The California Constitution specifies various requirements with respect to the levying of assessments and property-related fees and charges by a local agency. As part of those requirements, the California Constitution mandates that such fees or charges that are extended, imposed, or increased satisfy certain requirements, including, but not limited to, that the amount of the fee or charge imposed upon any parcel or person as an incident of property ownership not exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel. Existing law, known as the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act (act) , prescribes specific procedures and parameters for local jurisdictions to comply with these requirements and, among other things, authorizes an agency providing water, wastewater, sewer, or refuse collection services to adopt a schedule of fees or charges authorizing automatic adjustments that pass through increases in wholesale charges for water, sewage treatment, or wastewater treatment or adjustments for inflation under certain circumstances. This bill would authorize a local government to demonstrate the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel by any method that reasonably allocates the ascertainable cost of providing service to all parcels, if substantiated as provided. The bill would, however, provide that for water or sewer service fee or charge impositions, a local government is not required to provide an exact measure of the cost of the service at each parcel and may instead impose uniform or tiered rates to parcel or customer classes that are defined based on common characteristics indicative of likely water or sewer use. The bill would provide that the proportional cost of service within each tier of water service may be substantiated by using any reasonable basis for allocating costs attributed to the tier, as described, and would provide a local government discretion to determine the costs allocated to each tier as long as the rate for each tier does not exceed the proportional cost of service reasonably allocated to parcels subject to that tier. The bill would specify that its provisions do not apply to fees for water connections or sewer connections, or capacity charges, as specified.
Existing law finds and declares that prenatal and postpartum care, among other things, are essential services necessary to ensure maternal health. Existing law establishes the State Department of Public Health, and vests the department with certain duties relating to maternal health, including maintaining a program of maternal and child health, as provided. This bill would require the department to include on its internet website information advising individuals to discuss pelvic floor concerns with their health care provider during their postpartum care visit.
Existing law authorizes a borrower to request forbearance on their residential mortgage loan for a period of 12 months if, among other things, the borrower affirms that they are experiencing financial hardship that prevents them from making timely payments on the loan due directly to the wildfire disaster described in the proclamation of a state of emergency issued by Governor Gavin Newsom on January 7, 2025, or the federally declared disaster, declared on January 8, 2025, related to the Eaton Wildfire, the Palisades Fire, and the Straight-line Winds. Existing law requires an applicant requesting forbearance on their residential mortgage loan to affirm that they are experiencing a financial hardship due to the wildfire disaster. Existing law requires that request to be made before the earlier of either 6 months after the date upon which the state of emergency is terminated or January 7, 2027. Existing law requires a borrower to be notified by the mortgage servicer within 10 business days whether their request for forbearance has been approved. Existing law prohibits any late fees from being assessed to the borrower's account during the period of forbearance, and the borrower from being charged a default rate of interest. This bill would extend the period of mortgage forbearance to 24 months and extend the latest possible deadline for a borrower's request for forbearance to January 7, 2029. The bill would require an applicant requesting forbearance on their residential mortgage loan to further affirm that the property securing the loan is uninhabitable due to the wildfire disaster. Because the bill would expand the crime of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. If the borrower has requested an extension of a forbearance period that would result in a total forbearance period of more than 12 months, the bill would authorize a mortgage servicer to request certain related documentation from the borrower, as specified. The bill would extend the amount of time the mortgage servicer has to notify the borrower whether their request for forbearance has been approved to 21 days or longer, as specified. During the period in which the borrower is waiting to be notified, the bill would prohibit any late fees from being assessed to the borrower's account, and the borrower from being charged a default rate of interest. Existing law requires a mortgage servicer to disclose to a borrower to whom a forbearance has been granted that the forborne mortgage payments are required to be repaid. Existing law prohibits requiring a borrower who was current on the residential mortgage loan when they entered forbearance to make a lump sum payment. This bill would require a mortgage servicer to offer the borrower the option to defer repayment of forborne amounts to the end of the loan term, as specified. 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 establishes the State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund program, pursuant to which state and federal funds are continuously appropriated from the State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund to the State Water Resources Control Board for loans and other financial assistance for purposes related to the federal Clean Water Act. Existing law establishes the State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund Administration Fund (administration fund) to provide funds, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to be expended by the state board for payment of the reasonable costs of administering the State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund. Existing law authorizes the state board to assess an annual charge for financial assistance services, not to exceed 1% of the financial assistance repayment amount and computed according to the true interest cost method, as provided, and requires those annual charges to be deposited into the administration fund. Existing law authorizes the financial service rate to be applied at any time during the term of the financial assistance and requires the rate to remain unchanged for the duration of the financial assistance. Existing law prohibits the financial assistance rate from increasing the financial assistance repayment amount after being applied. Existing