Existing law charges the Labor Commissioner with enforcement of various labor laws, including investigation of employee complaints. This bill would declare it is the policy of the state that a worker providing direct patient care be free to use their professional judgment to make assessments and decisions within their scope of practice as appropriate for their patients. The bill would prohibit an employer from retaliating or discriminating against a worker providing patient care, as specified. The bill would authorize a worker who is subject to retaliation or discrimination in violation of these provisions to file a complaint with the Labor Commissioner against an employer. The bill would require the Labor Commissioner to enforce these provisions, as specified. Existing law provides that everyone is responsible not only for the result of their willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by their want of ordinary care or skill in the management of their property or person. Existing law prohibits a defendant who developed, modified, or used artificial intelligence, as defined, from asserting a defense that the artificial intelligence autonomously caused the harm to the plaintiff. This bill would prohibit a defendant who developed, modified, selected, or deployed a clinical decision support system that is alleged to have harmed the plaintiff from asserting a defense that the failure of a licensed health care professional or other health care worker to override an output of the clinical decision support system is a superseding cause severing the defendant's liability for the alleged harm.
(1) Under the Planning and Zoning Law, the legislative body of a city or county may adopt ordinances that, among other things, regulate the use of buildings, structures, and land, as provided. The Subdivision Map Act vests the authority to regulate and control the design and improvement of subdivisions in the legislative body of a local agency and sets forth procedures governing the local agency's processing, approval, conditional approval or disapproval, and filing of tentative, final, and parcel maps. Existing law requires a local agency to ministerially approve a parcel map for an urban lot split if the development or parcel meets specified requirements. Existing law requires the local agency to require an applicant for an urban lot split to sign an affidavit stating that the applicant intends to occupy one of the housing units as their principal residence for a minimum of 3 years from the date of the approval of the urban lot split. Existing law authorizes a local agency to adopt an ordinance to implement these provisions, as provided. This bill would instead require the local agency to require an applicant to select one of 2 sets of owner-occupancy requirements. The first option would be for the applicant to sign, under penalty of perjury, the above-described affidavit stating that the applicant intends to occupy one of the housing units as their principal residence for a minimum of 3 years. The 2nd option would be for the applicant to sign an affidavit, under penalty of perjury, stating they intend to sell both parcels of an urban lot split after issuance of a certificate of occupancy within 3 years from the date of the approval of the urban lot split and to require that one of the units on both parcels of an urban lot split remain owner occupied for 3 years, beginning on the date a parcel or unit is conveyed by the applicant to a home buyer. By expanding the scope of the crime of perjury and increasing the duties of local agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would require the home buyer designated by the applicant to satisfy this 2nd owner-occupancy requirement to provide the applicant with an affidavit or declaration, under penalty of perjury, stating the home buyer intends to occupy the parcel as their primary residence for 3 years, as provided. The bill would provide that, for the purposes of either owner-occupancy requirement, an applicant may be a trustee of a living trust of a natural person or a limited liability company of a natural person, except that a limited liability company shall not be an applicant if the parcel being subdivided is within the boundaries of the 2025 Palisades or Eaton Fires in the County of Los Angeles. The bill would provide that an applicant for an urban lot split that is a limited liability company that violates these provisions would be liable for civil penalties. (2) Existing law requires that specified disclosures be made upon any transfer by sale, exchange, real property sales contract, lease with an option to purchase, any other option to purchase, or ground lease coupled with improvements, of any single-family residential property. This bill would require the seller of an urban lot split subject to the second owner-occupancy requirement described above to disclose, in writing, any owner-occupancy requirement for three years after the conveyance of an urban lot split unit. This bill would repeal its provisions on January 1, 2032. (3) This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the boundaries of the 2025 Palisades and Eaton Fires in the County of Los Angeles. (4) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 66411.7 of the Government Code proposed by AB 2601 to be operative only if this bill and AB 2601 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (5) 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.
Existing law makes the violation of a county ordinance or a city ordinance a misdemeanor unless by ordinance it is made an infraction. Existing law specifies monetary fines for any violation of local ordinances that is an infraction, not to exceed specified amounts that vary based on the circumstances of the violation, as prescribed. This bill would, notwithstanding those provisions, authorize the county board of supervisors to impose fines, penalties, and forfeitures for violations of ordinances and to fix the penalty by a fine or imprisonment, or both. The bill would also establish the amount of the fine that may be imposed for the violation of a city or county ordinance, where the violation pertains to a nonresidential structure with a floor area of 20,000 or more square feet and the violation poses a threat to health and safety, to not exceed $1,000 for the first violation, $2,000 for the 2nd violation within 5 years of the first violation, and $5,000 for subsequent violations within 5 years of the first violation, as specified. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the County of Los Angeles.
