(1) Existing law, the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act (the act) , authorizes specified persons, including a person with whom the respondent resides, family members, and first responders, among others, to petition a civil court to create a voluntary CARE agreement or a court-ordered CARE plan and implement services, to be provided by county behavioral health agencies, to provide behavioral health care, including stabilization medication, housing, and other enumerated services, to adults who are currently experiencing a severe mental illness and have a diagnosis identified in the disorder class schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, and who meet other specified criteria. Existing law, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, authorizes a conservator of the person, of the estate, or of the person and the estate to be appointed for a person who is gravely disabled as a result of a mental health disorder or impairment by chronic alcoholism. Existing law requires the officer providing the conservatorship investigation, which may include a public guardian or a county mental health program, to investigate all available alternatives to conservatorship and to recommend conservatorship to the court only if no suitable alternatives are available. Existing law requires a conservatorship under these provisions to terminate after one year and specifies procedures if the conservator determines conservatorship is still required. This bill would authorize a conservator to, upon the termination of a conservatorship, request the court refer the conservatee to CARE court, as specified. (2) The act authorizes services and supports to be provided to adults who are currently experiencing a qualifying severe mental illness and who meet other specified criteria, including that the person is not clinically stabilized in ongoing voluntary treatment and is either unlikely to survive safely in the community without ongoing supervision and the person's condition is substantially deteriorating or the person is in need of services and supports to prevent a relapse or deterioration that would likely result in grave disability or serious harm to the person or others. This bill would authorize the court, beginning July 1, 2028, and if it dismisses a CARE petition because a respondent needs a higher level of services, to order the county to develop an exit plan for the respondent. The bill would require the State Department of Health Care Services, by July 1, 2028, to develop, with input from certain stakeholder groups, a CARE Act model exit plan that identifies appropriate services and ongoing monitoring of an individual with a petition dismissed because the individual needed a higher level of services. This bill would update the definition of a petitioner for the purposes of the act. (3) Existing law requires the Judicial Council to develop a mandatory form or forms to use to file a CARE process petition. Existing law requires the petition to be signed under the penalty of perjury and to contain specified information, including the petitioner's relationship to the respondent and either an affidavit of a licensed behavioral health professional stating the licensed behavioral health professional or their designee has examined or made multiple unsuccessful attempts to examine the respondent within 60 days of submission of the petition, or that the respondent was detained for a minimum of 2 intensive treatments pursuant to state law. This bill would extend the 60-day period for examination of the respondent to 120 days. The bill would also authorize a petition to include evidence that the respondent was either detained for a minimum of 2 involuntary holds in the last 120 days or that they were referred to a full service partnership program more than once, but was not enrolled due to inability or unwillingness to engage in the previous 120 days. (4) Existing law authorizes a court to terminate a respondent's participation in the CARE process if the court determines that the respondent is not participating in the CARE process or is not adhering to their CARE plan, as specified. Existing law authorizes the court to order an evaluation under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, as specified, to ensure the respondent's safety. Existing law requires the court to consider the respondent's failure to successfully complete their CARE plan and the reasons for that failure in a subsequent hearing under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, provided that the hearing occurs within 6 months of the termination of the CARE plan, and creates a presumption that the respondent needs additional intervention beyond the supports and services provided by the CARE plan. This bill would prohibit the court from terminating a respondent's participation in the CARE process solely due to a failure of the county or other local government entity to properly engage with the CARE process. (5) Existing law requires CARE Act proceedings to occur in person unless the court, in its discretion, allows a party or witness to appear remotely through the use of remote technology. Existing law authorizes the respondent to be in person for all hearings. This bill would instead authorize all parties and witnesses to appear remotely through the use of remotely technology. The bill would authorize the court with discretion to order a party or witness to appear in person if necessary. This bill would authorize the parties to agree to an alternative method of service for all subsequent reports and notices after the notice of initial appearance. This bill would require, by January 1, 2028, all counties to establish a process for electronic submission of CARE Act documents using a secured portal. By increasing the duties on county behavioral health agencies, the bill would create a state-mandated local program. (6) Existing law authorizes a provider of health care or a covered entity, as defined, to disclose to the county behavioral health agency any information, including protected health information, and mental health records excluding psychotherapy notes, in its possession about the respondent that is relevant to the county behavioral health agency's provision, coordination, or management or services or supports. Existing law specifies protections for this information and required procedures when such a disclosure is made. This bill would authorize a county behavioral health agency to disclose to a provider of health care or a covered entity any information, including protected health information, and mental health records, excluding psychotherapy notes, in its possession about the respondent that is relevant to the provider or entity's provision, coordination, or management of services and supports. The bill would also specify protections for this information and required procedures when such a disclosure is made. (7) Existing law requires the department to develop, in consultation with specified entities, an annual CARE Act report that includes specified information on CARE Act petitions, including the number of initial appearances, and information compiled from county behavioral health departments and courts. This bill would expand the information on CARE Act petitions to include the number of petitions submitted electronically as well as other specified information. The bill would also expand the data to be compiled from county behavioral health departments and courts to include the number of individuals who were enrolled in a Full Service Partnership program postreferral, among other things. The bill would also require the data collected from county behavioral health departments and courts to be