Existing law prohibits any person, except as specified, from using or operating any vehicle, machine, tool, or equipment powered by an internal combustion engine operated on hydrocarbon fuels, in any industrial operation located on or near any forest, brush, or grass-covered land between April 1 and December 1 of any year, or at any other time when ground litter and vegetation will sustain combustion permitting the spread of fire, without providing and maintaining, for firefighting purposes only, suitable and serviceable tools, as prescribed. Existing law requires a sealed box of tools, containing specified items, including one backpack pump-type fire extinguisher filled with water, to be located within the operating area and accessible in the event of a fire. This bill would instead require a dedicated set of tools, as specified, including a sufficient number of fire extinguishers, to be located within the operating area and accessible in the event of a fire, so that, when added to any other tools on the industrial operation, each employee at the operation can be equipped to fight fire. The bill would make other nonsubstantive changes to these provisions.
Existing law, the California Coastal Act of 1976, requires any person wishing to perform or undertake any development in the coastal zone, as defined, in addition to obtaining any other permit required by law from any local government or from any state, regional, or local agency, to obtain a coastal development permit, as provided. The act further provides for the certification of local coastal programs by the California Coastal Commission. The act provides various procedures related to development control within areas of the coastal zone. This bill would require a coastal development permit associated with the Zero Emissions Port Electrification and Operations project, as defined, to be considered to be within the boundaries of the Los Angeles Harbor District, and would provide the Los Angeles Harbor Department the sole authority to review the permit application and issue an associated coastal development permit on behalf of all jurisdictions ordinarily required to review the application. By placing additional duties on the Los Angeles Harbor District and the Los Angeles Harbor Department regarding the review and approval of coastal development permits for the project, the bill would create a state-mandated local program. The bill would require any additional development project to install infrastructure or purchase or deploy equipment at a terminal within the boundary of the Port of Los Angeles's Port Master Plan that is not exempt from a coastal development permit to acquire a separate coastal development permit in conformity with the Port of Los Angeles's Port Master Plan. The bill would require the appropriate state agency to render a decision on an application for a permit required for the project, or an additional project associated with the completion of the project, within 90 days of submission of the application and, if no action is taken by the appropriate state agency within that time period, would provide that the permit shall be deemed issued. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Port of Los Angeles. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
(1) Existing law establishes a system of elementary and secondary education in this state. This system consists of the public and private schools that provide instruction in kindergarten and in grades 1 to 12, inclusive. Existing law establishes a system of higher education in this state, consisting of 4 segments: the University of California, under the administration of the Regents of the University of California; the California State University, under the administration of the Trustees of the California State University; the California Community Colleges, under the administration of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges; and independent institutions of higher education. This bill would enact the Education Choice and Parental Empowerment Act of 2025 and establish the Education Savings Account (ESA) Trust, to be known as the ESA Trust, as a fund within the State Treasury to be administered by the ESA Trust Board. For the 2027–28 to 2030–31, inclusive, school years, the bill would authorize certain children eligible to be enrolled in kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive, to establish an ESA, based on parent or guardian income. The bill, beginning with the 2031–32 school year, would authorize every child eligible to be enrolled in kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive, to establish an ESA. The bill would credit a deposit amount to the account of every eligible student enrolled in an eligible school for tuition, elementary and secondary eligible education expenses, and undergraduate or graduate eligible education expenses, as defined. The bill would specify the deposit amounts for the 2027–28 school year, and would require the Department of Finance, beginning on July 1, 2028, to determine the ESA deposit amount annually for the upcoming school year, as provided. The bill would require the Controller to transfer an amount of money from the General Fund to the ESA Trust in those amounts. The bill would specify the membership of the ESA Trust Board and would vest the ESA Trust Board with certain powers and duties. The bill would establish 2 accounts within the ESA Trust, the ESA Trust Program Account and the ESA Trust Administrative Account, and would continuously appropriate the moneys in the program account to the ESA Trust Board for purposes of the bill, thereby making