Existing law provides that in a civil action brought by a plaintiff to challenge a housing development project that meets or exceeds the requirements for low- or moderate-income housing, 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 would result in preventing or delaying the project, as specified. Existing law authorizes the court to limit the amount of the undertaking or to decline to require the plaintiff to furnish an undertaking if the court determines that, based on evidence submitted by the plaintiff, furnishing an undertaking would cause the plaintiff to suffer undue economic hardship.

This bill would make these provisions applicable to a student housing development, as defined.

This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 529.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure proposed by SB 1344 to be operative only if this bill and SB 1344 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.

Existing law provides that in a civil action brought by a plaintiff to challenge a housing development project that meets or exceeds the requirements for low- or moderate-income housing, 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 would result in preventing or delaying the project, as specified. Existing law authorizes the court to limit the amount of the undertaking or to decline to require the plaintiff to furnish an undertaking if the court determines that, based on evidence submitted by the plaintiff, furnishing an undertaking would cause the plaintiff to suffer undue economic hardship.

This bill would make these provisions applicable to a student housing development, as defined.

This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 529.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure proposed by SB 1344 to be operative only if this bill and SB 1344 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.

Existing law provides that in a civil action brought by a plaintiff to challenge a housing development project that meets or exceeds the requirements for low- or moderate-income housing, 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 would result in preventing or delaying the project, as specified. Existing law authorizes the court to limit the amount of the undertaking or to decline to require the plaintiff to furnish an undertaking if the court determines that, based on evidence submitted by the plaintiff, furnishing an undertaking would cause the plaintiff to suffer undue economic hardship.

This bill would make these provisions applicable to a student housing development, as defined.

Existing law provides that in a civil action brought by a plaintiff to challenge a housing development project that meets or exceeds the requirements for low- or moderate-income housing, 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 would result in preventing or delaying the project, as specified. Existing law authorizes the court to limit the amount of the undertaking or to decline to require the plaintiff to furnish an undertaking if the court determines that, based on evidence submitted by the plaintiff, furnishing an undertaking would cause the plaintiff to suffer undue economic hardship.

This bill would make these provisions applicable to a student housing development, as defined.

Existing law makes a person who produces, distributes, or makes available the digital replica, as defined, of a deceased personalitys voice or likeness in an expressive audiovisual work or sound recording without prior consent from a specified person liable to any injured party in an amount equal to the greater of $10,000 or the actual damages suffered by a person controlling the rights to the deceased personalitys likeness, except as prescribed.

This bill would make a nonsubstantive change to that provision.

 UNFINISHED BUSINESS  

Bill No: SB 916

Author: Ashby (D)

Amended: 8/18/26

Vote: 21

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 13-0, 4/21/26

AYES: Umberg, Niello, Allen, Ashby, Caballero, Durazo, Laird, Reyes, Stern, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

SENATE FLOOR: 36-0, 5/7/26 (Consent)

AYES: Allen, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Grayson, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Alvarado-Gil, Gonzalez, Grove, Niello

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 8/24/26 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Civil actions: housing development projects

SOURCE: Student Homes Coalition

DIGEST:

This bill provides a mechanism for a defendant in a civil action, including under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), challenging a project that is a student housing project, as defined, to 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 by the plaintiff would result in preventing or delaying the project.

Assembly Amendments

make clarifying changes and chaptering out amendments.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires lead agencies with the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a proposed discretionary project to prepare a negative declaration, mitigated declaration, or environmental impact report (EIR) for this action, unless the project is exempt from CEQA (CEQA includes various statutory exemptions, as well as categorical exemptions in the CEQA Guidelines). (Public Resources (Pub. Res.) Code § 21100 et seq.)
2. Sets requirements relating to the preparation, review, comment, approval and certification of environmental documents, as well as procedures relating to an action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul various actions of a public agency on the grounds of noncompliance with CEQA. (Pub. Res. Code § 21165 et seq.)
3. Authorizes judicial review of CEQA actions taken by public agencies, following the agency’s decision to carry out or approve the project, and specifies certain time periods in which an action must be instituted depending on the type of claim alleged. (Pub. Res. Code § 21167.)
4. Requires the superior court and court of appeal to provide lawsuits related CEQA preference over all other civil actions therein, in the matter of setting the same for hearing or trial, and in hearing the same, to the end that the action or proceeding is to be quickly heard and determined. (Pub. Res. Code § 21167.1(a).)

1. Provides that in all civil actions, including those brought by any plaintiff to challenge a housing development project which is a development project which meets or exceeds the requirements for low- or moderate-income housing, a defendant may apply to the court by noticed motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish an undertaking as security for costs and any damages that may be incurred by the defendant by the conclusion of the action or proceeding as the result of a delay in carrying out the development project if the bringing of the action has the effect of preventing or delaying the project from being carried out. (Code of Civil Procedure § 529.9(a).)
2. Provides that a defendant seeking a security in accordance with 5), above, must make a motion for that security on the grounds that the action is without merit and was brought in bad faith, vexatiously, for the purpose of delay, or to thwart the low- or moderate-income nature of the housing development project. (Ibid.)
3. Authorizes the plaintiff, in response to a motion for an undertaking made under 5), above, to seek to limit the amount of the undertaking by presenting admissible evidence that filing an undertaking will cause it, and in cases where the plaintiff is an unincorporated association, its members, to suffer undue economic hardship. (Id. at subd. (b).)
4. Requires the court, if the court determines after a hearing that the grounds for the motion have been established, to order the plaintiff to file the undertaking in an amount specified in the court’s order, taking into consideration any admitted evidence of plaintiff’s economic hardship and avoiding to cause the plaintiff to suffer undue economic hardship, as security for costs and damages of the defendant.
   1. The liability of the plaintiff for the costs and damages of the defendant is not to exceed $500,000.
   2. If the court concludes, based on all of the admissible evidence presented, that a bond in any amount would cause the plaintiff undue economic hardship, the court is authorized in its discretion to decline to impose a bond.
   3. If at any time after the plaintiff has filed an undertaking the housing development plan is changed by the developer in bad faith so that it fails to meet or exceed the requirements for low- or moderate-income housing, the developer is liable to the plaintiff for the cost of obtaining the undertaking. (Ibid.)
5. Authorizes a defendant, in any litigation pending in any court of this state and at any time until final judgment is entered, to move the court upon a notice and a hearing for an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish security.
   1. Provides that the motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish security must be based upon the ground, and supported by a showing, that the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant and that there is not a reasonable probability that they will prevail in the litigation against the moving defendant. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 391.1.)

This bill:

1. Expands existing Code of Civil Procedure Section 529.9 to also apply to actions challenging a student housing project.
2. Defines “student housing project” as one or more housing facilities to be occupied by students of one or more campuses and owned by a public university, including dining, academic, and student support service spaces, and other necessary and usual attendant and related facilities and equipment.
3. Makes chaptering out amendments.

Comments

Enacted in 1970, CEQA requires state and local agencies to follow a set protocol to disclose and evaluate the significant environmental impacts of proposed projects and to adopt feasible measures to mitigate those impacts. CEQA itself applies to projects undertaken or requiring approval by public agencies, and, if more than one agency is involved, CEQA requires one of the agencies to be designated as the “lead agency.” The environmental review process required by CEQA consists of: (1) determining if the activity is a project; (2) determining if the project is exempt from CEQA; and (3) performing an initial study to identify the environmental impacts and, depending on the findings, prepare either a Negative Declaration (for projects with no significant impacts), a Mitigated Negative Declaration (for projects with significant impacts but that are revised in some form to avoid or mitigate those impacts), or an EIR (for projects with significant impacts).

An EIR must accurately describe the proposed project, identify and analyze each significant environmental impact expected to result from the proposed project, identify mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to the extent feasible, and evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. Before approving any project that has received environmental review, an agency must make certain findings pertaining to the project’s environmental impact and any associated mitigation measures. If mitigation measures are required or incorporated into a project, the public agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program to ensure compliance with those measures. To enforce the requirements of CEQA, a civil action may be brought under several code sections to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the acts or decisions of a public agency for noncompliance with the act.

Unlike other environmental laws specific to air resources, water resources, or the control of toxic substances, there is no statewide bureaucracy charged with enforcement of CEQA. Rather, it is enforced through citizen participation and litigation if necessary. Arguably, this makes the implementation of CEQA more efficient and expeditious than if a state agency were created to administer the law. Thus, CEQA litigation could more appropriately be characterized as mere enforcement.

“CEQA operates, not by dictating proenvironmental outcomes, but rather by mandating that ‘decision makers and the public’ study the likely environmental effects of contemplated government actions and thus make fully informed decisions regarding those actions. … In other words, CEQA does not care what decision is made as long as it is an informed one.” (Citizens Coalition Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles (2018) 26 Cal. App. 5th 561, 577.)

SB 393 (Glazer, Chapter 285, Statutes of 2024) amended an existing provision of law (Code of Civil Procedure § 529.2) that provided a mechanism for a defendant in a civil action challenging a housing project which is a development project that meets or exceeds the requirements for low- or moderate-income housing to 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 by the plaintiff would result in preventing or delaying the project. Prior to the enactment of SB 393, the defendant had the burden of making a showing that the posting of the undertaking would not place an undue hardship on the plaintiff. SB 393 shifted the burden to the plaintiff to demonstrate that posting a bond would place an undue economic hardship on the plaintiff, arguing that the plaintiff is the one who has the information to make such a showing and therefore it was more appropriate to place that burden on the plaintiff.

This bill seeks to enact a similar mechanism for a defendant in a civil action, including an action under CEQA, challenging a project that is a student housing project. This bill allows such a defendant to 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 by the plaintiff would result in preventing or delaying the project. “Student housing project” is defined as one or more housing facilities to be occupied by students of one or more campuses and owned by a public university, including dining, academic, and student support service spaces, and other necessary and usual attendant and related facilities and equipment.

In 2023, the Office of the President of the University of California (UC) reported that since 2018, seven housing projects had been challenged by CEQA litigation and that approximately 4,100 beds were affected by ongoing litigation at that time. This same report stated that the UC “provides housing opportunities that are generally at least 20 percent below market rate” and that “the supply of beds despite new inventory has not been able to keep up with the demand and increased enrollment.” The report noted that “CEQA litigation creates significant delay for delivery of housing projects, while the threat of CEQA litigation and its inherent unpredictability slows the housing project entitlement process.” Campus housing plans, as of 2023, included funding for “22,000 student beds between fall 2023 and fall 2028” and future plans of an “additional 16,000 beds,” which if funded, could lead to an additional 38,000 future beds. The California State University Systemwide Housing Plan states that “market demand for Fall 2030 is estimated at 15,370 beds, up from an estimated 13,250 in the 2022 plan.”

