Existing law governs the obligations of tenants and landlords. Existing law authorizes a tenant to deduct the payment made to a public utility or publicly owned utility or a district from the rent, as specified. Existing law prohibits a lessor who has retaliated against a lessee for exercising the lessee's prescribed rights from recovering possession of a dwelling, causing the lessee to quit involuntarily, increasing the rent, or decreasing services within 180 days of the occurrence of specified events relating to tenability, if the lessee is not in default on their rent, as specified. Existing law presumes that the hiring of real property is renewed for a specified amount of time, under specified circumstances. For any residential tenancy commenced, renewed, or continuing on a month-to-month or other periodic basis, on or after January 1, 2026, this bill would require a landlord or their agent to allow the tenant to opt out of paying for any subscription from a third-party internet service provider for specified services in connection with the tenancy. If the landlord or their agent violates this provision, the bill would authorize the tenant to deduct the cost of the subscription from the rent. The bill would prohibit a landlord or their agent from retaliating against a tenant for exercising their rights pursuant to this bill and consistent with the above-described provision on retaliation, as provided.
Existing law, the State Housing Law, establishes statewide construction and occupancy standards for buildings used for human habitation. Existing law authorizes a county's or city's governing body to prescribe fees for permits, certificates, or other forms or documents required or authorized under the State Housing Law. This bill, the California Residential Private Permitting Review Act, would require a county or city to prepare a residential building permit fee schedule and post the schedule on the county's or city's internet website, if the county or city prescribes residential building permit fees. Existing law requires a county's or city's building department to enforce the State Housing Law and the California Building Standards Code, and other rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the State Housing Law pertaining to standards for buildings used for human habitation. Existing law requires a county or city, upon the applicant's request, to contract with or employ temporarily a private entity or person to check the plans and specifications submitted with an application for a residential building permit to comply with the State Housing Law or local ordinances adopted pursuant to the State Housing Law, when the building department takes more than 30 days, as specified, to complete the plan check. This bill would remove the above-described requirement for a county or city to contract with or employ temporarily a private entity or person to check the plans when the building department takes more than 30 days to complete the plan check. Until January 1, 2036, the bill would instead, upon an application for a residential building permit being deemed complete, as provided, require the city or county to provide the applicant with an estimated timeframe in which the city or county will determine if the completed application is compliant with permit standards. The bill would authorize an applicant to retain a private professional provider, as defined, to perform the plan check, if the estimated timeframe exceeds 30 business days or the city or county has not determined the completed application is compliant within 30 days of the application being deemed complete. The bill would require an applicant who retains a private professional provider to notify the city or county of their intent to retain the private professional provider within a prescribed timeframe. If a private professional provider performs the plan-checking function, the bill would impose additional requirements, including, among other things, requiring the private professional provider to prepare a specified affidavit, under penalty of perjury, and the applicant to submit to the city or county a specified report of the plan check. The bill would require the city or county, within 10 business days of receiving the report, to consider the report and, based on the report, either issue the residential building permit or notify the applicant that the plans and specifications do not comply, as specified. If the city or county notifies the applicant that the plans and specifications do not comply, the bill would authorize the applicant to resubmit corrected plans and specifications to the city or county, as specified. By expanding the crime of perjury and imposing new duties on local agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires a local agency to determine whether an application for a postentitlement phase permit, as defined, is complete and provide written notice of this determination to the applicant not later than 15 business days after the local agency received the application. If a local agency finds that a complete application is noncompliant, existing law requires the local agency to provide the applicant with a list of items that are noncompliant and a description of how the application can be remedied by the applicant within specified time periods. Existing law requires the local agency to provide a process for an applicant to appeal a finding that the application for a postentitlement phase permit is incomplete or noncompliant, as provided. This bill, until January 1, 2036, if a private professional provider performs the plan-checking function, as described above, would deem the local agency to be in compliance with the above-described requirements governing applications for postentitlement phase permits as those requirements pertain to the residential building permit. Existing law, the Government Claims Act, establishes the liability and immunity of a public entity for its acts or omissions that cause harm to persons. Where a public entity is under a mandatory duty imposed by an enactment that is designed to protect against the risk of a particular kind of injury, the act makes the public entity liable for an injury of that kind proximately caused by its failure to discharge the duty unless the public entity establishes that it exercised reasonable diligence to discharge the duty. This bill, until January 1, 2036, if a private professional provider performs the plan-checking function, as described above, would require the applicant to indemnify the local agency from any property damage or personal injury arising from construction in accordance with the plans checked by a private professional provider under the bill's provisions. Notwithstanding the above-described liability of a public entity for failure to discharge certain mandatory duties, the bill would provide that a public entity or public employee is not liable for an injury caused by their discretionary or ministerial acts or omissions relating to the issuance or denial of any residential building permit pursuant to the bill's provisions. Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, requires each county and each city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and specified land outside its boundaries, that includes, among other specified mandatory elements, a housing element. Existing law requires the planning agency of the county or city, after the legislative body has adopted a general plan, to submit an annual report to the legislative body, the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation, and the Department of Housing and Community Development by April 1 of each year that includes, among other things, the number of units of housing demolished and new units of housing that have been issued a completed entitlement, a building permit, or a certificate of occupancy thus far in the housing element cycle, and the income category, by area median income category, that each unit of housing satisfies. This bill, beginning April, 1, 2027, and until January 1, 2036, would require a city or county to include in the above-described annual report the number of residential building permits reviewed by the city or county, the number reviewed by a private professional provider under the bill's provisions, as described above, and the number of full-time equivalent staff members directly involved in the processing of residential building permits, as provided. 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. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law provides for the creation by local ordinance, or by ministerial approval if a local agency has not adopted an ordinance, of accessory dwelling units in areas zoned for single-family or multifamily dwelling residential use in accordance with specified standards and conditions. Existing law prohibits a local agency from issuing a certificate of occupancy for an accessory dwelling unit before the local agency issues a certificate of occupancy for the primary dwelling. This bill, notwithstanding that prohibition, would require a local agency to issue a certificate of occupancy for an accessory dwelling unit constructed in a county that is subject to a proclamation of a state of emergency made by the Governor on or after February 1, 2025, even if the primary dwelling has not yet been issued a certificate of occupancy, if certain requirements are met, including that the primary dwelling was substantially damaged or destroyed by an event referenced in the state of emergency proclamation. By imposing new duties on local agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires a permitting agency to either approve or deny an application to create or serve an accessory dwelling unit within 60 days from the date the permitting agency receives a completed application if there is an existing single-family or multifamily dwelling on the lot. Existing law deems the application approved if the local agency has not approved or denied the completed application within 60 days. Under existing law, if the permit application to create or serve an accessory dwelling unit is submitted with a permit application to create or serve a new single-family or multifamily dwelling on the lot, the permitting agency may delay approving or denying the permit application for the accessory dwelling unit until the permitting agency approves or denies the permit application to create or serve the new single-family or multifamily dwelling, as provided. The California Coastal Act of 1976, which is administered by the California Coastal Commission, requires any person wishing to perform or undertake any development in the coastal zone, as defined, to obtain a coastal development permit from a local government or the commission, except as provided. Existing law specifies that the laws governing accessory dwelling units do not supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the act, except as specified. This bill would create an exception to the above provision by requiring a local government or the commission, as specified, to either approve or deny a coastal development permit application for an accessory dwelling unit within 60 days of receiving a completed application. The bill would, notwithstanding that 60-day time limit, authorize the commission, if a coastal development permit application to create or serve an accessory dwelling unit is submitted with a coastal development permit application to create or serve a new single-family or multifamily dwelling on the lot, to delay approving or denying the coastal development permit application for the accessory dwelling unit until the commission approves or denies the coastal development permit application to create or serve the new single-family or multifamily dwelling. Under the bill, and except under the circumstance described above, if the commission has not approved or denied a completed application within 60 days, the application would be deemed approved. 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 a specified reason. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law, the Permit Streamlining Act, requires a public agency that is the lead agency for a development project to approve or disapprove a development project within specified time periods. The act requires a public agency that is a responsible agency for specified development projects to approve or disapprove the project within 90 days of the date on which the lead agency has approved the project or within 90 days of the date on which the completed application has been received and accepted as complete by the lead agency, whichever is longer. This bill would reduce the time period that a responsible agency is required to approve or disapprove a project, as described above, from 90 days to 45 days, except as provided. By increasing the duties of local officials, this 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 a specified reason.
