(1) Existing law requires a local agency to declare land either "surplus land" or "exempt surplus land," as supported by written findings, before the local agency may take any action to dispose of it consistent with an agency's policies or procedures and defines terms for these purposes. Existing law generally requires a local agency, before disposing or negotiating to dispose of surplus land, to provide a written notice of the availability of the surplus land to specified entities and housing sponsors. Existing law provides that an agency is not required to follow the requirements for the disposal of surplus land for "exempt surplus land." Existing law defines "exempt surplus land" to include certain types of land, including, surplus land totaling 10 or more acres, consisting of either a single parcel, or 2 or more adjacent or nonadjacent parcels combined for disposition to one or more buyers pursuant to a plan or ordinance adopted by the legislative body of the local agency, or a state statute and certain surplus land that is a former military base, known as the Alameda Naval Air Station, if specified conditions are met. 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. That law requires the planning agency of a city or county to provide by April 1 of each year an annual report to, among other entities, the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation. This bill would revise the definition of "exempt surplus land" to remove the reference to buyers and instead mean 2 or more adjacent or nonadjacent parcels combined for disposition to one or more persons or entities, as specified. The bill would also exempt surplus land that is a former military base that was conveyed by the federal government to a local agency or a local reuse authority, and that is all or any portion of the Concord Naval Weapons Station, if certain requirements are met, including that the former military base has an aggregate area greater than 5 acres and that before disposition of the land, the local agency or local reuse authority has entered into a disposition and development agreement that stipulates that at least 25% of the aggregate residential units permitted to be developed will be restricted to lower income households with an affordable housing cost or affordable rent for a minimum of 55 years for rental housing and 45 years for owner-occupied housing, as specified. The bill would regulate actions challenging the disposition and would prescribe penalties for violations of these provisions. The bill would also regulate the actions of the local agency or local reuse authority, including, among other things, requiring the local agency or local reuse authority to include in the annual report the status of development of residential units on the former military base, as specified. (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 provide that specified environmental review documents satisfy the requirements of CEQA for any project within the portion of the Concord Naval Weapons Station included within the boundaries of the area plan for the Concord Community Reuse Project, as provided, that has land use types that are consistent with the area plan land use types and locations for those land use types that are consistent with the area plan diagram and the project does not cause the aggregate development in the area plan to exceed the area plan maximum planning areawide total, as specified. The bill would further provide that a project that contains land use types that are consistent with the area plan land use types in locations that are not consistent with the area plan diagram would be subject to review pursuant to CEQA, and would be limited to review of the location of land use types that are not consistent with the area plan diagram, as provided. In any action or proceeding challenging a project described above, the bill would require a project applicant to pay any additional costs incurred by the courts in hearing cases relating to the challenge of the project and would require a lead agency to lodge a copy of the certified record of proceedings with the superior court within 10 calendar days after being served with a complaint or a petition for a writ of mandate. Because the bill imposes new duties on local agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the Judicial Council, on or before July 1, 2027, to adopt rules of court that require any action or proceeding brought to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the approval of any project within the plan area or any environmental impact review for any project within the plan area, including any potential appeals to the court of appeal or the California Supreme Court, to be resolved to the extent feasible within 270 calendar days of the filing of the certified record of proceedings with the court. The bill would make these provisions severable. (3) This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City of Concord. (4) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. (5) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
(1) Existing law establishes the Department of Housing and Community Development (the department) and requires it to administer various programs intended to promote the development of housing, including mobilehome parks, as defined. Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, requires, before the conversion of a mobilehome park to another use, except as specified, or before closure of a mobilehome park or cessation of use of the land as a mobilehome park, the person or entity proposing the change in use to file a report on the impact of the conversion, closure, or cessation of use of the mobilehome park. Existing law requires the impact report to include a replacement and relocation plan that adequately mitigates the impact upon the ability of the displaced residents of the mobilehome park to find adequate housing in a mobilehome park. Existing law requires the report, if a closure, cessation, or change of use is the result of damage or destruction of the mobilehome park by a disaster, as defined, to include a technical service inspection report from the department that identifies the observed conditions within the park. Existing law, the Mobilehome Residency Law, governs the terms and conditions of residency in mobilehome parks. Existing law requires management, as defined, of a mobilehome park to offer the previous homeowner a right of first refusal to a renewed tenancy in the park if the park is destroyed due to a wildfire or other natural disaster and management elects to rebuild the park in the same location. Existing law, when a mobilehome tenancy is terminated due to damage or the destruction of the mobilehome park or any space as a result of a disaster, as defined, requires management to return to the homeowner any advance rental payments received from the homeowner that cover any period of time after the date of the termination, and discharges the homeowner's obligation to pay rent during any period that a homeowner is unable to occupy their mobilehome or mobilehome space due to a mandatory evacuation order pursuant to a disaster. This bill would require management to make a good faith effort to provide written status updates once per week for the first 4 weeks after a park is damaged by a disaster, resulting in one or more mobilehome units being rendered inaccessible to an existing mobilehome resident, and monthly thereafter until each displaced resident is allowed to return to occupying their mobilehome site or the mobilehome park receives final approval of a change of use, cessation of use, or closure, to the displaced residents of the park, as provided. The bill would prohibit management from restricting a resident of the park from accessing their mobilehome or mobilehome site during regular business hours to collect belongings or inspect damage to their mobilehome on any date later than 7 days after evacuation orders are officially lifted or downgraded by the local governing authority to resident-access only and would require any waiver of liability distributed by management to be limited to immunity for harm resulting from the resident accessing the mobilehome, mobilehome site, or mobilehome park. This bill would require management, before initiating or while pursuing a change of use, cessation of use, or closure related to damage or destruction of the mobilehome park by a disaster, to at least reasonably evaluate the known and estimated costs for rebuilding and reopening the park and identify all potential resources from a list maintained by the department. The bill would require the department to maintain a list of mobilehome-related programs and opportunities that could support rehabilitation or rebuilding of a mobilehome park affected by a disaster declaration and require the department to make the list available on the department's internet website. The bill would require management to submit documentation demonstrating completion of those evaluations and investigations to the department, the local jurisdiction in which the park is situated, and the residents of the mobilehome park, and would prohibit the department and that local jurisdiction from issuing or amending specified approvals and permits to management until that documentation has been submitted. By placing new requirements on local jurisdictions in which mobilehome parks are situated, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would authorize a jurisdiction with enforcement power to require debris removal and specified testing if a mobilehome park is damaged or destroyed in a disaster resulting in one or more mobilehome units being rendered inaccessible to an existing mobilehome resident, as provided. The bill would authorize a resident organization, a displaced resident of the mobilehome park, or a public attorney, as specified, to bring an action against management that willfully violates these provisions, as provided. (2) The Planning and Zoning Law requires a legislative body, or its delegated advisory agency, before the approval of any change of use of the mobilehome park, to review the report and any additional relevant documentation and make specified findings regarding the effect on housing opportunities within the local jurisdiction. The bill would additionally provide that before the approval of any change of use the legislative body shall review documentation compliance with the specified evaluations and investigations required by the bill, and that management shall not receive approval of any change of use by the legislative body if management fails to submit that documentation. The Planning and Zoning Law also requires a legislative body, or its delegated advisory agency, before the approval of any change of use of the mobilehome park, to make a finding as to whether or not approval of the park closure and the park's conversion into its intended new use will result in or materially contribute to a shortage of housing opportunities and choices for low- and moderate-income households within the local jurisdiction. This bill would also require that finding to consider the costs of closure or conversion to the residents of the park for which closure or conversion is sought. By placing new requirements on local legislative bodies when approving a change of use for mobilehome parks, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) 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. (4) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law, commonly referred to as the Density Bonus Law, requires a city or county to provide a developer that proposes a housing development, as defined, within the city or county with a density bonus, other incentives or concessions, and waivers or reductions of development standards, as specified, if the developer agrees to construct specified units and meets other requirements. Existing law, among other things, requires compliance with