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 the Department of Housing and Community Development that includes, among other specified information, the agency's progress in meeting its share of regional housing needs and the number of units approved and disapproved in the prior year. This bill, beginning with the first annual report submitted after the due date for the 7th cycle revision of the housing element, would require that annual report to additionally include specified information regarding the special housing needs of families and persons in need of emergency shelter. The bill would require the report to include, among other information, a list of any federal, state, or local funding that has been allocated from specified programs and a description of any actions taken to conduct outreach to individuals who are unhoused to inform them about those resources. 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, provides for the adoption and administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules and regulations by counties and cities and the implementation of those general plans as may be in effect in those counties or cities. In that regard, existing law requires each local agency, by January 1, 2025, to develop a program for the preapproval of accessory dwelling unit plans. This bill would require each local agency, as defined, to develop a program for the preapproval of single-family and multifamily residential housing plans, whereby the local agency accepts single-family and multifamily plan submissions for preapproval and approves or denies the preapproval applications, as specified. The bill would require a large jurisdiction, as defined, to develop this program by July 1, 2027, and a small jurisdiction, as defined, to develop a program by January 1, 2029. The bill would require the local agency to post preapproved single-family or multifamily residential housing plans and the contact information of the applicant on the local agency's internet website. This bill would require a local agency to either approve or deny ministerially an application for a single-family or multifamily residential housing unit within 30 days if the lot meets certain conditions and the application utilizes specified plans that have been preapproved by the local agency or that are identical to a plan used in an application approved by the local agency. The bill would prohibit the preapproval program from applying to single-family or multifamily residential housing plans intended for use in certain communities and developments, as specified. Existing 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. Existing law requires the annual report to include, among other things, the city's or county's progress in meeting its share of regional housing needs, as specified. 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. To the extent that the ministerial review process established by the bill would apply to final, discretionary approval of an application for a single-family or multifamily housing unit, the bill would exempt those projects from CEQA. This bill, beginning on April 1, 2028, for large jurisdictions and beginning on April 1, 2030, for small jurisdictions, would require the local agency to include in its annual report the number of units of residential housing that are approved using a preapproved housing plan pursuant to this act. By imposing new duties on local agencies with regard to developing a preapproval program and its annual report, the bill would create a state-mandated local program. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
The Insurance Rate Reduction and Reform Act of 1988, an initiative measure enacted by Proposition 103, as approved by the voters at the November 8, 1988, statewide general election, prohibits specified insurance rates from being approved or remaining in effect that are excessive, inadequate, unfairly discriminatory, or otherwise in violation of the act. Under the act, rates and premiums for automobile insurance are determined based on specified factors, including the insured's driving safety record. Existing law authorizes the provisions of Proposition 103 to be amended by a statute that furthers the purposes of the act and is enacted by the Legislature with a 23 vote. This bill, the Consumer Driving Data Protection Act of 2026, would authorize a consumer to opt to use telematics to establish their driving record, thus amending Proposition 103. The bill would prohibit the use of telematics data for a purpose other than rating private passenger automobile insurance. The bill would require a rate application under which telematics would be used to establish an insured's driving record to include specified materials related to the insurer's telematics program. This bill would prohibit an insurer that uses telematics from taking specified actions, including conditioning eligibility for a discount upon participation in a telematics program, unless the discount is approved by the commissioner. The bill would also set forth written consent and privacy requirements for the collection and use of telematics data. The bill would authorize the commissioner to impose specified penalties for violations of the bill's provisions, including civil penalties and suspension of an insurer's telematics program. This bill would require an insurance provider or third-party vendor to take specified actions with respect to the telematics data, including immediately deleting the data once a rating has been assigned to the consumer and obtaining an express written or electronic signature of a consumer on a notice meeting specified conditions. The bill would additionally prohibit an insurance provider or third-party vendor from keeping the telematics data for longer than 6 months and collecting audio or visual recordings of the occupants of the vehicle or persons outside the vehicle, among other specified prohibitions. The bill would declare that its provisions further the purposes of Proposition 103. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.
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.
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.
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.
Existing law, the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, governs the formation and operation of common interest developments. Existing law requires that a common interest development be managed by an association. Existing law requires the board of an association, if the association adopts or has adopted a policy imposing any monetary penalty on any association member for a violation of the governing documents, to adopt and distribute to each member a schedule of the monetary penalties that may be assessed for those violations, as provided. Existing law prohibits a monetary penalty for a violation of the governing documents from exceeding the lesser of the amount stated in the schedule that is in effect at the time of the violation or $100 per violation, except if the violation might result in an adverse health or safety impact on the common area or another association member's property, as specified. This bill would also except if the violation is contained in a specified list developed and published by the Department of Real Estate. In this regard, the bill would require the department, on or before January 1, 2028, to develop and publish a list of specified violations for which an association may impose a monetary penalty that is greater than $100, as specified. The bill would require the list to be limited to violations that are clearly defined and address significant risks to health, safety, or the integrity of the common interest development. The bill would require the department, in developing the list, to identify categories of violations that pose heightened risks to health, safety, or the integrity of the common interest development, including violations that create a risk of fire or other life safety hazards, as specified, and before finalizing the list, to conduct a stakeholder engagement process to solicit input from a broad range of interested parties, as specified. The bill would require the department to release a draft list of violations for public comment and to consider comments before finalizing the list of violations, as prescribed. The bill would require the department to publish the final list of violations on the department's internet website. Existing law requires the board to notify a member in writing at least 10 days before a meeting to consider or impose discipline or a monetary charge on a member, as specified. Existing law requires the board to give a member the opportunity to cure a violation prior to the meeting, and prohibits the board from imposing discipline if the member cures the violation prior to the meeting or, if curing the violation would take longer than the time between the notice provided and the meeting, the member provides financial commitment to cure the violation. This bill would specify that a member engaged in habitual, repeated, or continuing violations is not deemed to have cured a violation simply because the violation is not occurring at the time of the hearing.