(1) Existing law prohibits a person from carrying a concealed firearm or carrying a loaded firearm in public. Existing law authorizes a licensing authority, as specified, if certain requirements and other criteria are met, including, among other things, the applicant has completed a specified course of training, to issue a license to carry a concealed handgun or to carry a loaded and exposed handgun, as specified. Existing law requires a licensing authority to conduct an investigation to determine whether an applicant can receive or renew a license that includes, among other things, a review of all information provided in the application for a license, and a review of the information in the California Restraining and Protective Order System. Existing law prohibits the licensing authority from issuing a license if, among other things, the applicant has been convicted of contempt of court, has been subject to a restraining order, protective order, or other type of court order, unless that order expired or was vacated or otherwise canceled more than 5 years prior to receipt of the completed application, or, in the 10 years prior to the licensing authority receiving the completed application, has been convicted of specified criminal statutes. This bill would also prohibit a licensing authority from issuing a license if an applicant was convicted of, under any federal law or law of any other state that includes comparable elements of, contempt of court or specified criminal statutes in the 10 years prior to the completed application, was subject to any restraining order, protective order, or other type of court order, or is an unlawful user of, or addicted to, any controlled substance, as specified. Upon determining that an applicant is a disqualified person due to being an unlawful user of, or addicted to, any controlled substance, the bill would require the licensing authority to, within 5 days, submit to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System Index specified information of the disqualified person and supporting documentation, as specified. This bill would require the review of the California Restraining and Protective Order System to include information concerning whether the applicant is reasonably likely to be a danger to self, others, or the community at large, as specified. By imposing new duties on local licensing authorities, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. The bill would additionally exempt from the licensure prohibition for applicants previously subject to a restraining order, protective order, or other type of court order, applicants who were previously subject to an above-described order that did not receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before the order was issued. (2) Existing law prohibits a person who is licensed to carry a firearm from carrying a firearm in specified places, including schools, government buildings, hospitals, zoos, parks, churches, and a bus, train, or other form of public transportation. Existing law exempts a firearm that is secured in a lock box, as specified, under certain circumstances, from these prohibitions. This bill would exempt a firearm that is unloaded and locked in a lock box for the purpose of transporting the firearm from the prohibition on carrying the firearm on a bus, train, or other form of public transportation, including a building, real property, or parking area under the control of a public transportation authority. (3) Existing law requires, when a person applies for a new license or license renewal to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, a licensing authority, as specified, to issue or renew a license if the applicant has provided proof that, among other things, the applicant has completed a specified course of training, including live-fire shooting exercises on a firing range, and the applicant is the recorded owner of the pistol, revolver, or other firearm for which the license will be issued. This bill would clarify that these requirements for a new license or license renewal specifically apply to a California resident. For non-California residents, the bill would additionally require, among other requirements, the applicant to attest, under oath, that the jurisdiction in which the applicant has applied is the primary location in California in which they intend to travel or spend time, and that the applicant has completed live-fire shooting exercises for each pistol, revolver, or other firearm for which the applicant is applying to be licensed to carry in California. By requiring local agencies to issue licenses for concealed firearms to non-California residents and expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. If a psychological assessment on an initial application to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person is required by a licensing authority, existing law requires the applicant to be referred to a licensed psychologist acceptable to the licensing authority. This bill would authorize a licensing authority to allow a non-California resident applicant to satisfy this psychological assessment with a virtual psychological assessment, as