The California Safe Drinking Water Act provides for the operation of public water systems and imposes on the State Water Resources Control Board various duties and responsibilities for the regulation and control of drinking water in the State of California. The act requires the state board to adopt primary drinking water standards for contaminants in drinking water based upon specified criteria, and requires a primary drinking water standard to be established for hexavalent chromium. Existing law authorizes the state board to grant a variance from primary drinking water standards to a public water system. Existing law makes certain violations of the act a crime. The bill would authorize, until January 1, 2029, the state board to grant an extension of up to 3 years beyond any other compliance period established by the state board for a public water system to achieve compliance with the primary drinking water standard for hexavalent chromium, as prescribed. The bill would require a public water system to comply with all requirements that the state board has established for a public water system during the compliance period, including public notice. The bill would prohibit a public water system from being deemed in violation of the primary drinking water standard for hexavalent chromium while implementing a compliance plan that has been approved by the state board if an extension is provided. To the extent that a public water system, when submitting a compliance plan or submitting a report pursuant to these provisions, would make any false statement or representation, this bill would expand the scope of a crime and 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.
Unless a city or county within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley makes certain findings after the effective date of specified amendments to its general plan, the Planning and Zoning Law prohibits a city or county from entering into a development agreement for property located in a flood hazard zone; approving a discretionary permit, ministerial permit, or other discretionary entitlement for a project that is located within a flood hazard zone, as specified; or approving a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, for a subdivision that is located within a flood hazard zone. Those findings include, among others, that the local flood management agency has made adequate progress on the construction of a flood protection system that will result in flood protection equal to or greater than the urban level of flood protection in urban or urbanizing areas. Existing law further requires urban and urbanizing areas protected by any levee that is part of the facilities of the State Plan of Flood Control to achieve the urban level of flood protection by 2025. Existing law extends that deadline to 2030 for the City of West Sacramento. This bill would extend that deadline for achieving the urban level of flood protection for the City of Sacramento to 2030. The bill would also make a related change regarding the potential liability of the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency for property damage caused by a flood during that extended time period. The bill would require, on or before December 31, 2029, the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency to provide a report to specified committees and subcommittees of the Legislature describing plans and actions taken to improve flood protection in the preceding 5 years in the City of Sacramento, as provided. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City of Sacramento.
Existing law authorizes an ocean marine terminal that receives and dispatches intermodal chassis, as defined, to conduct an intermodal roadability inspection program in lieu of other provisions that require every operator of certain types of vehicles to cause the vehicle to be inspected at least every 90 days, or more often to ensure safe operation. Existing law establishes criteria for an ocean marine terminal to meet in order to be eligible to conduct the inspection program, including, among others, that more than 1,000 chassis are based at the ocean marine terminal, and that the terminal, following the 2 most recent terminal inspections, has received satisfactory compliance ratings, as specified. Existing law specifies what is required to be inspected on the chassis, including, among other things, the brake system components, suspension systems, and vehicle connecting devices. Existing law requires the signature, under penalty of perjury, of the ocean marine terminal operator or an authorized representative that the inspection has been performed. Existing law requires records of inspections of those intermodal chassis be kept at the relevant ocean marine terminal for 90 days. Existing law establishes a terminal inspection program administered by the Department of the California Highway Patrol (department) . Existing law, following a terminal inspection in which the department determines that an operator of an ocean marine terminal has failed to comply with the requirements of the intermodal roadability inspection program, requires the department to conduct a reinspection within 120 days, as specified, and if the terminal fails the reinspection, to comply with the requirements of the department's terminal inspection program until eligibility to utilize the intermodal eligibility inspection program is reestablished, as specified. This bill would expand the above provisions to apply to a "port terminal," defined by the bill to mean an ocean marine terminal or other terminal within a port master plan area. The bill would require, instead of authorize, a port terminal to conduct the intermodal roadability inspection program in lieu of the other provisions referred to above, and would delete the conditions relating to the number of chassis based at the ocean marine terminal and the receipt of prior satisfactory compliance ratings. The bill would include container connecting devices, mud flaps, and frame damage to the areas covered by the inspection. The bill would require the inspection to include verification that other specified inspections are current. The bill would require defects noted on an intermodal chassis to be repaired within 10 days after the inspection, and before the intermodal chassis is released from the terminal, the violation of which would be a misdemeanor. The bill would extend the period a port terminal is required to retain inspection records to 6 months. The bill would require the department, if a port terminal fails reinspection, to direct the port terminal operator to conduct additional terminal inspections at 30-day intervals, until the port terminal is in full compliance with intermodal roadability inspection program requirements, as prescribed. Existing law prohibits an ocean marine terminal provider from threatening, coercing, or otherwise retaliating against a commercial driver for contacting a law enforcement agency with regard to the physical condition of an intermodal chassis or for requesting that the intermodal chassis be reinspected or repaired. This bill would expand that prohibition to apply to threats, coercion, and other retaliation made by a port terminal operator, independent equipment provider, trucking company, or any other respondeat superior. Existing law generally provides that a violation of the Vehicle Code is a criminal offense. By creating new crimes, and by expanding the crime of perjury, 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.