collected for cases involving dismissed respondents, where available. (8) Existing law requires the California Health and Human Services Agency, or a designated department within the agency, to perform specified functions, including engaging an independent, research-based entity to advise on the development of data-driven process and outcome measures to guide the planning, collaboration, reporting, and evaluation of the CARE Act. This bill would require the agency to annually release a list of overperforming counties and shall annually provide written notice identifying areas of concern and opportunities for improvement to underperforming counties. This bill would also establish within the California Health and Human Services Agency the position of a CARE Court Ombudsperson, as specified. (9) 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 authorizes the legislative body of a city or county to designate a proposed enhanced infrastructure financing district to finance public capital facilities or other specified projects of communitywide significance that provide significant benefits to the district or the surrounding community, including, among other things, the acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of housing for persons of very low, low, and moderate income for rent or purchase, as specified. Existing law authorizes an infrastructure financing plan to contain a provision for the division of taxes levied upon taxable property in the area included within the district and authorizes the public financing authority of the district to issue bonds, as provided. This bill would establish the Workforce Housing Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Act, which would authorize a city or county to establish a workforce housing enhanced infrastructure financing district (district) if certain requirements are met, including the adoption of an infrastructure financing plan as specified. The bill would prescribe requirements applicable to those districts. Among these requirements, the bill would prescribe requirements for the construction of residential housing that meets specified occupancy and affordability criteria. The bill would provide definitions for its provisions. The bill would authorize the governing board to issue bonds, subject to approval by 23 of the voters voting on the proposition. The bill would prescribe requirements for the issuance of the bond pursuant to its provisions. The bill would further require a district, which finances affordable housing units through the bond, to maintain the housing units at affordable housing costs through a recorded covenant or restriction, as specified. By adding to the duties of local elections officials with respect to administering the above-described provisions, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, 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 prescribes various requirements regarding the formation, content, and enforcement of state and local public contracts. Existing law establishes, until January 1, 2027, for contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2017, a claim resolution process applicable to any claim by a contractor in connection with a public works project against a public entity, as specified. For purposes of these provisions, existing law defines "public entity" to include, among others, a city, including a charter city, and county, including a charter county. Existing law imposes various requirements on a public entity in relating to the claim resolution process, including, among other things, conducting a reasonable review of the claim and, within 45 days, providing the claimant a written statement identifying the disputed and undisputed portions of the claim. This bill would repeal the above-described January 1, 2027, repeal date, thereby extending the operation of these provisions indefinitely. By indefinitely extending the duties of local agencies in relation to the above-specified claim resolution process, 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, 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 requires that a housing development project, as defined, within a specified distance of a transit-oriented development stop, as defined, be an allowed use as a transit-oriented housing development on any site zoned for residential, mixed, or commercial development, if the development complies with certain, applicable requirements, as provided. Among these requirements, existing law prohibits a proposed development under these provisions from being located on sites where the development would require demolition of housing, or that was previously used for housing, that is subject to rent or price controls, as provided. This bill would additionally prohibit the development from being located on an existing parcel of land or site governed under the Mobilehome Residency Law, the Recreational Vehicle Park Occupancy Law, the Mobilehome Parks Act, or the Special Occupancy Parks Act. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law, the Mobilehome Residency Law, governs tenancies in mobilehome parks and includes provisions that are applicable to those who have an ownership interest in a subdivision, cooperative, or condominium for mobilehomes, or a resident-owned mobilehome park, as specified. Among other things, these provisions set forth the rights of residents and homeowners regarding the use of the property. Existing law exempts the rental of certain mobilehome spaces by a homeowner, if the mobilehome space is not the principal residence of the homeowner and the homeowner has not rented the mobilehome to another party, from any ordinance, rule, regulation, or initiative measure adopted by any city, county, or city and county, that establishes a maximum amount that the landlord may charge a tenant for rent, as specified. This bill would, instead, apply that exemption to the rental of a mobilehome space that is not used as permanent housing, as defined, by the homeowner or an approved tenant, except as specified. Existing law provides that, for purposes of the above provisions, a mobilehome is deemed to be the principal residence of the homeowner unless a review of state or county records demonstrate otherwise, as specified. Existing law provides that before modifying the rent or other terms of tenancy as a result of learning that the mobilehome space is not the principal residence of the homeowner through the above-described review, the management, as defined, shall notify the homeowner, in writing, of the proposed changes and provide the homeowner with a copy of the documents upon which management relied. Existing law prohibits management from modifying the rent or other terms of tenancy as described above if the homeowner provides documentation reasonably establishing that the information provided by management is incorrect or that the homeowner is not the same person identified in the documents, as specified. This bill would, instead, provide that before modifying the rent or other terms of tenancy as a result of learning that the mobilehome space is not used as permanent housing as described above, the management shall notify the homeowner, as specified, and shall provide the homeowner with an explanation of its determination and a copy of the documents upon which management relied in making its determination. The bill would, instead, prohibit management from modifying the rent or other terms of tenancy as described above if the homeowner provides a statement refuting management's claim that the mobilehome is not being used as permanent housing as described above. The bill would, in that regard, create a rebuttable presumption in favor of the homeowner's statement.
