would, instead, prohibit a local agency from requiring the replacement of parking spaces if a garage, carport, or covered parking is demolished to construct an accessory dwelling unit. The bill would also prohibit a local agency from imposing parking standards on an accessory dwelling unit that is located within one-half mile walking distance of public transit, and would define the term "public transit" for those purposes. (3) Existing law authorizes a local agency to establish minimum and maximum unit size limitations on accessory dwelling units, provided that the ordinance permits an efficiency unit to be constructed in compliance with local development standards. This bill would prohibit a local agency from establishing a minimum square footage requirement for either an attached or detached accessory dwelling unit that prohibits an efficiency unit, as defined. The bill would also prohibit a local agency from establishing a maximum square footage requirement for either an attached or detached accessory dwelling unit that is less than 850 square feet, and 1,000 square feet if the accessory dwelling unit contains more than one bedroom. The bill would also instead prohibit a local agency from establishing any other minimum or maximum size for an accessory dwelling unit, size based upon a percentage of the proposed or existing primary dwelling, or limits on lot coverage, floor area ratio, open space, and minimum lot size for either attached or detached dwelling units that prohibit at least an 800 square foot accessory dwelling unit that is at least 16 feet in height and with a 4-foot side and rear yard setbacks. (4) Existing law prohibits a local agency from utilizing standards to evaluate a proposed accessory dwelling unit on a lot that is zoned for residential use that includes a proposed or existing single-family dwelling other than the criteria described above, except that, among one other exception, a local agency may require an applicant for a permit to be an owner-occupant of either the primary or accessory dwelling unit as a condition of issuing a permit. This bill, until January 1, 2025, would instead prohibit a local agency from imposing an owner-occupant requirement as described above. (5) Existing law requires a local agency that has not adopted an ordinance governing accessory dwelling units to approve or disapprove the application ministerially and without discretionary review within 120 days after receiving the application. The bill would require a local agency, whether or not it has adopted an ordinance, to consider and approve an application, ministerially and without discretionary review, within 60 days after receiving a completed application. The bill would also provide that, if a local agency does not act on the application within that time period, the application shall be deemed approved. (6) Existing law requires fees for an accessory dwelling unit to be determined in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act. Existing law also requires the connection fee or capacity charge for an accessory dwelling unit requiring a new or separate utility connection to be based on either the accessory dwelling unit's size or the number of its plumbing fixtures. This bill would prohibit a local agency, special district, or water corporation from imposing any impact fee, as specified, upon the development of an accessory dwelling unit less than 750 square feet, and would require any impact fees to be charged for an accessory dwelling unit of 750 square feet or more to be proportional to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit. The bill would revise the basis for calculating the connection fee or capacity charge specified above to either the accessory dwelling unit's square feet or the number of its drainage fixture unit values, as specified. (7) Existing law, for purposes of these provisions, defines "living area" as the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit including basements and attics, but not a garage or accessory structure. This bill would define "accessory structure" to mean a structure that is accessory and incidental to a dwelling located on the same lot. (8) Existing law requires a local agency to submit a copy of the adopted ordinance to the Department of Housing and Community Development and authorizes the department to review and comment on the ordinance. This bill would instead authorize the department to submit written findings to the local agency as to whether the ordinance complies with the statute authorizing the creation of an accessory dwelling unit, and, if the department finds that the local agency's ordinance does not comply with those provisions, would require the department to notify the local agency within a reasonable time. The bill would require the local agency to consider the department's findings and either amend its ordinance to comply with those provisions or adopt it without changes and include specified findings. If the local agency does not amend it ordinance or does not adopt those findings, the bill would require the department to notify the local agency and authorize it to notify the Attorney General that the local agency is in violation of state law, as provided. The bill would authorize the department to adopt guidelines to implement uniform standards or criteria to supplement or clarify the provisions authorizing accessory dwelling units. (9) Existing law requires the planning agency of each city and county to adopt a general plan that includes a housing element that identifies adequate sites for housing. Existing law authorizes the department to allow a city or county to do so by a variety of methods and also authorizes the department to allow a city or county to identify sites for accessory dwelling units, as specified. This bill would state that a local agency may count an accessory dwelling unit for purposes of identifying adequate sites for housing in accordance with those provisions. (10) Existing law, the State Housing Law, a violation of which is a crime, establishes statewide construction and occupancy standards for buildings used for human habitation. Existing law requires, for those purposes, that any building, including any dwelling unit, be deemed to be a substandard building when a health officer determines that any one of specified listed conditions exists to the extent that it endangers the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or its occupants. This bill would authorize the owner of an accessory dwelling unit built before January 1, 2020, or built on or after January 1, 2020, under specified circumstances, that receives a notice to correct violations or abate nuisances to request that the enforcement of the violation be delayed for 5 years if correcting the violation is not necessary to protect health and safety, as determined by the enforcement agency, subject to specified requirements. The bill would make conforming and other changes relating to the creation of accessory dwelling units. By increasing the duties of local agencies with respect to land use regulations, and because the bill would expand the scope of a crime under the State Housing Law, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (11) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65852.2 of the Government Code proposed by AB 68 and AB 881 to be operative only if this bill and either or both AB 68 and AB 881 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (12) 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 California Fair Employment and Housing Act, prohibits housing discrimination, including discrimination through public or private land use practices, decisions, or authorizations, based on specified personal characteristics, including source of income. Existing law defines the term "source of income" for purposes of the provisions relating to discrimination in housing accommodations described above, to mean lawful, verifiable income paid directly to a tenant or paid to a representative of a tenant. Existing law specifies that for the purposes of this definition, a landlord is not considered a representative of a tenant. This bill would instead define the term for purposes of those provisions, to mean verifiable income paid directly to a tenant or to a representative of a tenant, or paid to a housing owner or landlord on behalf of a tenant, including federal, state, or local public assistance and housing subsidies, as specified. The bill would also specify that for the purposes of this definition, a housing owner is not considered a representative of a tenant. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 12927 of the Government Code proposed by AB 1497 and SB 222 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1497 or SB 222 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 12955 of the Government Code proposed by SB 222 to be operative only if this bill and SB 222 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Existing law imposes an additional 3-year sentence for each prior separate prison term served by a defendant where the prior and current offense was a violent felony, as defined. For other felonies, existing law imposes an additional one-year term for each prior separate prison term or county jail felony term, except under specified circumstances. This bill would instead impose that additional one-year term served for each prior separate prison term served for a conviction of a sexually violent offense, as defined.
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.