The Personal Income Tax Law allows various credits against the taxes imposed by that law, including a credit of $227 for each dependent, as defined, of a taxpayer for each taxable year beginning on or after January 1, 1999, as adjusted for inflation, and which may be reduced if a taxpayer's federal adjusted gross income exceeds a threshold amount. This bill would allow a credit against the taxes imposed by the Personal Income Tax Law for each taxable year beginning on or after January 1, 2026, and before January 1, 2031, to a qualified taxpayer in an amount equal to $1,500 per qualified dependent, as defined. The bill would define "qualified taxpayer" for these purposes to mean a taxpayer who is or would have been, or whose spouse is or would have been, as applicable, 65 years of age or older as of the last day of the taxable year and for whom no part of their adjusted gross income for the taxable year consists of earned income, as defined. Existing law requires any bill authorizing a new tax expenditure to contain, among other things, specific goals that the tax expenditure will achieve, detailed performance indicators, and data collection requirements. This bill also would include additional information required for any bill authorizing a new tax expenditure. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) grants to a consumer various rights with respect to personal information that is collected by a business, including the right to delete personal information. The California Privacy Rights Act of 2020, approved by the voters as Proposition 24 at the November 3, 2020, statewide general election, amended, added to, and reenacted the CCPA and establishes the California Privacy Protection Agency and vests the agency with full administrative power, authority, and jurisdiction to enforce the CCPA. The CCPA excludes from the definition of "personal information" publicly available information. Existing law defines "publicly available" for these purposes to include 3 types of information. One type is information that a business has a reasonable basis to believe is lawfully made available to the general public by the consumer or from widely distributed media. This bill would revise that part of the definition of "publicly available" by removing the condition that the business have a reasonable basis to believe the information is lawfully made available. The CCPA also includes in that definition of "publicly available" information made available by a person to whom the consumer has disclosed the information if the consumer has not restricted the information to a specific audience. This bill would delete that part of the definition of "publicly available." This bill would declare that its provisions further the purposes and intent of the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020.
This measure would urge the United States Congress to enact federal legislation that would ensure that federal unemployment taxes on businesses are not increased due to any debt to the federal Unemployment Trust Fund that was a direct result of a state's decisions resulting in increased filings, including shutdowns, extensions of shutdowns, or lapses in fraud prevention programs.
Existing law, the Mobilehome Residency Law, requires the owner of a mobilehome park who lists for sale or offers to sell the mobilehome park to any party to provide written notice of the owner's intention to sell the mobilehome park to a resident organization formed by homeowners for purposes of converting the mobilehome park to condominium or stock cooperative ownership interests and for purchasing the mobilehome park, subject to specified conditions. This bill would repeal those provisions and would instead require management of a mobilehome park to give notice to each resident household in the park, resident organization, as defined, and specified public entities, as provided, if certain events demonstrating management's intent to sell occur, subject to specified exceptions. If that event is the receipt of an offer for the sale or transfer the park that management intends to accept or the conditional acceptance of an offer for the sale or transfer of the park, the bill would require the notice to include a statement from management that it has received an offer for sale, lease, or transfer of the park that it intends to accept, a statement of the homeowners' rights under the bill and the deadlines for exercising those rights, and the price, terms, and conditions of the offer management has conditionally accepted or plans to accept. This bill would authorize a resident organization or its assignee, to, no later than 120 days after notice of an offer that management intends to accept or conditional acceptance of an offer is sent, deliver a good faith, written purchase offer for the park to management, along with a statement that the homeowners of more than 50% of the mobilehomes in the park support the purchase offer. This bill would require management to consider the resident organization's proposed purchase offer and negotiate with the resident organization in good faith to determine whether a mutual agreement can be reached that results in the resident organization purchasing the park, and, if the offer is rejected, provide a good faith reason for the rejection. This bill would, if the resident organization's proposed purchase agreement matches the price and substantially the same terms and conditions as the offer management has conditionally accepted or plans to accept, grant the resident organization the right to purchase the park at the price, terms, and conditions stated in its proposed purchase agreement. The bill would provide specified requirements and restrictions on management and the resident organization with regard to the proposed purchase agreement. This bill would authorize a resident organization that represents 50% or more of the homeowners of the mobilehome park to, at its election and subject to rescission at any time, assign its rights under the bill to the municipality in which the resident organization is located, a housing authority located in the municipality, a state agency, or a qualified entity for the purpose of continuing the use of the property as a park. The bill would require the Department of Housing and Community Development to establish a process for certifying specified entities as qualified entities, as provided, and to maintain and update annually a list of qualified entities to be made available to management for the purpose of distributing notices to qualified entities. This bill would authorize a resident organization or public prosecutor, as specified, to bring an action against management that violates the bill for specified civil penalties and other relief. The bill would provide that its provisions shall be interpreted liberally and are severable.