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/24/26)

Student Homes Coalition (source)

Eleni Kounalakis, Lieutenant Governor

ASUCD Housing and Transportation Advocacy Committee

California Apartment Association

California State University, Office of the Chancellor

California State University, Sacramento

California YIMBY

College Democrats at UC Irvine

Davis College Democrats

Student Homes at San Jose State University

Student Homes at UCLA

Student Homes at UCSB

Student Homes at UCSD

Urban Studies Student Association

University Housing Rights Organization at UC Berkeley

YouthBridge Housing

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/24/26)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The author writes:

While California has made meaningful progress in addressing its housing crisis, a significant shortage still persists. Students across the higher education system are among the most severely affected by the housing shortage. An estimated 417,000 students across the UC, CSU, and CCC systems lack stable housing, and more than 30,000 students are on waiting lists for housing provided by these universities.

SB 916 aims to protect student housing by clarifying that courts have discretion to require a bond in lawsuits challenging student housing. While existing law already grants courts this discretion for affordable housing projects, it does not extend the same protection to student housing. By closing this gap, SB 916 will allow much-needed student housing projects to proceed without barriers or unnecessary delays.

The Student Homes Coalition, the sponsor of this bill, writes in support stating:

[…] The need for more housing on college campuses is dire. UC[s] and CSUs are only able to house 39% and 14% of their students respectively, while just 16 out of 116 Community Colleges operate any housing at all. The student housing shortage is not due to lack of interest in development, but rather regulatory barriers that render university projects infeasible. Students pay the price both literally and figuratively for outdated housing regulations. Increased construction costs limit supply and raise rents, and the tens of thousands of students who can't keep up with rising costs end up homeless every year.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is a major driver of housing unaffordability on our campuses. Interest groups and community members often weaponize CEQA to block campus housing projects at the expense of California's students. According to the UC Regents, 7 UC student housing projects were sued under CEQA in just five years between 2018 and 2022.

Litigation delays projects and drives up housing costs, resulting in fewer available units, increased student homelessness.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 8/24/26

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Johnson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: McKinnor

Prepared by: Amanda Mattson / JUD. / (916) 651-4113

9/30/26 14:25:18

**** END ****

 UNFINISHED BUSINESS  

Bill No: SB 916

Author: Ashby (D)

Amended: 8/18/26

Vote: 21

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 13-0, 4/21/26

AYES: Umberg, Niello, Allen, Ashby, Caballero, Durazo, Laird, Reyes, Stern, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

SENATE FLOOR: 36-0, 5/7/26 (Consent)

AYES: Allen, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Grayson, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Alvarado-Gil, Gonzalez, Grove, Niello

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: Passed, 8/24/26

SUBJECT: Civil actions: housing development projects

SOURCE: Student Homes Coalition

DIGEST:

This bill provides a mechanism for a defendant in a civil action, including under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), challenging a project that is a student housing project, as defined, to 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 by the plaintiff would result in preventing or delaying the project.

Assembly Amendments

make clarifying changes and chaptering out amendments.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires lead agencies with the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a proposed discretionary project to prepare a negative declaration, mitigated declaration, or environmental impact report (EIR) for this action, unless the project is exempt from CEQA (CEQA includes various statutory exemptions, as well as categorical exemptions in the CEQA Guidelines). (Public Resources (Pub. Res.) Code § 21100 et seq.)
2. Sets requirements relating to the preparation, review, comment, approval and certification of environmental documents, as well as procedures relating to an action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul various actions of a public agency on the grounds of noncompliance with CEQA. (Pub. Res. Code § 21165 et seq.)
3. Authorizes judicial review of CEQA actions taken by public agencies, following the agency’s decision to carry out or approve the project, and specifies certain time periods in which an action must be instituted depending on the type of claim alleged. (Pub. Res. Code § 21167.)
4. Requires the superior court and court of appeal to provide lawsuits related CEQA preference over all other civil actions therein, in the matter of setting the same for hearing or trial, and in hearing the same, to the end that the action or proceeding is to be quickly heard and determined. (Pub. Res. Code § 21167.1(a).)

1. Provides that in all civil actions, including those brought by any plaintiff to challenge a housing development project which is a development project which meets or exceeds the requirements for low- or moderate-income housing, a defendant may apply to the court by noticed motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish an undertaking as security for costs and any damages that may be incurred by the defendant by the conclusion of the action or proceeding as the result of a delay in carrying out the development project if the bringing of the action has the effect of preventing or delaying the project from being carried out. (Code of Civil Procedure § 529.9(a).)
2. Provides that a defendant seeking a security in accordance with 5), above, must make a motion for that security on the grounds that the action is without merit and was brought in bad faith, vexatiously, for the purpose of delay, or to thwart the low- or moderate-income nature of the housing development project. (Ibid.)
3. Authorizes the plaintiff, in response to a motion for an undertaking made under 5), above, to seek to limit the amount of the undertaking by presenting admissible evidence that filing an undertaking will cause it, and in cases where the plaintiff is an unincorporated association, its members, to suffer undue economic hardship. (Id. at subd. (b).)
4. Requires the court, if the court determines after a hearing that the grounds for the motion have been established, to order the plaintiff to file the undertaking in an amount specified in the court’s order, taking into consideration any admitted evidence of plaintiff’s economic hardship and avoiding to cause the plaintiff to suffer undue economic hardship, as security for costs and damages of the defendant.
   1. The liability of the plaintiff for the costs and damages of the defendant is not to exceed $500,000.
   2. If the court concludes, based on all of the admissible evidence presented, that a bond in any amount would cause the plaintiff undue economic hardship, the court is authorized in its discretion to decline to impose a bond.
   3. If at any time after the plaintiff has filed an undertaking the housing development plan is changed by the developer in bad faith so that it fails to meet or exceed the requirements for low- or moderate-income housing, the developer is liable to the plaintiff for the cost of obtaining the undertaking. (Ibid.)
5. Authorizes a defendant, in any litigation pending in any court of this state and at any time until final judgment is entered, to move the court upon a notice and a hearing for an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish security.
   1. Provides that the motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish security must be based upon the ground, and supported by a showing, that the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant and that there is not a reasonable probability that they will prevail in the litigation against the moving defendant. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 391.1.)

This bill:

1. Expands existing Code of Civil Procedure Section 529.9 to also apply to actions challenging a student housing project.
2. Defines “student housing project” as one or more housing facilities to be occupied by students of one or more campuses and owned by a public university, including dining, academic, and student support service spaces, and other necessary and usual attendant and related facilities and equipment.
3. Makes chaptering out amendments.

Comments

Enacted in 1970, CEQA requires state and local agencies to follow a set protocol to disclose and evaluate the significant environmental impacts of proposed projects and to adopt feasible measures to mitigate those impacts. CEQA itself applies to projects undertaken or requiring approval by public agencies, and, if more than one agency is involved, CEQA requires one of the agencies to be designated as the “lead agency.” The environmental review process required by CEQA consists of: (1) determining if the activity is a project; (2) determining if the project is exempt from CEQA; and (3) performing an initial study to identify the environmental impacts and, depending on the findings, prepare either a Negative Declaration (for projects with no significant impacts), a Mitigated Negative Declaration (for projects with significant impacts but that are revised in some form to avoid or mitigate those impacts), or an EIR (for projects with significant impacts).

An EIR must accurately describe the proposed project, identify and analyze each significant environmental impact expected to result from the proposed project, identify mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to the extent feasible, and evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. Before approving any project that has received environmental review, an agency must make certain findings pertaining to the project’s environmental impact and any associated mitigation measures. If mitigation measures are required or incorporated into a project, the public agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program to ensure compliance with those measures. To enforce the requirements of CEQA, a civil action may be brought under several code sections to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the acts or decisions of a public agency for noncompliance with the act.

Unlike other environmental laws specific to air resources, water resources, or the control of toxic substances, there is no statewide bureaucracy charged with enforcement of CEQA. Rather, it is enforced through citizen participation and litigation if necessary. Arguably, this makes the implementation of CEQA more efficient and expeditious than if a state agency were created to administer the law. Thus, CEQA litigation could more appropriately be characterized as mere enforcement.

“CEQA operates, not by dictating proenvironmental outcomes, but rather by mandating that ‘decision makers and the public’ study the likely environmental effects of contemplated government actions and thus make fully informed decisions regarding those actions. … In other words, CEQA does not care what decision is made as long as it is an informed one.” (Citizens Coalition Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles (2018) 26 Cal. App. 5th 561, 577.)

SB 393 (Glazer, Chapter 285, Statutes of 2024) amended an existing provision of law (Code of Civil Procedure § 529.2) that provided a mechanism for a defendant in a civil action challenging a housing project which is a development project that meets or exceeds the requirements for low- or moderate-income housing to 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 by the plaintiff would result in preventing or delaying the project. Prior to the enactment of SB 393, the defendant had the burden of making a showing that the posting of the undertaking would not place an undue hardship on the plaintiff. SB 393 shifted the burden to the plaintiff to demonstrate that posting a bond would place an undue economic hardship on the plaintiff, arguing that the plaintiff is the one who has the information to make such a showing and therefore it was more appropriate to place that burden on the plaintiff.

This bill seeks to enact a similar mechanism for a defendant in a civil action, including an action under CEQA, challenging a project that is a student housing project. This bill allows such a defendant to 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 by the plaintiff would result in preventing or delaying the project. “Student housing project” is defined as one or more housing facilities to be occupied by students of one or more campuses and owned by a public university, including dining, academic, and student support service spaces, and other necessary and usual attendant and related facilities and equipment.

In 2023, the Office of the President of the University of California (UC) reported that since 2018, seven housing projects had been challenged by CEQA litigation and that approximately 4,100 beds were affected by ongoing litigation at that time. This same report stated that the UC “provides housing opportunities that are generally at least 20 percent below market rate” and that “the supply of beds despite new inventory has not been able to keep up with the demand and increased enrollment.” The report noted that “CEQA litigation creates significant delay for delivery of housing projects, while the threat of CEQA litigation and its inherent unpredictability slows the housing project entitlement process.” Campus housing plans, as of 2023, included funding for “22,000 student beds between fall 2023 and fall 2028” and future plans of an “additional 16,000 beds,” which if funded, could lead to an additional 38,000 future beds. The California State University Systemwide Housing Plan states that “market demand for Fall 2030 is estimated at 15,370 beds, up from an estimated 13,250 in the 2022 plan.”

