Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, among other things, provides for the creation by ordinance, or by ministerial approval if the local agency has not adopted an ordinance, of an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) or a junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU) in accordance with specified standards and conditions. Existing law defines the term "junior accessory dwelling unit" for these purposes to mean a unit that is no more than 500 square feet in size and contained entirely within a single-family structure. This bill would revise the definition of a "junior accessory dwelling unit" to require the size of a JADU to be no more than 500 square feet of interior livable space. Existing law makes certain declarations of the Legislature's intent regarding the effect of an ADU ordinance. Existing law authorizes the Department of Housing and Community Development to review, adopt, amend, or repeal guidelines to implement uniform standards or criteria that supplement or clarify the terms, references, and standards for an ADU. This bill would revise the above-described declaration of legislative intent to additionally apply with respect to a JADU ordinance. The bill would also expand the department's authority to review, adopt, amend, or repeal guidelines to additionally grant that authority with respect to terms, references, and standards for JADUs. Existing law requires a local agency to submit an ADU ordinance to the Department of Housing and Community Development within 60 days after the adoption for department review, as specified. Under existing law, the standards applicable to an ADU under these provisions supersede a conflicting local ordinance, except as specified. This bill would similarly require a local agency to submit a JADU ordinance to the department within 60 days after adoption for department review and would require the department to notify the local agency if the ordinance is noncompliant with JADU ordinance requirements, as specified. The bill would nullify and void that ordinance if the local agency fails to submit a copy of that ordinance or respond to the department's findings that the ordinance is noncompliant, as specified. The bill would also specify that the standards applicable to a JADU supersede any conflicting local ordinance, except as specified. Existing law requires a local agency to consider ministerially a permit application for an ADU or a JADU within 60 days, as specified. If a local agency has not adopted an ADU ordinance, existing law requires a permit application for an ADU to be considered pursuant to this ministerial approval provision. Existing law prohibits a local ordinance, policy, or regulation, other than an ADU ordinance consistent with the laws governing approvals of ADUs, from being the basis for the delay or denial of a building permit or a use permit under this ministerial approval provision. If a local agency has not adopted a JADU ordinance, this bill would additionally require a permit application for a JADU to be considered pursuant to this ministerial approval provision, and would prohibit a local ordinance, policy, or regulation, other than a JADU ordinance consistent with the laws governing approvals of JADUs, from being the basis for the delay or denial of a building permit or a use permit under this ministerial approval provision. This bill would additionally require a permitting agency to determine whether an application for ADU or JADU is complete and provide written notice of the determination not later than 15 business days after the permitting agency received the application. If the permitting agency determines that an application is incomplete, the bill would require the permitting agency to provide the applicant with a list of incomplete items and a description of how the application can be made complete in the written notice and authorize the applicant to cure and address the application, as specified. The bill would require the permitting agency, if a permit application is determined to be incomplete or is denied, to provide a process for the applicant to appeal that decision, as provided, and would require the permitting agency to provide a final written determination by not later than 60 business days after receipt of the written appeal. Existing law imposes limits on construction, connection, and impact fees and capacity charges imposed on an ADU, including prohibiting impact fees upon the development of an ADU based on if the ADU is 750 square feet and requiring that any impact fee on an ADU of 750 square feet or more be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit. Existing law prohibits a local agency, special district, or water corporation from requiring the applicant to install a new or separate utility connection between an ADU and the utility or imposing a related connection fee or capacity charge for specified ADUs, except as specified. This bill would revise these provisions to additionally apply to construction, connection, and impact fees and capacity charges imposed on a JADU. The bill would revise the above-described limitation on impact fees to, instead, prohibit impact fees upon the development of an ADU that has 750 square feet of interior livable space or less or JADU that has 500 square feet of interior livable space or less, and to require that any impact fee on an ADU that has more than 750 square feet of interior livable space be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit. Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement against construction within the boundaries of the school district for the purpose of funding the construction or reconstruction of a school facility, subject to specified limitations. Under existing law, the fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement may only apply to specified constructions, including residential construction if the resulting assessable space exceeds 500 square feet. This bill would specify that an ADU or a JADU that contains less than 500 square feet of interior livable space does not increase assessable space by 500 square feet under these provisions. Existing law prohibits a local agency from establishing by ordinance a maximum square footage for an attached or detached ADU that is either less than 850 square feet or 1,000 square feet for an ADU that provides more than one bedroom. Existing law also prohibits a local agency from establishing by ordinance any requirement for a zoning clearance or separate zoning review or any other minimum or maximum size for an ADU, size based upon a percentage of the proposed or existing primary dwelling, or limits on lot coverage, floor area ratio, open space, front setbacks, and minimum lot size, for attached or detached dwellings that does not permit at least an 800-square foot ADU with four-foot side and rear yard setbacks. This bill would revise these size limitations to be based on the square feet of interior living space of the ADU. Existing law requires a local agency to ministerially approve a building permit application within a residential or mixed-use zone for specified ADUs or JADUs, including one detached, new construction, ADU that does not exceed 4-foot side and rear yard setbacks for a lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling. For these ADUs and JADUs, existing law authorizes a local agency to impose specified height limitations and total floor area limitations of no more than 800 square feet. Existing law prohibits a local agency from imposing a requirement that an ADU install a fire sprinkler if a sprinkler is not required for the primary residence. This bill would require a local agency to ministerially approve a building permit application for a combination of the specified ADUs or JADUs and revise the total area limitation to be based on the square feet of interior livable space. The bill would revise the prohibition on requiring fire sprinkler installation, as described above, to additionally apply to a JADU. This bill would make other technical and conforming changes to the provisions governing the review and approval of ADUs and JADUs. By imposing additional duties on local planning officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Sponsored bills
The Planning and Zoning Law provides for the creation of an accessory dwelling unit by local ordinance, or, if a local agency has not adopted an ordinance, by ministerial approval, in accordance with specified standards. The law requires a local agency to submit an accessory dwelling unit ordinance to the Department of Housing and Community Development within 60 days after adoption. The law authorizes the department to submit written findings to a local agency as to whether the ordinance complies with the standards. If the department finds that the ordinance does not comply with the standards, the law requires the department to provide a local agency reasonable time, no longer than 30 days, to respond to its findings. If the local agency does not amend its ordinance in response to those findings or does not adopt a resolution with findings explaining the reason the ordinance complies with the standards and addressing the department's findings, the law requires the department to notify the local agency and authorizes the department to notify the Attorney General that the local agency is in violation of state law. This bill would invalidate the ordinance if the local agency fails to submit a copy of the ordinance to the department within 60 days of adoption or fails to respond to the department's findings that the ordinance does not comply with the standards within 30 days, as described above.
