Asm. Lori Wilson

Existing law, the California Endangered Species Act, prohibits the taking of an endangered or threatened species, except in certain situations, including, if specified conditions are met, under a permit issued by the Department of Fish and Wildlife commonly known as an incidental take permit. Existing law also enumerates fully protected species and prohibits the take of fully protected species, except under limited circumstances. This bill would permit the department to authorize, under the California Endangered Species Act, the incidental take of specified fully protected species resulting from impacts attributable to a specified project on State Route 37, if certain conditions are met, including, among others, the conditions required for the issuance of an incidental take permit.

Existing law requires an elections official, no later than 29 days before the day of an election, to begin mailing vote by mail ballots to registered voters. Existing law permits a voter using a vote by mail ballot to vote the ballot at the office of the elections official, including satellite locations, before the close of polls on election day. Existing law requires the elections official to provide notice of a satellite location by issuing a general news release no later than 14 days before voting at the satellite location may occur. Existing law requires a vote by mail ballot voted at a satellite location pursuant to the above provisions to be placed in a vote by mail voter identification envelope for processing, except as specified. This bill would permit a voter using a vote by mail ballot, no later than 29 days before the day of an election, to vote the ballot at the office of the elections official or a satellite location. For a statewide election, if the county does not conduct an all-mailed ballot election, as specified, the bill would require the county to provide at least one early voting location on the Saturday before the day of the election that is open for at least 6 hours. The bill would require the early voting location to permit the voter to return their vote by mail ballot, register to vote, receive and vote a provisional ballot, and receive a replacement ballot, among other requirements. The bill would repeal the above requirement that the voter use a voter identification envelope when voting their vote by mail ballot at the satellite location. The bill would repeal the above requirement that the elections official issue a news release regarding satellite locations, and instead require the elections official to provide notice of a satellite location not later than two weeks before voting may occur at the satellite location. By imposing new duties on local elections officials, the bill would create a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, 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.

Existing law generally authorizes a taxing agency to sell tax-defaulted property 5 or more years after the real property has become tax defaulted. Existing law authorizes the board of supervisors of the county in which the property is situated, or the state, county, any revenue district the taxes of which on the property are collected by county officers, or a redevelopment agency, to purchase the property, as specified, if certain conditions are met. Existing law also authorizes a nonprofit organization to purchase residential or vacant property, with the approval of the board of supervisors of the county in which it is located, if the property is used for low-income housing or public use, as specified. Existing law requires any sale under these provisions to be approved by the board of supervisors and to meet specified requirements, including notice requirements of an agreement under these provisions. This bill would prohibit a board of supervisors from approving the sale of tax-defaulted property, as described above, unless it conducts a hearing, with notice, and makes a specified finding that either the sale price is greater than or equal to the tax sale value, as defined, of the property or the tax sale value of the property is less than the amount necessary to redeem the property, as specified. The bill would require the notice of the hearing to be mailed at least 45 days prior to the hearing to the last assessee of each portion of the property and to parties of interest, and to contain, among other things, a description of the property, the proposed sale price, and the date, time, and location of the hearing. The bill would require any costs incurred in conducting the hearing and making the findings to be paid by the taxing agency or nonprofit organization by which the property is to be or may be purchased. The bill would also authorize the challenge of a board of supervisors' determination by the filing of a petition for judicial review in the superior court of the county within 45 days following the issuance of the board's decision, as specified. The bill would require the board to provide a written notice of the right to judicial review and the applicable deadlines to all parties who appeared at the hearing or submitted written evidence. The bill would authorize the superior court to vacate the board's decision and remand the matter to the board of supervisors if the court determines that the decision was not supported by substantial evidence or that the board otherwise failed to follow certain requirements. By requiring a board of supervisors to engage in specified actions relating to approving a sale of tax-defaulted property, 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, 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.

Existing law establishes procedures for the formation of regional park, park and open-space, and open-space districts and prescribes the powers, functions, and duties of those districts. Existing law requires the board of directors of these districts to appoint a general manager as chief administrative officer of the district and a controller and authorizes appointment of other subordinate officers, as provided. This bill would consolidate and modify roles and compensation of board-appointed officers, as specified. Existing law prohibits a district from validly conveying land actually dedicated and used for park or open-space purposes without the consent of a majority of the district's voters voting at a special election when the lease of the land exceeds 25 years. This bill would require, for the conveyance described above to occur, the consent of the district's voters voting at a special election when the lease of the land exceeds 50 years. Existing law authorizes a district to exchange park and open-space land by a unanimous vote of the board if the new park and open-space land is equal or greater in value and needed for park or open-space purposes. Existing law authorizes the East Bay Regional Park District, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, and the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District to exchange up to 40 acres of district-owned park or open-space land in a calendar year. This bill would instead authorize the exchange of park or open-space land by a 23 vote of the board, and would authorize the East Bay Regional Park District when a compatible and comparable exchange is not feasible, to accept compensation in an exchange with a public agency, provided that compensation is used to purchase park and open-space land. The bill would authorize the above-listed districts to exchange up to 80 acres of district-owned land in a calendar year. This bill would make other changes related to park and open-space districts, including, among others, repealing specified authorizations and requirements regarding the East Bay Regional Park District. Existing law generally authorizes the general manager of a regional park, park and open space, and open-space district, with district board approval, to bind the district, in accordance with board policy, and without advertising, for the payment for supplies, materials, labor, or other valuable consideration for any purpose in amounts not exceeding $50,000. Existing law authorizes the district, by action of the board in an open meeting, to increase the amount by which the general manager of the district may bind the district above that limit. This bill would authorize a general manager of a district with a population of 200,000 or more, with the approval of the board, to bind the district, in accordance with board policy that has been adopted in an open meeting, for the payment for equipment, supplies, and materials for any purpose, including new construction of a building, structure, or improvement, excluding labor and services, when the annual aggregate cost does not exceed $150,000, as provided. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the East Bay Regional Park District.