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/24/26)

Student Homes Coalition (source)

Eleni Kounalakis, Lieutenant Governor

ASUCD Housing and Transportation Advocacy Committee

California Apartment Association

California State University, Office of the Chancellor

California State University, Sacramento

California YIMBY

College Democrats at UC Irvine

Davis College Democrats

Student Homes at San Jose State University

Student Homes at UCLA

Student Homes at UCSB

Student Homes at UCSD

Urban Studies Student Association

University Housing Rights Organization at UC Berkeley

YouthBridge Housing

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/24/26)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The author writes:

While California has made meaningful progress in addressing its housing crisis, a significant shortage still persists. Students across the higher education system are among the most severely affected by the housing shortage. An estimated 417,000 students across the UC, CSU, and CCC systems lack stable housing, and more than 30,000 students are on waiting lists for housing provided by these universities.

SB 916 aims to protect student housing by clarifying that courts have discretion to require a bond in lawsuits challenging student housing. While existing law already grants courts this discretion for affordable housing projects, it does not extend the same protection to student housing. By closing this gap, SB 916 will allow much-needed student housing projects to proceed without barriers or unnecessary delays.

The Student Homes Coalition, the sponsor of this bill, writes in support stating:

[…] The need for more housing on college campuses is dire. UC[s] and CSUs are only able to house 39% and 14% of their students respectively, while just 16 out of 116 Community Colleges operate any housing at all. The student housing shortage is not due to lack of interest in development, but rather regulatory barriers that render university projects infeasible. Students pay the price both literally and figuratively for outdated housing regulations. Increased construction costs limit supply and raise rents, and the tens of thousands of students who can't keep up with rising costs end up homeless every year.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is a major driver of housing unaffordability on our campuses. Interest groups and community members often weaponize CEQA to block campus housing projects at the expense of California's students. According to the UC Regents, 7 UC student housing projects were sued under CEQA in just five years between 2018 and 2022.

Litigation delays projects and drives up housing costs, resulting in fewer available units, increased student homelessness.

Prepared by: Amanda Mattson / JUD. / (916) 651-4113

8/24/26 16:28:47

**** END ****

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 916

Author:(Ashby)

As Amended Ver:August 18, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Adds student housing projects to the types of affordable housing projects in which a defendant facing a California Environmental Quality Act claim can seek a litigation bond from a plaintiff that is deemed vexatious.

Major Provisions

1. Provides that if a low- or moderate-income housing development or a student housing project is challenged pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act a defendant may apply to the court, by noticed motion, for an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish an undertaking as security for costs and any damages or economic hardships that may be incurred by the defendant by the conclusion of the action or proceeding as the result of a delay in carrying out the development project if the defendant can prove the action was brought in bad faith, vexatiously, for the purpose of delay, or to thwart the project.
2. Defines ″student housing project″ as one or more housing facilities to be occupied by students of one or more campuses and owned by a public university, including dining, academic, and student support service spaces, and other necessary and usual attendant and related facilities and equipment.
3. Addresses a chaptering conflict with SB 1344 (Cabaldon, of the current legislative session).

COMMENTS

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is frequently held up as a major factor deterring housing development in California. Although the actual rate of CEQA litigation is relatively small when compared to the totality of development across the state, in 2024, the Legislature recognized that a small handful of vexatious litigants generated a large portion of the actual cases filed under CEQA. Accordingly, the Legislature modernized the financial assurances statutes that protect affordable housing projects by adopting SB 393 (Glazer) Chapter 285, Statutes of 2024. SB 393 shifted the burden of proving that a vexatious plaintiff could not afford to put up a litigation bond from the defendant to the plaintiff.

One of the most highly publicized recent instances of CEQA being used to try and stop development was a challenge to a UC Berkeley student housing project in which the plaintiffs sought to contend that the students, and the noise they make, were tantamount to pollution. (Ben Christopher, California′s highest court rejects ′people as pollution′ argument for UC Berkeley housing, Cal Matters (June 6, 2024) available at: https://calmatters.org/housing/2024/06/berkeley-peoples-park-ceqa-supreme-court/.) That case was brought by a neighborhood group widely known for frequently challenging nearly every development at the UC Berkeley campus. This bill would ensure that university neighbors cannot repeatedly stop the construction of student housing by making such housing eligible for litigation bonds.

Despite anecdotal complaints that California′s laws generate significant numbers of ″frivolous lawsuits,″ in practice California maintains a relatively strong set of laws to deter plaintiffs from repeatedly pursuing frivolous litigation. Under existing law, a party is deemed a ″vexatious litigant″ if they have lost, or failed to make significant progress in, litigating five claims or attempts to relitigate a final judgment against the same defendant over a seven-year period. Once a party is deemed to be a vexatious litigant, they are required to post a security bond at the commencement of litigation to cover all costs and damages incurred by the person who is sued by a vexatious litigant to ensure that if the litigant fails (again) to prove their case, the defendant will not be harmed. Additionally, should the vexatious litigant fail to adhere to specific orders issued by the court, including orders dictating how the litigant may file cases, the litigant can face significant court sanctions.

However, in the CEQA context, simply recovering legal costs and damages may be insufficient, especially if the litigation causes an affordable housing project to be abandoned completely. Accordingly, existing Code of Civil Procedure Section 529.2 permits a judge to impose a security on a plaintiff, at the request of a defendant, if the defendant can show the action is meritless and brought in bad faith, vexatiously, for the purpose of delay, or to thwart a low- or moderate-income housing development project. Existing law also prohibits the imposition of a financial security if doing so would be financially harmful to the plaintiff. By limiting these provisions to low and moderate-income projects, the existing law also targets those projects most desperately in need of construction, and most likely to be attacked by affluent neighbors.

This process, as it relates to the showing of financial hardship, requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that they will suffer undue economic hardship by posting the bond. This new process reflects the revisions adopted by SB 393 to put more onus on those challenging affordable housing developments to ensure that their claims were meritorious and not simply engage in delay tactics.

Recognizing that providing adequate student housing is a critical obligation of California′s public colleges and universities, this bill would authorize a defendant (typically the university) to seek the imposition of a litigation bond from a plaintiff when such projects are challenged under CEQA. The bill defines student housing project as, ″one or more housing facilities to be occupied by students of one or more campuses and owned by a public university, including dining, academic, and student support service spaces, and other necessary and usual attendant and related facilities and equipment.″

Like the existing law, the bill would only apply the bond if the court determines that the litigation is brought, ″in bad faith, vexatiously, for the purpose of delay, or to thwart″ the development. This ensures that a judicial officer can judge the merits of the plaintiff′s case and will not be used as a tool to derail valid CEQA challenges.

According to the Author

While California has made meaningful progress in addressing its housing crisis, a significant shortage still persists. Students across the higher education system are among the most severely affected by the housing shortage. An estimated 417,000 students across the [University of California] (UC), [California State University] (CSU), and [California Community Colleges] (CCC) systems lack stable housing, and more than 30,000 students are on waiting lists for housing provided by these universities.

SB 916 aims to protect student housing by clarifying that courts have discretion to require a bond in lawsuits challenging student housing. While existing law already grants courts this discretion for affordable housing projects, it does not extend the same protection to student housing. By closing this gap, SB 916 will allow much-needed student housing projects to proceed without barriers or unnecessary delays.

Arguments in Support

This bill is sponsored by the Student Home Coalition and its affiliates across numerous California university campuses. In support of the bill, the sponsors write:

The need for more housing on college campuses is dire. UCs and CSUs are only able to house 39% and 14% of their students respectively, while just 16 out of 116 Community Colleges operate any housing at all. The student housing shortage is not due to lack of interest in development, but rather regulatory barriers that render university projects infeasible. Students pay the price both literally and figuratively for outdated housing regulations. Increased construction costs limit supply and raise rents, and the tens of thousands of students who can′t keep up with rising costs end up homeless every year.

The weaponization of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is a major driver of housing unaffordability on our campuses. Interest groups and community members often use CEQA to block campus housing projects, at the expense of California′s students. According to the UC Regents, seven UC student housing projects were sued under CEQA in the span of just five years (between 2018 and 2022). Litigation delays projects and drives up housing costs, resulting in fewer available units, increased student homelessness, and even deferred college acceptance for some incoming freshmen. By allowing courts to require bonds in lawsuits involving student housing projects, SB 916 will prevent delays to critical campus housing projects while maintaining California′s strong environmental review process.

Arguments in Opposition

None on file

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. Minor and absorbable General Fund costs to the University of California (General Fund) to bring motions for litigation bonds in the narrow category of cases the bill covers. UC reports that the circumstances in which UC would successfully seek a bond under the bill would be very rare and cannot be reasonably quantified. UC further reports that the bill could produce unknown potential cost savings to the extent the prospect of a bond deters or shortens bad-faith CEQA litigation that delays student housing projects.
2. Minor and likely absorbable cost pressures to the trial courts (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) to hear additional bond motions in CEQA challenges to student housing projects. The universe of affected cases is small — UC reports that seven student housing projects were sued under CEQA between 2018 and 2022 — and any added motion workload could be partially offset to the extent the prospect of a bond deters bad-faith litigation.

VOTES

SENATE FLOOR: 36-0-4

YES: Allen, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Grayson, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

ABS, ABST OR NV: Alvarado-Gil, Gonzalez, Grove, Niello

ASM JUDICIARY: 12-0-0

YES: Kalra, Macedo, Bauer-Kahan, Bryan, Connolly, Dixon, Harabedian, Pacheco, Papan, Sanchez, Stefani, Zbur

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-0-4

YES: Wicks, Hoover, Arambula, Caloza, Dixon, Fong, Mark González, Krell, Pacheco, Solache, Ta

ABS, ABST OR NV: Calderon, Pellerin, Sharp-Collins, Tangipa

UPDATED

VERSION: August 18, 2026

CONSULTANT: Nicholas Liedtke / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0003753

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 916

Author:(Ashby)

As Amended Ver:June 17, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Adds student housing projects to the types of affordable housing projects in which a defendant facing a California Environmental Quality Act claim can seek a litigation bond from a plaintiff that is deemed vexatious.

Major Provisions

1. Provides that if a low- or moderate-income housing development or a student housing project is challenged pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act a defendant may apply to the court, by noticed motion, for an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish an undertaking as security for costs and any damages or economic hardships that may be incurred by the defendant by the conclusion of the action or proceeding as the result of a delay in carrying out the development project if the defendant can prove the action was brought in bad faith, vexatiously, for the purpose of delay, or to thwart the project.
2. Defines ″student housing project″ as one or more housing facilities to be occupied by students of one or more campuses and owned by a public university, including dining, academic, and student support service spaces, and other necessary and usual attendant and related facilities and equipment.