(1) Existing law authorizes the legislative body of a city to do any and all things necessary to lay out, acquire, and construct a section or portion of a street or highway within its jurisdiction as a freeway and to make an existing street or highway a freeway. Existing law authorizes a legislative body of a city, whenever this legislative body determines that it is necessary for the more efficient maintenance, construction, or repair of streets and roads within the city, to contract with the board of supervisors of any county for the rental of the county's equipment, as specified. This bill would, beginning on January 1, 2025, prohibit the construction of slip lanes, as defined. (2) Existing law prohibits the stopping, standing, or parking of a vehicle within 20 feet of the vehicle approach side of any unmarked or marked crosswalk or 15 feet of any crosswalk where a curb extension is present, as specified, except a local authority may permit commercial vehicle loading or unloading within 20 feet of the vehicle approach side of any marked or unmarked crosswalk or within 15 feet of any crosswalk, as specified, and permit parking for bicycles or motorized scooters within 20 feet of a crosswalk. A violation of the Vehicle Code is an infraction. This bill would prohibit the stopping, standing, or parking of a vehicle on a median, traffic island, or median divider, as defined. By creating a new infraction, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. (3) Upon the first placement or replacement of a traffic-actuated signal, as specified, existing law requires the traffic-actuated signal to be installed and maintained to detect bicycle or motorcycle traffic on the roadway. Existing law requires cities, counties, and cities and counties to comply with this provision when the Department of Transportation has established uniform standards, specifications, and guidelines for the detection of bicycles and motorcycles by traffic-actuated signals and related signal timing. Existing law requires a traffic-actuated signal to be installed and maintained to have a leading pedestrian interval, and to include the installation, activation, and maintenance of an accessible pedestrian signal and detector, upon the first placement or replacement of a state-owned or -operated traffic-actuated signal. This bill would require these requirements to be met by January 1, 2030. Additionally, the bill would no longer make compliance by cities, counties, and cities and counties contingent upon the department establishing standards, specifications, and guidelines. The bill would prohibit official traffic control signals from being timed to pedestrian control signals, as defined. By requiring local jurisdiction to update their traffic-actuated signals, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. (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 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.
Existing law appropriates, for the 2023–24 fiscal year, $375,000,000 from the General Fund to the State Air Resources Board for the Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Voucher Incentive Project to fund grants to local educational agencies, as defined, for zero-emission schoolbuses to replace heavy-duty internal combustion schoolbuses owned by local educational agencies, as specified, and $125,000,000 from the General Fund to the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission to fund grants to local educational agencies for zero-emission schoolbus charging or fueling infrastructure and related activities, including, but not limited to, charging or fueling stations, equipment, site design, construction, and related infrastructure upgrades, in order to complement those vehicle investments, as specified. This bill would also make the above-described grants available to a private contractor, defined as an entity under contract with a school district, county office of education, or charter school with ownership of title for a schoolbus that is used to provide transportation services for the school district, county office of education, or charter school, as provided. By expanding the scope of eligibility for purposes of an appropriation, the bill would make an appropriation. The bill would require the State Air Resources Board to establish the minimum time period for which a private contractor would be required to contract to provide transportation services to a school district, county office of education, or charter school using a schoolbus acquired pursuant to these provisions and to develop a depreciation schedule for the schoolbus that determines the amount of grant moneys that the private contractor would be required to repay to the State Air Resources Board if the private contractor does not provide transportation services using the schoolbus for the minimum time period.