Prospective federal law, the federal 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act (H.R. 6644) , prohibits a large institutional investor from purchasing, or entering into a contract to directly or indirectly purchase, any single-family home, except as specified. If the above-described federal legislation is enacted, this bill would authorize the Attorney General, district attorney, or county counsel to coordinate with the Secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Director of the United States Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Chair of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States in the implementation of federal regulations, as described, related to violations of federal law involving tenants residing in properties owned, maintained, and managed by institutional investors. Existing law establishes various real estate disclosure requirements applicable to the transfer of residential real property. Before entering into specified transactions relating to residential real property, including an individual sale of residential real property, this bill would require an institutional investor, as defined, to provide written notice of the institutional investor's intent to sell the property to each tenant at least 90 days before advertising the residential real property for sale in a multiple listing service, as specified. The bill would require the notice to include, among other things, a statement that the tenant has the right to remain in possession until the end of the lease term, except as specified. For sales of residential real property containing 1 to 4 residential dwelling units by an institutional investor, this bill would require the institutional investor to, among other things, only accept offers from prospective owner-occupants, including any tenant in possession, during the first 30 days after the property is listed for sale. The bill would require the prospective owner-occupant to submit with their offer an affidavit or declaration executed under penalty of perjury stating they are purchasing the residential real property as an owner-occupant, as described. The bill would subject a prospective owner-occupant or an institutional investor to criminal or civil liability. The bill would also require an institutional investor that sells residential real property to record, or cause to be recorded, a certification of compliance under penalty of perjury, as specified. The bill would require the failure to record the certificate of compliance to result in a civil penalty, as described. By expanding the scope of existing crimes, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would also authorize the Attorney General, district attorney, city attorney, and tenant to bring an action in the superior court to enforce the bill's provisions, and upon prevailing, would allow for injunctive relief and civil penalties, as specified. The bill would require its provisions to be construed consistently with the above-described federal act, if enacted, and would make its provisions severable. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law, the Medical Practice Act, establishes the Medical Board of California within the Department of Consumer Affairs and sets forth its powers and duties relating to the licensure and regulation of the practice of medicine by physicians and surgeons. Existing law generally prohibits the practice of medicine without a physician's and surgeon's certificate issued by the board. Existing law authorizes a health care provider to deliver health care via telehealth to a patient pursuant to specified protocols and conditions. Existing law defines "telehealth" as the delivery of health care services and public health via information and communication technologies to facilitate the diagnosis, consultation, treatment, education, care management, and self-management of a patient's health care, and that telehealth includes synchronous interactions and asynchronous store and forward transfers. Existing law authorizes an eligible out-of-state physician and surgeon, as defined, to deliver health care via telehealth to an eligible patient. Existing law defines "eligible patient" as a person who, among other requirements, has a life-threatening disease or condition, as defined, and has not been accepted to participate in the clinical trial nearest to their home for the immediately life-threatening disease or condition, as specified, or in the medical judgment of a physician and surgeon, as defined, it is unreasonable for the patient to participate in that clinical trial due to the patient's current condition and state of disease. This bill would also include within the definition of "eligible patient" a patient whose immediately life-threatening disease or condition is in remission and the patient is continuing care for that condition with the previously established eligible out-of-state physician and surgeon, and would provide that those patients are not subject to the clinical trial requirement, as specified.
The Budget Act of 2026 would make appropriations for the support of state government for the 2026–27 fiscal year. This bill would amend the Budget Act of 2026 by amending a section relating to appropriations. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a Budget Bill.
Existing law prohibits the state from seeking or obtaining a criminal conviction or sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin, as specified. Existing law allows a defendant to establish a violation of these provisions under specified circumstances, including when a longer or more severe sentence was imposed on the defendant than was imposed on other similarly situated individuals convicted of the same offense and other specified conditions are met. This bill would instead compare the defendant to similarly situated individuals who have engaged in similar conduct, as specified. The bill would make these provisions apply to disparities in plea negotiating and diversion, among other things. Existing law authorizes a defendant in these cases to file a motion requesting disclosure to the defense of all evidence relevant to a potential violation of these provisions, as specified. This bill would additionally authorize a defendant to request any data that has been previously disclosed pursuant to those provisions in another criminal case, and require the court to grant that request, unless the data has no relevance to the current charges. The bill would also revise and recast definitions for these provisions.
Existing law authorizes a fire protection district board to charge a fee to cover the cost of any service the district provides, as specified. This bill would prohibit a fire protection district board from charging a fee to any member of the public for using a 911 emergency telephone number or for emergency responders arriving at a location or otherwise responding to the use of a 911 emergency telephone number, except as provided.
