Existing law establishes the California Community Colleges, the California State University, the University of California, independent institutions of higher education, and private postsecondary educational institutions as the segments of postsecondary education in the state. This bill, which would be known as Sarah Shulze's Law, would require each campus of the California State University, each community college of a community college district, and each private postsecondary educational institution and independent institution of higher education that receives state financial assistance, and would request each campus of the University of California, to require a person who serves as a coach or trainer in an athletic program, as a condition of the person's employment or volunteer service, to complete a student mental health training on or before July 1, 2028, and every 2 years thereafter. The bill would require the training, at a minimum, to cover suicide prevention education and would authorize the training to be provided by an entity that offers free, online, or other types of training courses. By imposing new duties on community college districts, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law generally punishes the willful disobedience of a court order as contempt of court by imprisonment in a county jail for a term not exceeding 6 months, a fine not exceeding $1,000, or both that imprisonment and fine. Existing law makes the willful and knowing violation of specified protective orders or stay-away court orders punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, by a fine of not more than $1,000, or by both that imprisonment and fine for a first offense, and makes a 2nd or subsequent conviction for a violation of these specified protective orders or stay-away court orders occurring within 7 years of a prior conviction and involving an act of violence or credible threat of violence punishable as either a misdemeanor or a felony. If a violation of specified protective orders or stay-away court orders results in a physical injury, the individual is required to be in a county jail for at least 48 hours, whether a fine or imprisonment is imposed, or the sentence suspended. This bill would make a willful and knowing violation of specified criminal protective orders or stay-away orders punishable as either a misdemeanor or a felony if the subject of the criminal protective order was charged with, or convicted of, a felony for the conduct upon which the criminal protective order was based. The bill would make a second or subsequent conviction for a violation of specified protective orders or stay-away orders a felony. If a violation of specified protective orders or stay-away orders alleges a physical injury, the bill would require the court to consider the violation of the protective order or stay-away order and alleged injury when considering the seriousness of the offense charged and the protection of the public for purposes of setting, reducing, or denying bail. By increasing the punishment for 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.
Existing law generally regulates classes of insurance, including life and disability insurance. Existing law prohibits an insurer from requiring a test for the presence of a genetic characteristic for the purpose of determining insurability, except as specified. If an insurer requests an applicant to take a genetic characteristic test, existing law requires the insurer to obtain the applicant's written informed consent and to notify the applicant of the test result. Existing law prohibits a life or disability income insurer from requiring a genetic characteristic test if the results of the test would be used to determine eligibility for specified health care coverage. Existing law prescribes civil penalties for an insurer who discloses the results of a test for a genetic characteristic requested by the insurer. This bill would repeal those provisions and would instead prohibit a life or disability insurer from canceling, limiting, or denying coverage, among other actions, based on a test for the presence or absence of a genetic characteristic. The bill would authorize a life or disability insurer to base an underwriting decision on a test for the presence or absence of a genetic characteristic if specified criteria are met. The bill would, except as provided, prohibit a life or disability insurer from requiring, requesting, or soliciting genetic information, using genetic test results, or considering a person's decisions or actions relating to genetic testing in any manner for an insurance purpose. The bill would additionally impose civil penalties for the use of genetic information or genetic characteristics in a manner inconsistent with these provisions, as specified, and other civil penalties for any violation of these provisions. The bill would also prohibit the use or disclosure of an individual's full genome. Existing law, the Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act, prohibits an insurance institution, agent, or insurance-support organization from seeking specified information in connection with an insurance transaction or preparing or requesting an investigative consumer report about an individual for an insurance application, except as specified. Existing law prohibits an insurance institution or agent from basing an adverse underwriting decision on specified information. Existing law prohibits an insurance institution, agent, or insurance-support organization from utilizing a form or statement that authorizes disclosure of personal or privileged information as its disclosure form, unless the form or statement meets specified criteria. This bill would prohibit an insurance institution, agent, or insurance-support organization from seeking information in connection with an insurance transaction concerning, or prohibit an insurance institution or agent from basing an adverse underwriting decision on, an individual's genetic information or full genome, unless specified criteria are met. The bill would prohibit an insurance institution, agent, or insurance-support organization from preparing or requesting an investigative consumer report that seeks an individual's genetic information or full genome. This bill would state the intent of the Legislature that, notwithstanding any other law, these provisions shall not be interpreted to authorize the use or disclosure of an individual's full genome. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Sections 791.07, 791.11, and 791.12 of the Insurance Code proposed by SB 354 to be operative only if this bill and SB 354 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Federal law establishes United States coins and currency as legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues, and authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to mint and issue a one-cent coin. Existing state law generally regulates the use of credit cards, debit cards, gift certificates, and other forms of payment for goods and services in this state. Existing law prohibits a person from overcharging for a commodity. A violation of this provision is a crime. This bill would enact the California Common Cents Act to require a merchant, for the portion of the total transaction price paid with legal tender, to determine the total transaction price of goods or services by rounding to the nearest amount of cents divisible by 5, as specified. The bill would define terms for its purposes, including defining "legal tender" as all metal coins and paper currencies of the United States. The bill would require any rounding adjustment to be disregarded for the purposes of the computation of any applicable tax, fee, or surcharge, tax, fee, or surcharge reimbursement, or the measure thereof, and authorize the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration to promulgate regulations to implement this requirement. The bill would prohibit a person from collecting from a purchaser an amount greater than the amount permitted under these provisions and would subject a violation of this prohibition to the same remedies as the prohibition against overcharging for a commodity, as provided. By expanding a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would make its provisions operative on July 1, 2027. The bill would make its provisions 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, the Veterinary Medicine Practice Act, establishes the California Veterinary Medical Board to license and regulate the practice of veterinary medicine. The act requires all premises where veterinary medicine, veterinary dentistry, or veterinary surgery is being practiced to be kept clean and sanitary at all times and conform to minimum standards established by the board. This bill would specify that high-volume spay or neuter services, as defined, shall not be required to be performed in a separate surgical room. The bill would make related findings and declarations.
(1) The Automobile Sales Finance Act generally regulates motor vehicle conditional sale contracts. The act defines various terms for these purposes, including "cash price" to mean the amount for which the seller would sell and transfer to the buyer unqualified title to the motor vehicle described in the conditional sale contract, if the property were sold for cash at the seller's place of business on the date the contract is executed, and taxes to the extent imposed on the cash sale and the cash price of accessories or services related to the sale, including, among other things, a vehicle contract cancellation option agreement. The act requires a conditional sale contract to contain certain disclosures, including the amount charged for a contract cancellation option agreement. The act requires a seller to provide specified information to a buyer prior to the execution of a conditional sale contract, as specified, including a description and the price of a vehicle contract cancellation option agreement. This bill would remove a vehicle contract cancellation option agreement from the definition of "cash price." The bill would remove the requirement that a conditional sale contract disclose the amount charged for a contract cancellation option agreement. The bill would remove the requirement that the seller provide to a buyer prior to the execution of a conditional sale contract a description and the price of a vehicle contract cancellation option agreement. (2) Existing law defines "homestead" to mean a principal dwelling in which a judgment debtor or their spouse resided on the date the judgment creditor's lien attached to the dwelling and in which the judgment debtor or their spouse resided continuously thereafter until the date of a court determination that the dwelling is a homestead. Under existing law, a homestead is exempt from a sale to enforce a money judgment, except pursuant to a court order for sale if certain conditions are met. Existing law provides that the amount of a homestead exemption is the greater of (A) the countywide median price for a single-family home in the calendar year prior to the calendar year in which the judgment debtor claims the exemption, not to exceed $600,000, or (B) $300,000. Beginning on January 1, 2022, existing law requires the amount of a homestead exemption to be adjusted annually for inflation, as specified. This bill would set the amount of a homestead exemption in the 2026 calendar year as the greater of (A) the "ceiling amount" of $746,350, or (B) the "floor amount" of $373,175. The bill would require those ceiling and floor amounts to be adjusted annually for inflation, beginning on January 1, 2027, by applying a multiplier produced by the change in the annual California Consumer Price Index (CPI) for All Urban Consumers, published by the Department of Industrial Relations, during the prior fiscal year. The bill would provide that the multiplier is calculated by dividing the CPI for the June ending the prior fiscal year by the CPI for the June immediately preceding the prior fiscal year. The bill would require each ceiling and floor amount that has been adjusted annually for inflation to be rounded to the nearest $25. (3) Existing law requires each party to a proceeding for dissolution of marriage or legal separation to serve on the other party a preliminary declaration of disclosure of assets, as specified, and a final declaration of disclosure, as specified. In the case of a default judgment, existing law prohibits a petitioner from being required to serve or receive a final declaration of disclosure, but still requires a preliminary declaration of disclosure, except as specified. This bill would provide that both parties are not required to exchange declarations of disclosure in a dissolution of marriage or registered domestic partnership if the parties have an existing enforceable judgment of legal separation that adjudicates the division of property. (4) This bill would correct various cross-references and make other technical changes.
