(1) Existing state and federal law provides for the enforcement of laws related to elections. This bill would prohibit a peace officer from interfering with the administration of an election, as specified. This bill would authorize certain persons to enforce those prohibitions by filing a civil action, as specified. This bill would also prohibit any individual from permitting an agent of a law enforcement agency, as specified, to access, disrupt, modify, or take possession of rosters, combined rosters, or voter lists unless authorized by a court order or to investigate certain types of voting fraud. The bill would additionally require the Attorney General to provide guidance and information regarding how to respond to requests by law enforcement, as defined, to access areas where ballots are present. (2) Existing law requires an elections official, upon receiving a vote by mail ballot, to compare the signature on the identification envelope with the voter's prior signatures, and it also provides a mechanism by which a voter can verify their signature and cure this defect. Existing law provides that the processing of vote by mail ballots is open to the public and permits specified persons and organizations to observe this processing. This bill would prohibit a vote by mail observer from challenging a signature on a vote by mail ballot that has been verified by the voter. (3) Under existing law, it is a crime for a person in possession of a firearm, a uniformed peace officer, private guard, or security personnel, or any person wearing the uniform of a peace officer, guard, or security personnel, to be stationed in the immediate vicinity of, or posted at, a polling place without authorization from the appropriate elections official. It is also a crime for a person to hire or arrange for such a person to be stationed in the immediate vicinity of, or posted at, a polling place without authorization from the elections official. This bill would authorize the Secretary of State or Attorney General to object to authorization provided by the appropriate elections official, in which case the person stationed or posted at the polling place, or the person who hired or arranged for such a person to be stationed or posted at the polling place, is guilty of a crime. By expanding the scope of these crimes, the bill would create a state-mandated local program. (4) Existing law authorizes the Secretary of State, Attorney General, and any local elections official in the county in which the act occurs, to bring a civil action against an individual, business, or other legal entity that commits any specified act of tampering with a voting system or voting equipment before, during, or after an election. This bill would additionally authorize the Secretary of State, Attorney General, and the appropriate local elections official to bring a civil action against a person, business, or entity that takes a package containing ballots from the custody of an elections official. (5) Existing law makes it a crime for an individual to undertake a number of enumerated actions that would result in interference with an election, including displaying a container for the purpose of collecting ballots with the intent to deceive a voter into casting a ballot in an unofficial ballot box. This bill would also make it a crime to take a package containing voted ballots out of the custody of an elections official. By expanding the scope of this crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (6) Existing law requires the elections official of any county or city using a voting system to inspect the machines or devices at least once every 2 years. This bill would prohibit an individual from permitting an agent of a law enforcement agency, as defined, to access, disrupt, modify, or take possession of certified voting technology unless authorized by a court order. To the extent this bill would establish new procedures for the conduct of elections, it would create a state-mandated local program. (7) 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. (8) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
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.
(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 establishes the California Housing Finance Agency in the Department of Housing and Community Development, and authorizes the agency to, among other things, make loans to finance affordable housing, including residential structures, housing developments, multifamily rental housing, special needs housing, and other forms of housing, as specified. Existing law establishes the California Dream for All Program to provide shared appreciation loans to qualified first-time homebuyers, as specified. Existing law establishes in the State Treasury the California Dream for All Fund, which is continuously appropriated for expenditure pursuant to the program, as specified. This bill would require, upon establishment of the certification process for the descendants of American slavery established by the Bureau for Descendants of American Slavery, at least 10% of the moneys in the fund to be reserved for applicants who meet the requirements for a loan under the program and have been certified as descendants of formerly enslaved people, as specified. This bill would become operative only if SB 518 of the 2025–26 Regular Session is enacted and takes effect on or before January 1, 2027, and establishes the Bureau for Descendants for American Slavery.
