Existing law provides that recorded covenants, conditions, restrictions, or private limits on the use of land contained in instruments affecting the transfer or sale of any interest in real property that, among other things, restrict the number, size, or location of the residences that may be built on the property, are not enforceable against the owner of an affordable housing development, as defined, if an approved restrictive covenant affordable housing modification document has been recorded in the public record, as provided. As part of this process, existing law requires the owner to submit to the county recorder a copy of the original restrictive covenant and any documents the owner believes necessary to establish that the property qualifies as an affordable housing development and requires the county counsel to determine, among other things, if the property qualifies as an affordable housing development and if a modification document may be recorded. Existing law provides that these provisions do not authorize any development that is not otherwise consistent with local general plans, zoning ordinances, and any applicable specific plan. This bill would extend those provisions to a housing development that is owned or controlled by an entity or individual that has submitted a development project application to redevelop an existing commercial property, and the development project includes residential uses permitted by state housing laws or local land use and zoning regulations and would make various conforming changes. The bill would additionally make these provisions applicable to covenants, conditions, restrictions, or private limits contained in a reciprocal easement agreement, as provided, and include instruments affecting the transfer or sale of any interest in real property that prohibits the number, size, or location of residences that may be built on the property or restricts or prohibits the residential uses of the property. The bill would further provide that these provisions do not authorize any development that is not otherwise consistent with state housing laws. By imposing additional duties on county officials, 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 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.
(1) Existing law, the State Housing Law, establishes statewide construction and occupancy standards for buildings used for human habitation. Existing law requires a county's or city's building department to enforce the State Housing Law and the California Building Standards Code, and other rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the State Housing Law pertaining to standards for buildings used for human habitation. Existing law requires a county or city, upon the applicant's request, to contract with or employ temporarily a private entity or person to check the plans and specifications submitted with an application for a residential building permit to comply with the State Housing Law or local ordinances adopted pursuant to the State Housing Law, when the building department takes more than 30 days, as specified, to complete the plan check. Existing law authorizes an enforcement agency to inspect any building to secure compliance with the State Housing Law and the California Building Standards Code, and other rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the State Housing Law. This bill would require the building department to conduct an inspection of the permitted work for specified new residential constructions of a building and residential additions to an existing building within 10 business days of receiving a notice of the completion of the permitted work authorized by a building permit issued for those projects. By imposing new duties on local agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law, the Housing Accountability Act, among other things, prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning approval in a manner that renders infeasible, a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households unless the local agency makes written findings as to one of certain sets of conditions, as specified. The act also requires, when a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, that the local agency base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that 2 specified conditions exist. Existing law defines the term "disapprove the housing development project" for these purposes to include any instance in which a local agency takes certain actions or fails to comply with certain requirements, including the failure to meet specified time limits relating to postentitlement phase permits. Existing law makes, among other things, a local agency's failure to meet those specified time limits relating to postentitlement phase permits a violation of the Housing Accountability Act. This bill would revise the definition of "disapprove the housing development project" under the Housing Accountability Act to include any instance in which a building department fails to inspect permitted work for specified new residential constructions of a building and residential additions to an existing building within 10 business days of receiving a notice of the completion of the permitted work authorized by a building permit issued for those projects, as described above. The bill would also make the failure of a building department to inspect permitted work for those projects within that time limit a violation of the Housing Accountability Act. By requiring local agencies to take certain actions, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would correct cross-references in the Housing Accountability Act. (3) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65589.5 of the Government Code proposed by SB 838 to be operative only if this bill and SB 838 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (4) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law, the California Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, establishes the California Workforce Development Board as the body responsible for assisting the Governor in the development, oversight, and continuous improvement of California's workforce investment system and the alignment of education and workforce investment systems to the needs of the 21st century economy and workforce. The Budget Act of 2025 appropriated $5,000,000 to the board to support workforce development in areas of the Counties of Los Angeles and Ventura impacted by wildfires. This bill would require the board to allocate the funds from that appropriation to the Los Angeles County Department of Economic Opportunity for, among other things, workforce development strategies, such as education or supportive services, including stipends for underemployed and unemployed low- to moderate-income individuals to ensure a skilled and sufficient workforce for the scale of rebuilding and recovery of areas in the Counties of Los Angeles and Ventura impacted by the 2025 wildfires and to support underemployed and unemployed low- to moderate-income workers affected by the fires. The bill would require the Los Angeles County Department of Economic Opportunity to reallocate $600,000 to the Economic Development Collaborative for those purposes. The bill would require the board to allow the Los Angeles County Department of Economic Opportunity to subcontract with other entities to fulfill the provisions and intent of the bill and would require the board to require quality standards and practices, as specified. The bill would require the Los Angeles County Department of Economic Opportunity to focus on employment in jobs in certain professions and industries, including construction, firefighting, and health care, or other areas essential to emergency response, disaster relief, recovery, rebuilding, and regional economic development and resilience. The bill would require individuals participating in programs funded by the bill to have access to expedited licensing and certification, if feasible. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Counties of Los Angeles and Ventura.