(1) The California Coastal Act of 1976 requires any person wishing to perform or undertake any development in the coastal zone, as defined, in addition to obtaining any other permit required by law from any local government or from any state, regional, or local agency, to obtain a coastal development permit, as provided. The act requires each local government lying in whole or in part within the coastal zone to prepare a local coastal program for that portion of the coastal zone within its jurisdiction. The act requires a land use plan of a proposed local coastal program to be submitted to the California Coastal Commission for certification. The act authorizes the commission to extend, for a period not to exceed one year, certain time limitations relating to local coastal programs for good cause. This bill would authorize the commission to retroactively extend, for good cause and a period not to exceed 5 years, a time limitation established for a local government to act on the commission's suggested modifications to a land use plan amendment that would authorize approval of an affordable housing development, as specified. (2) Existing law establishes the Natural Resources Agency and vests the agency with jurisdiction over various public resources. Existing law establishes the California Environmental Protection Agency and sets out its mission for programs, policies, and standards. Under existing law, various state entities, including the California Coastal Commission, the California Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Fish and Wildlife have responsibilities with respect to coastal permitting and development. This bill would require the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency, in consultation with the Secretary for Environmental Protection, to convene a Coastal Resilience Permitting Working Group for the purpose of developing a Coastal Resilience Permitting Roadmap for coastal resilience projects proposed in specified areas. The bill would require the Coastal Resilience Permitting Working Group to consist of representatives from federal, state, and local agencies, including, among others, the California Coastal Commission, the California Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Fish and Wildlife. The bill would, on or before July 1, 2028, require the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency to submit the Coastal Resilience Permitting Roadmap to the Governor and the relevant fiscal and policy committees of the Legislature. The bill would require, on or before April 1, 2027, the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency, in collaboration with the California Coastal Commission, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the State Water Resources Control Board, and representatives from the Regional Water Quality Control Boards to convene a Coastal Resilience Permit Advisory Group to support the deliberations of the Coastal Resilience Permitting Working Group.
Existing law provides that in order for the state to recruit skilled firefighters for the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, it is the policy of the state to consider prevailing salaries and benefits prior to making salary recommendations. Existing law requires the Department of Human Resources, in order to provide comparability in pay, to take into consideration the salary and benefits of other jurisdictions employing 75 or more full-time firefighters who work in California. This bill would require the state to bargain in good faith with firefighters who are rank-and-file members of State Bargaining Unit 8, employed by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, to reach a competitive range within 15% of the average salary for corresponding ranks in 20 California fire departments agreed to by the exclusive bargaining representative for Bargaining Unit 8 and the Department of Human Resources. The bill would require the state and the exclusive representative for State Bargaining Unit 8 to jointly survey the estimated average salaries for those 20 fire departments and report the findings, as provided. The bill would provide that nothing in the bill creates an entitlement to an automatic salary increase. The bill would require any salary increase for firefighters under these provisions to be implemented through a memorandum of understanding, in accordance with specified procedures governing collective bargaining agreements. The bill would include legislative findings and declarations related to its provisions.
The Donahoe Higher Education Act establishes the California Community Colleges under the administration of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, the California State University under the administration of the Trustees of the California State University, and the University of California under the administration of the Regents of the University of California as the 3 segments of public postsecondary education in the state. A provision of the act requires each of the 3 segments of public postsecondary education to have as a fundamental policy the maintenance of a healthy and expanded student transfer system. The act applies to the University of California only to the extent that the regents, by appropriate resolution, make it applicable. This bill would require the Trustees of the California State University and the governing boards of community college districts that offer a baccalaureate degree, and would request the Regents of the University of California, to develop and implement transfer agreement and articulation programs to support and enhance the transfer of students attending California tribal colleges to campuses of these public postsecondary segments, as provided. The bill would require the transfer agreement and articulation programs to include specified components, including, among other things, early outreach activities. The bill would also require the California State University and the California Community Colleges, and request the University of California, to assess tools, systems, or curricula designed to facilitate student transfer for students attending California tribal colleges, as provided.