certain affordability requirements, including requiring that the applicant agree to ensure, and that the city, county, or city and county ensure, that a for-sale unit that qualified the applicant for the award of the density bonus is either (1) initially sold to and occupied by a person or family of very low, low, or moderate income, as specified, or (2) if the unit is not purchased by an income-qualified person or family within 180 days after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the unit is purchased by a qualified nonprofit housing corporation, as provided. This bill would additionally allow the applicant and the city, county, or city and county to comply with the above-described affordability requirements with respect to a for-sale unit by ensuring that the unit is purchased by a nonprofit housing corporation, as specified, for properties to be sold to and occupied by extremely low, very low, or lower income families who participate in a below market interest rate loan program, as described. By adding to the duties of local agencies to implement the Density Bonus Law, 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 Mobilehome Residency Law, prescribes various terms and conditions of tenancies in mobilehome parks. The law defines "mobilehome park" for these purposes to mean an area of land where 2 or more mobilehome sites are rented, or held out for rent, to accommodate mobilehomes used for human habitation. The law caps the amount by which management of a qualified mobilehome park may increase the gross rental rate for a tenancy over the course of any 12-month period. The cap is the lower of 5% of the lowest gross rental rate charge for a tenancy at any time during the preceding 12 months or 3% of that amount plus the percentage change in the cost of living. Under that law, a mobilehome park is subject to that cap if it is located within and governed by the jurisdictions of 2 or more incorporated cities. The law repeals these rent cap provisions on January 1, 2030. This bill would additionally make any mobilehome park that is located in the City of Torrance subject to that cap, as specified, and would extend the repeal of these rent cap provisions to January 1, 2036. For a mobilehome park that is located in the City of Torrance, the bill would cap the rent on January 1, 2027, at the amount of rent as of January 5, 2026, plus the maximum permissible increase described above. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City of Torrance.
The Housing Authorities Law establishes a housing authority within each county and city and authorizes the authority to, among other things, prepare, carry out, acquire, lease, and operate housing projects and housing developments for persons of low income, as provided. This bill would, unless required by federal law, and except as specified, prohibit a housing authority or other covered housing provider, as defined, from establishing or implementing any rules, policies, or procedures that impose term limits or work requirements, as defined, as a condition of eligibility for any covered housing or that impact the amount of the rent subsidy or assistance provided to covered housing tenants. The bill would, however, permit a covered housing provider to establish or implement a voluntary employment or job training program if specified conditions apply. The bill would provide that its provisions do not limit or alter the operation of specified federal housing programs and requirements.
(1) Existing law, known as the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, with respect to land where housing is an allowable use and except as specified, prohibits a county or city, including the electorate exercising its local initiative or referendum power, in which specified conditions exist, determined as provided by the Department of Housing and Community Development, from enacting a development policy, standard, or condition, as defined, that would have certain effects. Under existing law, these proscribed policies, standards, or conditions include, among others, (A) changing the land use designation or zoning of a parcel or parcels of property to a less intensive use or reducing the intensity of land use within an existing zoning district below what was allowed under the general plan or specific plan land use designation and zoning ordinances of the county or city as in effect on January 1, 2018, and (B) imposing or enforcing a moratorium on housing development within all or a portion of the jurisdiction of the county or city, except as provided. Existing law states that these prohibitions apply to any zoning ordinance adopted or amended on or after the effective date of these provisions, and that any development policy, standard, or condition on or after that date that does not comply is deemed void. Existing law prohibits a county or city subject to these provisions from enforcing a zoning ordinance imposing a moratorium or other similar restriction on or limitation of housing development until it has submitted the ordinance to, and received approval from, the Department of Housing and Community Development. Existing law requires the department to approve a zoning ordinance submitted to it only if the department determines that the zoning ordinance satisfies these requirements. If the department denies approval of the zoning ordinance, as specified, existing law states that the ordinance is deemed void. This bill would expand the prohibition against enacting a development policy, standard, or condition that has the effect of imposing or enforcing a moratorium on housing development within all or a portion of the jurisdiction of the county or city to also prohibit these policies, standards, or conditions within the sphere of influence of a city, as defined. The bill would define "moratorium or similar restriction or limitation on housing development" for purposes of the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 to include, but not