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 to 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. This bill, the Tenant Protections for Immigrant Families Act of 2026 (Act) , would, until January 1, 2030, prohibit an owner of residential real property, as defined, from initiating or continuing an unlawful detainer action to evict a tenant whose income, ability to obtain income, or financial support is impacted by immigration enforcement activities until no sooner than 90 days after the tenant or household member's detention-related hardship ends, as specified. The bill would require a court to stay the proceeding of a pending unlawful detainer action against a covered tenant if certain conditions are satisfied, including that the tenant provides the court with specified documentation, such as a signed declaration of detention-related hardship that includes a specified statement, that the tenant or household member suffered a detention-related hardship that prevented them from paying the unpaid rent alleged in the unlawful detainer action. Any person who knowingly provides false information in the declaration of detention-related hardship would be subject to a civil fine of up to $1,500. Under the bill, if a tenant has raised detention-related hardship as an affirmative defense, an owner of residential real property may request an evidentiary hearing regarding the tenant's detention-related hardship stay of the unlawful detainer action, at which the tenant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence their detention-related hardship. The bill would prohibit the owner from charging or collecting any late fees, interest, or other penalties related to the nonpayment of rent by a tenant subject to these provisions. Within 90 days after the end of the detention-related hardship, the bill would require the tenant to either pay all past due rent or enter into a mutually agreed upon payment plan with the owner of the residential real property. For purposes of the Act, this bill would define "immigration enforcement activities" to include any efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal immigration law, including any federal criminal immigration law that penalizes a person's presence in, entry or reentry to, or employment in, the United States. The bill would define "detention-related hardship" to mean, among other things, loss of income or financial support by the tenant or household member due to detention, arrest, or ordered removal of a tenant or household member by any federal law enforcement agency. This bill would prohibit a landlord from charging a tenant subject to these provisions fees assessed for the late payment of that rental debt. The bill would prohibit a person from selling or assigning any unpaid debt as a result of detention-related hardship. The bill would prohibit a housing provider or tenant screening company from using an alleged debt as a result of detention-related hardship as a negative factor for the purpose of evaluating a prospective housing application or as the basis for refusing to rent a dwelling unit to an otherwise qualified prospective tenant. The bill would delete similar provisions related to debts as a result of COVID-19 rental debt. The bill would require the Judicial Council to review its existing forms and develop new forms to effectuate these provisions. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2030.
Existing law regulates the terms and conditions of residential tenancies. 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, among other reasons. This bill would prohibit a landlord from evicting for nonpayment of rent or nonrent fees, as defined, or charging or collecting late fees to, a tenant who is employed by the federal government or a federal contractor and whose income is materially affected by a government shutdown for the duration of, and 30 days following, a government shutdown. The bill would additionally require a court to stay any pending eviction action against the tenant during that time, as provided. The bill would require the tenant to provide specified documentation to a landlord or court, as applicable. The bill would require the deferred rent to be due and payable within 30 days of the date the tenant receives their first full paycheck containing retroactive backpay, as provided. This bill would impose civil penalties not to exceed $2,000 for any person who knowingly violates its provisions and would permit the tenant to raise a violation of its provisions as an affirmative defense in any action for unlawful detainer. The bill would specify that this affirmative defense does not apply to any unlawful detainer action other than an action based on the nonpayment of rent or nonrent fees. The bill would require the Judicial Council to adopt or modify forms as needed to implement these provisions. The bill would make related findings and declarations.
Existing law establishes various advisory boards and commissions in state government with specified duties and responsibilities. This bill would create the California Latino Commission to address the inequities faced by the Latino community in housing, education, economic mobility, labor, and health care. The commission would consist of 9 members who have demonstrated expertise in specified areas, including housing policy and advocacy and economic development. The bill would task the commission with, among other things, collecting and analyzing data, developing recommendations, and monitoring the implementation of state programs and policies affecting the Latino community, as specified. The bill would require the commission to work with other state agencies and to submit an annual report to the Governor and the Legislature. The bill would establish that the commission and its activities would be supported by appropriations by the Legislature from the General Fund and grants from federal and private sources. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2036.
