Existing law requires the Wildfire and Forest Resilience Task Force, including the Natural Resources Agency, the California Environmental Protection Agency, the Office of Planning and Research, and the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, in coordination with certain public agencies, to develop a comprehensive implementation strategy to track and ensure the achievement of the goals and key actions identified in California's Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan, as provided. Existing law requires the task force, on or before March 1, 2026, and every 5 years thereafter, to update that action plan, as provided. Existing law establishes, in the Department of Conservation, a Regional Forest and Fire Capacity Program to support regional leadership to build local and regional capacity and develop, prioritize, and implement strategies and projects that create fire-adapted communities and landscapes, as provided. Existing law requires the department to, upon appropriation by the Legislature for purposes of the program, provide block grants to regional entities, as defined, to develop regional strategies that develop governance structures, identify wildfire risks, foster collaboration, and prioritize and implement projects within the region to achieve the goals of the program, as specified. Existing law authorizes the regional entities, as defined, to implement activities pursuant to this program, directly or by providing subgrants or contracts, and collaborative planning efforts with local entities to accomplish development of regional priority strategies, among other objectives. Existing law authorizes the department to, until July 1, 2025, authorize advance payments of grants awarded pursuant to the program. This bill would authorize the Director of the Department of Conservation to directly award regional landscape grants to regional entities to implement the above-described regional priority strategies to contribute to the achievement of the goals of California's Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan, as specified. The bill would extend the authorization for the department to award advance payments of grants awarded pursuant to the program indefinitely. 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 requires moneys appropriated to the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection for landscape-scale projects to be allocated to subsidize the removal of small-diameter material and dead trees, for multiple benefit projects, and for activities on national forest lands, as provided. This bill would additionally require moneys appropriated to the department for landscape-scale projects to be allocated for projects that improve ecosystem health and for regional landscape grants that the director would be authorized to directly award to regional entities, as defined, to implement the above-described regional priority strategies. The bill would also require the director, in collaboration with the Wildfire and Forest Resilience Task Force, to, before the issuance of these grants, establish guidelines for funding the grants to contribute to the achievement of the goals of California's Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan, as specified. Existing law requires the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to establish a local assistance grant program for fire prevention and home hardening education activities in the state and extends eligibility for grants to, among others, local agencies, resource conservation districts, fire safe councils, the California Conservation Corps, certified community conservation corps, Native American tribes, and qualified nonprofit organizations. Existing law requires eligible activities under the local assistance grant program to include, but not be limited to, vegetation management along roadways and driveways to reduce fire risk, as provided. Existing law authorizes the department to, until July 1, 2025, authorize advance payments from grants awarded pursuant to the local assistance grant program. This bill would expand eligible activities to include vegetation modification and specify that the vegetation management and modification along roadways and driveways includes wildfire ignition risk. The bill would also add ignition prevention, as defined, to the eligible activities. The bill would extend the authorization for the department to award advance payments from grants awarded pursuant to the program indefinitely. The Wildlife Conservation Law of 1947 establishes the Wildlife Conservation Board within the Department of Fish and Wildlife to investigate, study, and determine what areas within the state are most essential and suitable for wildlife production and preservation, among other things. Under existing law, the board administers various habitat conservation programs. This bill would authorize the Wildlife Conservation Board to award regional landscape grants to local entities, as defined, to implement regional priority strategies as described above. The bill would also require, before the issuance of these grants, the board, in collaboration with the Wildfire and Forest Resilience Task Force, to establish guidelines for funding these regional landscape grants to contribute to the achievement of the goals of California's Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan, as specified. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 4799.05 of the Public Resources Code proposed by AB 1699 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1699 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Existing law, the California Coastal Act of 1976, among other things, requires anyone wishing to perform or undertake any development in the coastal zone, except as specified, 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 from the California Coastal Commission or a local government, as provided. The act provides that a coastal development permit is not required for the replacement of any structure, other than a public works facility, destroyed by a disaster. This bill would prohibit that coastal development permit exemption from applying to the replacement of a structure by an applicant who was not listed as the property owner of record immediately preceding the disaster if replacement of the structure would, among other things, encroach upon an open space easement or deed restriction that has been recorded or offered for dedication, as provided. By creating additional duties for a local government in reviewing coastal development permits, the bill would impose 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.
