Existing law establishes the Domestic Violence Prevention Act for the purpose of preventing acts of domestic violence, abuse, and sexual abuse and providing for a separation of the persons involved in the domestic violence for a period sufficient to enable those persons to seek a resolution of the causes of the violence. Existing law authorizes a court to issue an ex parte protective order enjoining a party from, among other things, disturbing the peace of the other party. Existing law provides that disturbing the peace of the other party refers to conduct that includes coercive control, as defined, which includes unreasonably engaging in specified actions, including isolating the other party from friends, relatives, or other sources of support. Existing law makes an intentional and knowing violation of a protective order punishable as a misdemeanor. This bill would include forced marriage for purposes of the act. The bill would define "forced marriage" as a spousal relationship in which one or both parties do not or cannot consent and one or both parties are compelled, through force, fraud, coercion, duress, abuse of power, or coercive control, to enter, attempt to enter, or maintain, a marriage, regardless of whether the marriage is legally valid. If a protective order is sought to protect against a forced marriage, the bill would authorize all persons engaged in conduct to arrange, officiate, finance, or facilitate a forced marriage or attempted forced marriage to be included in one action as respondents. The bill would provide that coercive control, for purposes of the act, includes interfering with, threatening, or attempting to prevent a party or witness from participating in a court proceeding. The bill would provide that conduct undertaken to compel, attempt to compel, prepare for, or facilitate a forced marriage constitutes disturbing the peace of the other party, as specified. The bill would require the provisions of the act to be liberally construed. The bill would authorize a court to grant relief regardless of whether a marriage has occurred or whether a purported marriage would be legally valid in this state or any other jurisdiction. Because a violation of a protective order is punishable as a crime, by expanding the bases for the issuance of these orders, the bill would expand an existing crime, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
The Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, administered by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, regulates the sale and distribution of alcoholic beverages and the granting of licenses for the manufacture, distribution, and sale of alcoholic beverages within the state for which various fees are charged depending upon the type of license issued. The act provides for a limitation on the amount of on-sale general licenses that may be issued by the department based on the population of the county in which the licensed premises are located, as provided. Existing law authorizes the department to issue no more than 12 new original neighborhood-restricted special on-sale general licenses to bona fide public eating places located in specified census tracts in the County of Los Angeles per year beginning on January 1, 2026, until a total of 40 new licenses have been issued, as specified. This bill would similarly authorize the department to issue no more than 5 new original neighborhood-restricted special on-sale general licenses to bona fide public eating places located in specified census tracts in the County of Santa Cruz per year until a total of 12 new licenses have been issued, as specified. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the County of Santa Cruz.
Existing law, the Medical Practice Act, establishes the Medical Board of California and sets forth its powers and duties relating to the licensure and regulation of physicians and surgeons. Existing law establishes the Osteopathic Medical Board of California and sets forth its powers and duties relating to the licensure and regulation of osteopathic physicians and surgeons and requires the Osteopathic Medical Board of California to enforce the Medical Practice Act with respect to its licensees, consistent with the Osteopathic Act, as specified. A violation of the Medical Practice Act is a crime. Existing law generally makes the unauthorized practice of medicine a crime. Existing law makes an exception to that criminal provision if a person, before performing services, complies with certain disclosure requirements. Existing law excludes from that exception a list of specified services, including, among others, conducting surgery or any other procedure on another person that punctures the skin or harmfully invades the body. This bill, on and after January 1, 2028, would add the provision of osteopathic manipulative treatment, as defined, to that list of specifically excluded services. By excluding those services from the exception to the unauthorized practice of medicine, the bill would expand the scope of a crime, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. Existing law, with specified exceptions, makes it a misdemeanor for a person to use the words "doctor" or "physician," the letters or prefix "Dr.," the initials "M.D." or "D.O.," or any other terms or letters indicating or implying that the person is a physician and surgeon, physician, surgeon, or a practitioner under the Medical Practice Act or other law, or to represent or hold themselves out as a physician and surgeon, physician, surgeon, or practitioner under the act or other law without having a valid, unrevoked, and unsuspended certificate as a physician and