specified, or approve this examination with a provider located within 75 miles of the applicant's residence. Existing law prohibits a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person from being issued if the Department of Justice determines that the applicant is prohibited by state or federal law from possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a firearm. Existing law also requires this license to be revoked by the local licensing authority if, at any time, the local licensing authority determines that, among other reasons, the licensee is prohibited by state or federal law from owning or purchasing a firearm. This bill would revoke or prohibit the issuance of that license by the local licensing authority if any certain situation occurred, including that an applicant knowingly provides any inaccurate or incomplete information in connection with an application for a license, a license renewal, or an amendment to a license. The bill would require a licensee to inform the local authority that issued the license of any restraining order or arrest, charge, or conviction of a specified crime and would prohibit the issuance of, or require the revocation of, that license based on the licensee's failure to inform the local licensing authority of any restraining order or arrest, charge, or conviction of a specified crime. (4) Existing law prohibits a person from making an application to purchase more than one firearm within any 30-day period. Existing law prohibits a dealer from delivering a firearm to a purchaser when 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 firearm. Existing law requires a licensed dealer of firearms to conspicuously post a prescribed firearms safety warning message within the licensed premises, including that no person shall make an application to purchase more than one firearm, as specified, within any 30-day period, and no delivery shall be made to any person who has made an application to purchase more than one firearm, as specified, within any 30-day period. An existing federal district court order in a case pending appeal has enjoined the enforcement of the law limiting the number of firearms that a person is allowed to purchase in a 30-day period. This bill would, beginning April 1, 2026, increase the number of firearms that a person can apply to purchase within any 30-day period from one to 3 and would prohibit, beginning April 1, 2026, delivery of a firearm by a dealer if the dealer is notified by the Department of Justice that the purchaser has made an application to purchase one or more firearms that would result in the purchase of more than 3 firearms cumulatively within the 30-day period preceding the date of the application, as specified. The bill would make a conforming change to the required firearms safety warning. (5) Existing law makes it a crime for a person to own or possess a firearm if the person has been convicted of a felony, as specified. Existing law makes those provisions inapplicable to a conviction or warrant for a felony if, both the conviction of a like offense under California law can only result in imposition of felony punishment and the defendant received either, or both, a sentence to a federal correctional facility for more than 30 days and a fine exceeding $1,000. This bill would additionally make those provisions inapplicable to a conviction for a nonviolent felony under the laws of any other state if the conviction has been vacated, set aside, expunged, or otherwise dismissed and, if the conviction resulted in a firearms prohibition, the conviction relief restored the firearms rights, or if the conviction did not involve the use of a dangerous weapon and the person received a pardon, as specified. (6) Existing law requires a licensing authority to give written notice to an applicant, who is applying for a new license or license renewal to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, indicating if the license is approved or denied. Existing law requires the licensing authority to give this notice within 120 days of receiving the completed application for a new license or 30 days after receipt of specified information and report from the Department of Justice, whichever is later, and for a license renewal, the licensing authority has within 120 days of receiving the completed application to give this notice. In determining whether to approve or deny these applications, existing law requires the licensing authority to apply the statutory requirements in effect as of the date the licensing authority received the completed applications, except as specified. This bill would apply the 120-day notice requirement for a license renewal to a completed application for a license renewal submitted prior to September 1, 2026. For license renewal applications submitted on or after September 1, 2026, the bill would apply the above notice requirement for a completed application for a new license. The bill would delete the provision requiring the licensing authority to apply the statutory requirements in effect as of the date of receiving the completed application. 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.