(1) Existing law requires a state or local initiative, referendum, or recall petition that is required to be signed by voters to contain specified notices, including a notice that the petition may be circulated by a paid signature gatherer or volunteer. This bill would additionally require the paid signature gatherer to orally disclose to each person, before providing the petition for the person's signature, that they are being paid to circulate the petition. (2) Existing law requires a recall petition for a local officer to be submitted to the elections official within a specified number of days after the clerk notifies the proponents that the form and wording of the petition comply with certain requirements. The number of days depends upon the number of registered voters in the electoral jurisdiction. For the recall of a superior court judge, this bill would instead require the petition to be submitted within 120 days if the electoral jurisdiction has 50,000 registered voters or more.
Existing law authorizes any corporation organized for or engaged in the business of selling, distributing, supplying, or delivering water for irrigation purposes, and requires any corporation organized for or engaged in the business of selling, distributing, supplying, or delivering water for domestic use, to provide in its articles or bylaws that water shall be sold, distributed, supplied, or delivered only to owners of its shares and that those shares are appurtenant to certain lands, as specified. Under existing law, these corporations are known as mutual water companies. This bill would prohibit a mutual water company from charging, issuing a bill, or otherwise seeking to hold tenants of shareholders responsible for the costs of water or its delivery, except for specified tenants, and would require all notices of charges for water to be sent to the last known address of the shareholder or tenant, as applicable, or by electronic mail if the shareholder or tenant, as applicable, has provided and verified the use of an electronic mail address to the company within the last year. Existing law authorizes a mutual water company that is not a public utility to levy assessments upon its shares, except as provided. This bill would require a mutual water company that operates a public water system and that proposes to levy an assessment or to increase the charge for water to shareholders by more than 20% to comply with specified notice and public meeting requirements before it seeks to collect the assessment or increase the water charge. The bill would require the mutual water company to prepare a written proposal at least 45 days before a public meeting to adopt a proposal to collect an assessment or to increase a water charge, as specified, and to convene a public meeting regarding the proposal, as provided. The bill would require the mutual water company to provide or send a copy of the written proposal and the notice of the public meeting, at least 45 days beforehand, to specified persons, along with other information, and to also provide or send a copy of the written proposal and the notice to a newspaper of general circulation or another specified communication outlet. The bill would also require the company to post a copy of the written proposal and the notice, at least 45 days beforehand, on the company's internet websites or social media platforms, as applicable. The bill would require the individual votes of board members of the mutual water company on the assessment or the increase of the water charge to be recorded in the minutes of the board meeting. The bill would prohibit the mutual water company from beginning to collect an assessment or increase a water charge earlier than 30 days after the public meeting where the proposed assessment is adopted. Existing law requires a mutual water company that operates a public water system to make certain records promptly available upon written request to an eligible person, as defined, upon payment of fees covering direct costs of duplication, including, among other documents, agendas and minutes of board meetings and copies of the mutual water company's annual budget and accounting report. Existing law defines "eligible persons" for purposes of this requirement to include, among others, shareholders of the mutual water company, a person who is an occupant, pursuant to a lease or rental agreement, of commercial space or a dwelling unit to which the mutual water company sells, distributes, supplies, or delivers drinking water, and an elected official of a city or county who represents people who receive drinking water directly from the mutual water company, as specified. This bill would additionally require a mutual water company to make available to those eligible persons, upon request, a copy of a written proposal to levy an assessment or to increase a water charge. The bill would also include as an eligible person, for purposes of all of the above-described provisions, the chief administrative officer for each city, county, and government water agency in the mutual water company's service area, as specified. The bill would prohibit a mutual water company that provides the requested records in digital form from charging for any duplication costs, as provided.