Existing law regulates sale transactions of real property. On January 7, 2025, the Governor proclaimed a state of emergency to exist in the Counties of Los Angeles and Ventura due to fire and windstorm conditions that caused multiple fires. Executive Order No. N-7-25, signed by the Governor on January 14, 2025, prohibited a buyer from making an unsolicited offer to an owner of real property located in specified ZIP Codes in the County of Los Angeles to purchase the real property for an amount less than what the fair market value of the property was on January 6, 2025. Executive Order No. N-17-25 expanded that prohibition to include real properties in additional specified ZIP Codes. Subsequent executive orders extended the prohibition until July 1, 2025. Existing law makes a violation of the executive order a misdemeanor, as specified. Existing law, the Real Estate Law, provides for the licensure and regulation of real estate brokers and salespersons by the Real Estate Commissioner, the chief officer of the Department of Real Estate within the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency. Existing law makes a willful violation of the Real Estate Law a crime. This bill would prohibit a person, as defined, from making an unsolicited offer to purchase residential real property in certain ZIP Codes in the County of Los Angeles covered by the above-described executive orders and other specified ZIP Codes in the Counties of Los Angeles and Ventura. The bill would define "unsolicited offer to purchase" for this purpose. The bill would require the buyer and seller, before the transfer of title in the purchase of residential real property subject to the above-described prohibition, to execute a written attestation affirming compliance with that prohibition, which, if signed, would create a presumption that the accepted offer was solicited by the seller, as specified. The bill would require the buyer to record the signed attestation as an attachment to the deed or other conveyance of title when recording the transfer of title, as specified. Because the bill would expand the crime of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would make a written offer in violation of these provisions by a licensed person under the Real Estate Law on their own behalf, or on behalf of another person while conducting licensed activity, a violation of the person's licensing law, unless SB 641 is enacted and becomes operative, in which case the offer would be a violation of a provision added by SB 641. The bill would authorize the Attorney General, a county counsel, city attorney, or a district attorney to bring a civil action to enforce these provisions. In addition to any other available remedies or penalties, the bill would grant a seller the right to cancel a purchase agreement entered into in violation of these provisions, as specified. The bill would subject a person who violates the above-described prohibition on making an unsolicited offer to purchase real property in those ZIP Codes to an assessment of a civil penalty, and would make the violation a misdemeanor, as specified. By creating new crimes, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would make these provisions severable, would make these provisions operative 30 days after the effective date of the bill, and would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2027. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Counties of Los Angeles and Ventura. 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 declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law relating to housing development approval requires a local agency to compile a list of information needed to approve or deny a postentitlement phase permit, to post an example of a complete, approved application and an example of a complete set of postentitlement phase permits for at least 5 types of housing development projects in the jurisdiction, as specified, and to make those items available to all applicants for these permits no later than January 1, 2024. Existing law establishes time limits for completing reviews regarding whether an application for a postentitlement phase permit is complete and compliant and consequences for a local agency that fails to meet that timeline, as provided. Existing law defines "postentitlement phase permit" to, among other things, include a range of permits issued by a local agency. This bill would require a state agency to comply with the above-described provisions relating to postentitlement phase permits applicable to a local agency. The bill would require a state agency to make the information list, as described above, and the above-described examples of a complete, approved application and a complete set of postentitlement phase permits available on the agency's internet website by January 1, 2026. The bill would deem a postentitlement phase permit approved, and all related reviews complete, if a state agency fails to meet the time limits for review of an application for that permit. The bill would revise the definition of "postentitlement phase permit" for purposes of these provisions to, among other things, include permits issued by a state agency and any postentitlement review by a state agency that is necessary to begin construction of a development that is intended to be at least 23 residential, excluding certain discretionary and ministerial permits and reviews and subject to specified exceptions, and would define the term "state agency" for these purposes. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