(1) Existing law requires a natural person who, for specific compensation, makes more than 10 services of process within the state in one calendar year, or a corporation or partnership that derives compensation from service of process within the state, to file and maintain a verified certificate of registration as a process server with the county clerk of the county in which the person, corporation, or partnership resides or has its principal place of business, except as specified. Existing law requires each county clerk to maintain a register of process servers and assign a number and issue an identification card to each process server. This bill would, beginning January 1, 2027, require that the register of process servers maintained by a county clerk be publicly available. By imposing a new duty on county clerks, the bill would create a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law provides that a service of a summons in a civil action that complies with specified procedures is not invalid or ineffective solely because it was made by a person in violation of the requirements pertaining to registered process servers. Existing law provides that if a copy of the summons and complaint cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the person to be served, the summons may be served by leaving a copy at the person's dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address, in the presence of a person who is at least 18 years of age, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and complaint as specified. Existing law also authorizes a summons in an action for unlawful detainer to be served by posting if the court is satisfied that the party to be served cannot with reasonable diligence be served in any authorized manner other than publication, and that other specified conditions are met. Existing law requires the proof of service of a summons to contain specified information and documentation. This bill would define "reasonable diligence," for purposes of service of process in specified civil cases, to mean attempting personal delivery of the summons and complaint, in good faith, on at least three occasions on three different days at three different times. The bill would require the proof of service of a summons and complaint, if served personally, by substituted service, or by posting, if the summons is for an action for unlawful detainer of real property, to include at least one photograph, if such can be obtained without compromising the safety of the process server, of the site of the effectuated or attempted service and contain a readable stamp and global positioning system (GPS) coordinates indicating the date, time, and location of service. The bill would require the process server to provide a detailed statement on the proof of service, as specified, if there is no GPS or cellular signal available at the time and place of the effected or attempted service. The bill would make these requirements operative on January 1, 2027. (3) Existing law authorizes a court, on motion of a party and after notice to the other party, to set aside any void judgment or order. This bill would authorize a party that did not receive proper service of the summons and complaint to bring a motion to set aside or vacate a default or default judgment or for leave to defend the action or to move for dismissal. The bill would require a party that files a motion to set aside or vacate a default or default judgment to proffer evidence that service of the summons and complaint was not effected. The bill would provide that the party seeking the default or default judgment has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that service was lawful. The bill would require the court to take evidence and would require the court to conduct a hearing and receive oral testimony if requested by either party. The bill would specify that the above provisions would not limit any other available remedies under the law. The bill would make these provisions operative on January 1, 2027. (4) Existing law prescribes requirements for civil actions for unlawful detainer filed by landlords to remove tenants from their properties. Existing law requires that certain information be included in the complaint for unlawful detainer, including the method used to serve the defendant with the notice of termination of tenancy. This bill would additionally require the complaint to include information describing the date, time, and location of effected service of the termination notice. The bill would make this requirement operative on January 1, 2027. (5) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
(1) Existing 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, including that the development is a multifamily housing development that contains two or more residential units. This bill would deem an adaptive reuse project a use by right in all zones, regardless of the zoning of the site, and subject to a streamlined, ministerial review process if the project meets specified requirements, subject to specified exceptions. In this regard, an adaptive reuse project, in order to qualify for the streamlined, ministerial review process, would be required to be proposed for an existing building or structure that is less than 50 years old or meets certain requirements regarding the preservation of historic resources, including the signing of an affidavit declaring that the project will comply with the United States Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation for, among other things, the preservation of exterior facades of a building or structure that face a street, or receive federal or state historic rehabilitation tax credits, as specified. The bill would require an adaptive reuse project to meet specified affordability criteria. In this regard, the bill would require an adaptive reuse project for rental housing to include either 8% of the unit for very low income households and 5% of the units for extremely low income households or 15% of the units for lower income households. For an adaptive reuse project for owner-occupied housing, the bill would require the development to offer either 30% of the units at an affordable housing cost to moderate-income households or 15% of the units at an affordable housing cost to lower income households. For an adaptive reuse project including mixed uses, the bill would require at least one-half of the square footage of the adaptive reuse project to be dedicated to residential uses. The bill would prohibit an adaptive reuse project from being permitted in industrial zones that do not permit residential uses. The bill would provide, among other things relating to projects involving adaptive reuse, that parking is not required for the portion of a project consisting of a building subject to adaptive reuse that does not have existing onsite parking. The bill would authorize an adaptive reuse project subject to these provisions to include the development of new