Existing law designates specific days as holidays in this state, including, among others, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day and Cesar Chavez Day. Existing law designates certain days as judicial holidays and exempts others including, Lunar New Year, Diwali, and Genocide Remembrance Day. This bill would designate Sylvia Mendez Day as a state holiday, but would exempt the holiday from being a judicial holiday. The bill would include related legislative findings and declarations. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 135 of the Code of Civil Procedure proposed by AB 2017 to be operative only if this bill and AB 2017 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. The bill would also incorporate additional changes to Section 6700 of the Government Code proposed by AB 2017 and SB 1394 to be operative only if this bill and either or both of those bills are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Sponsored bills
Existing law establishes, until January 1, 2028, the Prescribed Fire Liability Pilot Program, to be administered by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, to increase the pace and scale of the use of prescribed fire and cultural burning and to reduce barriers for conducting prescribed fires and cultural burning. Existing law creates the Prescribed Fire Claims Fund in the State Treasury to support coverage for losses from prescribed fires and cultural burning by nonpublic entities, such as cultural fire practitioners, private landowners, and nongovernmental entities. Under existing law, moneys in the fund are under the control of the department, and the department or a contracted third-party administrator is authorized to direct payments for claims from the fund, consistent with specified guidelines adopted by the department. These guidelines include, among other things, (1) a requirement that an eligible claim relate to either a prescribed fire conducted or supervised by a burn boss, as defined, or a cultural burn conducted or supervised by a cultural fire practitioner, and (2) a requirement that a claim shall not be paid from the fund unless the department reviewed and approved a burn plan before the prescribed fire or cultural burning. Existing law requires, upon order of the Department of Finance, the $20,000,000 appropriated to the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection by the Legislature in the Budget Act of 2021 be transferred into the fund, and provides that all moneys deposited or transferred into the fund be continuously appropriated to the department for these purposes. By Executive Order N-35-25, Governor Gavin Newsom suspended the limitation on public and governmental agencies enrolling in the Prescribed Fire Liability Pilot Program to the extent that the limitation would prohibit resource conservation districts and volunteer fire departments or districts from such enrollment. This bill would establish the Good Fire Act, which would indefinitely extend the Prescribed Fire Liability Program. The bill would explicitly state that the Prescribed Fire Claims Fund shall support coverage for losses from prescribed fires and cultural burning on any lands within the state. The bill would also expand program eligibility by changing the entities who may receive coverage for losses from prescribed fires and cultural burning from nonpublic entities to individuals and entities other than the department or the federal government, as provided. By extending the term of a continuous appropriation and authorizing the expenditure of continuously appropriated funds for new purposes, the bill would make an appropriation. This bill would eliminate the requirement for department approval for a plan reviewed and approved by a burn boss, and would require a burn plan to be submitted to the claims fund portal before ignition. The bill would also require the guidelines to include methods for prioritizing broadcast burns and burns by non-public individuals or entities or California Native American tribes in the event the fund is oversubscribed. Within one year of a claim being paid from the fund, the bill would require the department to submit a report to the Legislature regarding the claim process and propose statutory changes related to the fund, as provided. Existing law requires the State Fire Marshal, with the involvement of the Statewide Training and Education Advisory Committee, to develop a curriculum for, or amend into an existing curriculum, a certification program for burn bosses who possess authority to engage in a prescribed burning operation and to enter into the necessary contracts related to a prescribed burning operation. Existing law requires this curriculum to provide for the initial certification as well as the continuing education of burn bosses. Under existing law, specified civil liability protections and eligibility for claims from the Prescribed Fire Claims Fund extend to prescribed burns that, among other things, are reviewed and approved by a burn boss certified pursuant to these provisions, as provided. This bill would require, as part of the continuing education of burn bosses, the State Fire Marshal to require recertification no sooner than every 3 years. The bill would also require the department to consider methods to increase the pool of available instructors for the certification program, including the use of non-department instructors. The bill would require the department, in consultation with the Statewide Training and Education Advisory Committee, to develop a mechanism to allow specified individuals to be designated as a burn boss. The bill would authorize these individuals certified pursuant to this process to use the above-described recertification process to maintain currency. Existing law authorizes an entity that owns or controls brush-covered land, forest lands, woodland, grassland, shrubland, or a combination of those types of land within a state responsibility area to apply to the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection for permission to use prescribed burning for certain public purposes. Existing law requires the department, upon receipt of an application, to inspect the land in company with the applicant to determine whether a permit shall be granted, as provided. By Executive Order N-35-25, Governor Gavin Newsom suspended the above-described requirement that the department conduct a site visit or inspection before issuing a state burn permit for projects undertaken by burn bosses or cultural fire practitioners. This bill would authorize the department to waive the inspection requirement or modify the standard precautions for an application submitted by specified individuals. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. Existing law exempts from CEQA specified wildfire risk reduction projects, including, among other projects, projects consisting of a prescribed fire or fuel reduction to reduce wildfire risk by reestablishing the fire return interval appropriate to the ecosystem for biodiversity or other benefits, excluding projects located on coastal sage scrub habitat or any other sensitive habitat. By Executive Order N-35-25, Governor Gavin Newsom suspended the requirements of CEQA as applied to the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to the extent necessary for the department to assist local agencies and beneficial fire practitioners to complete beneficial fire projects that limit dangerous wildfire conditions to the greatest extent feasible. This bill would exempt from CEQA those actions taken by the department to assist in the implementation of prescribed fire or cultural burning projects that do not otherwise require compliance with CEQA. Existing law establishes various grant programs for purposes of wildfire prevention. This bill would require a state agency, department, board, or commission that has awarded grant funds for a project that includes the preparation for, or implementation of, a beneficial fire project to include as an allowable expense of the grant the payment of overtime or double rates of pay to employees or contractors who prepare for or implement the beneficial fire project when such expenses are necessary for the implementation of the beneficial fire project. Existing law authorizes the Director of Forestry and Fire Protection to provide grants to, or enter contracts or other cooperative agreements with, specified entities for the implementation and administration of projects and programs to improve forest health and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Existing law authorizes the director to authorize advance payments and requires grantees who receive advance payments to file an accountability report with the department 4 months from the date of receiving the funds and every 4 months thereafter. This bill would instead require grantees who receive advance payments to file an accountability report within 6 months from the date of receiving the funds and every 6 months thereafter. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 4799.05 of the Public Resources Code proposed by AB 2513 to be operative only if this bill and AB 2513 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law requires each law enforcement agency, on or before January 1, 2021, to maintain a policy that provides a minimum standard on the use of force. Existing law requires that the policy include, among other things, training standards and requirements relating to demonstrated knowledge and understanding of the law enforcement agency's use of force policy by officers, investigators, and supervisors. Existing law prohibits a law enforcement agency from authorizing the use of a carotid restraint or choke hold by any peace officer employed by that agency. This bill would, until January 1, 2030, prohibit a law enforcement agency, including a federal law enforcement agency, from using a wearable electroshock device within the State of California. The bill would also prohibit a law enforcement agency from using state funds to purchase a wearable electroshock device. The bill would require a law enforcement agency to update their use of force policies to prohibit the use of a wearable electroshock device. By increasing the duties on local law enforcement, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the Division of Law Enforcement within the Department of Justice to conduct a study on the safety and community impacts of wearable electroshock devices and provide recommendations for appropriate standards and safeguards for their use, and would require the department to report to the Legislature on the findings and recommendations of the study on or before January 1, 2029. 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 authorizes a peace officer, as defined, or a regularly employed and salaried employee who is engaged in directing traffic or enforcing parking laws and regulations, as specified, to immobilize a vehicle with a device made for that purpose, if the vehicle is found upon a highway or public lands within the officer or employee's jurisdiction, and the vehicle has been issued 5 or more notices of parking violations that are delinquent because the owner or person in control of the vehicle has not responded within the prescribed time period, or the registered owner has been issued 5 or more notices for failure to pay or failure to appear in court for traffic violations, as specified. Existing law allows a vehicle to be immobilized until the owner or person in control of the vehicle presents the immobilizing law enforcement agency with specified information, including evidence that all outstanding parking penalties have been paid. Existing law makes it unlawful and punishable as an infraction for a person to dump or cause to be dumped waste matter upon a public or private highway or road, upon private property without the consent of the owner, or in or upon a public park or other public property, as specified. Existing law also makes it unlawful and punishable as a misdemeanor for a person to place, deposit, or dump, or cause to be placed, deposited, or dumped, waste matter in commercial quantities, as specified. This bill would similarly authorize the immobilization of a vehicle with a device made for that purpose if the registered owner of the vehicle has been issued a certain number of notices of illegal dumping violation that are delinquent, or is known to have been issued a certain number notices for failure to pay or failure to appear in court for an illegal dumping violation, as specified.