law requires the state board to, at least once each fiscal year, adjust the financial assistance service rate. Existing law requires the state board to set the total amount of revenue collected each year through the annual charges at an amount that is equal as practicable to the appropriation amount set forth in the annual Budget Act. This bill would additionally authorize the state board to assess fees in place of an annual charge for financial assistance and would authorize the fees or annual charge to be assessed at any rate as permitted by federal law. The bill would delete the provision prohibiting the changing of the financial assistance rate during the financial assistance and the increasing of the financial assistance repayment amount. The bill would delete the requirement relating to the appropriation amount set forth in the annual Budget Act. (2) Existing law authorizes moneys in the State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund to be used for loans that meet specified requirements, including that the loans be made at or below market interest rates and, to the extent permitted by federal law, requiring that the combined interest and loan service rate be set at a rate not to exceed 50% of the interest rate paid by the state on the most recent sale of state general obligation bonds, as provided. Existing law requires the combined interest and loan service rate to be 0% for certain applicants who provide matching funds. This bill would delete the provision requiring that the combined interest and loan service rate be set at a rate not to exceed 50% of the interest rate paid by the state on the most recent sale of state general obligation bonds. The bill would require the loans to be made at below market interest rates. (3) Existing law prohibits a person or public agency, including a state agency, city, county, city and county, district, or any other political subdivision of the state, from using water from any source of quality suitable for potable domestic use for nonpotable uses, including, among other locations, parks, if suitable recycled water is available, as provided. Existing law provides that incidental amounts of spray, mist, or runoff are to be permitted to enter outdoor eating areas of parks and open spaces when irrigated with disinfected tertiary treated recycled water that complies with a specified regulation regarding irrigation. This bill would instead provide that incidental runoff is allowed to enter outdoor eating areas of parks and open spaces when irrigated with disinfected tertiary treated recycled water that complies with a specified regulation regarding irrigation. The bill would define "incidental runoff" as unintended amounts of runoff, such as unintended, minimal overspray from sprinklers that escapes the area of intended use.
Existing law requires a person or business that conducts business in California and that seeks to sell specified products or services, to take reasonable steps, as specified, to ensure that the purchaser is of legal age at the time of purchase or delivery, including, but not limited to, verifying the age of the purchaser. That law specifies that a person or business that violates these provisions is subject to a civil penalty not exceeding $7,500 for each violation. This bill would add nitrous oxide, as provided, to the above-referenced list of specified products or services. The bill would prohibit an online seller from allowing a purchaser to use a gift card or store credit for specified products or services that are illegal to sell to a minor. The bill would increase the amount of the civil penalty that may be imposed upon a person or business that violates these provisions to $7,500 for each violation, and would also authorize a court to exercise its discretion to increase the civil penalty imposed upon a business if it had annual gross revenues in excess of $25,000,000 in the preceding calendar year, to an amount not exceeding $250,000 per violation if it finds that doing so is necessary to deter future violations. The bill would specify that a public prosecutor that brings an action for violation of these provisions may also seek injunctive relief and attorney's fees and costs.
Existing law, the State Bar Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of attorneys by the State Bar of California (State Bar) , a public corporation governed by a board of trustees. Existing law makes it a misdemeanor for a person who is not a member of the State Bar, or authorized to practice law, to practice law in this state. Existing law regulates, among other things, fee agreements, legal advertising and referral services, the sale of financial products to a client, and the allowable forms of organization of a law practice, including a law corporation. Existing law, until January 1, 2030, prohibits an attorney licensed or otherwise authorized to practice in the state from sharing legal fees directly or indirectly with an out-of-state entity that provides legal services while allowing nonlawyer ownership or decisionmaking authority, except as specified. Existing law authorizes the board of trustees, with the approval of the Supreme Court to formulate and enforce rules of professional conduct on all licensees. A violation of these provisions may result in disciplinary action against a licensed attorney or other remedies. This bill would make a corporate legal funder interfering with a substantive litigation decision or exercising control over a litigation function, an unauthorized practice of law. The bill would prohibit a litigation practice from contracting with a corporate legal funder for specific terms, including restricting an attorney or client from withdrawing from representation in the event of a nonlawyer engaging in the unauthorized practice of law under these provisions. This bill would prohibit a corporate legal funder, or an entity it controls, from entering into any contract, agreement, or arrangement with a litigation practice if the contract would constitute an unauthorized practice of law under these provisions, and would further prohibit and void a contract or terms that would permit or facilitate an unauthorized practice of law under these provisions, as specified. This bill would provide that these provisions shall not be construed to prohibit the practice of nonrecourse litigation finance and that the practice of nonrecourse litigation finance shall not constitute impermissible fee sharing under the above-described provisions or the rules of professional conduct, as provided. The bill would deem a violation of these provisions by an attorney as grounds for the imposition of discipline by the State Bar and subject an attorney and the corporate legal funder to statutory or actual damages, attorney's fees and costs, and other relief, as specified. The bill would define terms for these purposes. This bill would exempt violation of its provisions from the criminal prohibitions. This bill would specify that its provisions only apply to contracts entered into on and after January 1, 2027.