(1) Under existing law, a licensed health care provider who is authorized by law to prescribe an opioid antagonist may issue standing orders for the distribution of an opioid antagonist to a person at risk of an opioid-related overdose or to a family member, friend, or other person in a position to assist a person at risk of an opioid-related overdose. Existing law exempts a health care provider who acts with reasonable care in issuing a prescription or order for an opioid antagonist from professional review, civil action, or criminal prosecution, under certain circumstances. Existing law requires that a person who receives an opioid antagonist pursuant to a standing order or otherwise possesses an opioid antagonist receive training, as specified. Existing law provides that a person who is trained in the use of an opioid antagonist and acts with reasonable care and in good faith is not subject to professional review, liable in a civil action, or subject to criminal prosecution. This bill would expand the above-described authorizations to those who are at risk of or any person who may be in a position to assist a person experiencing any overdose and would strike the requirement that those who receive and possess opioid antagonists receive training. The bill would authorize a person in a position to assist a person at risk of an overdose to possess an opioid antagonist and subsequently dispense or distribute an opioid antagonist to a person at risk of an overdose or another person in a position to assist a person at risk of an overdose. The bill would instead exempt a person who administers an opioid antagonist in good faith, whether or not they were trained, from liability for civil damages, as specified, and would instead exempt a health care provider who acts with reasonable care from liability in a civil action for any injuries or damages relating to or resulting from the acts or omissions of any person who administers the opioid antagonist in good faith, as specified. (2) Existing law imposes a drug program fee for each separate controlled substance offense, as specified, to be deposited by the county treasurer in a drug program fund. Existing law requires that a portion of the fund be allocated to primary prevention programs in the community. This bill would state that primary prevention programs may include those activities aligned with evidence-based best practices, as specified. (3) Existing law requires the State Department of Health Care Services to license and regulate facilities that provide residential nonmedical services to adults who are recovering from problems related to alcohol, drug, or alcohol and drug misuse or abuse, and who need alcohol, drug, or alcohol and drug recovery treatment or detoxification services. Existing law authorizes a licensed alcohol or other drug recovery or treatment facility to permit incidental medical services, as defined, to be provided to a resident at the facility premises by a licensed physician and surgeon or other health care practitioner under specified limited circumstances, including that the resident has signed an admission agreement. Existing law requires a licensee to develop a plan to address when a resident relapses, including when a resident is on the licensed premises after consuming alcohol or using illicit drugs. This bill would require the department, on or before January 1, 2027, to offer a combined application for entities seeking licensure as an alcohol or other drug recovery or treatment facility and to provide incidental medical services, as defined. The bill would prohibit the department from requiring an admission agreement to require a person to be abstinent and not intoxicated in order to be admitted to care or continue treatment. The bill would require a licensee to prioritize the individual maintaining some level of connection to treatment, following a relapse. (4) Existing law defines "drug- or alcohol-related program" as any program designed to reduce the unlawful use of, or assist those who engage in the unlawful use of, drugs or alcohol, through various means, such as intervention, treatment, and enforcement, among others. Existing law prohibits the encumbrance of state funds for a drug- or alcohol-related program unless it contains a component that explains that there is no unlawful use of drugs or alcohol and requires all aspects of a drug- or alcohol-related program receiving state funds to be consistent with the "no lawful use" message. This bill would redefine that term to mean any program designed to assist persons with substance use disorders and would strike enforcement from the specified means. The bill would repeal the above-described provisions related to the "no lawful use" message.