COMMENTS

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is frequently held up as a major factor deterring housing development in California. Although the actual rate of CEQA litigation is relatively small when compared to the totality of development across the state, in 2024, the Legislature recognized that a small handful of vexatious litigants generated a large portion of the actual cases filed under CEQA. Accordingly, the Legislature modernized the financial assurances statutes that protect affordable housing projects by adopting SB 393 (Glazer) Chapter 285, Statutes of 2024. SB 393 shifted the burden of proving that a vexatious plaintiff could not afford to put up a litigation bond from the defendant to the plaintiff.

One of the most highly publicized recent instances of CEQA being used to try and stop development was a challenge to a UC Berkeley student housing project in which the plaintiffs sought to contend that the students, and the noise they make, were tantamount to pollution. (Ben Christopher, California′s highest court rejects ′people as pollution′ argument for UC Berkeley housing, Cal Matters (June 6, 2024) available at: https://calmatters.org/housing/2024/06/berkeley-peoples-park-ceqa-supreme-court/.) That case was brought by a neighborhood group widely known for frequently challenging nearly every development at the UC Berkeley campus. This bill would ensure that university neighbors cannot repeatedly stop the construction of student housing by making such housing eligible for litigation bonds.

Despite anecdotal complaints that California′s laws generate significant numbers of ″frivolous lawsuits,″ in practice California maintains a relatively strong set of laws to deter plaintiffs from repeatedly pursuing frivolous litigation. Under existing law, a party is deemed a ″vexatious litigant″ if they have lost, or failed to make significant progress in, litigating five claims or attempts to relitigate a final judgment against the same defendant over a seven-year period. Once a party is deemed to be a vexatious litigant, they are required to post a security bond at the commencement of litigation to cover all costs and damages incurred by the person who is sued by a vexatious litigant to ensure that if the litigant fails (again) to prove their case, the defendant will not be harmed. Additionally, should the vexatious litigant fail to adhere to specific orders issued by the court, including orders dictating how the litigant may file cases, the litigant can face significant court sanctions.

However, in the CEQA context, simply recovering legal costs and damages may be insufficient, especially if the litigation causes an affordable housing project to be abandoned completely. Accordingly, existing Code of Civil Procedure Section 529.2 permits a judge to impose a security on a plaintiff, at the request of a defendant, if the defendant can show the action is meritless and brought in bad faith, vexatiously, for the purpose of delay, or to thwart a low- or moderate-income housing development project. Existing law also prohibits the imposition of a financial security if doing so would be financially harmful to the plaintiff. By limiting these provisions to low and moderate-income projects, the existing law also targets those projects most desperately in need of construction, and most likely to be attacked by affluent neighbors.

This process, as it relates to the showing of financial hardship, requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that they will suffer undue economic hardship by posting the bond. This new process reflects the revisions adopted by SB 393 to put more onus on those challenging affordable housing developments to ensure that their claims were meritorious and not simply engage in delay tactics.

Recognizing that providing adequate student housing is a critical obligation of California′s public colleges and universities, this bill would authorize a defendant (typically the university) to seek the imposition of a litigation bond from a plaintiff when such projects are challenged under CEQA. The bill defines student housing project as, ″one or more housing facilities to be occupied by students of one or more campuses and owned by a public university, including dining, academic, and student support service spaces, and other necessary and usual attendant and related facilities and equipment.″

Like the existing law, the bill would only apply the bond if the court determines that the litigation is brought, ″in bad faith, vexatiously, for the purpose of delay, or to thwart″ the development. This ensures that a judicial officer can judge the merits of the plaintiff′s case and will not be used as a tool to derail valid CEQA challenges.

According to the Author

While California has made meaningful progress in addressing its housing crisis, a significant shortage still persists. Students across the higher education system are among the most severely affected by the housing shortage. An estimated 417,000 students across the [University of California] (UC), [California State University] (CSU), and [California Community Colleges] (CCC) systems lack stable housing, and more than 30,000 students are on waiting lists for housing provided by these universities.

SB 916 aims to protect student housing by clarifying that courts have discretion to require a bond in lawsuits challenging student housing. While existing law already grants courts this discretion for affordable housing projects, it does not extend the same protection to student housing. By closing this gap, SB 916 will allow much-needed student housing projects to proceed without barriers or unnecessary delays.

Arguments in Support

This bill is sponsored by the Student Home Coalition and its affiliates across numerous California university campuses. In support of the bill, the sponsors write:

The need for more housing on college campuses is dire. UCs and CSUs are only able to house 39% and 14% of their students respectively, while just 16 out of 116 Community Colleges operate any housing at all. The student housing shortage is not due to lack of interest in development, but rather regulatory barriers that render university projects infeasible. Students pay the price both literally and figuratively for outdated housing regulations. Increased construction costs limit supply and raise rents, and the tens of thousands of students who can′t keep up with rising costs end up homeless every year.

The weaponization of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is a major driver of housing unaffordability on our campuses. Interest groups and community members often use CEQA to block campus housing projects, at the expense of California′s students. According to the UC Regents, seven UC student housing projects were sued under CEQA in the span of just five years (between 2018 and 2022). Litigation delays projects and drives up housing costs, resulting in fewer available units, increased student homelessness, and even deferred college acceptance for some incoming freshmen. By allowing courts to require bonds in lawsuits involving student housing projects, SB 916 will prevent delays to critical campus housing projects while maintaining California′s strong environmental review process.

Arguments in Opposition

None on file

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. Minor and absorbable General Fund costs to the University of California (General Fund) to bring motions for litigation bonds in the narrow category of cases the bill covers. UC reports that the circumstances in which UC would successfully seek a bond under the bill would be very rare and cannot be reasonably quantified. UC further reports that the bill could produce unknown potential cost savings to the extent the prospect of a bond deters or shortens bad-faith CEQA litigation that delays student housing projects.
2. Minor and likely absorbable cost pressures to the trial courts (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) to hear additional bond motions in CEQA challenges to student housing projects. The universe of affected cases is small — UC reports that seven student housing projects were sued under CEQA between 2018 and 2022 — and any added motion workload could be partially offset to the extent the prospect of a bond deters bad-faith litigation.

VOTES

SENATE FLOOR: 36-0-4

YES: Allen, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Grayson, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

ABS, ABST OR NV: Alvarado-Gil, Gonzalez, Grove, Niello

ASM JUDICIARY: 12-0-0

YES: Kalra, Macedo, Bauer-Kahan, Bryan, Connolly, Dixon, Harabedian, Pacheco, Papan, Sanchez, Stefani, Zbur

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-0-4

YES: Wicks, Hoover, Arambula, Caloza, Dixon, Fong, Mark González, Krell, Pacheco, Solache, Ta

ABS, ABST OR NV: Calderon, Pellerin, Sharp-Collins, Tangipa

UPDATED

VERSION: June 17, 2026

CONSULTANT: Nicholas Liedtke / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0003317

Date of Hearing: July 1, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 916

Author:(Ashby) – As Amended Ver:June 17, 2026

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill adds student housing projects owned by a public university to the categories of housing development projects for which a defendant may ask the court to require a plaintiff to post a litigation bond when a challenge under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is brought in bad faith, vexatiously, for the purpose of delay, or to thwart the project. The bill defines a student housing project as one or more housing facilities to be occupied by students of one or more campuses and owned by a public university, including dining, academic, and student support service spaces, and related facilities.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Minor and absorbable General Fund costs to the University of California (General Fund) to bring motions for litigation bonds in the narrow category of cases the bill covers. UC reports that the circumstances in which UC would successfully seek a bond under the bill would be very rare and cannot be reasonably quantified. UC further reports that the bill could produce unknown potential cost savings to the extent the prospect of a bond deters or shortens bad-faith CEQA litigation that delays student housing projects.
2. Minor and likely absorbable cost pressures to the trial courts (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) to hear additional bond motions in CEQA challenges to student housing projects. The universe of affected cases is small — UC reports that seven student housing projects were sued under CEQA between 2018 and 2022 — and any added motion workload could be partially offset to the extent the prospect of a bond deters bad-faith litigation.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

SB 916 aims to protect student housing by clarifying that courts have discretion to require a bond in lawsuits challenging student housing. While existing law already grants courts this discretion for affordable housing projects, it does not extend the same protection to student housing. By closing this gap, SB 916 will allow much-needed student housing projects to proceed without barriers or unnecessary delays.

1. Background. Code of Civil Procedure Section 529.2 allows a defendant in a civil action challenging a low- or moderate-income housing development project to ask the court, by noticed motion, to require the plaintiff to post a bond as security for the costs and damages the defendant may incur from a delay in carrying out the project. The court may impose the bond only if the defendant shows the action is without merit and was brought in bad faith, vexatiously, for the purpose of delay, or to thwart the project, and the court must avoid imposing a bond that would cause the plaintiff undue economic hardship. The plaintiff’s liability for the defendant’s costs and damages is capped at $500,000.

SB 393 (Glazer), Chapter 285, Statutes of 2024, strengthened these provisions by shifting to the plaintiff the burden of demonstrating an inability to afford the bond. This bill extends the same bond mechanism to CEQA challenges to student housing projects owned by a public university — a category the sponsor contends has been a frequent target of bad-faith litigation. The bill retains the existing bad-faith showing, so a court may impose a bond only after determining that the underlying challenge lacks merit and was brought to delay or thwart the project, preserving valid CEQA challenges.

Analysis Prepared by: Shiran Zohar / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: June 16, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Ash Kalra, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 916

Author:(Ashby) – As Amended Ver:March 18, 2026

As Proposed to be Amended

SENATE VOTE: 36-0

SUBJECT: Civil actions: housing development projects

SYNOPSIS

The California Environmental Quality Act has long been accused of being the main roadblock to developing more affordable housing and other necessary facilities to help combat homelessness in California. Notwithstanding these contentions, in reality, the rate of actual litigation under the California Environmental Quality Act remains relatively low when compared to the total amount of projects subject to environmental review in the state. Despite the relatively low rate of litigation involving the California Environmental Quality Act, in some parts of the state, residents dedicated to stopping development are repeatedly suing virtually every project approved by their local jurisdiction under CEQA. Seeking to deter these meritless and vexatious cases, in 2024, the Legislature adopted SB 393 (Glazer) Chap. 285, Stats. 2024, which significantly strengthened the existing law that required vexatious litigants in CEQA litigation to obtain a litigation bond in order to proceed with their case.