Existing law, the Massage Therapy Act, regulates massage practitioners and therapists who administer massage, defined as the scientific manipulation of the soft tissues, for compensation. Existing law creates the California Massage Therapy Council. Existing law specifies that it is an unfair business practice for a person to hold oneself out or to use the title of "certified massage therapist" or "certified massage practitioner" unless that person currently holds an active and valid certificate issued by the council pursuant to these provisions. This bill, the California Body Contouring Practitioner Act, would define body contouring as noninvasive, nonmedical treatment intended to shape or contour the fatty areas of the body, as specified. The bill would create the California Body Contouring Council (council) for the purpose of regulating the practice of body contouring. The bill would require the council to issue certificates of completion to individuals who complete a certain educational course, permits to be a California Certified and Permitted Body Contouring Practitioner, permits to maintain a specified physical location, and mobile permits, as prescribed. The bill would require the council to be governed by a board of directors comprised of 4 individuals. The bill would establish an advisory board comprised of 14 members, as specified, and would make the advisory board responsible for advising the board of directors. This bill would require the council to develop and make available to students on an internet website 5 online, 40-hour educational modules composing a 5-week, 200-hour, physician-approved course in the practice of body contouring. The bill would require a student who successfully completes the course of instruction to receive a certificate of completion issued by the council for the purpose of qualifying that person for a permit to practice body contouring. To become a practitioner of body contouring, the bill would require an applicant to submit an application of the council and provide the council with satisfactory evidence that they have met prescribed requirements, including payment of certain fees that cover the council's reasonable regulatory cots of administering the program. This bill would require permits to practice body contouring, premises permits, and mobile permits to be renewed annually. The bill would establish fees for specified permits, including an initial fee for a permit to practice body contouring that does not exceed $495, and would require those fees to cover the council's reasonable regulatory costs of administering the program. The bill would require practitioners to comply with specified requirements, including, submitting to inspection and investigation by the council, adhering to the ethical standards prescribed by the council, and not exceeding the legal scope of their permit, among other things. The bill would make it unlawful for any person to falsely advertise that they or any other individual is a California Certified and Permitted Body Contouring Practitioner and deem engaging in that or other prohibited behavior unfair competition pursuant to other specified provisions of law.
Existing law, the Dental Practice Act, establishes the Dental Board of California for the licensure and regulation of dentists and dental assistants. Existing law requires the board to issue licenses and permits to practice dentistry and dental assisting in this state to applicants who successfully pass certain examinations, as specified. Existing law imposes certain eligibility requirements on applicants to take an examination before the board, including furnishing evidence of having graduated from a dental college approved by the board or by the Commission on Dental Accreditation of the American Dental Association. This bill would additionally authorize a national accrediting body approved by the board to approve dental colleges for purposes of the above-described examination eligibility requirement. Existing law authorizes the board to grant a license to practice dentistry to an applicant who submits to the board specified information, including evidence of having graduated from a dental school approved by a national accrediting body approved by the board or from a dental school approved by the Commission on Dental Accreditation of the American Dental Association. This bill would additionally authorize the board to approve dental colleges for purposes of the above-described license eligibility requirement. Existing law, subject to certain exceptions, requires a school seeking approval as a foreign dental school to have successfully completed the international consultative and accreditation process with the Commission on Dental Accreditation of the American Dental Association or a comparable accrediting body approved by the board and makes graduates of a foreign dental school whose programs were approved at the time of graduation eligible for licensure. Prior law, until January 1, 2024, had instead required, for approval or renewal of approval, a foreign dental school to make application to the board, and to meet other specified requirements, including the payment of specified fees, as prescribed. That prior law imposed duties and powers on the board related to the evaluation of those applications and the periodic survey and evaluation of all approved foreign dental schools to ensure continued compliance with the requirements for approval. This bill would, with certain exceptions, reenact those provisions. This bill would require a graduate of a board-approved foreign dental school who is licensed pursuant to a specified provision described above to practice full-time for 2 years in one or more types of clinics or health centers owned or operated by certain nonprofit or government entities, as specified. The bill would authorize the board to request verification of compliance with this requirement and to revoke a license if it finds that the licensee has not complied with the requirement. The bill would require the board to provide information about areas of the state that are experiencing a shortage of dentists in the application packet for licensure to practice dentistry.