Existing law governs the obligations of tenants and landlords. Existing law authorizes a tenant to deduct the payment made to a public utility or publicly owned utility or a district from the rent, as specified. Existing law prohibits a lessor who has retaliated against a lessee for exercising the lessee's prescribed rights from recovering possession of a dwelling, causing the lessee to quit involuntarily, increasing the rent, or decreasing services within 180 days of the occurrence of specified events relating to tenability, if the lessee is not in default on their rent, as specified. Existing law presumes that the hiring of real property is renewed for a specified amount of time, under specified circumstances. For any residential tenancy commenced, renewed, or continuing on a month-to-month or other periodic basis, on or after January 1, 2026, this bill would require a landlord or their agent to allow the tenant to opt out of paying for any subscription from a third-party internet service provider for specified services in connection with the tenancy. If the landlord or their agent violates this provision, the bill would authorize the tenant to deduct the cost of the subscription from the rent. The bill would prohibit a landlord or their agent from retaliating against a tenant for exercising their rights pursuant to this bill and consistent with the above-described provision on retaliation, as provided.
Existing law, the State Housing Law, establishes statewide construction and occupancy standards for buildings used for human habitation. Existing law authorizes a county's or city's governing body to prescribe fees for permits, certificates, or other forms or documents required or authorized under the State Housing Law. This bill, the California Residential Private Permitting Review Act, would require a county or city to prepare a residential building permit fee schedule and post the schedule on the county's or city's internet website, if the county or city prescribes residential building permit fees. Existing law requires a county's or city's building department to enforce the State Housing Law and the California Building Standards Code, and other rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the State Housing Law pertaining to standards for buildings used for human habitation. Existing law requires a county or city, upon the applicant's request, to contract with or employ temporarily a private entity or person to check the plans and specifications submitted with an application for a residential building permit to comply with the State Housing Law or local ordinances adopted pursuant to the State Housing Law, when the building department takes more than 30 days, as specified, to complete the plan check. This bill would remove the above-described requirement for a county or city to contract with or employ temporarily a private entity or person to check the plans when the building department takes more than 30 days to complete the plan check. Until January 1, 2036, the bill would instead, upon an application for a residential building permit being deemed complete, as provided, require the city or county to provide the applicant with an estimated timeframe in which the city or county will determine if the completed application is compliant with permit standards. The bill would authorize an applicant to retain a private professional provider, as defined, to perform the plan check, if the estimated timeframe exceeds 30 business days or the city or county has not determined the completed application is compliant within 30 days of the application being deemed complete. The bill would require an applicant who retains a private professional provider to notify the city or county of their intent to retain the private professional provider within a prescribed timeframe. If a private professional provider performs the plan-checking function, the bill would impose additional requirements, including, among other things, requiring the private professional provider to prepare a specified affidavit, under penalty of perjury, and the applicant to submit to the city or county a specified report of the plan check. The bill would require the city or county, within 10 business days of receiving the report, to consider the report and, based on the report, either issue the residential building permit or notify the applicant that the plans and specifications do not comply, as specified. If the city or county notifies the applicant that the plans and specifications do not comply, the bill would authorize the applicant to resubmit corrected plans and specifications to the city or county, as specified. By expanding the crime of perjury and imposing new duties on local agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires a local agency to determine whether an application for a postentitlement phase permit, as defined, is complete and provide written notice of this determination to the applicant not later than 15 business days after the local agency received the application. If a local agency finds that a complete application is noncompliant, existing law requires the local agency to provide the applicant with a list of items that are noncompliant and a description of how the application can be remedied by the applicant within specified time periods. Existing law requires the local agency to provide a process for an applicant to appeal a finding that the application for a postentitlement phase permit is incomplete or noncompliant, as provided. This bill, until January 1, 2036, if a private professional provider performs the plan-checking function, as described above, would deem the local agency to be in compliance with the above-described requirements governing applications for postentitlement phase permits as those requirements pertain to the residential building permit. Existing law, the Government