One notorious example of repeated opposition to development came to light when UC Berkeley was repeatedly sued to stop the development of much-needed student housing and academic facilities. Recognizing that building student housing is critical to ensuring that college students can afford to live in close proximity to academic facilities, this bill would add student housing projects to the list of projects eligible to obtain a litigation bond from a plaintiff should the development be challenged under the California Environmental Quality Act.

This measure is sponsored by the Student Housing Coalition and is supported by student housing advocates from universities across California. The proponents note that affordable housing is critical for students facing the growing cost of attending college in California. This measure has no known opposition and will be referred to the Appropriations Committee upon passage.

SUMMARY: Adds student housing projects to the types of affordable housing projects in which a defendant facing a California Environmental Quality Act claim can seek a litigation bond from a plaintiff that is deemed vexatious. Specifically, this bill:

1. Provides that if a low- or moderate-income housing development or a student housing project is challenged pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act a defendant may apply to the court, by noticed motion, for an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish an undertaking as security for costs and any damages or economic hardships that may be incurred by the defendant by the conclusion of the action or proceeding as the result of a delay in carrying out the development project if the defendant can prove the action was brought in bad faith, vexatiously, for the purpose of delay, or to thwart the project.
2. Defines “student housing project” as one or more housing facilities to be occupied by students of one or more campuses and owned by a public university, including dining, academic, and student support service spaces, and other necessary and usual attendant and related facilities and equipment.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the California Environmental Quality Act that, generally, requires a public agency to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and to 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 significant effects. (Public Resources Code Section 21100 et seq.)
2. Defines a “project” for the purpose of the California Environmental Quality Act as an activity that may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and includes any of the following:
   1. An activity directly undertaken by any public agency;
   2. An activity undertaken by a person which is supported, in whole or in part, through contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance from one or more public agencies; or
   3. An activity that involves the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies. (Public Resources Code Section 21065.)
3. Provides that an action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the acts or decisions of a public agency on the grounds of noncompliance with the California Environmental Quality Act may be commenced when it is alleged that:
   1. A public agency is carrying out or has approved a project that may have a significant effect on the environment without having determined whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment;
   2. A public agency has improperly determined whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment;
   3. An environmental impact report prepared by, or caused to be prepared by, a public agency does not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act;
   4. A public agency has improperly determined that a project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act; or
   5. Any other act or omission of a public agency does not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. (Public Resources Code Section 21167.)
4. Requires the superior court and court of appeal to provide lawsuits related to the California Environmental Quality Act preference over all other civil actions therein, in the matter of setting the same for hearing or trial, and in hearing the same, to the end that the action or proceeding to be quickly heard and determined. (Public Resources Code Section 21167.1 (a).)
5. Requires counties with a population of over 200,000 to designate one or more judges to develop expertise concerning the California Environmental Quality Act and related land-use and environmental matters, and then assign such matters to that judge or those judges. (Public Resources Code Section 21167.1 (b).)
6. Provides that the California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to urban infill projects, as specified. (Public Resources Code Section 15332.)
7. Provides that in civil actions, including those brought by any plaintiff to challenge a housing development project which is a development project which meets or exceeds the requirements for low- or moderate-income housing a defendant may, if the bringing of the action or the seeking by the plaintiff of particular relief including, but not limited to, injunctions, has the effect of preventing or delaying the project from being carried out, apply to the court by noticed motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish an undertaking as security for costs and any damages that may be incurred by the defendant by the conclusion of the action or proceeding as the result of a delay in carrying out the development project. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 529.9 (a).)
8. Requires a defendant seeking a security to demonstrate that the action was brought without merit and that the action was brought in bad faith, vexatiously, for the purpose of delay, or to thwart the low- or moderate-income nature of the housing development project. (Ibid.)
9. Requires a plaintiff seeking to contest the imposition of a financial security, as specified in 7), to demonstrate that the plaintiff will suffer undue economic hardship by filing the financial undertaking. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 529.9 (b).)
10. Permits in any litigation pending in any court of this state, at any time until final judgment is entered, a defendant to move the court, upon notice and hearing, for an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish security. Requires that the motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish security must be based upon the ground, and supported by a showing, that the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant and that there is not a reasonable probability that they will prevail in the litigation against the moving defendant. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 391.1.)
11. Defines a “vexatious litigant” as a person who does any of the following:
    1. In the immediately preceding seven-year period has commenced, prosecuted, or maintained in propria persona at least five litigations, other than in a small claims court that have been finally determined adversely to the person or unjustifiably permitted to remain pending at least two years without having been brought to trial or hearing;
    2. After a litigation has been finally determined against the person, repeatedly relitigates or attempts to relitigate, in propria persona, either the validity of the determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined or the cause of action, claim, controversy, or any of the issues of fact or law, determined or concluded by the final determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined;
    3. In any litigation while acting in propria persona, repeatedly files unmeritorious motions, pleadings, or other papers, conducts unnecessary discovery, or engages in other tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay; or
    4. Has previously been declared to be a vexatious litigant by any state or federal court of record in any action or proceeding based upon the same or substantially similar facts, transaction, or occurrence. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 391 (b).)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed non-fiscal.

COMMENTS: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is frequently held up as a major factor deterring housing development in California. Although the actual rate of CEQA litigation is relatively small when compared to the totality of development across the state, in 2024, the Legislature recognized that a small handful of vexatious litigants generated a large portion of the actual cases filed under CEQA. Accordingly, the Legislature modernized the financial assurances statutes that protect affordable housing projects by adopting SB 393 (Glazer) Chap. 285, Stats. 2024. SB 393 shifted the burden of proving that a vexatious plaintiff could not afford to put up a litigation bond from the defendant to the plaintiff.

One of the most highly publicized recent instances of CEQA being used to try and stop development was a challenge to a UC Berkeley student housing project in which the plaintiffs sought to contend that the students, and the noise they make, were tantamount to pollution. (Ben Christopher, California’s highest court rejects ‘people as pollution’ argument for UC Berkeley housing, Cal Matters (June 6, 2024) available at: https://calmatters.org/housing/2024/06/berkeley-peoples-park-ceqa-supreme-court/.) That case was brought by a neighborhood group widely known for frequently challenging nearly every development at the UC Berkeley campus. This bill would ensure that university neighbors cannot repeatedly stop the construction of student housing by making such housing eligible for litigation bonds. In support of the bill, the author states:

While California has made meaningful progress in addressing its housing crisis, a significant shortage still persists. Students across the higher education system are among the most severely affected by the housing shortage. An estimated 417,000 students across the UC, CSU, and CCC systems lack stable housing, and more than 30,000 students are on waiting lists for housing provided by these universities.

SB 916 aims to protect student housing by clarifying that courts have discretion to require a bond in lawsuits challenging student housing. While existing law already grants courts this discretion for affordable housing projects, it does not extend the same protection to student housing. By closing this gap, SB 916 will allow much-needed student housing projects to proceed without barriers or unnecessary delays.

The CEQA process and potential court challenges. At its core, CEQA seeks to ensure that public agencies do not approve projects without considering the negative impacts a project may inflict on the environment. Although CEQA is too often, and incorrectly, viewed as a tool to skew outcomes in a manner that favors environmentalists and deters development, in reality, “CEQA operates, not by dictating proenvironmental outcomes, but rather by mandating that ‘decision makers and the public’ study the likely environmental effects of contemplated government actions and thus make fully informed decisions regarding those actions.” (Citizens Coalition Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 561, 577.) Thus, the primary objective of the environmental review required by CEQA is to steer agency decision makers into approving projects in a manner that utilizes feasible alternatives and mitigation measures to lessen the project’s impact on the environment. The consideration of the impacts of a project is to be analyzed in the agency’s environmental impact report. The failure to properly consider a project’s impacts is what typically results in litigation.

The process of finalizing an environmental impact report requires several steps. First the local lead agency must determine if a project qualifies for one of the many exemptions to CEQA provided in statute and the Office of Planning and Research’s regulations, more commonly known as the CEQA Guidelines. If no exemption exists, the lead agency must then begin to initially study the project in order to determine the scope of the project and associated environmental review. At this point if the agency believes no environmental impacts exist they may opt to file a negative declaration stating as much and proceed to approve the project. Once the scope of the project and review is properly determined, the environmental review is conducted and a draft environmental impact report is submitted for public comment. A lead agency must respond to all written comments on the environmental impact report received during the public comment period, and revise the environmental impact report as necessary. The responses to comments should explain why the comments are rejected or if the comment resulted in the adoption of a mitigation measure. Once the public review is completed the agency can certify the final environmental impact report.

Once a final environmental impact report is certified, and a project is subsequently approved, any litigation over the environmental review of the project can begin. Courts require an environmental impact report to make a good faith effort at fully disclosing the impacts of the project, provide a detailed set of information about project impacts and serve as the foundation for agency review. The court must review the environmental impact report in two ways. First a court must determine if the environmental impact report was prepared in a procedurally sufficient manner, as described above, and contains the proper content as required by law. Secondly, the court must determine the substantive aspect of its review and determine whether the conclusions and decisions made by the lead agency are based on substantial evidence in the record. (Vineyard Area Citizens v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412.)

Existing laws seek to deter vexatious litigants from clogging the justice system with frivolous lawsuits. Despite anecdotal complaints that California’s laws generate significant numbers of “frivolous lawsuits,” in practice California maintains a relatively strong set of laws to deter plaintiffs from repeatedly pursuing frivolous litigation. Under existing law, a party is deemed a “vexatious litigant” if they have lost, or failed to make significant progress in, litigating five claims or attempts to relitigate a final judgment against the same defendant over a seven-year period. Once a party is deemed to be a vexatious litigant, they are required to post a security bond at the commencement of litigation to cover all costs and damages incurred by the person who is sued by a vexatious litigant to ensure that if the litigant fails (again) to prove their case, the defendant will not be harmed. Additionally, should the vexatious litigant fail to adhere to specific orders issued by the court, including orders dictating how the litigant may file cases, the litigant can face significant court sanctions.

However, in the CEQA context, simply recovering legal costs and damages may be insufficient, especially if the litigation causes an affordable housing project to be abandoned completely. Accordingly, existing Code of Civil Procedure Section 529.2 permits a judge to impose a security on a plaintiff, at the request of a defendant, if the defendant can show the action is meritless and brought in bad faith, vexatiously, for the purpose of delay, or to thwart a low- or moderate-income housing development project. Existing law also prohibits the imposition of a financial security if doing so would be financially harmful to the plaintiff. By limiting these provisions to low and moderate-income projects, the existing law also targets those projects most desperately in need of construction, and most likely to be attacked by affluent neighbors.

