(1) Existing law, the Mobilehome Residency Law, prescribes various terms and conditions of tenancies in mobilehome parks. Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, requires a person or entity proposing a change in use of a mobilehome park to file a report on the impact of the conversion, closure, or cessation of use of the mobilehome park that includes a replacement and relocation plan, as specified. Existing law requires the legislative body or advisory agency to review the report before any change of use, as provided. Existing law establishes the Department of Housing and Community Development and requires it to administer various programs intended to promote the development of housing. This bill would require, if a closure, cessation, or change of use is the result of damage or destruction of the mobilehome park by a disaster, as defined, the person or entity proposing that closure, cessation, or change of use to file an impact report, as described in the paragraph above, which also includes a technical service inspection report from the Department of Housing and Community Development that identifies the observed conditions within the park. By placing new requirements on local legislative bodies when approving permits for a change of use for mobilehome parks, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires the person or entity proposing the change of use of a mobilehome park to pay to the displaced resident the in-place market value of the displaced resident's mobilehome, as provided. This bill would provide that if the proposed closure, cessation, or change of use is related to damage or destruction by a disaster, the person or entity proposing the change of use of a mobilehome park is not required to pay to the displaced resident the in-place market value of the displaced resident's mobilehome. (2) Existing law regulates the terms and conditions of residential tenancies. Existing law requires the lessor of a building intended for human occupation to repair dilapidations, as specified, rendering it untenantable. Existing law requires a dwelling to be deemed untenantable if it substantially lacks certain affirmative standard characteristics. This bill would impose a duty upon the landlord to undertake certain actions, within a reasonable time and according to specified cleaning protocols, as may be necessary to remediate any dilapidations that arise as a result of a disaster. The bill would establish a presumption that the presence at the rental unit of debris from the disaster renders the unit untenantable, until a determination has been made by a local public health agency or official that the debris does not contain toxic substances. This bill would require the landlord to notify the tenant in writing that the landlord has fulfilled its duty to remediate dilapidations and that the tenant may view various reports, if requested. The bill would specify that these provisions do not require a landlord to rebuild a residential real property or any portion thereof that has sustained damage as a result of a disaster, and that, unless lawfully terminated by either party, the tenancy remains in effect and the tenant has the right to return to the rental unit, at the same rental rate in effect immediately prior to the disaster, as soon as it is safe and practicable. (3) Existing law terminates the hiring of a thing by the destruction of the thing hired, or when the greater part of the thing hired perishes from any other cause than the want of ordinary care of the hirer. This bill would require the landlord to return to the tenant any advance rental payments made by the tenant when the hiring of residential real property is terminated due to damage or destruction of the property. The bill would also require management of a mobilehome park to return to the homeowner any advance rental payments made by the homeowner when the mobilehome tenancy is terminated due to damage or the destruction of the mobilehome park or any space as a result of a disaster. The bill would discharge the tenant's or homeowner's obligation to pay rent during any period during which a tenant or homeowner is unable to occupy their rental unit due to a mandatory evacuation order pursuant to a disaster, as provided. (4) Existing law makes the Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation the head of the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation, which executes the laws of this state relating to, among other things, residential mortgage lenders and servicers and mortgage loan originators employed or supervised by finance lenders or residential mortgage lenders. This bill would require the commissioner to, upon the declaration of a state of emergency due to wildfire, as specified, coordinate with mortgage lenders and servicers subject to the commissioner's jurisdiction operating in this state to facilitate and monitor the implementation and promotion of mortgage forbearance, foreclosure prevention, and loss mitigation programs available to borrowers who experience a material decrease in household income or a material increase in household expenses due, directly or indirectly, to the wildfire emergency. (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.