Claims Act, establishes the liability and immunity of a public entity for its acts or omissions that cause harm to persons. Where a public entity is under a mandatory duty imposed by an enactment that is designed to protect against the risk of a particular kind of injury, the act makes the public entity liable for an injury of that kind proximately caused by its failure to discharge the duty unless the public entity establishes that it exercised reasonable diligence to discharge the duty. This bill, until January 1, 2036, if a private professional provider performs the plan-checking function, as described above, would require the applicant to indemnify the local agency from any property damage or personal injury arising from construction in accordance with the plans checked by a private professional provider under the bill's provisions. Notwithstanding the above-described liability of a public entity for failure to discharge certain mandatory duties, the bill would provide that a public entity or public employee is not liable for an injury caused by their discretionary or ministerial acts or omissions relating to the issuance or denial of any residential building permit pursuant to the bill's provisions. Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, requires each county and each city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and specified land outside its boundaries, that includes, among other specified mandatory elements, a housing element. Existing law requires the planning agency of the county or city, after the legislative body has adopted a general plan, to submit an annual report to the legislative body, the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation, and the Department of Housing and Community Development by April 1 of each year that includes, among other things, the number of units of housing demolished and new units of housing that have been issued a completed entitlement, a building permit, or a certificate of occupancy thus far in the housing element cycle, and the income category, by area median income category, that each unit of housing satisfies. This bill, beginning April, 1, 2027, and until January 1, 2036, would require a city or county to include in the above-described annual report the number of residential building permits reviewed by the city or county, the number reviewed by a private professional provider under the bill's provisions, as described above, and the number of full-time equivalent staff members directly involved in the processing of residential building permits, as provided. 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. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for specified reasons. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law provides for the creation by local ordinance, or by ministerial approval if a local agency has not adopted an ordinance, of accessory dwelling units in areas zoned for single-family or multifamily dwelling residential use in accordance with specified standards and conditions. Existing law prohibits a local agency from issuing a certificate of occupancy for an accessory dwelling unit before the local agency issues a certificate of occupancy for the primary dwelling. This bill, notwithstanding that prohibition, would require a local agency to issue a certificate of occupancy for an accessory dwelling unit constructed in a county that is subject to a proclamation of a state of emergency made by the Governor on or after February 1, 2025, even if the primary dwelling has not yet been issued a certificate of occupancy, if certain requirements are met, including that the primary dwelling was substantially damaged or destroyed by an event referenced in the state of emergency proclamation. By imposing new duties on local agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires a permitting agency to either approve or deny an application to create or serve an accessory dwelling unit within 60 days from the date the permitting agency receives a completed application if there is an existing single-family or multifamily dwelling on the lot. Existing law deems the application approved if the local agency has not approved or denied the completed application within 60 days. Under existing law, if the permit application to create or serve an accessory dwelling unit is submitted with a permit application to create or serve a new single-family or multifamily dwelling on the lot, the permitting agency may delay approving or denying the permit application for the accessory dwelling unit until the permitting agency approves or denies the permit application to create or serve the new single-family or multifamily dwelling, as provided. The California Coastal Act of 1976, which is administered by the California Coastal Commission, requires any person wishing to perform or undertake any development in the coastal zone, as defined, to obtain a coastal development permit from a local government or the commission, except as provided. Existing law specifies that the laws governing accessory dwelling units do not supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the act, except as specified. This bill would create an exception to the above provision by requiring a local government or the commission, as specified, to either approve or deny a coastal development permit application for an accessory dwelling unit within 60 days of receiving a completed application. The bill would, notwithstanding that 60-day time limit, authorize the commission, if a coastal development permit application to create or serve an accessory dwelling unit is submitted with a coastal development permit application to create or serve a new single-family or multifamily dwelling on the lot, to delay approving or denying the coastal development permit application for the accessory dwelling unit until the commission approves or denies the coastal development permit application to create or serve the new single-family or multifamily dwelling. Under the bill, and except under the circumstance described above, if the commission has not approved or denied a completed application within 60 days, the application would be deemed approved. 