Existing law establishes the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge a child to be a dependent of the court under certain circumstances, including when the child suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm, or a parent fails to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment. Existing law establishes the grounds for removal of a dependent child from the custody of their parents or guardian, and establishes procedures to determine placement of a child. Existing law requires, when a child has been adjudged a dependent of the court, the court to hold a dispositional hearing to determine the disposition to be made of the child. Under existing law, if the child is removed from the physical custody of their parents, preferential consideration to be given to a request by a relative of the child for placement of the child with the relative. Existing law prescribes factors for the county social worker and court to consider in determining placement, and requires the court to state on the record the reasons placement was denied if the court does not place the child with a relative who has been considered for placement. This bill would require, if the court does not initially place the child with a relative who has been considered for placement, the court to state for the record the reasons why the placement with that relative was denied or delayed. The bill would require, except as specified, after the court conducts the dispositional hearing, the social worker to assess any relative who requests placement and who has not been previously assessed or found to be unsuitable. The bill would require, if the court has terminated reunification services prior to the relative's request for placement, the county social worker and the court to consider certain additional factors to consider in determining whether placement with the relative is appropriate, including, among others, the child's relationship with the current caregiver. By increasing the duties of county social workers, 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 vests the Public Utilities Commission with regulatory authority over public utilities, including gas corporations. Existing law requires, until January 1, 2031, gas corporations to submit to the commission an annual map that includes, among other things, the location of all potential gas distribution line replacement projects identified in its distribution integrity management plan and any foreseeable gas distribution pipeline replacements. This bill, the Home Energy Choice Act, would require the commission, in a new or existing proceeding, to solicit proposals for, and require each gas corporation to offer, a Gas Distribution Service Line Replacement Alternatives Program, on or before January 1, 2028, to provide certain residential gas customers served by a gas distribution service line that will be replaced with a monetary incentive to deploy gas distribution service line replacement alternatives, as defined, and cease gas service to avoid the gas distribution service line replacement, as specified. The bill would require the commission to exempt from the program the emergency replacement of a gas distribution service line. The bill would require the commission to annually review the program to determine whether adjustments should be made to program design to increase program participation. The bill would require the commission, on or before January 1, 2029, and annually thereafter, to report to the Legislature on the progress of each implemented program, as provided. The bill would repeal its provisions on January 1, 2035. Under existing law, a violation of any order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the commission is a crime. Because a violation of a commission action implementing the bill's requirements would be a 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law establishes the California Community Colleges, under the administration of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, as one of the segments of public postsecondary education in this state. Existing law establishes community college districts throughout the state and authorizes them to operate campuses and provide instruction. Existing law authorizes the governing board of a community college district to enter into a College and Career Access Pathways (CCAP) partnership with the governing board of a school district, a county office of education, or the governing body of a charter school for the purpose of offering or expanding dual enrollment opportunities for pupils who may not already be college bound or who are underrepresented in higher education, as provided. Existing law authorizes the office of the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges to establish the Rising Scholars Network to enter into agreements with community colleges to provide additional funds for services in support of postsecondary education for justice-involved students, as defined. This bill, the Juvenile Justice Education Access and Equity Act, would authorize a home community college district, as defined, or a college that is part of the home community college district, to enter into an instructional services agreement with a county probation department to provide academic or career technical education courses at a juvenile justice facility operated by the county probation department. The bill would authorize a community college district outside of the home community college district, or a college that is part of that district outside of the home district, to enter into an instructional services agreement with a county probation department if the home community college district has declined or failed to take action on a request by the county probation department to either (1) enter into an instructional services agreement or (2) approve the community college district outside of the home community college district, or a college that is part of that district outside of the home district, to enter into an instructional services agreement. The bill would prohibit the home community college district and colleges that are part of that district from prohibiting, blocking, or otherwise interfering with the ability of the community college outside of the home community college district, or a college that is part of that district outside of the home district, to provide instruction at the juvenile justice facility, as provided.