(1) Existing law sets forth standards for determining liability in an action seeking the recovery of damages arising out of, or related to, deficiencies in residential construction, design, and related issues, and specifies the characteristics of those deficiencies. This bill would require a deficiency in the specific standards described above to materially affect the habitability or usefulness of the residential dwelling unit and to be a result of a failure to meet the standard of care in order for the builder to be liable, as specified. The bill would define "standard of care" as the level of care standard in an industry for similar work performed in the state. (2) Existing law provides for prelitigation procedures for construction defect claims, pursuant to which a claimant and a builder engage in a nonadversarial procedure to resolve deficiencies in construction prior to an adversarial enforcement action. That procedure includes, among other things, an inspection and repair of the alleged defective construction by the builder. Existing law prohibits a builder from obtaining a release or waiver in exchange for such repair work. Existing law authorizes evidence of a repair effort to be admitted as evidence in the event of an enforcement action, and provides that if the claimant contends that repair work was inadequate that the claimant need not shown that the repair work resulted in further damage. This bill would provide for the participation of a special inspector, as defined, in the inspection and approval of repair work performed pursuant to these procedures, and require the builder to obtain and pay for a building permit to perform such work. The bill would instead authorize a builder to obtain a release or waiver upon completion of repair work. This bill would require a local permitting authority to issue a building permit for these purposes within 30 days of receipt of an application for a permit, thereby creating a state-mandated local program. The bill would provide that a claimant's rejection of an offer to repair is not inadmissible in an enforcement action. The bill would delete the evidentiary provisions described above and instead authorize the introduction of a building permit and reports from a special inspector as evidence in an enforcement action. (3) Existing law provides for various affirmative defenses for a builder, general contractor, subcontractor, material supplier, individual product manufacturer, or design professional who is defending an enforcement action for construction deficiencies described above. This will would add a builder's compliance with a building permit and approval of repairs from the permitting body, and the builder's receipt of approval from a special inspector to these affirmative defenses. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
The Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) , an initiative measure, among other things, imposed a weight-based cultivation tax on harvested cannabis that enters the commercial market and a separate excise tax on purchasers of cannabis or cannabis products sold in this state at the rate of 15% of the gross receipts of any retail sale by a cannabis retailer, as specified. Existing law that amended AUMA, beginning on January 1, 2023, discontinued the cultivation tax, and, for the 2025–26 fiscal year and every 2 years thereafter, requires, on or before May 1 of the fiscal year immediately preceding the applicable fiscal year, the cannabis excise tax rate to be adjusted by a percentage that will generate an amount of revenue that would have been collected pursuant to the cultivation tax imposed prior to its discontinuation, as specified. Under this bill, the portion of the rate of the excise tax that is not subject to the above-described cultivation tax adjustment would be reduced from 15% to 5%. AUMA authorizes legislative amendment of its provisions with a 23 vote of both houses, without submission to the voters, to further its purposes and intent, except as specified. This bill would declare that its provisions further the purposes and intent of AUMA. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
Existing law defines "public works," for the purposes of regulating public works contracts, as, among other things, construction, alteration, demolition, installation, or repair work done under contract and paid for, in whole or in part, out of public funds. Existing law requires each contractor and subcontractor on a public works project to keep accurate payroll records, showing the name, address, social security number, work classification, straight time and overtime hours worked each day and week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice, worker, or other employee employed by the contractor or subcontractor in connection with the public work. Existing law requires any copy of records made available for inspection as copies and furnished upon request to the public or any public agency to be marked or obliterated to prevent disclosure of an individual's name, address, and social security number but specifies that any copy of records made available to a Taft-Hartley trust fund for the purposes of allocating contributions to participants be marked or obliterated only to prevent disclosure of an individual's full social security number, as specified. This bill would require an owner, a developer, or the agent of an owner or developer, that, among other things, receives public funds from a public agency to perform specified public works projects, to make available upon written request from a joint labor-management committee, a multiemployer Taft-Hartley trust fund, or a specified tax-exempt organization specified public works records in their possession, including requests for bids and submitted bid documents, inspection and work logs, and funding documentation. The bill would subject an owner, a developer, the agent of an owner or developer, a contractor, and a subcontractor, for failing to comply with the provisions of this bill, to a penalty by the Labor Commissioner, as specified, and would deposit the penalties into a specified fund.