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. 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 declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law, the Permit Streamlining Act, requires a public agency that is the lead agency for a development project to approve or disapprove a development project within specified time periods. The act requires a public agency that is a responsible agency for specified development projects to approve or disapprove the project within 90 days of the date on which the lead agency has approved the project or within 90 days of the date on which the completed application has been received and accepted as complete by the lead agency, whichever is longer. This bill would reduce the time period that a responsible agency is required to approve or disapprove a project, as described above, from 90 days to 45 days, except as provided. By increasing the duties of local officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
(1) Existing law prohibits a person from carrying a concealed firearm or carrying a loaded firearm in public. Existing law authorizes a licensing authority, as specified, if certain requirements and other criteria are met, including, among other things, the applicant has completed a specified course of training, to issue a license to carry a concealed handgun or to carry a loaded and exposed handgun, as specified. Existing law requires a licensing authority to conduct an investigation to determine whether an applicant can receive or renew a license that includes, among other things, a review of all information provided in the application for a license, and a review of the information in the California Restraining and Protective Order System. Existing law prohibits the licensing authority from issuing a license if, among other things, the applicant has been convicted of contempt of court, has been subject to a restraining order, protective order, or other type of court order, unless that order expired or was vacated or otherwise canceled more than 5 years prior to receipt of the completed application, or, in the 10 years prior to the licensing authority receiving the completed application, has been convicted of specified criminal statutes. This bill would also prohibit a licensing authority from issuing a license if an applicant was convicted of, under any federal law or law of any other state that includes comparable elements of, contempt of court or specified criminal statutes in the 10 years prior to the completed application, was subject to any restraining order, protective order, or other type of court order, or is an unlawful user of, or addicted to, any controlled substance, as specified. Upon determining that an applicant is a disqualified person due to being an unlawful user of, or addicted to, any controlled substance, the bill would require the licensing authority to, within 5 days, submit to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System Index specified information of the disqualified person and supporting documentation, as specified. This bill would require the review of the California Restraining and Protective Order System to include information concerning whether the applicant is reasonably likely to be a danger to self, others, or the community at large, as specified. By imposing new duties on local licensing authorities, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. The bill would additionally exempt from the licensure prohibition for applicants previously subject to a restraining order, protective order, or other type of court order, applicants who were previously subject to an above-described order that did not receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before the order was issued. (2) Existing law prohibits a person who is licensed to carry a firearm from carrying a firearm in specified places, including schools, government buildings, hospitals, zoos, parks, churches, and a bus, train, or other form of public transportation. Existing law exempts a firearm that is secured in a lock box, as specified, under certain circumstances, from these prohibitions. This bill would exempt a firearm that is unloaded and locked in a lock box for the purpose of transporting the firearm from the prohibition on carrying the firearm on a bus, train, or other form of public transportation, including a building, real property, or parking area under the control of a public transportation authority. (3) Existing law requires, when a person applies for a new license or license renewal to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, a licensing authority, as specified, to issue or renew a license if the applicant has provided proof that, among other things, the applicant has completed a specified course of training, including live-fire shooting exercises on a firing range, and the applicant is the recorded owner of the pistol, revolver, or other firearm for which the license will be issued. This bill would clarify that these requirements for a new license or license renewal specifically apply to a California resident. For non-California residents, the bill would additionally require, among other requirements, the applicant to attest, under oath, that the jurisdiction in which the applicant has applied is the primary location in California in which they intend to travel or spend time, and that the applicant has completed live-fire shooting exercises for each pistol, revolver, or other firearm for which the applicant is applying to be licensed to carry in California. By