surgeon under the act. Existing law prohibits a person from using those terms or letters or any other terms or letters indicating or implying that the person is a physician and surgeon, physician, surgeon, or practitioner in a health care setting that would lead a reasonable patient to determine that the person is a licensed "M.D." or "D.O." This bill, on and after January 1, 2028, would also make it a misdemeanor for a person who is not licensed by the Osteopathic Medical Board of California to use the phrase "doctor of osteopathy" or the initials "D.O.," or use the word "osteopath" in a way that implies that they are a licensed osteopath, a licensed doctor of osteopathy, or a physician and surgeon licensed by the board when offering or providing a service to treat a medical or physical condition. By creating a new 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 vests the Public Utilities Commission with regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations. Existing law requires the Wildfire Fund Administrator, in consultation with the commission and other entities, to prepare and submit to the Legislature and the Governor a report that evaluates and sets forth recommendations on new models or approaches that mitigate damage, accelerate recovery, and responsibly and equitable allocate burdens from natural catastrophes, including catastrophic wildfires, across stakeholders, as provided. This bill would require the commission, on or before January 1, 2028, to generate a report assessing the verified restitution shortfalls for victims of wildfires caused by electrical corporations occurring before July 12, 2019, and to recommend restitution mechanisms for electrical corporations to address restitution shortfalls, as provided. The bill would require the commission, in developing the restitution mechanisms, to ensure, among other things, that the verified restitution shortfalls are consistently and fairly paid to ensure full compensation is issued in a timely manner.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA, until January 1, 2033, exempts from its requirements certain actions for affordable housing projects that meet specified requirements, including confirmation by a public agency that, among other things, the project site satisfies specified requirements and a vacant project site does not contain tribal cultural resources that could be affected by the development that were found pursuant to a consultation and the effects of which cannot be mitigated, as provided. This bill would extend the operation of the above-described exemption to January 1, 2037, and would expand the exemption to also include a public university or public college housing project, as defined, that meets specified requirements. Because the bill would extend the operation of the exemption and would increase duties on a lead agency related to the expansion of this exemption, 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 provides for various programs and services for students with disabilities in public postsecondary education. Existing law requires the California Community Colleges and the California State University, and authorizes the University of California, with respect to services provided for disabled students, to, at a minimum, conform to the level and quality of services provided by the Department of Rehabilitation to its clients, as provided. If a campus of the California Community Colleges, the California State University, or the University of California requires verification of a student's disability before providing academic accommodations requested by the student, this bill, commencing September 1, 2027, would require that campus to accept, as verification of the student's disability, an individualized education program and a specified plan issued by a school district, county office of education, or charter school, and an individual program plan issued by a regional center that contracts with the State Department of Developmental Services that documents the student's disability. If a student requests academic accommodations due to a disability, the bill, commencing September 1, 2027, would prohibit a campus of the California Community Colleges, the California State University, or the University of California from requiring the student to obtain new or additional diagnostic evaluations, as provided, and would authorize the campus to require supplemental information to evaluate the student's request for academic accommodations and to determine the type of reasonable accommodations that are appropriate and best suited for the student's educational needs, as provided.
Existing law prohibits law enforcement officers from employing threats, physical harm, deception, or psychologically manipulative interrogation tactics, as specified, during a custodial interrogation of a person 17 years of age or younger. This bill would prohibit a law enforcement officer from seeking statements or information while working undercover, or by individuals working in collaboration with, or acting as agents of, law enforcement, from a person who was 17 years of age or younger during the commission of crime and who is under 26 years of age while in custody. The bill would direct a court to consider any willful failure of a law enforcement officer in violation of these provisions in determining the credibility of that law enforcement officer. The bill would specify that these provisions do not apply to the admissibility of statements or information provided to an officer or individuals working in collaboration with law enforcement that were sought to protect against an imminent threat to life.