be limited to, the electorate of a county or city subject to these provisions from exercising its referendum power in a manner that has the effect of extending an existing moratorium or similar restriction or limitation on housing development. The bill would prohibit a county or city subject to these provisions from enforcing an initiative or referendum imposing a moratorium or other similar restriction on or limitation of housing development until the initiative or referendum receives approval from the department pursuant to the approval process described above. The bill would state that if the department denies approval of the initiative or referendum, as specified, the initiative or referendum would be deemed void. The bill would provide that these provisions do not preclude, limit the enforceability of, or require department approval of a referendum or an initiative that requires voter approval of a proposed general plan amendment that would increase the intensity of land use allowed on lands designated for open space, agricultural, or rural land uses in the operative general plan, as specified. Existing law defines "reducing the intensity of land use" for purposes of the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 to include reductions to height, density, or floor area ratio, new or increased open space or lot size requirements, new or increased setback requirements, minimum frontage requirements, or maximum lot coverage limitations, or any other action that would individually or cumulatively reduce the site's residential development capacity. This bill would revise the definition of "reducing the intensity of land use" to mean any action that would individually or cumulatively reduce the site's residential development capacity, including reductions to height, density, or floor area ratio, new or increased open space or lot size requirements, new or increased setback requirements, minimum frontage requirements, or maximum lot coverage limitations. This bill would also provide that an action or special proceeding brought to enforce these provisions is subject to a 3-year statute of limitations under specified law. The bill would provide that the bill's provisions apply retroactively to any pending action or proceeding. (2) 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. (3) By imposing new requirements and duties on local planning officials with respect to housing development, 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.
(1) Existing law prohibits the owner of a residential real property from terminating a tenancy without just cause, as defined, after a tenant has continuously and lawfully occupied a residential real property for 12 months. Among other residential real properties or residential circumstances, existing law exempts from these provisions a residential real property, including a mobilehome, that is alienable separate from the title to any other dwelling unit if the owner meets specified criteria and the tenants have been provided a specified written notice of the exemption. Existing law repeals these provisions on January 1, 2030. This bill would revise these provisions by removing the exemption for separately alienable residential real property and, instead, only exempting a mobilehome if the above-described criteria are met. The bill would delete the January 1, 2030, repeal date, thereby extending these provisions indefinitely. (2) Existing law prohibits an owner of residential real property, except as specified, from increasing over the course of any 12-month period the gross rental rate for a dwelling or a unit more than 5% plus the percentage change in the cost of living, or 10%, whichever is lower, of the lowest gross rental rate charged for that dwelling or unit at any time during the 12 months prior to the effective date of the increase, as specified. This bill would reduce the permissible gross rental rate increase under these provisions to the lesser of 2% plus the percentage change in the cost of living, or 5%. Among other residential real properties, existing law exempts from these provisions a residential real property that is alienable separate from the title to any other dwelling unit, including a mobilehome, if the owner meets specified criteria and the tenants have been provided a specified written notice of the exemption. This bill would revise these provisions by removing the exemption for separately alienable residential real property and, instead, only exempting a mobilehome if the above-described criteria are met. Existing law repeals these provisions on January 1, 2030. This bill would delete the January 1, 2030, repeal date, thereby extending these provisions indefinitely. (3) Notwithstanding the above-described gross rental rate increase prohibition, existing law, upon the expiration of rental restrictions, as defined, authorizes the owner of affordable housing units that meet certain requirements to establish the initial rental rate for the unit, and also authorizes the owner of an assisted housing development who demonstrates compliance with certain requirements under penalty of perjury to establish the initial unassisted rental rate for units in the assisted housing development. Existing law repeals these provisions on January 1, 2030. This bill would remove the January 1, 2030, repeal date, thereby extending the initial rental rate authorizations indefinitely. By extending provisions that require the owner of an assisted housing development to demonstrate compliance with specified requirements under penalty of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated program. (4) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law requires each city and county within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley to amend its general plan relative to the data and analysis contained in the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan, as specified and to amend its zoning ordinance consistent with the