This process, as it relates to the showing of financial hardship, requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that they will suffer undue economic hardship by posting the bond. This new process reflects the revisions adopted by SB 393 to put more onus on those challenging affordable housing developments to ensure that their claims were meritorious and not simply engage in delay tactics.

This bill would authorize the imposition of litigation bonds when student housing projects are challenged. Recognizing that providing adequate student housing is a critical obligation of California’s public colleges and universities, this bill would authorize a defendant (typically the university) to seek the imposition of a litigation bond from a plaintiff when such projects are challenged under CEQA. The bill defines student housing project as, “one or more housing facilities to be occupied by students of one or more campuses and owned by a public university, including dining, academic, and student support service spaces, and other necessary and usual attendant and related facilities and equipment.”

Like the existing law, the bill would only apply the bond if the court determines that the litigation is brought, “in bad faith, vexatiously, for the purpose of delay, or to thwart” the development. This ensures that a judicial officer can judge the merits of the plaintiff’s case and will not be used as a tool to derail valid CEQA challenges.

Proposed technical amendments. As presently in print, one sentence within the bill’s proposed modifications to subdivision (a) of Code of Civil Procedure Section 529.2 references both low- and moderate-income housing as well as the new reference to student housing. However, a subsequent sentence in that subdivision only references low-and moderate-income housing. To avoid any potential confusion in implementing the bill, the author is proposing to ensure subdivision (a) consistently references both low- and moderate-income housing as well as student housing. Subdivision (a) of Section 529.2 will now read:

(a) In all civil actions, including, but not limited to, actions brought pursuant to Section 21167 of the Public Resources Code, brought by any plaintiff to challenge a housing project which is a development project, as defined by Section 65928 of the Government Code, and which meets or exceeds the requirements for low- or moderate-income housing as set forth in Section 65915 of the Government Code, or which is a student housing project, a defendant may, if the bringing of the action or the seeking by the plaintiff of particular relief including, but not limited to, injunctions, has the effect of preventing or delaying the project from being carried out, apply to the court by noticed motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish an undertaking as security for costs and any damages that may be incurred by the defendant by the conclusion of the action or proceeding as the result of a delay in carrying out the development project. The motion shall be made on the grounds that the action is without merit and that the action was brought in bad faith, vexatiously, for the purpose of delay, or to thwart the student housing or low- or moderate-income nature of the housing development project.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: This bill is sponsored by the Student Home Coalition and its affiliates across numerous California university campuses. In support of the bill, the sponsors write:

The need for more housing on college campuses is dire. UCs and CSUs are only able to house 39% and 14% of their students respectively, while just 16 out of 116 Community Colleges operate any housing at all. The student housing shortage is not due to lack of interest in development, but rather regulatory barriers that render university projects infeasible. Students pay the price both literally and figuratively for outdated housing regulations. Increased construction costs limit supply and raise rents, and the tens of thousands of students who can’t keep up with rising costs end up homeless every year.

The weaponization of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is a major driver of housing unaffordability on our campuses. Interest groups and community members often use CEQA to block campus housing projects, at the expense of California’s students. According to the UC Regents, seven UC student housing projects were sued under CEQA in the span of just five years (between 2018 and 2022). Litigation delays projects and drives up housing costs, resulting in fewer available units, increased student homelessness, and even deferred college acceptance for some incoming freshmen. By allowing courts to require bonds in lawsuits involving student housing projects, SB 916 will prevent delays to critical campus housing projects while maintaining California’s strong environmental review process.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Student Homes Coalition (sponsor)

California Apartment Association

California State University, Office of the Chancellor

California YIMBY

Davis College Democrats

Sacramento State

Student Homes at SJSU

Student Homes At UCLA

Student Homes At UCSB

Student Homes At UCSD

UC Davis Housing, Transportation, and Advocacy Committee

UC Irvine Democrats

University Housing Rights Organization at UC Berkeley

Urban Studies Student Association at UCI

Youthbridge Housing

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Nicholas Liedtke / JUD. / (916) 319-2334

 CONSENT  

Bill No: SB 916

Author: Ashby (D)

Amended: 3/18/26

Vote: 21

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 13-0, 4/21/26

AYES: Umberg, Niello, Allen, Ashby, Caballero, Durazo, Laird, Reyes, Stern, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

SUBJECT: Civil actions: housing development projects

SOURCE: Student Homes Coalition

DIGEST:

This bill provides a mechanism for a defendant in a civil action, including under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), challenging a project that is a student housing project, as defined, to 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 by the plaintiff would result in preventing or delaying the project.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires lead agencies with the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a proposed discretionary project to prepare a negative declaration, mitigated declaration, or environmental impact report (EIR) for this action, unless the project is exempt from CEQA (CEQA includes various statutory exemptions, as well as categorical exemptions in the CEQA Guidelines). (Public Resources (Pub. Res.) Code § 21100 et seq.)
2. Sets requirements relating to the preparation, review, comment, approval and certification of environmental documents, as well as procedures relating to an action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul various actions of a public agency on the grounds of noncompliance with CEQA. (Pub. Res. Code § 21165 et seq.)
3. Authorizes judicial review of CEQA actions taken by public agencies, following the agency’s decision to carry out or approve the project, and specifies certain time periods in which an action must be instituted depending on the type of claim alleged. (Pub. Res. Code § 21167.)
4. Requires the superior court and court of appeal to provide lawsuits related CEQA preference over all other civil actions therein, in the matter of setting the same for hearing or trial, and in hearing the same, to the end that the action or proceeding is to be quickly heard and determined. (Pub. Res. Code § 21167.1(a).)

1. Provides that in all civil actions, including those brought by any plaintiff to challenge a housing development project which is a development project which meets or exceeds the requirements for low- or moderate-income housing, a defendant may apply to the court by noticed motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish an undertaking as security for costs and any damages that may be incurred by the defendant by the conclusion of the action or proceeding as the result of a delay in carrying out the development project if the bringing of the action has the effect of preventing or delaying the project from being carried out. (Code of Civil Procedure § 529.9(a).)
2. Provides that a defendant seeking a security in accordance with 5), above, must make a motion for that security on the grounds that the action is without merit and was brought in bad faith, vexatiously, for the purpose of delay, or to thwart the low- or moderate-income nature of the housing development project. (Ibid.)
3. Authorizes the plaintiff, in response to a motion for an undertaking made under 5), above, to seek to limit the amount of the undertaking by presenting admissible evidence that filing an undertaking will cause it, and in cases where the plaintiff is an unincorporated association, its members, to suffer undue economic hardship. (Id. at subd. (b).)
4. Requires the court, if the court determines after a hearing that the grounds for the motion have been established, to order the plaintiff to file the undertaking in an amount specified in the court’s order, taking into consideration any admitted evidence of plaintiff’s economic hardship and avoiding to cause the plaintiff to suffer undue economic hardship, as security for costs and damages of the defendant.
   1. The liability of the plaintiff for the costs and damages of the defendant is not to exceed $500,000.
   2. If the court concludes, based on all of the admissible evidence presented, that a bond in any amount would cause the plaintiff undue economic hardship, the court is authorized in its discretion to decline to impose a bond.
   3. If at any time after the plaintiff has filed an undertaking the housing development plan is changed by the developer in bad faith so that it fails to meet or exceed the requirements for low- or moderate-income housing, the developer is liable to the plaintiff for the cost of obtaining the undertaking. (Ibid.)
5. Authorizes a defendant, in any litigation pending in any court of this state and at any time until final judgment is entered, to move the court upon a notice and a hearing for an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish security.
   1. Provides that the motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish security must be based upon the ground, and supported by a showing, that the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant and that there is not a reasonable probability that they will prevail in the litigation against the moving defendant. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 391.1.)

This bill:

1. Expands existing Code of Civil Procedure Section 529.9 to also apply to actions challenging a student housing project.
2. Defines “student housing project” as one or more housing facilities to be occupied by students of one or more campuses and owned by a public university, including dining, academic, and student support service spaces, and other necessary and usual attendant and related facilities and equipment.

Comments

Enacted in 1970, CEQA requires state and local agencies to follow a set protocol to disclose and evaluate the significant environmental impacts of proposed projects and to adopt feasible measures to mitigate those impacts. CEQA itself applies to projects undertaken or requiring approval by public agencies, and, if more than one agency is involved, CEQA requires one of the agencies to be designated as the “lead agency.” The environmental review process required by CEQA consists of: (1) determining if the activity is a project; (2) determining if the project is exempt from CEQA; and (3) performing an initial study to identify the environmental impacts and, depending on the findings, prepare either a Negative Declaration (for projects with no significant impacts), a Mitigated Negative Declaration (for projects with significant impacts but that are revised in some form to avoid or mitigate those impacts), or an EIR (for projects with significant impacts).

An EIR must accurately describe the proposed project, identify and analyze each significant environmental impact expected to result from the proposed project, identify mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to the extent feasible, and evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. Before approving any project that has received environmental review, an agency must make certain findings pertaining to the project’s environmental impact and any associated mitigation measures. If mitigation measures are required or incorporated into a project, the public agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program to ensure compliance with those measures. To enforce the requirements of CEQA, a civil action may be brought under several code sections to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the acts or decisions of a public agency for noncompliance with the act.

Unlike other environmental laws specific to air resources, water resources, or the control of toxic substances, there is no statewide bureaucracy charged with enforcement of CEQA. Rather, it is enforced through citizen participation and litigation if necessary. Arguably, this makes the implementation of CEQA more efficient and expeditious than if a state agency were created to administer the law. Thus, CEQA litigation could more appropriately be characterized as mere enforcement.

“CEQA operates, not by dictating proenvironmental outcomes, but rather by mandating that ‘decision makers and the public’ study the likely environmental effects of contemplated government actions and thus make fully informed decisions regarding those actions. … In other words, CEQA does not care what decision is made as long as it is an informed one.” (Citizens Coalition Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles (2018) 26 Cal. App. 5th 561, 577.)

SB 393 (Glazer, Chapter 285, Statutes of 2024) amended an existing provision of law (Code of Civil Procedure § 529.2) that provided a mechanism for a defendant in a civil action challenging a housing project which is a development project that meets or exceeds the requirements for low- or moderate-income housing to 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 by the plaintiff would result in preventing or delaying the project. Prior to the enactment of SB 393, the defendant had the burden of making a showing that the posting of the undertaking would not place an undue hardship on the plaintiff. SB 393 shifted the burden to the plaintiff to demonstrate that posting a bond would place an undue economic hardship on the plaintiff, arguing that the plaintiff is the one who has the information to make such a showing and therefore it was more appropriate to place that burden on the plaintiff.