Existing law requires a housing development project to be an allowed use as a transit-oriented housing development if certain requirements are met. Existing law provides that these provisions do not apply to a local agency until July 1, 2026, unless the local agency takes specified actions. Existing law defines various terms for these purposes. Existing law prohibits a local government from adopting any requirement that applies to a project solely or partially on the basis that the project is seeking approval as a transit-oriented housing development, as specified. This bill would additionally prohibit a local government with an existing or planned transit-oriented development stop from taking specified actions with respect to transit agencies and transit projects.
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. CEQA requires that an action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul specified acts or decisions of a public agency on the grounds of noncompliance with CEQA be commenced in accordance with specified timeframes. Existing law, 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, and the modification thereof. The act requires an action or proceeding against a decision of a local agency taken pursuant to that act to be commenced within a certain time period, as specified. This bill would prohibit an action or proceeding to enforce the Subdivision Map Act from being maintained if certain criteria exist, including that the action or proceeding to enforce the Subdivision Map Act includes substantially similar claims or issues to claims or issues raised in an action or proceeding to enforce CEQA and the defendant in the action or proceeding to enforce the Subdivision Map Act was the defendant in the action or proceeding to enforce CEQA. The bill would provide that its provisions do not prohibit or abrogate specified actions, including the filing of timely objections to an agency's return to a writ seeking to enforce its specific mandates or timely filing of a separate action relating to the same project, as specified. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2032.
Under the Planning and Zoning Law, the legislative body of a county or city 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 authorizes a development proponent to submit an application for a housing development project on a subdivided lot, as specified, that meets specified requirements, and requires a local agency to ministerially consider that application, as specified. Existing law requires a local agency to ministerially consider, without discretionary review or a hearing, a parcel map or a tentative and final map for a housing development project that meets specified requirements. This bill would, until January 1, 2030, provide that the above-described ministerial approval requirements do not apply to an application for a proposed housing development or map located in ZIP Code 91001 or 91003 and submitted on or after October 1, 2026, except as specified. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the unincorporated area known as Altadena in the County of Los Angeles. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65852.28 of the Government Code proposed by AB 2601 and SB 1116 to be operative only if this bill and either or both AB 2601 and SB 1116 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 66499.41 of the Government Code proposed by AB 2601 and SB 1116 to be operative only if this bill and either or both AB 2601 and SB 1116 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, in modified conformity with federal income tax laws, establishes a low-income housing tax credit program through which the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee allocates low-income housing tax credits aimed at providing affordable low-income housing within and throughout the state. Existing federal law sets limitations and guidelines regarding what projects are eligible for credits, including a requirement that an extended low-income housing commitment is in effect, and a prohibition against eviction except for good cause. This bill would specify, for housing projects where the low-income housing commitment requires 100% of the units, not including any manager's units, to be restricted to lower income households, as defined, that good cause for nonrenewal of a lease includes cases where the nonrenewal relates to a household whose income exceeds 140% of the area median income for at least 2 consecutive years and 30% of the household's monthly income exceeds the fair market rent, determined as specified. The bill would require an owner to provide notice of the potential of good cause for nonrenewal described above if the household's income exceeds 140% of the area median income during any income certification, as specified. The bill would also require an owner electing to not renew a lease as described above to issue a notice of nonrenewal describing the basis of good cause for nonrenewal at least 90 days prior to the expiration of the lease, as specified.
The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) grants a consumer various rights with respect to personal information, as defined, that is collected or sold by a business, as defined, including the right to direct a business that collects sensitive personal information, as defined, about the consumer to limit its use, as prescribed. The California Privacy Rights Act of 2020, approved by the voters as Proposition 24 at the November 3, 2020, statewide general election, amended, added to, and reenacted the CCPA. This bill would, under the CCPA, prohibit a business, service provider, or contractor from selling or sharing sensitive personal information to a third party, except as specified. This bill would declare that its provisions further the purposes and intent of the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020.