The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, an initiative measure approved by the voters as Proposition 65 at the November 4, 1986, statewide general election, prohibits a person, in the course of doing business, from knowingly and intentionally exposing any individual to a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without giving a specified warning, or from knowingly discharging or releasing that chemical into water, or into or onto land and passing into any source of drinking water, except as specified. The act authorizes a person, acting in the public interest, to bring an action to enforce the requirements of the act if specified requirements are met. If there is a settlement of an action brought by a person in the public interest, the act requires the plaintiff to submit the settlement to the court for approval upon noticed motion, and authorizes the court to approve the settlement only if the court makes specified findings, as provided, including that the award of attorney's fees is reasonable under state law. This bill would additionally require the court to find that the award of attorney's fees is appropriate under state law and that the settlement is in the public interest and provides a public benefit. The bill would further require, under a specified circumstance, the court to find that the settlement would require the defendant to reduce the exposure to the listed chemical from the level that existed before the settlement or provide a warning that complies with the act if that warning was not provided previously. The bill would also establish a procedure pursuant to which the court would be authorized to enter an award of attorney's fees if the Attorney General objects to the award of attorney's fees set forth in the settlement, as provided. Proposition 65 provides that it may be amended by a statute, passed by a 23 vote of each house of the Legislature, to further its purposes. This bill would find and declare that it furthers the purposes of Proposition 65.
Existing law defines an electric bicycle and classifies electric bicycles into 3 classes with different restrictions. Under existing law, a "class 1 electric bicycle" is a bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling and ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour. Under existing law, a "class 2 electric bicycle" is a bicycle equipped with a motor that may be used exclusively to propel the bicycle and is not capable of providing assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour. Under existing law, a "class 3 electric bicycle" is a bicycle equipped with a speedometer and a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 28 miles per hour. Existing law prohibits a person under 16 years of age from operating a class 3 electric bicycle. This bill, the San Mateo Electric Bicycle Safety Pilot Program, would, until January 1, 2031, authorize a local authority within the County of San Mateo, or the County of San Mateo in unincorporated areas, to adopt an ordinance or resolution that would prohibit a person under 12 years of age from operating a class 1 or 2 electric bicycle. For the first 60 days following the adoption of an ordinance or resolution for this purpose, the bill would make a violation of the ordinance or resolution punishable by a warning notice. After 60 days, the bill would make a violation of the ordinance or resolution punishable by a fine of $25, except as specified. This bill would make a parent or legal guardian with control or custody of an unemancipated minor who violates the ordinance or resolution jointly and severally liable with the minor for the amount of the fine imposed. The bill would, if an ordinance or resolution is adopted, require the county to, by January 1, 2030, submit a report to the Legislature that includes, among other things, the total number of traffic stops initiated for a violation of the ordinance or resolution, the results of those traffic stops, and the actions taken by a peace officer during a traffic stop, as specified. The bill would require a local authority or county to administer a public information campaign for at least 30 calendar days prior to the enactment of the ordinance or resolution, as specified.
Existing law establishes the Instructional Quality Commission and requires the commission to, among other things, recommend curriculum frameworks to the State Board of Education. This bill would require the commission, during the next revision of the publication "Health Framework for California Public Schools," to consider including, and recommending for adoption by the state board, specific content related to sexual health instruction to educate pupils about dating abuse and digital violence, as described.
Existing law subjects a person between 12 and 17 years of age, inclusive, who commits a crime, and a person under 12 years of age who commits specified crimes, to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge that person to be a ward of the court. Under existing law, as added by the Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Act of 1998, approved as Proposition 21 at the March 7, 2000, statewide primary election, a minor may be eligible for deferred entry of judgment if certain circumstances apply, including, among others, that the minor has not previously been declared to be a ward of the court for the commission of a felony offense. Existing law requires, once eligibility is established, the court to determine whether the minor is suitable for deferred entry of judgment and would benefit from education, treatment, and rehabilitation efforts. This bill would require the court to consider whether the minor is charged with an offense of carrying a loaded firearm, as specified, when evaluating suitability of the minor for deferred entry of judgment.
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 (EIR) 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. The Permit Streamlining Act sets forth various procedures for the review and approval of development project applications. Among other things, the act requires a public agency that is the lead agency or a responsible agency for a development project to approve or disapprove the project within a specified period of time, which varies depending on the project's phase in the CEQA process. The act defines "development project" to include specified housing development projects, as provided. This bill would additionally require approval or disapproval of a housing development project within 30 days from the date of certification by the lead agency of the EIR, if the EIR is prepared pursuant to specified provisions of CEQA if certain other conditions are met. The bill would also define "housing development project" for the purposes of the Permit Streamlining Act and make additional conforming changes. By imposing additional duties on local agencies, 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, the California Public Records Act, requires each state or local agency, upon a request for a copy of records that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records, to make the records promptly available to any person upon payment of fees covering direct costs of duplication, or a statutory fee if applicable, except with respect to public records exempt from disclosure by express provisions of law. Existing law requires each agency, within 10 days of a request for a copy of records, to determine whether the request seeks copies of disclosable public records in possession of the agency and to promptly notify the person of the determination and the reasons therefor. Existing law authorizes that time limit to be extended by no more than 14 days under unusual circumstances, as defined. This bill would instead require each agency to determine whether the request seeks copies of disclosable public records in possession of the agency and to promptly notify the person as described above within 10 business days of a request for a copy of records. The bill would instead authorize the time period for each agency to respond to be extended by no more than 14 business days. The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.