Existing law requires any person who purchases or receives a firearm to possess a firearm safety certificate. Existing law also prohibits a person from selling or transferring a firearm to any person who does not possess a firearm safety certificate. A violation of either of these provisions is punishable as a misdemeanor. Existing law requires a personal firearm importer, within 60 days of bringing any firearm into this state, to, among other things, submit a report including information concerning that individual and a description of the firearm in question to the Department of Justice. Existing law requires that a personal firearm importer be found to have complied with these provisions if certain requirements are satisfied. This bill would extend the above-described time period to within 180 days and would also require, commencing January 1, 2028, that personal firearm importer to certify under penalty of perjury that they have obtained a valid firearm safety certificate, or an exemption to the certificate requirement, as specified, and would make a failure to provide specified information in the report an infraction. The bill would prohibit a person from bringing a firearm into this state without obtaining a valid firearm safety certificate within 180 days, except as specified, and make a violation of this provision an infraction. The bill would remove the requirement that a personal firearm importer be found to have complied with these provisions if certain requirements are satisfied. By creating a new crime, and expanding the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires any costs incurred by the department to implement the above-described provisions regarding personal firearm importers to be absorbed by the department within its existing budget and fees allocated in the Dealers' Record of Sale Special Account. This bill would authorize the appropriation of additional funds for implementation of the above-described provisions if the department determines that sufficient funding is not available to implement these provisions. Existing law requires an applicant for a firearm safety certificate to pass a test developed by the department covering specified subjects, including, among others, the laws applicable to carrying and handling firearms and the responsibilities of ownership of firearms. This bill would require an applicant for a firearm safety certificate, on or after January 1, 2029, to complete within the prior year a training course no less than 4 hours in length that, among other things, includes instruction on firearm safety and handling and live-fire shooting exercises on a firing range. The bill would authorize the Department of Justice to promulgate regulations and provide additional information for the implementation of these provisions. This bill would provide that the provisions of this bill are severable. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law authorizes the State Fire Marshal to propose, adopt, and administer the regulations that the State Fire Marshal deems necessary in order to ensure fire safety in buildings and structures within this state, including regulations related to construction, modification, installation, testing, inspection, labeling, listing, certification, registration, licensing, reporting, operation, and maintenance. Existing law authorizes the State Fire Marshal to establish and collect reasonable fees necessary to implement these provisions. Under existing law, the State Fire Marshal has enacted regulations for the certification and regulation of fire sprinkler fitters pursuant to the above-described authority. A violation of these regulations is a misdemeanor. This bill, the State Fire Marshal Fire Sprinkler Fitter Certification Act, would codify and revise and recast the above-described regulations for the certification and regulation of fire sprinkler fitters. The bill would prohibit a person from working on a fire suppression system, as defined, without first being certified or registered by the State Fire Marshal, except as provided. The bill would establish training and other application requirements for a fire sprinkler fitter trainee, a fire sprinkler fitter apprentice, and a certified fire sprinkler fitter. The bill would impose specified supervision requirements and would require a licensed fire protection contractor or public entity, as applicable, to ensure the people it assigns to work on a fire suppression system are