This Senate Resolution recognizes the importance of affordable homeownership for economic stability and racial equity in California, particularly for lower-income families and communities of color. It highlights how nonprofit-led programs like Habitat for Humanity provide long-term affordability through mechanisms such as deed restrictions and shared equity while engaging local volunteers and strengthening neighborhoods. The resolution calls attention to California's low homeownership rate and housing shortage, urging state officials to prioritize affordable home supply in their policies and budget decisions.
Existing law provides for the licensure and regulation of residential care facilities for the elderly (RCFEs) by the State Department of Social Services. Under existing law, a licensee of an RCFE that sends a notice of eviction to a resident is required to include in that notice specified information, including the effective date of the eviction and resources available to assist the resident in identifying alternative housing. Under existing law, the RCFE is also required to notify, or mail a copy of the notice to quit to, the resident's responsible person. Existing law requires that a licensee of an RCFE provide a resident with a 30-day notice of eviction, except where the department has approved the RCFE to provide a 3-day notice. Under existing law, a violation of those provisions is generally a misdemeanor. This bill would extend the length of notice that a licensee is required to provide to a resident to 30, 60, or 90 days, depending on the length of the resident's residency in the RCFE, among other factors relating to nonpayment of the rate for basic services within 10 days of the due date. The bill would additionally require a licensee of an RCFE to include in a notice of eviction documentation of the licensee's reasonable efforts to create a safe discharge plan, and would require the plan to include a list of the resident's posteviction needs, goals, and preferences, and a list of discharge locations that meet specified criteria, such as being financially practicable for the resident. The bill would require that a copy of the notice be provided to the local long-term care ombudsman. The bill would prohibit an RCFE from refusing entry to a resident or prohibit a resident from residing in the facility until the notice period has elapsed and the eviction process has concluded. The bill would make refusal of entry in violation of these provisions subject to civil and criminal penalties. Because the bill would create a new crime, 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, the Sargent Shriver Civil Counsel Act, requires legal counsel to be appointed to represent low-income parties in civil matters involving critical issues affecting basic human needs in courts selected by the Judicial Council. The act requires the Judicial Council to develop one or more programs to provide competitive grants to provide legal counsel to low-income persons who require legal services in civil matters involving specific types of civil matters, including, among others, housing-related matters, probate conservatorships, guardianships, and domestic violence and civil harassment restraining orders. Existing law requires the Judicial Council to consider various factors, including, among others, the unmet need for legal services in the geographic area to be served, in selecting and renewing participating programs. Existing law requires program applicants to, among other things, describe how the program would be administered and the means by which the program would serve the particular needs of the community, such as by providing representation to limited-English-speaking clients. This bill would require courts to provide the Judicial Council each month with information regarding unlawful detainer cases, as specified, aggregated by ZIP Code. The bill would require the Judicial Council to make that information publicly available online every 4 months.