(1) The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 governs the procedures for the formation and change of organization of cities and special districts and establishes a local agency formation commission in each county consisting of members appointed as provided. The act expresses the intent of the Legislature that each local agency formation commission, by January 1, 2002, establish written policies and procedures and exercise its powers in a way that encourages and provides planned, well-ordered, efficient urban development patterns, as specified. The act requires these written policies and procedures to include forms to be used for various submittals to the commission, as provided. The act requires each commission to provide access to notices and other information to the public on an internet website, as specified, including notice of all public hearings and commission meetings. This bill would require that each local agency formation commission establish the written policies and procedures described above. The bill would require that the written policies and procedures include any forms necessary for a complete application to the commission concerning a proposed change of organization or reorganization. The bill would require each commission to provide access to its written policies and procedures to the public, including any forms necessary for a complete application for a change of organization or reorganization, through its internet website. (2) The Permit Streamlining Act, among other things, requires a public agency to compile a list of the information required from an applicant for a development project, as provided. This bill would require a public agency, for each type of approval issued in connection with a housing development project, as defined, to publish online the above-described list, including the criteria that the public agency will apply in order to determine the completeness of the development application and the name of the type of approval, as provided. (3) By increasing the duties of local agency formation commissions in establishing and publishing written policies and procedures and of local planning officials in reviewing permit applications for housing development projects, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law makes a person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or willfully and maliciously harasses another person and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for the person's safety, or the safety of the person's immediate family, guilty of the crime of stalking, punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony. This bill would expand the meaning of "credible threat" to include threats to a person's pet, service animal, emotional support animal, or horse. By changing the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
The Planning and Zoning Law requires each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and of certain land outside its boundaries, and requires the general plan to contain specified mandatory elements. Existing law specifies that these provisions generally do not apply to a charter city, but requires a charter city to adopt a general plan that contains the mandatory elements, among other things. Existing law prescribes a process to challenge the validity of a general plan. Among other things, existing law requires a petitioner to request a hearing or trial, as specified. Existing law requires a court to set a date for the hearing or trial to be heard no later than 120 days after the filing of the request, as specified. Existing law authorizes a court to continue for a reasonable time the date of the hearing or trial upon written motion and finding of good cause. Existing law requires a court to grant the petitioner temporary relief if the court grants a continuance to a respondent, as specified. This bill would apply to the above-described process to challenge the validity of a general plan to a charter city and state that this is declaratory of existing law. The bill would limit the period for which a court may continue a trial or hearing, as described above, to no more than 60 days and would additionally authorize a court to grant a continuance on the court's own motion. The bill would extend the requirement that a court grant temporary relief, as described above, in any instance in which the court orders a continuance, rather than only if the court grants a continuance to a respondent. The bill would require the court to consider ordering additional temporary relief if the court has already granted temporary relief. Existing law requires the general plan to contain specified mandatory elements, including a housing element. Existing law requires the housing element to consist of an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. Existing law also requires the housing element to, among other things, identify adequate sites for housing, as provided, and to make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community. In preparation of the housing element, existing law requires the city and county to consider certain guidelines adopted by the department. Existing law requires the department to review, according to a specified procedure, any action or failure to act by the city, county, or city and county that it determines is inconsistent with an adopted housing element or certain other requirements, including any failure to implement any program actions included in the housing element. This bill would require, to the extent that a quantified development standard, as defined, in a general plan element is inconsistent with a quantified development standard in another element, the provisions of the most recently adopted element to supersede the previously adopted element. If a local agency has established a specific deadline to amend a local ordinance, development standard, condition, or policy applicable to quantified development standards, or timelines or processes relating to entitlement and permitting decisions, and the local agency has failed to make that amendment by the specified deadline, the bill would require the department to undertake the above-described review procedure. Existing law requires each city, county, or city and county to bring its housing element into conformity with certain requirements by a specified deadline. Existing law also requires a city, county, or city and county, upon a finding by a court that an action of a city, county, or city and county, which is required to be consistent with its general plan, does not comply with its housing element, to bring its action into compliance within 60 days. Existing law requires the court to retain jurisdiction throughout the period for compliance to enforce its decision and authorizes the court to extend the time period for compliance by an