Existing law requires a county elections official to divide each jurisdiction within the county into precincts and to appoint a precinct board for each precinct at least 29 days before an election within the jurisdiction. Any voter may apply to the county elections official for appointment as a precinct board member. Until January 1, 2033, this bill would authorize a county elections official to propose, and a county board of supervisors to adopt, a system for each election in the county in which individuals are randomly selected to serve as precinct board members. The bill would make every registered voter who resides in the jurisdiction eligible to be selected, but would authorize an eligible person to be excused if the person is 70 years of age or older, or if the elections official determines the person is in ill health or has another good and sufficient reason. The bill would also authorize the elections official to disqualify a person from service if the elections official, in their discretion, deems the person unsuitable to serve. The bill would require an elections official to mail written notice to each person who is selected as a precinct board member at least 15 days before the reporting date designated by the elections official. On the reporting date, the person selected to serve would be required to report to the office of the elections official or another designated location to complete any informational forms and receive training, as provided.
Existing law establishes the Board of Behavioral Sciences within the Department of Consumer Affairs and requires the board to regulate licensees and registrants under the Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist Act (LMFTA) , the Educational Psychologist Practice Act (EPPA) , the Clinical Social Worker Practice Act (CSWPA) , and the Licensed Professional Clinical Counselor Act (LPCCA) . Existing law makes a violation of those acts a crime. The LMFTA, the CSWPA, and the LPCCA each contain varying provisions limiting their application to the practice of certain medical and other behavioral science professionals, attorneys, and certain religious personnel, including priests, rabbis, and ministers of the gospel of any religious denomination. This bill would revise and recast those provisions to, among other things, exempt a religious official of any denomination, including those specified above and imams, when providing faith-based counseling services as part of their regular professional duties for an established and legally recognizable faith-based entity if certain criteria are met. The bill would also exempt attorneys and physicians who provide counseling services as part of their professional practice from the LMFTA and the LPCCA. Existing law establishes examination and experiential requirements under the LMFTA, the EPPA, the CSWPA, and the LPCCA to qualify for licensure or registration under those acts and requires an applicant for licensure or registration to have passed certain examinations or obtain specified experience within a certain timeline for it to be accepted by the board. In this regard, existing law generally requires the applicant to gain the required experience no more than 6 years before the board receives the application. For licensed educational psychologists, the EPPA authorizes the board to accept a passing score on a written examination administered by the board for a period of 7 years from the date the examination was taken. Under the LMFTA, the CSWPA, and the LPCCA, registrants and applicants for licensure, registration, or a subsequent registration number are required to pass a California law and ethics examination. The LMFTA, the CSWPA, and the LPCCA require an applicant for licensure to pass a clinical examination within 7 years from the initial attempt, unless the applicant obtains a passing score on the current version of the California law and ethics examination. This bill, instead, would require applicants for licensure under the LMFTA, the EPPA, the CSWPA, and the LPCCA, to obtain the relevant experience and to pass the relevant examination within 7 years preceding the date on which the board receives the application. The bill would require those applicants and registrants under the LMFTA, the CSWPA, and the LPCCA who submit applications to the board on and after January 1, 2030, to have passed the California law and ethics examination no more than 7 years before the board receives the application, as specified. Existing law authorizes an associate marriage and family therapist registration, an associate clinical social worker registration, or an associate professional clinical counselor registration to be renewed a maximum of 5 times and prohibits a registration from being renewed beyond 6 years from the last day of the month of issuance. Existing law authorizes an applicant to apply for a subsequent registration number when no renewals are possible if certain requirements are met. Existing law prohibits an applicant who is issued a subsequent associate registration number from being employed or volunteering in a private practice. This bill would increase the maximum number of renewals for those registrations to 6 and would extend the renewal deadline to 7 years from the last day of the month of issuance. The bill would authorize an applicant applying for or holding a subsequent associate registration number to request a 2-year hardship extension of the subsequent associate registration number to allow them to be employed or