Existing law requires each city and county within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley to amend its general plan relative to the data and analysis contained in the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan, as specified and to amend its zoning ordinance consistent with the general plan. Existing law prohibits the legislative body of a city or county within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley from entering into a development agreement for property that is located within a flood hazard zone after the amendments described above are complete unless the city or county makes a specified finding. Among the possible findings, is that the local flood agency has made adequate progress on construction of a flood protection system that will result in flood protection equal to or greater than the urban level of flood protection in urban or urbanizing areas intended to be protected by the system, which, except as provided, shall be achieved by 2025 for urban and urbanizing areas protected by project levees. Existing law similarly prohibits each city and county within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley from approving a discretionary permit or other discretionary entitlement that would result in the construction of a new building or construction that would result in an increase in allowed occupancy for an existing building, or a ministerial permit that would result in the construction of a new residence, for a project that is located within a flood hazard zone after the amendments described above are complete unless the city or county makes a specified finding. Among the possible findings, is that the local flood agency has made adequate progress toward the urban level of flood protection as described above. Existing law similarly requires the legislative body of each city and county within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley to deny approval of a tentative map or a parcel map for a subdivision that is located within a flood hazard zone after the amendments described above are complete unless the city or county makes a specified finding. Among the possible findings, is that the local flood agency has made adequate progress toward the urban level of flood protection as described above. This bill would include in the exceptions to the requirement that the urban level of flood protection be achieved for urban and urbanizing areas protected by project levees by 2025, specified areas located in the City of Marysville, the City of Sacramento, the County of Sacramento, the County of Sutter, and the County of Yuba that shall, instead, be required to achieve the urban level of flood protection by 2030. The bill would authorize the Department of Water Resources to require a city or county listed above to contribute its fair and reasonable share of any property damage caused by a flood in its respective jurisdiction, as specified, until the city or county finds the area has met the urban level of flood protection. The bill would make a related technical change. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the County of Sacramento, County of Sutter, County of Yuba, City of Marysville, and City of Sacramento.
Existing law within the Planning and Zoning Law describes various reforms and incentives enacted by the Legislature to facilitate and expedite the construction of affordable housing. Existing law within the Planning and Zoning Law, in certain civil actions or proceedings against a public entity that has issued specified approvals for a housing development, authorizes a court to award all reasonably incurred costs of suit to a prevailing public entity or nonprofit housing corporation that is a real party in interest and the permit applicant of the low- or moderate-income housing if the court makes specified findings. This bill, where the applicant for a housing development is a prevailing party in an action brought by the applicant to enforce the public agency's compliance with a housing reform law as applied to the applicant's housing development project, would entitle an applicant for a housing development project to reasonable attorney's fees and costs and would require a court to impose fines on a local agency, as specified. The bill would extend any period of limitation for actions under any state law for a period of 60 days beginning on the date the applicant provides written notice to the local agency indicating its intent to commence an action. The bill would prohibit a public agency from requiring the applicant to indemnify, defend, or hold harmless the public agency in any action alleging the public agency violated the applicant's rights or deprived the applicant of the benefits or protection provide by a housing reform law. The bill would define housing reform law as a law that establishes or facilitates protections for the benefit of applicants for housing development projects or imposes limitations on a public agency for the benefit of housing development projects.
(1) 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, until January 1, 2033, deems a housing development project an allowable use on any real property owned by a local educational agency if the housing development satisfies specified conditions, including, among others, consisting of at least 10 housing units, 100% of the units being rented by local educational agency employees, local public employees, and general members of the public pursuant to a specified priority, and a majority of the units being deed restricted for lower income or moderate-income households, as specified. Existing law, the Housing Accountability Act, among other things, prohibits a local agency from disapproving a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households unless the local agency makes written findings as to one of certain sets of conditions, as specified, and describes various requirements applicable to housing development projects. This bill would revise and recast the provisions deeming a housing development project an allowable use on any real property owned by a local educational agency. The bill would require the housing development to satisfy specified conditions, and would apply the requirements of the Housing Accountability Act to review of housing development projects subject to these provisions. The bill would provide that a proposed housing development project is eligible for a density bonus, as specified, and would define various terms for these purposes. The bill would extend the operation of these provisions until January 1, 2036. (2) Existing law, prior to the sale, lease, or rental of any excess real property, requires the governing board of each school district to appoint a school district advisory committee to advise the governing board of the school district in the development of districtwide policies and procedures governing the use or disposition of school buildings or space in school buildings that is not needed for school purposes. Notwithstanding that law, existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district to elect not to appoint a school district advisory committee in the sale, lease, or rental of excess real property to be used for teacher or school district employee housing. This bill would specify that the governing board of a school district is authorized to elect not to appoint a school district advisory committee in the sale, lease, or rental of excess real property to be used for teacher or school district employee housing and that is subject to the provisions governing real property owned by a local educational agency described above. (3) 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 or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. Existing law, until January 1, 2033, exempts from CEQA certain actions taken by a public agency related to affordable housing projects, as defined, if certain requirements are met. This bill would provide that an affordable housing project for purposes of the CEQA exemption includes real property owned by a local educational agency, as described above, and would exempt these projects from certain of the requirements for other affordable housing projects. (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) By adding to the duties of local planning officials with respect to approving certain development projects, 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.