additional 60 days upon a determination that the 60-day period for compliance would place an undue hardship on the city, county, or city and county. This bill would extend the amount of time a city, county, or city and county has to bring its action into compliance to 120 days and would remove the above-described extension provision. The bill would also require the court to retain jurisdiction throughout the period for compliance with its order and to conform to certain requirements. The bill would authorize the court to grant a reasonable extension of time for the city, county, or city and county to comply if review by the Department of Housing and Community Development is required as part of the court order and that review is not timely completed, as specified. Existing law requires a court, if that court finds that a city, county, or city and county failed to complete a specified rezoning by a certain deadline, to issue an order or judgment, after considering the equities of the circumstances presented by all parties, compelling the local government to complete the rezoning within 60 days or the earliest time consistent with public hearing notice requirements in existence at the time the action was filed. Existing law also requires the court, if that court determines that its order or judgment is not carried out, to issue further orders to ensure that certain purposes and policies are fulfilled, including ordering, after considering the equities of the circumstances presented by all parties, that any required rezoning be completed within 60 days or the earliest time consistent with public hearing notice requirements in existence at the time the action was filed. Existing law also authorizes the court to impose sanctions on the city, county, or city and county if the court determines that its order or judgment is not carried out. This bill would extend the amount of time a local government has to complete the above-described rezoning under a court order or judgment to 120 days. The bill would also remove the requirement that a court issue further orders that any required rezoning be completed within 60 days or the earliest time consistent with public hearing notice requirements in existence at the time the action was filed. The bill would instead require that the court impose sanctions on the city, county, or city and county if the court determines that its order or judgment is not carried out. Existing law requires a county or city to bring the general plan or relevant mandatory element into compliance with state law within 120 days of a court issuing a final order or judgment in favor of a petitioner in any action brought to challenge the validity of that plan or element. Existing law also requires a county or city to bring its zoning ordinance into consistency with its general plan or relevant mandatory element within 120 days of bringing the general plan or relevant mandatory element into compliance with state law. Existing law authorizes a court to grant a county or city 2 extensions of time, as specified, to bring the general plan, relevant mandatory element, or zoning ordinance into compliance or consistency. Existing law requires a court, in the order or judgment, to include one or more specified remedies. Existing law also authorizes a court to grant these remedies as temporary relief, during a pendency of a challenge to the validity of a general plan, upon a showing of probable success on the merits, as specified. This bill would instead require, in any order or judgment issued in an action brought to challenge the validity of the general plan of any city, county, or city and county, or any mandatory element thereof that resolves whether those plans or elements substantially comply with certain requirements, that order or judgment to be immediately appealable, regardless of whether any final judgment has been issued. The bill would instead require a county or city to comply with the above-described requirements if the court finds that the general plan or mandatory element does not substantially comply with certain requirements. The bill would remove a court's above-described authority to grant a city or county 2 extensions of time. The bill would specify that the above-described remedies are not stayed during the pendency of an appeal of the order or judgment, but would authorize a court to stay remedies if there is a showing by a county or city that it would suffer irreparable harm. The bill would require, rather than authorize, a court to grant these remedies as temporary relief during a pendency of a challenge to the validity of the general plan. The bill would require that request for temporary relief to be made by noticed motion or application, as specified. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.
Existing law generally requires the sale or transfer of firearms to be conducted through a licensed firearms dealer. For purposes of these provisions, existing law defines "firearm" to mean a device, designed to be used as a weapon, from which is expelled through a barrel a projectile by the force of an explosion or other form of combustion and to include the frame or receiver of the weapon, including both a completed frame or receiver, or a firearm precursor part. For these purposes, existing law defines "firearm precursor part" as any forging, casting, printing, extrusion, machined body, or similar article that has reached a stage in manufacture where it may readily be completed, assembled, or converted to be used as the frame or receiver of a functional firearm, or that is marketed or sold to the public to become or be used as the frame or receiver of a functional firearm once completed, assembled, or converted. This bill would, except as specified, prohibit the sale or transfer of a firearm barrel, as defined, unless the transaction is completed in person by a licensed firearms dealer. The bill would also prohibit a person from possessing a firearm barrel with the intent to sell, or offering to sell, unless the person is a licensed firearms dealer. Commencing on July 1, 2027, except as specified, the bill would require the licensed firearms dealer to conduct an eligibility check of the purchaser or transferee and to record specified information pertaining to the transaction, including the date of the sale or transfer. The bill would make a first and 2nd violation of these provisions punishable as a misdemeanor, and any additional violations punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony, as specified. The bill would require the department to require the licensed firearms dealer to charge a fee up to $5 for each firearm barrel eligibility check, as specified. By creating a new crime, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. The bill would declare the severability of its provisions.