This bill seeks to enact a similar mechanism for a defendant in a civil action, including an action under CEQA, challenging a project that is a student housing project. This bill allows such a defendant to 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 by the plaintiff would result in preventing or delaying the project. “Student housing project” is defined as one or more housing facilities to be occupied by students of one or more campuses and owned by a public university, including dining, academic, and student support service spaces, and other necessary and usual attendant and related facilities and equipment.

In 2023, the Office of the President of the University of California (UC) reported that since 2018, seven housing projects had been challenged by CEQA litigation and that approximately 4,100 beds were affected by ongoing litigation at that time.^[1] This same report stated that the UC “provides housing opportunities that are generally at least 20 percent below market rate” and that “the supply of beds despite new inventory has not been able to keep up with the demand and increased enrollment.”^[2] The report noted that “CEQA litigation creates significant delay for delivery of housing projects, while the threat of CEQA litigation and its inherent unpredictability slows the housing project entitlement process.”^[3] Campus housing plans, as of 2023, included funding for “22,000 student beds between fall 2023 and fall 2028” and future plans of an “additional 16,000 beds,” which if funded, could lead to an additional 38,000 future beds.^[4] The California State University Systemwide Housing Plan states that “market demand for Fall 2030 is estimated at 15,370 beds, up from an estimated 13,250 in the 2022 plan.”^[5]

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/4/26)

Student Homes Coalition (source)

ASUCD Housing and Transportation Advocacy Committee

California Apartment Association

California YIMBY

College Democrats at UC Irvine

Davis College Democrats

Student Homes at San Jose State University

Student Homes at UCLA

Student Homes at UCSB

Student Homes at UCSD

Urban Studies Student Association

YouthBridge Housing

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/4/26)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The author writes:

While California has made meaningful progress in addressing its housing crisis, a significant shortage still persists. Students across the higher education system are among the most severely affected by the housing shortage. An estimated 417,000 students across the UC, CSU, and CCC systems lack stable housing, and more than 30,000 students are on waiting lists for housing provided by these universities.

SB 916 aims to protect student housing by clarifying that courts have discretion to require a bond in lawsuits challenging student housing. While existing law already grants courts this discretion for affordable housing projects, it does not extend the same protection to student housing. By closing this gap, SB 916 will allow much-needed student housing projects to proceed without barriers or unnecessary delays.

The Student Homes Coalition, the sponsor of this bill, writes in support stating:

[…] The need for more housing on college campuses is dire. UC[s] and CSUs are only able to house 39% and 14% of their students respectively, while just 16 out of 116 Community Colleges operate any housing at all. The student housing shortage is not due to lack of interest in development, but rather regulatory barriers that render university projects infeasible. Students pay the price both literally and figuratively for outdated housing regulations. Increased construction costs limit supply and raise rents, and the tens of thousands of students who can't keep up with rising costs end up homeless every year.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is a major driver of housing unaffordability on our campuses. Interest groups and community members often weaponize CEQA to block campus housing projects at the expense of California's students. According to the UC Regents, 7 UC student housing projects were sued under CEQA in just five years between 2018 and 2022.

Litigation delays projects and drives up housing costs, resulting in fewer available units, increased student homelessness.

Prepared by: Amanda Mattson / JUD. / (916) 651-4113

5/5/26 15:55:39

**** END ****

1. Off. Of the U.C. Pres., Overview of University-Provided Housing, at p. 4, available at https://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/mar23/j1.pdf. ↑

2. Ibid. ↑

3. Ibid. ↑

4. Ibid. ↑

5. Cal. Stat Univ., 2025 CSU Systemwide Housing Plan Update, at p. 10, available at https://www.calstate.edu/impact-of-the-csu/government/Advocacy-and-State-Relations/legislativereports1/Systemwide%20Housing%20Plan%20Report%20-%20signed.pdf. ↑

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair

2025-2026 Regular Session

Bill No: SB 916 (Author:Ashby)

Version: March 21, 2026

Hearing Date: April 21, 2026

Fiscal: No

Urgency: No

AMConsultant:

SUBJECT

Civil actions: housing development projects

DIGEST

This bill provides a mechanism for a defendant in a civil action, including under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), challenging a project that is a student housing project, as defined, to 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 by the plaintiff would result in preventing or delaying the project.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Existing law provides a mechanism for a defendant in a civil action challenging a housing project that is a development project which meets or exceeds the requirements for low- or moderate-income housing to 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 by the plaintiff would result in preventing or delaying the project. A plaintiff may seek to limit the amount of the undertaking by presenting admissible evidence that filing an undertaking will cause it, and in cases where the plaintiff is an unincorporated association, its members, to suffer undue economic hardship. This bill expands that existing law to allow similar actions challenging a project that is a student housing project. The bill is sponsored by the Student Homes Coalition and supported by California YIMBY and several organizations that advocate for more student housing. There is no known opposition. Should this bill pass this Committee, it will be referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing law:

1. Requires lead agencies with the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a proposed discretionary project to prepare a negative declaration, mitigated declaration, or environmental impact report (EIR) for this action, unless the project is exempt from CEQA (CEQA includes various statutory exemptions, as well as categorical exemptions in the CEQA Guidelines). (Pub. Res. Code § 21100 et seq.)
2. Sets requirements relating to the preparation, review, comment, approval and certification of environmental documents, as well as procedures relating to an action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul various actions of a public agency on the grounds of noncompliance with CEQA. (Pub. Res. Code § 21165 et seq.)
3. Authorizes judicial review of CEQA actions taken by public agencies, following the agency’s decision to carry out or approve the project, and specifies certain time periods in which an action must be instituted depending on the type of claim alleged. (Pub. Res. Code § 21167.)
4. Requires the superior court and court of appeal to provide lawsuits related CEQA preference over all other civil actions therein, in the matter of setting the same for hearing or trial, and in hearing the same, to the end that the action or proceeding is to be quickly heard and determined. (Pub. Res. Code § 21167.1(a).)

1. Provides that in all civil actions, including those brought by any plaintiff to challenge a housing development project which is a development project which meets or exceeds the requirements for low- or moderate-income housing, a defendant may apply to the court by noticed motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish an undertaking as security for costs and any damages that may be incurred by the defendant by the conclusion of the action or proceeding as the result of a delay in carrying out the development project if the bringing of the action has the effect of preventing or delaying the project from being carried out. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 529.9(a).)
2. Provides that a defendant seeking a security in accordance with 5), above, must make a motion for that security on the grounds that the action is without merit and was brought in bad faith, vexatiously, for the purpose of delay, or to thwart the low- or moderate-income nature of the housing development project. (Ibid.)
3. Authorizes the plaintiff, in response to a motion for an undertaking made under 5), above, to seek to limit the amount of the undertaking by presenting admissible evidence that filing an undertaking will cause it, and in cases where the plaintiff is an unincorporated association, its members, to suffer undue economic hardship. (Id at subd. (b).)
4. Requires the court, if the court determines after a hearing that the grounds for the motion have been established, to order the plaintiff to file the undertaking in an amount specified in the court’s order, taking into consideration any admitted evidence of plaintiff’s economic hardship and avoiding to cause the plaintiff to suffer undue economic hardship, as security for costs and damages of the defendant.
   1. The liability of the plaintiff for the costs and damages of the defendant is not to exceed $500,000.
   2. If the court concludes, based on all of the admissible evidence presented, that a bond in any amount would cause the plaintiff undue economic hardship, the court is authorized in its discretion to decline to impose a bond.
   3. If at any time after the plaintiff has filed an undertaking the housing development plan is changed by the developer in bad faith so that it fails to meet or exceed the requirements for low- or moderate-income housing, the developer is liable to the plaintiff for the cost of obtaining the undertaking. (Ibid.)
5. Authorizes a defendant, in any litigation pending in any court of this state and at any time until final judgment is entered, to move the court upon a notice and a hearing for an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish security.
   1. Provides that the motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish security must be based upon the ground, and supported by a showing, that the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant and that there is not a reasonable probability that they will prevail in the litigation against the moving defendant. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 391.1.)
6. Defines a “vexatious litigant” as a person who does any of the following:
   1. in the immediately preceding seven-year period has commenced, prosecuted, or maintained in propria persona at least five litigations, other than in a small claims court that have been finally determined adversely to the person or unjustifiably permitted to remain pending at least two years without having been brought to trial or hearing;
   2. after a litigation has been finally determined against the person, repeatedly relitigates or attempts to relitigate, in propria persona, either the validity of the determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined or the cause of action, claim, controversy, or any of the issues of fact or law, determined or concluded by the final determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined;
   3. in any litigation while acting in propria persona, repeatedly files unmeritorious motions, pleadings, or other papers, conducts unnecessary discovery, or engages in other tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay; or
   4. has previously been declared to be a vexatious litigant by any state or federal court of record in any action or proceeding based upon the same or substantially similar facts, transaction, or occurrence. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 391 (b).)

This bill:

1. Expands existing Code of Civil Procedure Section 529.9 to also apply to actions challenging a student housing project.
2. Defines “student housing project” as one or more housing facilities to be occupied by students of one or more campuses and owned by a public university, including dining, academic, and student support service spaces, and other necessary and usual attendant and related facilities and equipment.
   

COMMENTS

1. Stated need for the bill

The author writes:

While California has made meaningful progress in addressing its housing crisis, a significant shortage still persists. Students across the higher education system are among the most severely affected by the housing shortage. An estimated 417,000 students across the UC, CSU, and CCC systems lack stable housing, and more than 30,000 students are on waiting lists for housing provided by these universities.

SB 916 aims to protect student housing by clarifying that courts have discretion to require a bond in lawsuits challenging student housing. While existing law already grants courts this discretion for affordable housing projects, it does not extend the same protection to student housing. By closing this gap, SB 916 will allow much-needed student housing projects to proceed without barriers or unnecessary delays.

1. CEQA generally

Enacted in 1970, CEQA requires state and local agencies to follow a set protocol to disclose and evaluate the significant environmental impacts of proposed projects and to adopt feasible measures to mitigate those impacts. CEQA itself applies to projects undertaken or requiring approval by public agencies, and, if more than one agency is involved, CEQA requires one of the agencies to be designated as the “lead agency.” The environmental review process required by CEQA consists of: (1) determining if the activity is a project; (2) determining if the project is exempt from CEQA; and (3) performing an initial study to identify the environmental impacts and, depending on the findings, prepare either a Negative Declaration (for projects with no significant impacts), a Mitigated Negative Declaration (for projects with significant impacts but that are revised in some form to avoid or mitigate those impacts), or an EIR (for projects with significant impacts).