Under existing law, there are programs providing assistance for, among other things, emergency housing, multifamily housing, farmworker housing, home ownership for very low and low-income households, and downpayment assistance for first-time home buyers. Existing law also authorizes the issuance of bonds in specified amounts pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law and requires that proceeds from the sale of these bonds be used to finance various existing housing programs, capital outlay related to infill development, brownfield cleanup that promotes infill development, and housing-related parks. Existing law, the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2018, authorized, the issuance of bonds in the amount of $4,000,000,000 to finance various existing housing programs, as well as infill infrastructure financing and affordable housing matching grant programs, as well as financing for a specified program for farm, home, and mobilehome purchase assistance for veterans, pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law. This bill would enact the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026, which, if adopted, would authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of $11,250,000,000, pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law. Of the proceeds from the sale of these bonds, $10,000,000,000 would be used to finance programs to fund affordable rental housing and home ownership programs, including, among others, the Multifamily Housing Program, the CalHome Program, and the Joe Serna, Jr. Farmworker Housing Grant Program, and $1,250,000,000 would be used to provide additional funding for the above-described program for farm, home, and mobilehome purchase assistance for veterans, as provided. This bill would provide for submission of the bond act to the voters at the November 3, 2026, statewide general election, in accordance with specified law. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
(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.
Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, among other things, provides for the creation by ordinance, or by ministerial approval if the local agency has not adopted an ordinance, of an accessory dwelling unit in accordance with specified standards and conditions. Existing law requires the ordinance, if adopted, to meet certain requirements, including designating areas within the jurisdiction where accessory dwelling units may be permitted. Existing law authorizes the designation of areas to be based on the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of accessory dwelling units on traffic flow and public safety. Existing law also requires the ordinance to require approval by the local health officer where a private sewage disposal system is being used, if required. This bill would prohibit a local agency from prohibiting an accessory dwelling unit in an area solely because the lots are served by private sewage disposal systems. The bill would prohibit a local health officer from withholding approval based on a minimum lot size requirement if the private sewage disposal system meets certain operating requirements established by the State Water Resources Control Board and the regional water quality control board for that lot size, as provided. The bill would prohibit the local health officer from requiring the installation of a new or alternative system as a condition of approval if the local health officer determines that an existing private sewage disposal system is verified to be functioning properly and has the capacity to serve the additional load of an accessory dwelling unit, except as specified. By imposing new duties on local agencies relating to the approval of accessory dwelling units, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
The California Financing Law (CFL) generally regulates consumer loan lending practices by finance lenders, brokers, and program administrators. The CFL makes a willful violation of its provisions a crime. This bill would prescribe requirements on loans provided to consumers for the purpose of advancing residential real property rent payments for certain finance lenders and servicers, including prohibiting more than 2 installment payments for the loans, specifying the amount that may be charged for late fees, prescribing disclosure requirements, and prohibiting advertising 0% APR for the loan unless specified conditions are met. By expanding the scope of a crime under the CFL, 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 identifies various types of property of a judgment debtor that are exempt from the enforcement of a money judgment, including material that in good faith is about to be applied to the repair or improvement of a residence, as specified. This bill would specify that this exemption would apply to the judgment debtor's principal place of residence or domicile.