requiring local agencies to issue licenses for concealed firearms to non-California residents and expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. If a psychological assessment on an initial application to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person is required by a licensing authority, existing law requires the applicant to be referred to a licensed psychologist acceptable to the licensing authority. This bill would authorize a licensing authority to allow a non-California resident applicant to satisfy this psychological assessment with a virtual psychological assessment, as specified, or approve this examination with a provider located within 75 miles of the applicant's residence. Existing law prohibits a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person from being issued if the Department of Justice determines that the applicant is prohibited by state or federal law from possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a firearm. Existing law also requires this license to be revoked by the local licensing authority if, at any time, the local licensing authority determines that, among other reasons, the licensee is prohibited by state or federal law from owning or purchasing a firearm. This bill would revoke or prohibit the issuance of that license by the local licensing authority if any certain situation occurred, including that an applicant knowingly provides any inaccurate or incomplete information in connection with an application for a license, a license renewal, or an amendment to a license. The bill would require a licensee to inform the local authority that issued the license of any restraining order or arrest, charge, or conviction of a specified crime and would prohibit the issuance of, or require the revocation of, that license based on the licensee's failure to inform the local licensing authority of any restraining order or arrest, charge, or conviction of a specified crime. (4) Existing law prohibits a person from making an application to purchase more than one firearm within any 30-day period. Existing law prohibits a dealer from delivering a firearm to a purchaser when the dealer is notified by the Department of Justice that, within the preceding 30-day period, the purchaser has made another application to purchase a firearm. Existing law requires a licensed dealer of firearms to conspicuously post a prescribed firearms safety warning message within the licensed premises, including that no person shall make an application to purchase more than one firearm, as specified, within any 30-day period, and no delivery shall be made to any person who has made an application to purchase more than one firearm, as specified, within any 30-day period. An existing federal district court order in a case pending appeal has enjoined the enforcement of the law limiting the number of firearms that a person is allowed to purchase in a 30-day period. This bill would, beginning April 1, 2026, increase the number of firearms that a person can apply to purchase within any 30-day period from one to 3 and would prohibit, beginning April 1, 2026, delivery of a firearm by a dealer if the dealer is notified by the Department of Justice that the purchaser has made an application to purchase one or more firearms that would result in the purchase of more than 3 firearms cumulatively within the 30-day period preceding the date of the application, as specified. The bill would make a conforming change to the required firearms safety warning. (5) Existing law makes it a crime for a person to own or possess a firearm if the person has been convicted of a felony, as specified. Existing law makes those provisions inapplicable to a conviction or warrant for a felony if, both the conviction of a like offense under California law can only result in imposition of felony punishment and the defendant received either, or both, a sentence to a federal correctional facility for more than 30 days and a fine exceeding $1,000. This bill would additionally make those provisions inapplicable to a conviction for a nonviolent felony under the laws of any other state if the conviction has been vacated, set aside, expunged, or otherwise dismissed and, if the conviction resulted in a firearms prohibition, the conviction relief restored the firearms rights, or if the conviction did not involve the use of a dangerous weapon and the person received a pardon, as specified. (6) Existing law requires a licensing authority to give written notice to an applicant, who is applying for a new license or license renewal to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, indicating if the license is approved or denied. Existing law requires the licensing authority to give this notice within 120 days of receiving the completed application for a new license or 30 days after receipt of specified information and report from the Department of Justice, whichever is later, and for a license renewal, the licensing authority has within 120 days of receiving the completed application to give this notice. In determining whether to approve or deny these applications, existing law requires the licensing authority to apply the statutory requirements in effect as of the date the licensing authority received the completed applications, except as specified. This bill would apply the 120-day notice requirement for a license renewal to a completed application for a license renewal submitted prior to September 1, 2026. For license renewal applications submitted on or after September 1, 2026, the bill would apply the above notice requirement for a completed application for a new license. The bill would delete the provision requiring the licensing authority to apply the statutory requirements in effect as of the date of receiving the completed application. 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.