general plan. Existing law prohibits the legislative body of a city or county within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley from entering into a development agreement for property that is located within a flood hazard zone after the amendments described above are complete unless the city or county makes a specified finding. Among the possible findings, is that the local flood agency has made adequate progress on construction of a flood protection system that will result in flood protection equal to or greater than the urban level of flood protection in urban or urbanizing areas intended to be protected by the system, which, except as provided, shall be achieved by 2025 for urban and urbanizing areas protected by project levees. Existing law similarly prohibits each city and county within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley from approving a discretionary permit or other discretionary entitlement that would result in the construction of a new building or construction that would result in an increase in allowed occupancy for an existing building, or a ministerial permit that would result in the construction of a new residence, for a project that is located within a flood hazard zone after the amendments described above are complete unless the city or county makes a specified finding. Among the possible findings, is that the local flood agency has made adequate progress toward the urban level of flood protection as described above. Existing law similarly requires the legislative body of each city and county within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley to deny approval of a tentative map or a parcel map for a subdivision that is located within a flood hazard zone after the amendments described above are complete unless the city or county makes a specified finding. Among the possible findings, is that the local flood agency has made adequate progress toward the urban level of flood protection as described above. This bill would include in the exceptions to the requirement that the urban level of flood protection be achieved for urban and urbanizing areas protected by project levees by 2025, specified areas located in the City of Marysville, the City of Sacramento, the County of Sacramento, the County of Sutter, and the County of Yuba that shall, instead, be required to achieve the urban level of flood protection by 2030. The bill would authorize the Department of Water Resources to require a city or county listed above to contribute its fair and reasonable share of any property damage caused by a flood in its respective jurisdiction, as specified, until the city or county finds the area has met the urban level of flood protection. The bill would make a related technical change. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the County of Sacramento, County of Sutter, County of Yuba, City of Marysville, and City of Sacramento.
The California Constitution authorizes a county or city to make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws. Existing law establishes procedures for the enactment of ordinances by counties and cities and makes a violation of a county or city ordinance, as applicable, a misdemeanor unless by ordinance it is made an infraction. This bill would prohibit a local jurisdiction from adopting a local ordinance, or enforcing an existing ordinance, that prohibits a person or organization from providing support services, as specified, to a person who is homeless or assisting a person who is homeless with any act related to basic survival. The bill would define various terms for these purposes. 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.
Existing law provides that a tenant is guilty of unlawful detainer if the tenant continues to possess the property without permission of the landlord after the tenant defaults on rent or fails to perform a condition or covenant of the lease under which the property is held, among other reasons. Existing law requires a tenant be served a 3 days' notice in writing to cure a default or perform a condition of the lease, or return possession of the property to the landlord, as specified. Existing law, until January 1, 2030, prohibits an owner of residential real property from terminating a tenancy without just cause, as specified. This bill would, until January 20, 2029, enact the Social Security Tenant Protection Act of 2025 (the Act) . The Act would authorize a tenant of residential real property to assert Social Security hardship as an affirmative defense in an unlawful detainer proceeding based on the nonpayment of rent. The Act would define "Social Security hardship" as a loss of income due to an interruption in the payment of Social Security benefits due to the action or inaction of the federal government. The Act would require a tenant asserting Social Security hardship as an affirmative defense to provide, to the satisfaction of the court, evidence that Social Security payments typically received by the tenant's household have been terminated, delayed, or reduced due to no fault of the tenant and that the hardship prevented the tenant from paying the rent. If the tenant successfully provides this evidence, the Act would require the court to issue a stay of the unlawful detainer action, as specified. The Act would not relieve a tenant of their obligation to pay past due rent, and it would require a tenant, within 14 days of the Social Security benefits being restored, to either pay all past due rent or enter into a mutually agreed upon payment plan with the owner of the residential real property. If the tenant pays all past due rent or enters into a payment plan with the owner, the Act would require the court to either dismiss the unlawful detainer action with prejudice or set aside the judgment against all named and unnamed defendants in the action. The Act would further require the Judicial Council, by January 1, 2027, to adopt or modify forms as needed to implement the Act.