an appropriation. The bill would require the Superintendent of Public Instruction to establish a procedure for the parents and legal guardians of eligible students to apply to establish an ESA and submit an executed participation agreement. The bill would authorize the ESA Trust Board to disburse funds from ESAs to eligible schools. The bill would define "eligible school" as a campus of the California Community Colleges, the California State University, and the University of California, a full-time private school accredited by, or, except as provided, awaiting accreditation from, a regional accrediting agency recognized by the state or the United States Department of Education, a private college or university, a public college or university, or a vocational educational or training institution, as specified. The bill would specify the procedures for participating eligible schools to receive funds disbursed by the ESA Trust Board. Once an eligible student graduates from high school or obtains a high school equivalency certification, the bill would impose a $50,000 cap on the balance in any ESA available for an eligible student's use for tuition, undergraduate or graduate eligible education expenses, or expenses associated with vocational education. The bill would require the Department of Finance to adjust this limit annually for inflation using the California Consumer Price Index. (2) The Classroom Instructional Improvement and Accountability Act, an initiative approved by the voters as Proposition 98 at the November 8, 1988, statewide general election, amended the California Constitution to, among other things, set forth a formula for computing the minimum amount of revenues that the state is required to appropriate for the support of school districts and community college districts based on one of 3 tests in any given fiscal year, one of which is based on the percentage of General Fund revenues appropriated for school districts and community college districts, respectively, in the 1986–87 fiscal year, and 2 of which are based on, among other things, changes in enrollment. This bill would require the Legislature to recalculate that minimum education funding guarantee by including eligible students not enrolled in a public elementary or secondary school before the operative date of the act in those minimum funding guarantee calculations based on average daily attendance, as provided. The bill would also require the costs of providing ESA deposit amounts for eligible students to be apportioned between the General Fund and the public school district in which those eligible students reside in the same ratio of General Fund and local property tax revenue that would have been used to educate those eligible students in their public school district. (3) The Personal Income Tax Law, in modified conformity with federal law, generally defines "gross income" as income from whatever source derived, except as specifically excluded, and provides various exclusions from gross income, and deductions from income, for purposes of computing tax liability. This bill, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2026, would exclude from gross income any amounts received as distribution from an Education Savings Account, as defined, as part of a participation agreement, as defined. This bill, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2026, would also allow a deduction in an amount equal to the amount contributed by a taxpayer to an Education Savings Account. Existing law requires a bill authorizing a new tax expenditure to contain, among other things, specific goals, purposes, and objectives the tax expenditure will achieve, detailed performance indicators, and data collection requirements. This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to include additional information required for any bill authorizing a new tax expenditure. (4) These provisions would become operative on January 1, 2027, only if Assembly Constitutional Amendment ____ of the 2025–26 Regular Session is approved by the voters at the statewide general election on November 3, 2026.
Under existing law, the California Health Facilities Financing Authority Act (act) authorizes the California Health Facilities Financing Authority to, among other things, make loans from the continuously appropriated California Health Facilities Financing Authority Fund to participating health institutions, as defined, for financing or refinancing the acquisition, construction, or remodeling of health facilities. Under the act, the authority is authorized to issue revenue bonds to provide the funds for achieving these purposes. Existing law appropriates $40,000,000 to provide cashflow loans to nondesignated public hospitals, as needed, due to the financial impacts of the COVID-19 public health emergency. Existing law requires the nondesignated public hospitals participating in this loan program to repay and discharge the loan within 24 months of the date of the loan. This bill would extend the repayment requirements for nondesignated public hospitals participating in the loan program that had received a loan approval from, and entered into a loan and security agreement with, the authority by requiring those hospitals to begin monthly repayments on the loan 32 months after the date of the loan, and discharge the loan within 60 months of the date of the loan, as prescribed. The bill would require the monthly payments to be amortized over the term of the loan, at 0% interest. By removing restrictions limiting the expenditure of moneys appropriated for purposes of these loans, the bill would make an appropriation.
