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.
The California Constitution declares that all property is taxable and establishes or authorizes various exemptions from tax for real property, including a homeowners' exemption in the amount of $7,000 of the full value of a dwelling unless the dwelling receives another real property exemption. If the Legislature increases the homeowners' exemption, the California Constitution requires that the Legislature provide a benefit increase to qualified renters comparable to the average increase in benefits to homeowners. The California Constitution and existing property tax law establish a veterans' exemption in the amount of $4,000 for a veteran who meets certain military service requirements, including that the veteran is serving in or has served in and has been discharged under honorable conditions from one of specified branches of the United States military, and generally exempts from property taxation the same value of property of a deceased veteran's unmarried spouse and parents. The California Constitution authorizes and existing property tax law establishes a disabled veterans' exemption in the amount of $100,000 or $150,000 for the principal place of residence of a veteran or a veteran's spouse, including an unmarried surviving spouse, if the veteran, because of an injury incurred in military service, is blind in both eyes, has lost the use of 2 or more limbs, or is totally disabled, as those terms are defined, or if the veteran has, as a result of a service-connected injury or disease, died while on active duty in military service. Existing law prohibits receiving the veterans' exemption on property owned by an unmarried person who owns more than $5,000 of property or a married person who owns more than $10,000 of property. Existing law prohibits receiving the deceased veterans' exemption on property owned by a deceased veteran's unmarried spouse who owns more than $10,000 of property, a deceased veteran's unmarried parent who owns more than $5,000 of property, or a deceased veteran's married parent who owns more than $10,000 of property. This measure would add the United States Space Force to the military branches, the service in which satisfies the veterans' exemption military service requirement described above. This measure would allow a dwelling that receives the veterans' exemption or the disabled veteran's exemption to also receive the homeowners' exemption. The measure would authorize the Legislature to exempt property eligible for the veterans' exemption in an amount up to the full value of the property. If the Legislature increases the homeowners' exemption, the measure would require that the Legislature provide the same increase in the veterans' exemption, except as limited by the full value of the property. The bill would remove the above-described prohibitions on a property receiving the veterans' or deceased veterans' exemption based on the amount of property that a veteran or veteran's parent or spouse owns.
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 property tax law, pursuant to constitutional authorization, provides for a "welfare exemption" for property used exclusively for religious, hospital, scientific, or charitable purposes and that is owned or operated by certain types of nonprofit entities, if certain qualifying criteria are met. That law provides a partial welfare exemption in the case of residential rental property used for lower income households, as specified, calculated as that percentage of the value of the property that is equal to the percentage that the number of units serving lower income households represents of the total number of residential units. This bill would provide a partial welfare exemption in the case of certain residential rental property used for low- and moderate-income households. The partial exemption would be equal to that percentage of the value of the property that is equal to the percentage that the number of units serving low- and moderate-income households, as defined, represents of the total number of residential units, as provided. The bill would require an owner to make specified certifications, under penalty of perjury, relating to the use of the property. By expanding the duties of local tax officials, and by expanding the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would declare that its provisions are severable. 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. Existing law requires the state to reimburse local agencies annually for certain property tax revenues lost as a result of any exemption or classification of property for purposes of ad valorem property taxation. This bill would provide that, notwithstanding those provisions, no appropriation is made and the state shall not reimburse local agencies for property tax revenues lost by them pursuant to the bill. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
(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.