Existing law, the End of Life Option Act, until January 1, 2031, authorizes an adult who meets certain qualifications, including, among other things, being a resident of the State of California, and who has been determined by their attending physician to be suffering from a terminal disease, as defined, to make a request for an aid-in-dying drug for the purpose of ending their life. Existing law establishes the procedures for making these requests, including that 2 oral requests be made a minimum of 48 hours apart and that a specified form to request an aid-in-dying drug be submitted, under specified circumstances. Existing law requires specified information to be documented in the individual's medical record, including, among other things, all oral and written requests for an aid-in-dying drug. Existing law prescribes specified forms that attending and consulting physicians are required to submit to the State Department of Public Health and authorizes the Medical Board of California to update these forms. This bill would replace the term "terminal disease" for purposes of the act with "grievous and irremediable medical condition," defined as a medical condition that (1) is a serious and incurable illness or disease, (2) has placed the individual in a state of irreversible decline in capability and the individual's suffering is palpable without prospect of improvement, (3) is causing the individual to endure physical suffering due to the illness, disease, or state of decline that is intolerable to the individual and cannot be relieved in a manner the individual deems acceptable, and there is no proven treatment for the individual's situation that the individual has not attempted or is willing to attempt due to the nature or side effects of the treatment, and (4) after taking into account all of the individual's medical circumstances, it is reasonably foreseeable that the condition will become the individual's natural cause of death, as specified. The bill would, for purposes of the act, include a diagnosis of dementia as a grievous and irremediable medical condition, if the individual meets specified capacity requirements. The bill would specify that a sole diagnosis of a mental disorder is not a grievous and irremediable medical condition. The bill would also expand the definition of "mental health specialist" to include neurologists. The bill would additionally authorize the self-administration of an aid-in-dying drug through intravenous injection. The bill would repeal the January 1, 2031, expiration date of the act, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program by extending the operation of crimes for specified violations of the act. The bill would make certain technical, nonsubstantive changes to these provisions. The bill would delete the prescribed forms described above and instead require the Medical Board of California to develop and update an attending physician compliance form, a consulting physician form, and an attending physician followup form that meet certain requirements and include specified information. 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 a person who is found to be mentally incompetent to stand trial. Existing law requires a court, if a question is raised as to a defendant's mental competence, to hold a hearing into the defendant's mental competence. Existing law, if a defendant is found incompetent, requires the court to order the defendant to treatment for the restoration of competence. Under existing law, if the defendant's competence is restored, the defendant is returned to the court with a certificate of restoration. Under existing law, if a defendant's competence is not restored within 2 years of being declared incompetent, the defendant is either subject to conservatorship proceedings or released. This bill would make the issuance of a certificate of restoration toll the running of that 2-year period. The bill would additionally establish procedures for a trial by court on the question of mental competence of a defendant after a defendant has been issued a certificate of restoration, including, among other things, that the defendant shall be presumed restored to competence unless it is proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is mentally incompetent.