Under existing law, if a person is convicted of either driving under the influence (DUI) of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug or driving while having 0.08% or more, by weight, of alcohol in the person's blood within 10 years of 2 separate violations of specified DUI offenses, or any combination thereof, that resulted in convictions, that person has committed an offense punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than 120 days nor more than one year and by a fine, as specified. This bill would, instead, make the above DUI conviction punishable as a wobbler by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than 120 days nor more than one year and by a fine, as specified, or by imprisonment in the county jail for 16 months or 2 or 3 years and a fine, as specified. By increasing the punishment of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Under existing law, if a person is convicted of DUI and the offense occurred within 10 years of 3 or more separate violations for driving under the influence that resulted in specified convictions, that person has committed an offense punishable as either a misdemeanor or a felony. This bill would, instead, make the above DUI conviction punishable as a wobbler if the offense occurred within 10 years of 3 separate violations for driving under the influence that resulted in specified convictions, and punishable as a felony by imprisonment in the county jail for 16 months or 2 or 3 years and a fine, as specified, if the offense occurred within 10 years of 4 or more separate violations for driving under the influence that resulted in specified convictions. By increasing the punishment of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would make conforming changes. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Sections 23546, 23550, and 23550.5 of the Vehicle Code proposed by AB 1830 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1830 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. 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 provides that every executive or ministerial officer, employee, or appointee of the State of California, or any county or city therein, or any political subdivision thereof, who knowingly asks, receives, or agrees to receive any emolument, gratuity, or reward, or any promise thereof excepting such as may be authorized by law for doing an official act, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Existing law exempts from that offense certain employment by a peace officer while off duty, as specified. Existing law also provides that a peace officer shall not be prohibited from engaging in other employment while off duty, as specified. This bill would, notwithstanding those provisions, prohibit certain peace officers from engaging in any form of secondary employment, including contract based or as an individual contractor, that involves engaging in arresting, detaining, transporting, or deporting individuals pursuant to federal or out-of-state immigration laws. The bill would provide that failure to comply with this provision may constitute, for certain purposes, an act of serious misconduct and that it is grounds for decertification as a peace officer. The bill would require certain peace officers to report to their employing law enforcement agency any conditional offer of secondary employment relating to immigration enforcement. The bill would require the law enforcement agency to maintain specified records related to secondary employment. By imposing additional duties on local law enforcement agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would also explicitly state that these records related to secondary employment of certain peace officers are public records for the purposes of the California Public Records Act. 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 federal law, the National Suicide Hotline Designation Act of 2020, designates the 3-digit telephone number "988" as the universal number within the United States for the purpose of the national suicide prevention and mental health crisis hotline system operating through the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline. Existing law, the Miles Hall Lifeline and Suicide Prevention Act, requires, among other things, the Office of Emergency Services (OES) to verify that technology that allows for transfers between 988 centers, as well as between 988 centers and 911 public safety answering points, is available to 988 centers and 911 public safety answering points throughout the state, to appoint a 988 system director, and to verify interoperability between and across 911 and 988. Existing law establishes the 988 State Suicide and Behavioral Health Crisis Services Fund and provides that 988 surcharge revenue in the fund is available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for purposes of the act. This bill would require the California Health and Human Services Agency (agency) to annually determine whether an adequate specialized LGBTQ+ suicide prevention hotline is activated by the federal government under 988. When making this determination, the bill would require the agency to consider specified factors, including, among other things, any factor the agency considers relevant to evaluating the adequacy of press 3 operations. The bill would authorize the agency to, no later than 6 months after its determination, request the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) to allow the state to implement the press 3 function at the state level for calls originating in the State of California, which would allow callers to dial "988" and press "3" to be automatically routed to a specialized 988 center. The bill would require OES and the agency to, no later than 12 months following the approval by SAMHSA, ensure that press 3 function technologies are available. This bill would require, no later than 12 months following approval by SAMHSA, the agency to identify and contract with a qualified entity or entities that specialize in LGBTQ+ suicide prevention services. The bill would require the agency to determine the eligibility criteria, establish an application process, and administer funds to the qualified entity, as specified. The bill would require a qualified entity to comply with various requirements, including having a primary objective of reducing suicide rates or addressing mental health crises. The bill would make its implementation subject to an appropriation by the Legislature, as specified. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