Existing law provides that recorded covenants, conditions, restrictions, or private limits on the use of land contained in instruments affecting the transfer or sale of any interest in real property that, among other things, restrict the number, size, or location of the residences that may be built on the property, are not enforceable against the owner of an affordable housing development, as defined, if an approved restrictive covenant affordable housing modification document has been recorded in the public record, as provided. As part of this process, existing law requires the owner to submit to the county recorder a copy of the original restrictive covenant and any documents the owner believes necessary to establish that the property qualifies as an affordable housing development and requires the county counsel to determine, among other things, if the property qualifies as an affordable housing development and if a modification document may be recorded. Existing law provides that these provisions do not authorize any development that is not otherwise consistent with local general plans, zoning ordinances, and any applicable specific plan. This bill would extend those provisions to a housing development that is owned or controlled by an entity or individual that has submitted a development project application to redevelop an existing commercial property, and the development project includes residential uses permitted by state housing laws or local land use and zoning regulations and would make various conforming changes. The bill would additionally make these provisions applicable to covenants, conditions, restrictions, or private limits contained in a reciprocal easement agreement, as provided, and include instruments affecting the transfer or sale of any interest in real property that prohibits the number, size, or location of residences that may be built on the property or restricts or prohibits the residential uses of the property. The bill would further provide that these provisions do not authorize any development that is not otherwise consistent with state housing laws. By imposing additional duties on county officials, 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.
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.
(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 establishes the California Community Colleges, under the administration of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, as one of the segments of postsecondary education in this state. Existing law establishes community college districts throughout the state and authorizes them to operate campuses and provide instruction to students. This bill would provide that a community college district is not required to comply with the zoning ordinances of a city, county, or city and county, for a university housing development project constructed on property owned or leased by a community college district if specific requirements are met. If the project includes units for faculty and staff, the bill would require the community college district to ensure that a portion of the units of the project are made available at affordable rents to extremely low income faculty and staff and lower income faculty and staff. 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.
Existing law requires that any building with a dwelling unit maintain certain characteristics in order to be tenantable, including the maintenance of adequate heating and hot water systems that conform to the standard of quality set by applicable law. This bill would add a stove and refrigerator that are maintained in good working order and are capable of safely generating heat for cooking purposes and capable of safely storing food, respectively, to the list of characteristics required for the dwelling unit to be tenantable for leases entered into, amended, or extended on or after January 1, 2026. The bill would require a landlord to repair or replace a stove or refrigerator that is subject to recall by the manufacturer or a public entity within 30 days of receiving notice that the stove or refrigerator is subject to recall. The bill would also authorize a tenant and landlord to mutually agree when the lease is signed if the tenant chooses to provide and maintain their own refrigerator, subject to certain conditions. The bill would prohibit the application of these new requirements for certain types of dwelling units, including permanent supportive housing, as defined. Existing law authorizes a tenant to repair dilapidations rendering their premises untenantable if the landlord has neglected to repair those dilapidations, subject to certain conditions, or vacate the premises, as specified. This bill would provide that the above-described requirement on a landlord to repair or replace a recalled stove or refrigerator does not prohibit a tenant from exercising any remedy authorized as described above.
