(1) Existing law requires a local agency to declare land either "surplus land" or "exempt surplus land," as supported by written findings, before the local agency may take any action to dispose of it consistent with an agency's policies or procedures and defines terms for these purposes. Existing law generally requires a local agency, before disposing or negotiating to dispose of surplus land, to provide a written notice of the availability of the surplus land to specified entities and housing sponsors. Existing law provides that an agency is not required to follow the requirements for the disposal of surplus land for "exempt surplus land." Existing law defines "exempt surplus land" to include certain types of land, including, surplus land totaling 10 or more acres, consisting of either a single parcel, or 2 or more adjacent or nonadjacent parcels combined for disposition to one or more buyers pursuant to a plan or ordinance adopted by the legislative body of the local agency, or a state statute and certain surplus land that is a former military base, known as the Alameda Naval Air Station, if specified conditions are met. 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, among other entities, the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation. This bill would revise the definition of "exempt surplus land" to remove the reference to buyers and instead mean 2 or more adjacent or nonadjacent parcels combined for disposition to one or more persons or entities, as specified. The bill would also exempt surplus land that is a former military base that was conveyed by the federal government to a local agency or a local reuse authority, and that is all or any portion of the Concord Naval Weapons Station, if certain requirements are met, including that the former military base has an aggregate area greater than 5 acres and that before disposition of the land, the local agency or local reuse authority has entered into a disposition and development agreement that stipulates that at least 25% of the aggregate residential units permitted to be developed will be restricted to lower income households with an affordable housing cost or affordable rent for a minimum of 55 years for rental housing and 45 years for owner-occupied housing, as specified. The bill would regulate actions challenging the disposition and would prescribe penalties for violations of these provisions. The bill would also regulate the actions of the local agency or local reuse authority, including, among other things, requiring the local agency or local reuse authority to include in the annual report the status of development of residential units on the former military base, as specified. (2) 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. This bill would provide that specified environmental review documents satisfy the requirements of CEQA for any project within the portion of the Concord Naval Weapons Station included within the boundaries of the area plan for the Concord Community Reuse Project, as provided, that has land use types that are consistent with the area plan land use types and locations for those land use types that are consistent with the area plan diagram and the project does not cause the aggregate development in the area plan to exceed the area plan maximum planning areawide total, as specified. The bill would further provide that a project that contains land use types that are consistent with the area plan land use types in locations that are not consistent with the area plan diagram would be subject to review pursuant to CEQA, and would be limited to review of the location of land use types that are not consistent with the area plan diagram, as provided. In any action or proceeding challenging a project described above, the bill would require a project applicant to pay any additional costs incurred by the courts in hearing cases relating to the challenge of the project and would require a lead agency to lodge a copy of the certified record of proceedings with the superior court within 10 calendar days after being served with a complaint or a petition for a writ of mandate. Because the bill imposes new duties on local agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the Judicial Council, on or before July 1, 2027, to adopt rules of court that require any action or proceeding brought to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the approval of any project within the plan area or any environmental impact review for any project within the plan area, including any potential appeals to the court of appeal or the California Supreme Court, to be resolved to the extent feasible within 270 calendar days of the filing of the certified record of proceedings with the court. The bill would make these provisions severable. (3) This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City of Concord. (4) 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. (5) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
The Housing Authorities Law establishes a housing authority within each county and city and authorizes the authority to, among other things, prepare, carry out, acquire, lease, and operate housing projects and housing developments for persons of low income, as provided. This bill would, unless required by federal law, and except as specified, prohibit a housing authority or other covered housing provider, as defined, from establishing or implementing any rules, policies, or procedures that impose term limits or work requirements, as defined, as a condition of eligibility for any covered housing or that impact the amount of the rent subsidy or assistance provided to covered housing tenants. The bill would, however, permit a covered housing provider to establish or implement a voluntary employment or job training program if specified conditions apply. The bill would provide that its provisions do not limit or alter the operation of specified federal housing programs and requirements.
Prospective federal law, the federal 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act (H.R. 6644) , prohibits a large institutional investor from purchasing, or entering into a contract to directly or indirectly purchase, any single-family home, except as specified. If the above-described federal legislation is enacted, this bill would authorize the Attorney General, district attorney, or county counsel to coordinate with the Secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Director of the United States Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Chair of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States in the implementation of federal regulations, as described, related to violations of federal law involving tenants residing in properties owned, maintained, and managed by institutional investors. Existing law establishes various real estate disclosure requirements applicable to the transfer of residential real property. Before entering into specified transactions relating to residential real property, including an individual sale of residential real property, this bill would require an institutional investor, as defined, to provide written notice of the institutional investor's intent to sell the property to each tenant at least 90 days before advertising the residential real property for sale in a multiple listing service, as specified. The bill would require the notice to include, among other things, a statement that the tenant has the right to remain in possession until the end of the lease term, except as specified. For sales of residential real property containing 1 to 4 residential dwelling units by an institutional investor, this bill would require the institutional investor to, among other things, only accept offers from prospective owner-occupants, including any tenant in possession, during the first 30 days after the property is listed for sale. The bill would require the prospective owner-occupant to submit with their offer an affidavit or declaration executed under penalty of perjury stating they are purchasing the residential real property as an owner-occupant, as described. The bill would subject a prospective owner-occupant or an institutional investor to criminal or civil liability. The bill would also require an institutional investor that sells residential real property to record, or cause to be recorded, a certification of compliance under penalty of perjury, as specified. The bill would require the failure to record the certificate of compliance to result in a civil penalty, as described. By expanding the scope of existing crimes, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would also authorize the Attorney General, district attorney, city attorney, and tenant to bring an action in the superior court to enforce the bill's provisions, and upon prevailing, would allow for injunctive relief and civil penalties, as specified. The bill would require its provisions to be construed consistently with the above-described federal act, if enacted, and would make its provisions 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
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 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.