volunteer at one private practice or professional corporation employer, subject to specified conditions and requirements, including signing an application under penalty of perjury. By expanding the crime of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires an associate marriage and family therapist or a marriage and family therapist trainee to disclose to a client or patient that they are unlicensed and to provide specified information to the client or patient. Existing law requires a social work applicant or registrant and a clinical counselor trainee, applicant, or associate to inform each client or patient that they are unlicensed and under supervision, as specified. This bill would instead require a marriage and family therapist applicant or registrant, a social work applicant, registrant, intern, or trainee, or a clinical counselor applicant, associate, or trainee, in addition to disclosing to a client or patient that they are unlicensed and under supervision, to provide the name of their employer or the entity for which they volunteer. Existing law establishes a $20 fee for rescoring a written examination under the LMFTA, the EPPA, the CSWPA, and the LPCCA. This bill would delete that fee. This bill would delete obsolete provisions and make other technical and nonsubstantive changes. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 4980.41 of the Business and Professions Code proposed by SB 1445 to be operative only if this bill and SB 1445 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law establishes the Maddy Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Fund and authorizes each county to establish an emergency medical services fund for reimbursement of costs related to emergency medical services. Existing law, until January 1, 2027, requires 15% of the fund to be used to, among other things, improve access to, and coordination of, pediatric trauma and emergency services, with specified preferences, and requires the cost of administering money deposited into the EMS Fund to be reimbursed from the money collected, as specified. Existing law, until January 1, 2027, authorizes county boards of supervisors to elect to levy an additional penalty, for deposit into the EMS Fund, in the amount of $2 for every $10 upon fines, penalties, and forfeitures collected for criminal offenses. Existing law, until January 1, 2027, requires 15% of the funds collected pursuant to that provision to be used to provide funding for pediatric trauma centers. This bill would extend the operative date of these provisions until January 1, 2037.
(1) Existing law, the Teachers' Retirement Law, establishes the State Teachers' Retirement System (STRS) and creates the Defined Benefit Program of the State Teachers' Retirement Plan, which provides a defined benefit to members of the program, based on final compensation, credited service, and age at retirement, subject to certain variations. STRS is administered by the Teachers' Retirement Board. Existing law also creates the Cash Balance Benefit Program, which is administered by the board, to provide a retirement plan for the benefit of participating employees who provide creditable service for less than 50% of full time. Existing law requires certain board members to receive $100 for attendance at board and committee meetings. This bill would increase that rate to $320. (2) Existing law, the Public Employees' Retirement Law (PERL) , creates the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) for the purpose of providing pension benefits to state employees and employees of contracting agencies and prescribes the rights and duties of members of the system and their beneficiaries. Existing law vests management and control of PERS in its board of administration. Existing law authorizes certain board members to receive $100 for attendance at a meeting of the board or committee thereof, as prescribed. This bill would increase that rate to $320. (3) Existing law, the County Employees Retirement Law of 1937, authorizes counties to establish retirement systems pursuant to its provisions in order to provide pension benefits to county, city, and district employees and their beneficiaries. Existing law sets forth the membership composition for boards of retirement and boards of investment, as specified. Existing law authorizes the board of supervisors for counties for which these provisions apply to provide that certain members of these boards shall receive compensation at a rate of not more than $100 for a meeting or for a meeting of a committee authorized by the entire board. This bill would authorize the above-described compensation rate to be increased by the board of retirement to not more than $320 per meeting, and would provide that this provision would not be operative in any county until it is publicly noticed and adopted by a majority vote of the board of supervisors, as specified. Existing law, applicable to Los Angeles County, authorizes the board of supervisors to provide compensation to certain members of the board of retirement and board of investments at a rate of not more than $100 for a board or committee meeting, subject to certain limits. This bill would authorize the above-described compensation rate to be increased by the board of retirement or board of investments to a rate of not more than $320 per meeting. The bill would prohibit this provision from becoming operative until it is publicly noticed and adopted by a majority vote of the board of supervisors, as specified.