appropriately certified or registered. This bill would enumerate the powers and duties of the State Fire Marshal with regard to the act. Upon receipt of a written complaint of an alleged violation of the act, the bill would require the State Fire Marshal to notify the local fire authority (authority) having jurisdiction and request that the authority investigate the complaint. If the authority is unable to investigate, the bill would require the authority to notify the State Fire Marshal within 5 days of receiving the notification and would authorize the State Fire Marshal to investigate. By imposing new duties on local entities, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize the State Fire Marshal or the authority to inspect project worksites, subject a person who violates the act to a notice of violation or correction order and subject components of the fire suppression system to removal, and, if the condition is not corrected immediately, issue a stop work order. The bill would require the State Fire Marshal to implement provisions related to the administrative processes and fees applicable to fire sprinkler fitter trainees, apprentices, and certified professionals, and to penalize violators of the act, as provided. The bill would also authorize the State Fire Marshal to establish and collect fees no greater than the actual and reasonable costs necessary to implement the act. The bill would make a violation of the act a misdemeanor. By creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law, the Transit District Law, establishes the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District with various powers and duties relative to transportation projects and services and the operation of public transit in the Counties of Alameda and Contra Costa. Existing law establishes the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) in state government as a means of resolving disputes and enforcing the statutory duties and rights of specified public employers and employees under various acts regulating collective bargaining, including the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act. Existing law includes within PERB's jurisdiction the resolution of disputes alleging violation of rules and regulations adopted by a public agency, as defined, concerning unit determinations, representations, recognition, and elections, as specified. Existing law authorizes PERB to adopt rules and regulations to carry out its purposes, as provided. This bill would vest PERB with jurisdiction to enforce certain provisions related to the district's employees over charges of unfair practices for represented district employees, subject to a selection by an exclusive representative. The bill, in the case of such a selection, would give PERB jurisdiction over the initial determination as to whether those charges are justified and, if so, the appropriate remedy, subject to certain restrictions. The bill would require that PERB's regulations apply, as appropriate, to the district, and authorize PERB to make additional emergency regulations applicable to the district. The bill would require the district to give reasonable written notice to an exclusive representative of its employees of its intent to make any change to matters within the scope of representation of the employees represented by the exclusive representative, as specified. The bill would make it unlawful for the district or an employee organization to engage in certain acts, including imposing or threatening to impose reprisals on employees, refusing to meet and negotiate in good faith, or refusing to participate in good faith in mutually agreed upon impasse procedures. This bill would authorize any charging party, respondent, or intervenor aggrieved by a final decision or order of PERB in an unfair practice case, except a decision of PERB not to issue a complaint in such a case, to petition for a writ of extraordinary relief from that decision or order, as specified. The bill, if the time to petition for extraordinary relief from a PERB decision or order has expired, would authorize PERB to seek enforcement of any final decision or order in a district court of appeal or superior court having jurisdiction over the county where the events giving rise to the decision or order occurred, as specified. By imposing new duties on the district, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the district. 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.