Existing law, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) , establishes the Civil Rights Department to enforce civil rights laws with respect to housing and employment and to protect and safeguard the right of all persons to obtain and hold employment without discrimination based upon specified characteristics or status. The FEHA makes certain discriminatory employment and housing practices unlawful, and authorizes a person claiming to be aggrieved by an alleged unlawful practice to file a verified complaint with the department. The FEHA requires the department to make an investigation in connection with a filed complaint alleging facts sufficient to constitute a violation of the FEHA, and requires the department to endeavor to eliminate the unlawful practice by conference, conciliation, and persuasion. Existing law authorizes a complaint to be filed by an aggrieved person or the department on behalf and as representative of a group or class if the alleged unlawful practice adversely affects, in a similar manner, a group or class of persons of which the aggrieved person is a member. This bill would define the term "group or class complaint" for purposes of the FEHA. Existing law tolls the time for a complainant to file a civil action alleging a violation of specified civil rights provisions commencing with the filing of a complaint with the department until the department files a civil action for the alleged violation or until one year after the department issues written notice that it has closed its investigation without filing a civil action. This bill would additionally toll the time for a complainant to file a civil action if the complainant timely appeals to the department the closure of their complaint until one year after the department issues written notice that it remains closed following the appeal. Existing law authorizes the director to bring a civil action in the name of the department, acting in the public interest, on behalf of an aggrieved person if conference, conciliation, mediation, or persuasion fails to eliminate an unlawful practice. Existing law imposes a deadline of one or 2 years for the department to bring a civil action, as specified. Existing law requires those deadlines to be tolled during a dispute resolution proceeding. This bill would additionally require those deadlines to be tolled pursuant to a written agreement by the complainant and the department, during the pendency of a petition to compel, and for the duration of an appeal to the department for the closure of a complaint. Under existing law, if the department does not file a civil action, the department is required to promptly issue the person claiming to be aggrieved a right-to-sue notice upon request, as specified, or upon completion of its investigation and not later than one year after the filing of the complaint. For a complaint treated as a group or class complaint, existing law requires the department to issue a right-to-sue notice upon completion of its investigation and not later than 2 years after the filing of the complaint. Existing law requires these deadlines to be tolled during a dispute resolution proceeding. Under this bill, if the department determines that an aggrieved person's complaint relates to a complaint filed in the name of the director or a group or class complaint, as specified, the department would be required to issue a right-to-sue notice after the director's or group or class complaint has been fully and finally disposed of and all administrative proceedings, civil actions, appeals, or related proceedings have terminated. The bill would require this deadline and the above-described deadlines relating to issuing a right-to-sue notice to additionally be tolled pursuant to a written agreement by the complainant and the department, during the pendency of a petition to compel, and for the duration of an appeal to the department for the closure of a complaint. Existing law authorizes the department, in the case of failure to eliminate specified violations relating to housing discrimination that have occurred, or that are about to occur, as specified, to bring a civil action in the name of the department. Existing law authorizes the action to be filed in any county where the unlawful practice is alleged to have been committed, the records relevant to that practice are maintained and administered, the aggrieved party would have resided, or the defendant's residence or principal office is located, as specified. This bill would remove the above-described provisions specifying the counties where the civil action may be filed.
Existing law establishes procedures relating to an action for unlawful detainer, and sets timelines regarding the filing of a complaint and the defendant's response, including a demurrer or motion to strike, as specified. The hearing on such a motion is required to occur within 5 to 7 court days after its filing, unless good cause is shown, in which case the hearing may occur on a later date on notice prescribed by the court. This bill would instead limit the court's authority to set a later hearing for a noticed motion. The bill would permit the court to order the hearing held on a later date upon the written stipulation of the parties or upon good cause shown in the case of a residential or commercial tenancy, not to exceed 10 court days after the first date set for a hearing on the motion in the case of a commercial tenancy.
Existing law, the California Community Care Facilities Act, requires the State Department of Social Services to license and regulate transitional housing placement providers, which is defined as organizations licensed by the department to provide transitional housing to foster children at least 16 years of age and not more than 18 years of age and to nonminor dependents to promote their transition to adulthood. Existing law requires the department to adopt regulations governing transitional housing placement living arrangement requirements for minors and nonminor dependents, including allowing a participant to share a bedroom or unit with certain other individuals and requiring all counties and program contracts to allow participants and those certain other individuals to share bedrooms, bathrooms, and units together, regardless of gender identity. Under existing law, a violation of the act is a misdemeanor. This bill would require all counties and program contracts to also ensure that decisions about sharing bedrooms, bathrooms, and units together are led by the program participant and agreed upon in collaboration with the provider. By increasing county duties, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires an applicant to obtain certification from a county specifying the population that will be served by the facility in order to be licensed as a transitional housing placement provider. Existing law requires the certification to confirm that the program includes specified components, depending on the population served. This bill would specify contract requirements if a county contracts with a transitional housing placement provider, including prohibiting the contract from containing terms that create unreasonable barriers for a qualified foster youth's admission into or participation in the 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.