residential or mixed-use structures on undeveloped areas and parking areas located on the same parcel as the proposed repurposed building, or on the parcels adjacent to the proposed adaptive reuse project site if certain conditions are met. The bill would subject an adaptive reuse project approved by a local government pursuant to these provisions to specified labor standards, including certain labor prevailing wage, apprenticeship, skilled and training workforce, and health care expenditure requirements, and would require development proponents to certify compliance with certain labor standards under penalty of perjury. By requiring certain development proponents of an adaptive reuse project to sign an affidavit regarding the preservation of historic resources and requiring development proponents to certify compliance with certain labor standards under penalty of perjury, the bill would expand the crime of perjury and therefore impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize a local government to adopt an ordinance, as specified, to, among other things, specify the process and requirements applicable to adaptive reuse projects, as specified, and would require an adaptive reuse project to comply with all objective planning standards found in the ordinance. The bill would specify that nothing in its provisions relating to adaptive reuse projects is intended to preempt the adoption and implementation of a local ordinance that provides alternative procedures and substantive requirements for adaptive reuse projects, provided that the local ordinance does not prohibit an applicant from electing to pursue an adaptive reuse project, as specified. The bill would require a local agency that has not adopted an above-described ordinance to ministerially without discretionary review approve or disapprove applications for a permit to create or serve an adaptive reuse project, as specified. The bill would, if a local government's planning director or equivalent position determines that the adaptive reuse project submitted pursuant to these provisions is consistent with the objective planning standards, require the local government to approve the adaptive reuse project within specified timeframes. The bill would require the local government staff or relevant local planning and permitting department, upon determining that the adaptive reuse project is in conflict with any of the objective planning standards, to provide the proponent written documentation of, among other things, which standard or standards the development conflicts with within specific timeframes. The bill would prohibit a local government from imposing any local development standard on any project that is an adaptive reuse that would require alteration of the existing building envelope, except as specified, whether or not the local government has adopted an ordinance. By requiring local governments to implement the streamlined, ministerial review process for adaptive reuse projects, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would, except as specified, exempt an adaptive reuse project from all impact fees that are not reasonably related to the impacts resulting from the change of use of the site from nonresidential to residential or mixed use and would require any fees charged to be roughly proportional to the difference in impacts caused by the change of use. This bill would authorize a city or county, or city and county, commencing in the 2026–27 fiscal year, to establish an adaptive reuse investment incentive program to pay adaptive reuse investment incentive funds to the proponent of an adaptive reuse project approved pursuant to the streamlined, ministerial process described above for up to 30 consecutive fiscal years, as specified. The bill would define "adaptive reuse investment incentive funds" to mean an amount up to or equal to the amount of ad valorem property tax revenue allocated to the participating local agency from the taxation of that portion of the total assessed value of the real and personal property of an adaptive reuse project property that is in excess of the qualified adaptive reuse project property's valuation at the time of the proponent's initial request for funding. The bill would define various other terms for these purposes, and would make findings and declarations related to its provisions. The bill would make its provisions operative on July 1, 2026. (2) Existing law, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA does not apply to the approval of ministerial projects. This bill, by establishing the streamlined, ministerial review process described above, would exempt the approval of adaptive reuse projects subject to those processes from CEQA. The bill would also exempt specified findings regarding industrial uses and ordinances adopted to implement specified provisions from CEQA. (3) Existing law requires each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and specified land outside its boundaries, that includes, among other mandatory elements, a housing element. Existing law requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to notify a city, county, or city and county, and authorizes the department to notify 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 that element, or any specified action or failure to act, does not substantially comply with the law as it pertains to housing elements or that any local government has taken an action in violation of certain housing laws. This bill would make corrections to a housing law cross-reference relating to the adaptive reuse project process established by the bill, thereby making a violation of that adaptive reuse project process by a city, county, or city and county subject to the above-described notification requirements. (4) The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. (5) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65585 of the Government Code proposed by AB 650 to be operative only if this bill and AB 650 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (6) 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, commencing July 1, 2025, requires a public or private school that serves pupils in any of grades 7 to 12, inclusive, and that issues pupil identification cards to have printed on the identification cards the number for the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline. Existing law requires a public or private institution of higher education that issues student identification cards to have printed on either side of the student identification cards the telephone number for the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. This bill, commencing July 1, 2026, would require public schools that serve pupils in any of grades 7 to 12, inclusive, and public institutions of higher education that issue pupil identification cards to additionally have printed on the identification cards the telephone number and text line for a specified LGBTQ+ suicide hotline, as provided.