The Budget Act of 2026 appropriates, for the 2026–27 fiscal year, $1,000,000,000 from the General Fund to the State Department of Education to administer the California Community Schools Partnership Program to distribute funding to local educational agencies, as defined, in accordance with a specified formula, to support a network of their eligible schoolsites to implement new, and provide ongoing support for existing, community schools, as provided. Existing law authorizes a local educational agency who receives funds under these provisions to retain up to 10% of the total funds awarded for its eligible schoolsites each fiscal year to be used for specified activities, including, among other things, administering community schools established at eligible schoolsites. This bill, to be known as the It Takes a Village Act of 2026, would (1) require any retained funds described above to be used consistent with a specified community schools framework, as provided, and (2) authorize a local educational agency that retains those funds to also use those funds to serve as a network lead for multiple schoolsites located in a Promise Neighborhood, as provided. By expanding the purposes for which previously appropriated moneys may be expended, the bill would make an appropriation. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 8903 of the Education Code proposed by AB 133 or SB 133 to be operative only if this bill and either AB 133 or SB 133 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Existing law, commonly referred to as the Density Bonus Law, requires a city or county to provide a developer that proposes a housing development within the city or county with a density bonus, waivers or reductions of development standards, parking ratios, and other incentives or concessions, as specified, if the developer agrees to construct certain types of housing, including, among other types of housing, housing that will include specified percentages of units for rental or sale to lower income households or very low income households, as specified. Existing law requires a city or county to grant incentives or concessions requested by an applicant for a density bonus except under prescribed circumstances. Existing law defines "incentives or concessions" to include, among other things, a reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code requirements or architectural design requirements that exceed the minimum building standards, as specified, and regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the developer or the city or county that result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs, as specified. This bill would exclude, for buildings over 85 feet in height above grade, a reduction in site development standards, a modification of zoning code or architectural design requirements, and other regulatory incentives or concessions that include or relate to a labor standard, as defined, that have been adopted by the local government entity from the definition of "incentives or concessions." The bill would provide that, for purposes of these provisions, the applicable labor standards are those that do not exceed certain statutory requirements, as specified, as those requirements existed on December 31, 2025. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65915 of the Government Code proposed by AB 2433, AB 2480, or both, to be operative only if this bill and AB 2433, AB 2480, or both, are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
(1) Under the Planning and Zoning Law, the legislative body of a city or county may adopt ordinances that, among other things, regulate the use of buildings, structures, and land, as provided. The Subdivision Map Act vests the authority to regulate and control the design and improvement of subdivisions in the legislative body of a local agency and sets forth procedures governing the local agency's processing, approval, conditional approval or disapproval, and filing of tentative, final, and parcel maps. Existing law requires a local agency to ministerially approve a parcel map for an urban lot split if the development or parcel meets specified requirements. Existing law requires the local agency to require an applicant for an urban lot split to sign an affidavit stating that the applicant intends to occupy one of the housing units as their principal residence for a minimum of 3 years from the date of the approval of the urban lot split. Existing law authorizes a local agency to adopt an ordinance to implement these provisions, as provided. This bill would instead require the local agency to require an applicant to select one of 2 sets of owner-occupancy requirements. The first option would be for the applicant to sign, under penalty of perjury, the above-described affidavit stating that the applicant intends to occupy one of the housing units as their principal residence for a minimum of 3 years. The 2nd option would be for the applicant to sign an affidavit, under penalty of perjury, stating they intend to sell both parcels of an urban lot split after issuance of a certificate of occupancy within 3 years from the date of the approval of the urban lot split and to require that one of the units on both parcels of an urban lot split remain owner occupied for 3 years, beginning on the date a parcel or unit is conveyed by the applicant to a home buyer. By expanding the scope of the crime of perjury and increasing the duties of local agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would require the home buyer designated by the applicant to satisfy this 2nd owner-occupancy requirement to provide the applicant with an affidavit or declaration, under penalty of perjury, stating the home buyer intends to occupy the parcel as their primary residence for 3 years, as provided. The bill would provide that, for the purposes of either owner-occupancy requirement, an applicant may be a trustee of a living trust of a natural person or a limited liability company of a natural person, except that a limited liability company shall not be an applicant if the parcel being subdivided is within the boundaries of the 2025 Palisades or Eaton Fires in the County of Los Angeles. The bill would provide that an applicant for an urban lot split that is a limited liability company that violates these provisions would be liable for civil penalties. (2) Existing law requires that specified disclosures be made upon any transfer by sale, exchange, real property sales contract, lease with an option to purchase, any other option to purchase, or ground lease coupled with improvements, of any single-family residential property. This bill would require the seller of an urban lot split subject to the second owner-occupancy requirement described above to disclose, in writing, any owner-occupancy requirement for three years after the conveyance of an urban lot split unit. This bill would repeal its provisions on January 1, 2032. (3) This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the boundaries of the 2025 Palisades and Eaton Fires in the County of Los Angeles. (4) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 66411.7 of the Government Code proposed by AB 2601 to be operative only if this bill and AB 2601 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (5) 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 specified reasons.