Under the Planning and Zoning Law, the legislative body of a county or city may adopt ordinances that, among other things, regulate the use of buildings, structures, and land, as provided. The Subdivision Map Act vests the authority to regulate and control the design and improvement of subdivisions in the legislative body of a local agency and sets forth procedures governing the local agency's processing, approval, conditional approval or disapproval, and filing of tentative, final, and parcel maps. Existing law requires a local agency to consider ministerially a specified proposed housing development or to ministerially approve a parcel map for an urban lot split if the development or parcel meets specified requirements, including, that the development or parcel is not located within a historic district or property included on the State Historic Resources Inventory or within a site that is designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district pursuant to city or county ordinance, as specified. Existing law authorizes a local agency to impose specified objective standards on the development or parcel created by an urban lot split, except as specified. With respect to ministerial review of a proposed housing development under the above-described provisions, this bill would, if the other specified requirements are met, instead require a local agency to consider ministerially the development that is not located in either a contributing structure within a historic district included on the State Historical Resources Inventory or within a historic property or district pursuant to city or county ordinance or in a parcel individually listed as a historical resource included in the State Historical Resources Inventory or within a property individually designated or listed as a city or county landmark under a city or county ordinance. The bill would also authorize a local agency to adopt objective standards for the purposes of maintaining the historical value of a historic district listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, as specified. With respect to an urban lot split under the above-described provisions, this bill would, if the other specified requirements are met, instead require a local agency to ministerially approve the urban lot split if the parcel is not located within a historic landmark property included on the State Historical Resources Inventory or within a site that is designated or listed as a city or county landmark pursuant to a city or county ordinance. The bill would additionally require that the proposed urban lot split not require demolition or alteration of specified structures. By imposing additional duties on local agencies, 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 Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022 (act) , until January 1, 2033, authorizes a development proponent to submit an application for an affordable housing development or a mixed-income housing development that meets specified objective standards and affordability and site criteria, including being located within a zone where office, retail, or parking are a principally permitted use. The act makes a development that meets those objective standards and affordability and site criteria a use by right and subject to one of 2 streamlined, ministerial review processes depending on, among other things, the affordability requirements applicable to the project. The act requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to undertake at least 2 studies, one completed on or before January 1, 2027, and one completed on or before January 1, 2031, on the outcomes of the act. This bill would provide that, for purposes of determining whether a property or site satisfies the criteria, objective development standards, or other requirements for receiving streamlined, ministerial review under the act, a local government's review of the property or site is limited to the area described as being physically disturbed by construction in the application for streamlined, ministerial review and does not include, unless expressly stated otherwise, other contiguous or noncontiguous areas even if under the ownership or control of the project proponent. The bill would provide that easements for public right-of-way, public or private utilities, or other public improvements in, under, or over the property shall not make the property ineligible to receive streamlined, ministerial review for either affordable or mixed-income housing developments. This bill would also expand the eligibility for the above-described streamlined, ministerial review for mixed-income housing developments to include developments located in a campus development zone, as defined, as long as the development meets certain affordability requirements and objective standards, as provided. The bill would require the outcomes of projects built under campus development zones to be reported in the January 1, 2031, outcomes report. The bill would also make related findings and declarations. 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 or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA does not apply to the approval of ministerial projects. By expanding the scope of projects eligible for streamlined, ministerial approval as described above, this bill would expand the scope of the exemption from CEQA for ministerial projects. Existing law includes certain setback requirements in the objective standards that a mixed-income development project must meet to be subject to the above-referenced streamlined, ministerial review process. In this regard, existing law requires all parking to be set back at least 25 feet. This bill would instead impose that setback requirement only on parking that is aboveground. By changing the criteria local agencies must follow for the approval of certain development projects, 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, 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 specified mandatory elements, a housing element. Existing law requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to determine whether the housing element is in substantial compliance with those provisions. Existing law requires the department to designate jurisdictions as prohousing pursuant to emergency regulations adopted by the department, as prescribed. Existing law requires that jurisdictions that are prohousing and that are in substantial compliance with specified provisions be awarded additional points or preference in the scoring of applications for specified state programs. Existing law defines "prohousing local policies" for these purposes and specifies a nonexhaustive list of examples of those policies, including local financial incentives for housing and adoption of zoning allowing for use by right for residential and mixed-use development. This bill would include in the definition of "prohousing local policies" policies that keep people housed, and would include additional examples of prohousing local policies under the above-described provisions, as specified. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65589.9 of the Government Code proposed by AB 36 to be operative only if this bill and AB 36 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