(1) The Planning and Zoning Law requires a local agency or state agency to compile one or more lists that specify in detail the information required from any applicant for a postentitlement phase permit, as defined. Existing law also establishes time limits for completing reviews regarding whether an application for a postentitlement phase permit is complete and compliant, and whether to approve or deny an application. Existing law requires the time limits to be tolled, if the local agency or state agency requires review of the application by an outside entity, until the outside entity completes the review and returns the application, as specified. This bill would prohibit a local agency or state agency from requiring or requesting more than 2 plan check and specification reviews in connection with an application for a building permit, as part of its review. The bill would authorize a local agency or state agency to deny an application that is not compliant with the permit standards following 2 plan check and specification reviews. The bill would also authorize an applicant to request additional submittals of applications that are not compliant with the permit standards. The bill, if a local agency or state agency finds that a complete application is noncompliant, would prohibit a local agency or state agency from requesting or requiring any action or inaction as a result of a building inspection undertaken to assess compliance with the applicable building permit standards that would represent a deviation from a previously approved building plan or similar approval for the building permit, except as specified. This bill would remove the above-described tolling requirements relating to outside entity reviews and, instead, would require, if federal or state law requires review of the application by another public agency that is independent of the local agency or state agency before the local agency or state agency is authorized to act on the application, the time limits to be tolled for the application until the public agency completes the review and returns the application to the local agency or state agency. The bill would require the local agency or state agency to notify the applicant of the tolling, as specified. (2) Existing law, if a postentitlement phase permit is determined to be incomplete or noncompliant, requires a local agency or state agency to provide a process for an applicant to appeal that decision in writing to the governing body of the agency or, if there is no governing body, to the director of the agency, as provided by that agency. Existing law requires the city or county to provide that the right of appeal is to the governing body or, at their option, the planning commission, or both. Existing law requires a local agency or state agency to provide a final written determination on the appeal not later than 60 business days after receipt of the applicant's written appeal, for housing development projects with 25 units or fewer, and not later than 90 business days for a housing development projects with 26 units or more. Existing law also specifies that the fact that an appeal is permitted to both the planning commission and to the governing body does not extend the specified time period. This bill would revise those timelines to not later than 30 business days for housing development projects with 25 units or fewer and 45 business days for housing development projects with 26 units or more. The bill would remove the specification that the fact that an appeal is permitted to both the planning commission and to the governing body does not extend the specified time period. The bill would remove the requirement that, if a postentitlement phase permit is determined to be incomplete or noncompliant, a local agency or state agency provide a process for an applicant to appeal that decision to the director of the agency if there is no governing body, as provided by that agency. The bill would remove the requirement that a city or county provide that the right of appeal is to the governing body or, at their option, the planning commission, or both. This bill would authorize the applicant to seek a writ of mandate to compel approval of the application, if the applicant's appeal is denied, or a decision on the appeal is not made within the timelines provided, or an appeals process is not provided as required. By imposing additional duties on local agencies regarding postentitlement phase permits, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) 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 time limits described above. Existing law makes a local agency's failure to meet the above-described time limits relating to postentitlement phase permits a violation of the Housing Accountability Act. This bill would, instead, make a violation of the above-described provisions relating to postentitlement phase permits, among others, a violation of the Housing Accountability Act. The bill would also revise the definition of "disapprove the housing development project" under the Housing Accountability Act to include any instance in which a local agency fails to comply with any of the provisions described above relating to postentitlement phase permits. By requiring local agencies to take certain actions, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (4) The bill would make other conforming changes and would provide that certain changes are declaratory of existing law. (5) 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. (6) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65589.5 of the Government Code proposed by SB 1072 to be operative only if this bill and SB 1072 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (7) 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.