Under existing law, known as the public trust doctrine, the state has title as trustee to all tidelands and navigable lakes and streams and is charged with preserving these waterways for navigation, commerce, and fishing, as well as for scientific study, recreation, and as an open space and habitat for birds and marine life. Existing law establishes the State Lands Commission in the Natural Resources Agency. Existing law provides that the state's power and right to control, regulate, and use its tidelands and submerged lands when acting within the terms of the public trust is absolute. Existing law provides that tidelands and submerged lands granted by the Legislature to local entities remain subject to the public trust, and remain subject to the oversight authority of the state by and through the commission. Existing law provides that granted public trust lands remain subject to the supervision of the state and the state retains its duty to protect the public interest in granted public trust lands. Under existing law, the commission's power to lease and grant is conferred upon the local trustee of the granted public trust lands. Existing law grants the City of Oakland sovereign tide and submerged lands located within its boundaries. This bill would lift, until February 1, 2066, the use restrictions imposed by the granting statutes and the public trust doctrine for after-acquired lands, as defined, in Jack London Square and would authorize the Port of Oakland to lease the after-acquired lands for any purpose subject to specified conditions. The bill would provide that on February 2, 2066, the use restrictions imposed by the granting statutes and the public trust doctrine again apply to after-acquired lands. The bill would require, on or before January 15, 2027, and every year thereafter until February 2, 2066, the Port of Oakland to provide the commission with a narrative statement, as specified. The bill would, until February 1, 2066, hold the terms of a specified stipulated judgment in abeyance for after-acquired lands subject to the act, as provided. To the extent that this bill would impose additional duties on the City of Oakland, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires workers employed on public works to be paid not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages, determined by the Director of Industrial Relations, for work of a similar character in the locality that the public work is performed, as prescribed, unless an exception applies, and imposes misdemeanor penalties for a willful violation of this requirement. The bill would apply the above-described prevailing wage standards to privately funded tenant improvements on after-acquired land leased by the Port of Oakland if certain requirements are met. By expanding the scope of a crime, this 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 Port of Oakland. 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 generally provides for the regulation of law enforcement agencies, including, among other things, requiring each local law enforcement agency to conspicuously post on their internet websites all current standards, policies, practices, operating procedures, and education and training materials that would otherwise be available to the public under specified circumstances. This bill would require each law enforcement agency to maintain a policy to require an official report prepared by a law enforcement officer or any member of a law enforcement agency that is generated using artificial intelligence either fully or partially to include specified information, including a disclosure statement and the signature of the law enforcement officer or member of a law enforcement agency who prepared the official report, as specified. If an officer or any member of an agency uses artificial intelligence to create an official report, the bill would require the first draft created to be retained for as long as the official report is retained. The bill would, except for the official report, prohibit a draft of any report created with the use of artificial intelligence from constituting an officer's statement. The bill would require an agency utilizing artificial intelligence to generate a first draft or official report to maintain an audit trail that identifies, at a minimum, certain things, including the person who used artificial intelligence to create a report. The bill would prohibit a contracted vendor from sharing, selling, or otherwise using information provided by a law enforcement agency to be processed by artificial intelligence, except as provided. The bill would define terms for purposes of these provisions. By requiring local law enforcement agencies to adopt a new policy, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, 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 defines looting as the commission of certain offenses during and within an affected county in a state of emergency or local emergency, as specified. Existing law includes any 2nd-degree burglary or grand theft in the definition of looting, and makes looting based on those offenses punishable by either imprisonment in a county jail for one year or as a felony. This bill would authorize the court to consider the fact, if pled and proven, that the defendant committed the crime of looting while impersonating emergency personnel as a factor in aggravation. Existing law prohibits credibly impersonating a peace officer, firefighter, or employee of a state or local government agency, or a search and rescue team, as specified. A violation of these prohibitions is punishable as a misdemeanor. This bill would make it a crime, punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony, for a person, other than a first responder to wear, exhibit, or use the uniform, insignia, emblem, device, label, certificate, card, or writing of a first responder with the intent of fraudulently impersonating a first responder within an area under an evacuation order, as specified. The bill would also make it a crime, punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony, to impersonate a first responder on the internet or by electronic means during an evacuation order or within 30 days of its termination for the purpose of defrauding another, as specified. Existing law, until January 1, 2029, defines the offense of aggravated arson, and defines the aggravating factors for the offense as: the person has been previously convicted of arson on one or more occasions within the past 10 years, the fire caused property damage and other losses in excess of $10,100,000, or the fire caused damage to, or the destruction of, 5 or more inhabited dwellings. Existing law, commencing January 1, 2029, deletes the aggravating factor of property damage and other losses in excess of $10,100,000 from the definition of aggravated arson. This bill would state that it is the intent of the Legislature that amendments to the above-described dollar amounts are to be applied prospectively and shall not be interpreted to benefit any defendant who committed a crime or received a sentence before the effective date of the amendment. By creating a new crime and by increasing the punishment of specified crimes, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. This bill would make the operation of its provisions contingent upon the enactment of AB 468 of the 2025–26 Regular Session.