Existing law establishes the 15-member Student Aid Commission, with prescribed membership, including 3 public members, as the primary state agency for the administration of state-authorized student financial aid programs available to students attending all segments of postsecondary education. This bill would, on the date that a public member's term expires, replace one of the public members with a member who has knowledge, expertise, or experience in accessing the educational benefits available to veterans of the Armed Forces of the United States.
Existing law defines the crime of burglary as entering specified buildings, places, or vehicles with the intent to commit grand or petty theft or a felony. Existing law clarifies that a structure designed for habitation is being used for dwelling purposes if, at the time of the burglary, it was not occupied solely because a disaster caused the occupants to leave the premises. This bill would specify that neither the fact that the structure entered has been damaged by a natural or other disaster, nor the extent of the damage, shall preclude conviction. Existing law defines looting as the commission of certain offenses during and within an affected county in a state of emergency or local emergency, as specified. Existing law includes any 2nd-degree burglary or grand theft in the definition of looting, and makes looting based on those offenses punishable by either imprisonment in a county jail for one year or as a felony. Existing law also makes the crime of looting based on petty theft punishable as a misdemeanor. Existing regulations define an "evacuation area" as a geographic area from which civilians have been evacuated pursuant to an evacuation order and where movement and entry are controlled by fire and law enforcement personnel having jurisdictional authority. Existing regulations define an "evacuation warning" as alerting community members in a defined area of a potential threat to life or property. This bill would recast the offense of looting to include first degree burglary, 2nd degree burglary, grand theft, trespass, and theft from a vehicle, when those offenses are committed in an evacuation zone, to the crime of looting. The bill would also, for the purposes of the offense of looting, define an evacuation zone to include an evacuation area or an area subject to an evacuation warning, and to include any residential dwelling units in such an area for a period of one year after the evacuation order, or up to 3 years if the property is undergoing construction. The bill would impose increased penalties for these offenses committed within an evacuation zone, as specified. By increasing the punishment of specified crimes, 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. This bill would make the operation of its provisions contingent upon the enactment of Senate Bill 571 of the 2025–26 Regular Session.
Existing law, the Permit Streamlining Act, requires a public agency to determine whether an application for a development project is complete within specified time periods, as specified. The act requires a public agency that is the lead agency for a development project to approve or disapprove that project within specified time periods. Existing law, the California Emergency Services Act, among other things, authorizes the governing body of a city, county, or city and county to proclaim a local emergency under certain circumstances, as specified, and grants political subdivisions various powers and authorities in periods of local emergency. This bill would require a city, county, or city and county to approve or deny a complete application, within 10 business days of receipt of the application, for a building permit or an equivalent permit for any of the specified structures intended to be used by a person until the rebuilding or repair of an affected property is complete. By imposing new duties on local agencies, this 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 a specified reason.
Existing law requires the Governor to create an Interagency Council on Homelessness, consisting of specified members. Among other goals, existing law requires the council to serve as a facilitator and create partnerships among federal, state, and local governments, nonprofit entities working to end homelessness, homeless services providers, and the private sector, for the purpose of arriving at specific strategies to end homelessness. Existing law also requires the council to make policy and procedural recommendations to legislators and other governmental entities. This bill would require the council to coordinate with representatives from LGBTQ+ communities to identify recommended policies and best practices for providing inclusive and culturally competent services to LGBTQ+ people experiencing homelessness and develop recommendations to, among other things, expand data collection to understand the needs and experiences of LGBTQ+ people in state homelessness programs, as defined. The bill would require the council, on or before July 1, 2027, to submit a report to specific committees of the Legislature on these recommendations.