An EIR must accurately describe the proposed project, identify and analyze each significant environmental impact expected to result from the proposed project, identify mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to the extent feasible, and evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. Before approving any project that has received environmental review, an agency must make certain findings pertaining to the project’s environmental impact and any associated mitigation measures. If mitigation measures are required or incorporated into a project, the public agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program to ensure compliance with those measures. To enforce the requirements of CEQA, a civil action may be brought under several code sections to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the acts or decisions of a public agency for noncompliance with the act.

Unlike other environmental laws specific to air resources, water resources, or the control of toxic substances, there is no statewide bureaucracy charged with enforcement of CEQA. Rather, it is enforced through citizen participation and litigation if necessary. Arguably, this makes the implementation of CEQA more efficient and expeditious than if a state agency were created to administer the law. Thus, CEQA litigation could more appropriately be characterized as mere enforcement.

“CEQA operates, not by dictating proenvironmental outcomes, but rather by mandating that ‘decision makers and the public’ study the likely environmental effects of contemplated government actions and thus make fully informed decisions regarding those actions. … In other words, CEQA does not care what decision is made as long as it is an informed one.” (Citizens Coalition Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles (2018) 26 Cal. App. 5th 561, 577.)

1. Providing a mechanism to seek an undertaking in actions challenging a student housing project

SB 393 (Glazer, Ch. 285, Stats. 2024) amended an existing provision of law (Code of Civ. Proc. § 529.2) that provided a mechanism for a defendant in a civil action challenging a housing project which is a development project that meets or exceeds the requirements for low- or moderate-income housing to 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 by the plaintiff would result in preventing or delaying the project. Prior to the enactment of SB 393, the defendant had the burden of making a showing that the posting of the undertaking would not place an undue hardship on the plaintiff. SB 393 shifted the burden to the plaintiff to demonstrate that posting a bond would place an undue economic hardship on the plaintiff, arguing that the plaintiff is the one who has the information to make such a showing and therefore it was more appropriate to place that burden on the plaintiff.

This bill seeks to enact a similar mechanism for a defendant in a civil action, including an action under CEQA, challenging a project that is a student housing project. This bill allows such a defendant to 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 by the plaintiff would result in preventing or delaying the project. “Student housing project” is defined as one or more housing facilities to be occupied by students of one or more campuses and owned by a public university, including dining, academic, and student support service spaces, and other necessary and usual attendant and related facilities and equipment.

In 2023, the Office of the President of the University of California (UC) reported that since 2018, seven housing projects had been challenged by CEQA litigation and that approximately 4,100 beds were affected by ongoing litigation at that time.^[1] This same report stated that the UC “provides housing opportunities that are generally at least 20

percent below market rate” and that “the supply of beds despite new inventory has not been able to keep up with the demand and increased enrollment.”^[2] The report noted that “CEQA litigation creates significant delay for delivery of housing projects, while the threat of CEQA litigation and its inherent unpredictability slows the housing project

entitlement process.”^[3] Campus housing plans, as of 2023, included funding for “22,000 student beds between fall 2023 and fall 2028” and future plans of an “additional 16,000 beds,” which if funded, could lead to an additional 38,000 future beds.^[4] The California State University Systemwide Housing Plan states that “market demand for Fall 2030 is estimated at 15,370 beds, up from an estimated 13,250 in the 2022 plan.”^[5]

1. First amendment implications

In a recent U.S. Supreme Court Case, Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta ((2021) 141 S.Ct. 2373.), the Court held that the California Attorney General (AG) requirement that charities disclose their Schedule B to Form 990 when registering with the state facially violated the First Amendment. Schedule B requires non-profit organizations to disclose the names and addresses of donors who have contributed more than $5,000 in a particular tax year or, in certain cases, more than 2% of an organization’s total contributions and is filed with the federal government. The Court held that the standard of review to be applied in compelled disclosure situations is an exacting scrutiny standard, and wrote that under this standard there must be a “’substantial relation between the disclosure requirement and a sufficiently important governmental interest,’ and that the disclosure requirement be narrowly tailored to the interest it promotes.” (Id. at 2383-85; internal quotation marks omitted.) The court also stated that a law may be facially challenged and invalidated “as overbroad if a substantial number of its applications are unconstitutional.” (Id. at 2387.)

The Court found that preventing fraud by charities was a substantial governmental interest, stating that there was “no doubt that California has an important interest in preventing wrongdoing by charitable organizations.”(Id. at 2387.) However, the court found that the disclosure requirement was not narrowly tailored, pointing to the fact that the District Court found no concrete example of pre-investigation collection advancing the AG’s enforcement efforts. (Id. at 2386.) The Court noted that there were other methods available to the AG to collect such information, such as a subpoena or audit letter. (Ibid.) The AG argued to the Court that the disclosure requirement did not result in any widespread chilling of association rights, that the disclosures were confidential, and that there were no burdens placed on the donors because tax-exempt charities already provide their Schedule B form to the Internal Revenue Service. (Id. at 2387-88.) The Court found these arguments unpersuasive. The Court concluded that the protections of the First Amendment as it relates to freedom of association “are triggered not only by actual restrictions” on a person’s ability to join with other people to further a shared goal but also when there is a risk of a chilling effect on association. (Id. at 2389.)

A California appellate court recently applied the holding in Americans for Prosperity Foundation to a discovery request by the Public Utility Commission’s (PUC) Public Advocate’s Office (PAO) on Southern California Gas Company (SCG) related to whether the political activities of SCG are funded by SCG’s shareholders, which is permissible, or ratepayers, which is not permissible under existing law. The court held that the discovery request violated the First Amendment as applied to SCG because it infringed upon their freedom of association rights. (Southern California Gas Company v. Public Utilities Commission (2023) 87 Cal.App5th 324.) The court applied the exacting scrutiny standard as laid out under American for Prosperity Foundation and stated that a party objecting to a discovery request based on First Amendment rights has to make a prima facie showing that the enforcement of the request will result in harassment, membership withdrawal, or discouragement of new members or other consequences that objectively indicate an impact on or “chilling” of the members’ association rights. (Id. at 342-43.) If the petitioner can make the prima facie showing the burden shifts to the government to demonstrate that the disclosure serves a compelling government interest and is the least restrictive means of obtaining the requested information. (Id. at 343.)

The court stated that “a governmental entity seeking discovery must show that the information sought is highly relevant to the claims or defenses in the proceeding at hand” and that the information is essential to perform its duties. (Id. at 344-45.) Here, much like in the American for Prosperity Foundation case, the information to be disclosed would remain confidential but this was found unpersuasive by the court. They noted confidentiality was irrelevant to the matter because the evidence provided by SCG “demonstrates that the disclosure to the PAO itself would chill third parties from associating with the utility.” (Id. at 344.) SCG made this demonstration by providing evidence that disclosure would have a chilling effect on the ability of SCG to engage in activities that are lawful, and submitted declarations from organizations stating that the disclosure required by PAO would dissuade them from communicating or contracting with SCG.

As this Committee also noted in its analysis of SB 393, it is unclear if this bill implicates the First Amendment as addressed in the cases above. It could be argued that this statute is not a compelled disclosure situation as a plaintiff is not required to provide evidence of their financials, but is merely authorized to provide that information to challenge a motion seeking an undertaking. Additionally, it could be argued that preventing frivolous litigation and stopping undue delay in the construction of student housing is an important state interest and that the provision is narrowly tailored. However, requiring the financials of members of an unincorporated association to be disclosed in order to challenge an undertaking may pose a risk of having a chilling effect on associations in a way that the cases above find violate the First Amendment.

1. Statements in support

The Student Homes Coalition, the sponsor of the bill, writes in support stating:

[…] The need for more housing on college campuses is dire. UC[s] and CSUs are only able to house 39% and 14% of their students respectively, while just 16 out of 116 Community Colleges operate any housing at all. The student housing shortage is not due to lack of interest in development, but rather regulatory barriers that render university projects infeasible. Students pay the price both literally and figuratively for outdated housing regulations. Increased construction costs limit supply and raise rents, and the tens of thousands of students who can't keep up with rising costs end up homeless every year.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is a major driver of housing unaffordability on our campuses. Interest groups and community members often weaponize CEQA to block campus housing projects at the expense of California's students. According to the UC Regents, 7 UC student housing projects were sued under CEQA in just five years between 2018 and 2022.

Litigation delays projects and drives up housing costs, resulting in fewer available units, increased student homelessness, and even deferred college acceptance for some incoming freshmen. […]

SUPPORT

Student Homes Coalition (sponsor)
ASUCD Housing and Transportation Advocacy Committee

California YIMBY

College Democrats at UC Irvine

Davis College Democrats

Student Homes at San Jose State University

Student Homes at UCLA

Student Homes at UCSB

Student Homes at UCSD

Urban Studies Student Association

YouthBridge Housing

OPPOSITION

None received

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending Legislation: SB 1344 (Cabaldon, 2026) provides a mechanism for a defendant in a civil action, including CEQA, challenging a project that is a priority care development, as defined, to seek an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish an undertaking as security for costs and damages, and raised the maximum limit of the undertaking to $1,000,0000. SB 1344 is currently pending in this Committee and is set to be heard on the same day as this bill.

Prior Legislation:

SB 678 (Niello, 2025) would have provided a mechanism for a defendant in a civil action, including under CEQA, challenging a project that engages in fire prevention activities, as defined, to 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 by the plaintiff would result in preventing or delaying the project. SB 678 died in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

SB 393 (Glazer, Ch. 285, Stats. 2024) shifted the burden from the defendant to the plaintiff to demonstrate that posting a bond would place an undue economic hardship on the plaintiff in certain actions challenging certain low- or moderate-income housing projects.

**************

1. Off. Of the U.C. Pres., Overview of University-Provided Housing, at p. 4, available at https://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/mar23/j1.pdf. ↑

2. Ibid. ↑

3. Ibid. ↑

4. Ibid. ↑

5. Ca. Stat Univ., 2025 CSU Systemwide Housing Plan Update, at p. 10, available at https://www.calstate.edu/impact-of-the-csu/government/Advocacy-and-State-Relations/legislativereports1/Systemwide%20Housing%20Plan%20Report%20-%20signed.pdf. ↑