Existing law prohibits any person from selling, leasing, or transferring any firearm unless the person is licensed as a firearms dealer, as specified. Existing law prescribes certain requirements and prohibitions for licensed firearms dealers. A violation of any of these requirements or prohibitions is grounds for forfeiture of a firearms dealer's license. For purposes of these provisions, existing law defines "machinegun" to mean, among other definitions, any weapon that shoots or is designed to shoot automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. This bill would, on and after July 1, 2026, prohibit a licensed firearms dealer to sell, offer for sale, exchange, give, transfer, or deliver any semiautomatic machinegun-convertible pistol, except as specified. For these purposes, the bill would define "machinegun-convertible pistol" as any semiautomatic pistol with a cruciform trigger bar that can be readily converted by hand or with common household tools into a machinegun by the installation or attachment of a pistol converter, as specified, and "pistol converter" as any device or instrument that, when installed in or attached to the rear of the slide of a semiautomatic pistol, replaces the backplate and interferes with the trigger mechanism and thereby enables the pistol to shoot automatically more than one shot by a single function of the trigger. The bill would make a violation of these provisions punishable by a fine, a 2nd violation punishable by a fine that may result in a suspension or revocation of the dealer's license and removal from certain centralized lists maintained by the Department of Justice, and a 3rd violation punishable as a misdemeanor that shall result in the revocation of the dealer's license and removal from certain centralized lists. Existing law prohibits the manufacture, sale, possession, or transportation of a machinegun, except as authorized. A violation of these prohibitions is punishable as a felony. This bill would expand the above definition of "machinegun" to include any machinegun-convertible pistol equipped with a pistol converter and, thus, prohibit the manufacture, sale, possession, or transportation of a machinegun-convertible pistol equipped with a pistol converter. Existing law, subject to certain exceptions, generally makes it an offense to manufacture or sell an unsafe handgun, as defined, and requires the Department of Justice to compile a roster listing all of the handguns that have been tested and determined not to be unsafe handguns. Existing law establishes criteria for determining if a handgun is an unsafe handgun, including, for firearms manufactured after a certain date and not already listed on the roster, the lack of a chamber load indicator and a magazine disconnect mechanism. For any pistol listed on the roster on January 1, 2026, that was not subject to the above-described requirements to be on the list because it was submitted for testing before specified dates, that is thereafter only modified to change the design features that brought the pistol within the definition of a machinegun-convertible pistol, and that is submitted to an independent certified laboratory for testing pursuant to the above-described testing provisions before January 1, 2027, this bill would authorize that pistol to be submitted for testing and added to the roster without meeting those requirements. This bill would make these provisions severable. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 3273.50 of the Civil Code proposed by AB 1263 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1263 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. By creating a new crime and expanding the application of an existing crime, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.