Existing law governs procedures for specified civil actions, including those brought pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Existing law requires a plaintiff to furnish an undertaking as security for costs and damages that may be incurred by the defendant under certain circumstances, such as when the plaintiff challenges a low- or moderate-income housing development project for the purpose of delaying or thwarting the project. This bill would provide that, in a civil action brought to challenge a project that will engage in fire prevention activities, including those brought pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, a defendant may seek an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish an undertaking as security for costs and damages that may be incurred by the defendant if the bringing of the action or seeking by the plaintiff of particular relief, including injunctive relief, would result in preventing or delaying the project. The bill would require the defendant to show that the action is without merit and that it was brought in bad faith, vexatiously, for the purpose of delay, or to thwart the project. The bill would permit a plaintiff in responding to such a motion to request that the amount of the undertaking be limited because it would result in economic hardship, as specified. This bill would authorize the court to order an undertaking not to exceed $500,000 or to decline to require an undertaking if the court finds that it would cause the plaintiff to suffer undue economic hardship. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law authorizes a county to establish a homeless adult and family multidisciplinary personnel team, as defined, with the goal of facilitating the expedited identification, assessment, and linkage of homeless individuals to housing and supportive services within that county and to allow provider agencies to share confidential information for the purpose of coordinating housing and supportive services to ensure continuity of care. This bill would authorize a county to also establish a behavioral health multidisciplinary personnel team, as defined, with the goal of facilitating the expedited identification, assessment, and linkage of a justice-involved person, as defined, diagnosed with a mental illness to supportive services within that county while incarcerated and upon release from county jail and to allow provider agencies and members of the personnel team to share confidential information, as specified, for the purpose of coordinating supportive services to ensure continuity of care. The bill would require the sharing of information permitted under these provisions to be governed by protocols developed in each county, as specified. This bill would authorize a behavioral health multidisciplinary personnel team to designate a qualified person to be a member of the team for a particular case and would require a member who receives information or records regarding a justice-involved person in their capacity as a member of the team to be under the same privacy and confidentiality obligations and subject to the same confidentiality penalties as the person disclosing or providing the information or records. The bill would also require the information or records to be maintained in a manner that ensures the maximum protection of privacy and confidentiality rights.
(1) Existing law, the Bergeson-Peace Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank Act, establishes the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (I-Bank) in the Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development. Existing law, among other things, authorizes the I-Bank to issue bonds, make loans, and provide financial assistance for various types of projects that qualify as economic development or public development facilities. This bill would enact the Community Stabilization Act. The bill would require the I-Bank to develop and administer a program to issue a security, and to cease issuing a security on January 1, 2030. The bill would specify that the purpose of the program is to help stabilize property values in disaster-affected areas by allowing qualified investors, as defined, to purchase tradable securities, with the funding allocated to qualifying investment entities that purchase and manage residential land until it can be resold at fair market value. The bill would require profits from the land investments to be shared among investors and the I-Bank according to certain percentages, with qualifying investment entities being reimbursed for their administrative costs. This bill would establish various requirements for the security, including that it be tradeable, comply with specified municipal bonding requirements, and that it be funded by investments made by qualified investors using funds available pursuant to the federal Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. The bill would require the security to repay the investment upon a liquidity event and within 7 years of the purchase of an investment property, and would describe a liquidity event as the refinance or sale of the investment property. This bill would require funds raised from the purchase of the security to be deposited in the Community Stabilization Fund, which would be created by the bill, and would require all moneys in the fund to be continuously appropriated to the I-Bank. The bill would require the I-Bank to allocate moneys in the fund to qualifying investment entities to be invested in the Counties of Los Angeles and Ventura and in those areas that are covered by a state of disaster declared by the Governor. The bill would require a qualifying investment entity to meet prescribed requirements, including that it be a specified entity, including, among others, a nonprofit organization, as provided. The bill would also impose various requirements on the qualifying investment entity relating to the purchase, maintenance, and sale of the investment property, including, among other things, limiting the purchase of property to residential property that has been damaged or destroyed by the wildfires that began on January 7, 2025, in the Counties of Los Angeles and Ventura, as specified. The bill would require the I-Bank to submit a final report on the program to the Legislature, the Governor, and the Department of Finance no later than January 1, 2034, as specified. By establishing a new continuously appropriated fund, the Community Stabilization Fund, this bill would make an appropriation. (2) This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Counties of Los Angeles and Ventura. (3) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, establishes the Civil Rights Department within the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency and sets forth its powers and duties relating to enforcement of civil rights laws and assistance to communities in resolving disputes, disagreements, or difficulties relating to discriminatory practices. This bill, upon appropriation by the Legislature and commencing on or before the later of either July 1, 2026, or one year after the date of the appropriation, would require the department to create and implement statewide and regional radio, social media, and television campaigns for the purposes of discouraging discrimination. The bill would require the department to convene a working group to develop a plan to implement the campaigns above. The bill would exempt the working group from the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. 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.