(1) Existing law prohibits various ingredients in consumer products for the protection of the health of Californians, including, among others, perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances in juvenile products, textile articles, and food packaging, and intentionally added Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate in intravenous solution containers, as specified. This bill would, on and after January 1, 2028, prohibit a person, as defined, from manufacturing, selling, delivering, distributing, or offering for sale, into commerce in this state consumer body wash and hand soap, as those terms are defined, that contains a prohibited ingredient, which includes substances such as benzalkonium chloride, among others. The bill would not apply to products intended for use in health care facilities. The bill would require, on or before July 1, 2028, a manufacturer of hand soap or body wash to register with the Department of Toxic Substances Control and provide, among other things, a registration charge and a statement of compliance with the prohibition. Upon request by the department, the bill would require a manufacturer to provide technical documentation to demonstrate compliance with the prohibition, as specified. This bill would, on or before January 1, 2028, require the department to adopt regulations to implement, interpret, enforce, or make specific the above provisions. The bill would require the department to specify by regulation the manner of registering and the amount of the registration charge. This bill would require the department to issue a notice of violation to a person in violation of the prohibition, as specified. The bill would make a violation of these provisions punishable by an administrative or civil penalty of not less than $10,000, as specified. The bill would authorize the Attorney General, on behalf of the department or the people of the state, to bring an action in superior court to obtain an order restraining a person from violating any of these provisions, as specified. The bill would require penalties collected to be deposited in the Safer Soap Act Fund, which the bill would create in the State Treasury, as provided. This bill would make it a crime for a person to willfully prevent, interfere with, or impede the lawful enforcement of these provisions, as specified. By expanding the scope of a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would provide that the department's duties to initiate, implement, or enforce any of these requirements are contingent upon sufficient funds in the Toxic Substances Control Account, as determined by the Department of Finance, and an appropriation by the Legislature for the purposes of implementing and enforcing these requirements. (2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law establishes the jurisdiction of the juvenile court over minors who are between 12 and 17 years of age, who have violated a federal, state, or local law or ordinance, as specified, and over minors under 12 years of age who have been alleged to have committed specified crimes. Existing law authorizes a juvenile court to adjudge a person under these circumstances to be a ward of the court. Existing law authorizes the juvenile court to permit a person adjudged a ward of the juvenile court, or placed on probation by the juvenile court, to reside in a county other than their county of legal residence. Existing law authorizes a ward who is permitted to reside in a county other than their county of legal residence to be supervised by the probation officer of the county of actual residence, with the consent of that probation officer. This bill would clarify that these provisions apply to wards discharged to probation supervision after having been confined in a secure youth treatment facility, or after having been transferred to a less restrictive program from a secure youth treatment facility.
Existing law requires a magistrate to issue a warrant or order authorizing a peace officer to immediately seize and cause the removal of a vehicle if the magistrate is presented with a peace officer's affidavit establishing reasonable cause to believe that the vehicle was an instrumentality used in the peace officer's presence in violation of specified offenses, including, among others, a person who engages in a motor vehicle speed contest or exhibition of speed on a highway or in an offstreet parking facility, as specified. Existing law makes it a crime to drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than 100 miles per hour. This bill would include the above-described crime in the list of offenses for which a peace officer may impound a vehicle pursuant to a warrant or order issued by a magistrate.
Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to commit a trespass by engaging in specified acts, including entering upon lands or buildings owned by another person where signs forbidding trespass are displayed where animals are being raised, as specified, or upon lands for the purpose of injuring property or property rights or with the intention of interfering with a lawful business, as specified. Existing federal law, commonly known as Public Law 280, authorizes the state to exercise jurisdiction over offenses committed by or against Indians in the areas of Indian country within the state, and gives state criminal laws the same force and effect within Indian country as they have elsewhere in the state. This bill would additionally make it a misdemeanor to commit a trespass by entering Indian lands, as defined, where signs forbidding trespass are displayed where animals are being raised, as specified, and would clarify that it is a misdemeanor to commit a trespass by entering Indian lands for the purpose of injuring property or property rights or with the intention of interfering with a lawful business, as specified. Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to commit a trespass by entering private property after having been informed by a peace officer that the property is not open to the person who was informed, or refusing or failing to leave upon being asked to leave, as specified, if the person has been convicted of a crime committed upon that property. This bill would make it a misdemeanor to commit a trespass by entering Indian lands in the circumstances described above. The bill would, in the case of Indian lands, include trespass warnings or orders given by a tribal police officer. The bill would also make it a misdemeanor to commit a trespass by reentering private property or Indian lands, as specified, within 48 hours after having been requested by the owner, operator, or agent of the premises to leave the premises, or, in the case of Indian lands, after receiving an order of exclusion from a tribal government, as specified, if the person has been convicted of a crime committed upon that property. The bill would authorize a tribe to enter into an agreement with a law enforcement agency to enforce an order of exclusion, as specified. Because the bill would create a new crime and expand the scope of existing crimes, it would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would make other technical, nonsubstantive changes. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law, the California Affordable Drug Manufacturing Act of 2020, requires the California Health and Human Services Agency (CHHSA) or its departments to enter into partnerships, in consultation with other state departments as necessary, to increase competition, lower prices, and address shortages in the market for generic prescription drugs, to reduce the cost of prescription drugs for public and private purchasers, taxpayers, and consumers, and to increase patient access to affordable drugs. For purposes of implementing these provisions, existing law authorizes CHHSA and its departments, including the Department of Health Care Access and Information, to enter into exclusive or nonexclusive contracts on a bid or negotiated bases. Existing law exempts these contracts entered into by CHHSA and its departments from the review or approval of any division of the Department of General Services as well as from provisions pertaining to bidding and awarding of state contracts. This bill would prohibit a state agency from awarding a contract, pursuant to the above provisions, on a noncompetitive basis for the purchase or acquisition of an opioid antagonist, as defined, with a contractor that has entered into a multistate settlement agreement for its role in contributing to the opioid epidemic. The bill would make a contract void and unenforceable for a violation of this provision and apply those provisions retroactively to contracts entered into before January 1, 2026.
Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district to authorize a pupil who meets specified criteria to attend community college as a special part-time or full-time student. Existing law authorizes a community college district to admit to any community college under its jurisdiction as a special part-time or full-time student a pupil who is eligible to attend community college under these provisions. This bill would require, commencing with the 2029–30 academic year, a local educational agency serving high school pupils that does not have an existing dual enrollment program to establish a dual enrollment program through a formal partnership or agreement with the governing board of a community college district, as provided. The bill would require a local educational agency that does not have an existing dual enrollment program to establish a formal partnership through a College and Career Access Pathways partnership or an early or middle college high school, as specified. The bill would require courses offered through a dual enrollment program pursuant to these provisions to lead to a degree, credential, certificate, or transfer. To the extent the bill would impose additional duties on local educational agencies and community college districts, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law delegates to the Fish and Game Commission the power to regulate the taking or possession of birds, mammals, fish, amphibians, and reptiles in accordance with prescribed laws. Existing law authorizes the commission to establish, extend, shorten, or abolish open seasons and closed seasons for the taking of game mammals, including bears. Existing law makes it unlawful to take any bear with a firearm, trap, or bow and arrow without first procuring a tag authorizing the taking of that bear, as specified. Existing law makes it unlawful to permit or allow a dog to pursue a bear at any time. Existing law establishes various exceptions to that prohibition including the use of dogs to pursue a bear pursuant to a depredation permit if certain conditions are met. This bill would require the commission to establish seasons during which a person would be authorized to allow dogs to pursue a bear if the person does not injure or kill the bear or allow the bear to be injured or killed while engaging in the activity, as specified. The bill, after the Department of Fish and Wildlife finalizes the update to its 1998 Bear Management Plan, would authorize the commission to establish a bear hunting season during which a person, pursuant to a bear tag, would be authorized to allow dogs to pursue a bear in any area determined by the commission.
Existing law generally regulates the rules governing insurance and insurance contracts. Existing law prohibits a person from engaging in any trade practices that are defined as unfair methods of competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the business of insurance, including publicly making or dissimilating in a publication or advertising device, among others, a statement containing an untrue, deceptive, or misleading statement regarding the business of insurance, and makes a person who engages in those practices liable to the state for a civil penalty not to exceed $5,000 or $10,000, as specified. This bill would authorize a court to increase a civil penalty by up to $2,500 for a commercial disaster communication, as defined, that otherwise constitutes a violation of the above-described provisions. The bill would authorize the increase for a commercial disaster communication made on or after the date of a proclamation of a state of emergency or catastrophic disaster, as defined, until 60 calendar days after the termination of the state of emergency or catastrophic disaster, but prohibits the increase for applying more than 180 calendar days for any one state of emergency or catastrophic disaster. The bill would make related findings and declarations.