Existing law, until January 1, 2028, authorizes the establishment of a Green Empowerment Zone for the Northern Waterfront area of the County of Contra Costa for the purpose of building upon the comparative advantage provided by the regional concentration of highly skilled energy industry workers by prioritizing access to tax incentives, grants, and loan programs, among other incentives. Existing law authorizes the Green Empowerment Zone to be composed of 9 specified cities and the County of Contra Costa, upon adoption of a resolution by the city or county, and provides for the Green Empowerment Zone to be governed by a board of directors comprised of representatives from 7 stakeholder groups, as specified. This bill would extend the authorization for the Green Empowerment Zone to January 1, 2040, and would authorize the expansion of the Green Empowerment Zone to include 4 additional cities, including the Cities of El Cerrito, Pinole, Richmond, and San Pablo, upon adoption of a resolution by each city. The bill would make changes to the stakeholder groups who serve on the board of directors, including increasing the number of stakeholder groups to 8 by adding a category for 7 directors who live or work in the Green Empowerment Zone and who represent environmental or environmental justice organizations or interests.The bill would also provide a process for a legislative body of a city or county included within the Green Empowerment Zone to remove the land within its jurisdiction from the empowerment zone. Existing law requires a board chair and 2 deputy chairs to be selected by majority vote of the board of directors to serve 2-year terms. Existing law authorizes an individual to serve as chair or deputy chair more than once, but prohibits an individual from serving consecutive terms. This bill, instead, would authorize an individual selected to serve a 2-year term to be re-selected by a majority vote of the board of directors for up to three additional terms. Existing law requires the board to appoint a steering committee, and required the steering committee, on or before January 1, 2023, to develop metrics to be reported to the Legislature and state departments and agencies to gauge the progress of the Green Empowerment Zone, as specified. Existing law requires the Green Empowerment Zone to annually post information on those metrics on its internet website, as specified. This bill would change the name of the steering committee to the executive committee and would prescribe the membership of the executive committee. The bill would eliminate the deadline for the executive committee to develop and report the metrics described above, but would require the Green Empowerment Zone, commencing July 1, 2026, and annually thereafter, to post information on those metrics on its internet website, as specified. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the County of Contra Costa. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Existing law defines a battery as any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another. Existing law provides that when a battery is committed against the person of an operator, driver, or passenger on a bus, taxicab, streetcar, cable car, trackless trolley, or other motor vehicle, as specified, and the person who commits the offense knows or reasonably should know that the victim is engaged in the performance of their duties, the penalty is imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, a fine not exceeding $10,000, or both the fine and imprisonment. Existing law also provides that if the victim is injured, the offense would be punished by a fine not exceeding $10,000, by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison for 16 months, 2, or 3 years, or by both that fine and imprisonment. This bill would expand this crime to apply to an employee, public transportation provider, or contractor of a public transportation provider. By expanding the scope of an existing crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law authorizes any employer or collective bargaining representative whose employee has suffered harassment, unlawful violence, or a credible threat of violence from any individual, which can reasonably be construed to be carried out or to have been carried out at the workplace, to seek a temporary restraining order and an injunction on behalf of the employee and other employees of the employer. This bill would clarify that "unlawful violence" includes battery committed against the person of an operator, driver, or passenger on a bus, taxicab, streetcar, cable car, trackless trolley, or other motor vehicle, as specified, or against an employee, public transportation provider, or contractor of a public transportation provider. The bill would also clarify that the definition of "employer" for the above-described provision includes a joint powers authority or a public transit operator. 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 declares the public policy of the state regarding labor organization, including, among other things, that it is necessary for a worker to have full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, to negotiate the terms and conditions of their employment, and to be free from the interference, restraint, or coercion of employers of labor, or their agents, in the designation of such representatives or in self-organization or in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. Existing law establishes the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) in state government as a means of resolving disputes and enforcing the statutory duties and rights of specified public employers and employees under various acts regulating collective bargaining. Under existing law, PERB has the power and duty to investigate an unfair practice charge and to determine whether the charge is justified and the appropriate remedy for the unfair practice. Existing law, the federal National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) , establishes a comprehensive statutory scheme regulating unfair labor practices on the part of employers and labor organizations in industries affecting interstate commerce, and vests in the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) the power to conduct elections to determine employee representatives and to prevent unfair labor practices affecting commerce. Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires that public records, as defined, be available to the public for inspection and made promptly available to any person. This bill would expand PERB's jurisdiction by authorizing a worker, to petition PERB to protect and enforce prescribed rights under specified circumstances, including if the worker is employed in a position subject to the NLRA but the NLRB has expressly or impliedly ceded jurisdiction. The bill would authorize PERB to, among other things, decide unfair labor practice cases pursuant to a specified timeline and order all appropriate relief for a violation, including civil penalties, as prescribed. In order to pursue relief from PERB, the bill would require a covered worker or their representative to file an unfair practice charge or petition that includes specified information, including, where applicable, the original charge or petition filed with the NLRB. The bill would require PERB to hold the supporting documentation and evidence confidential and maintain it as part of its investigatory file and would exempt this documentation and evidence from the California Public Records Act. If PERB determines, among other things, it has insufficient resources to process certain cases or doing so would prevent it from meeting specified statutory deadlines, the bill would require PERB to process and prioritize charges, as specified. The bill would also establish the Public Employment Relations Board Enforcement Fund (fund) in the State Treasury, would require the above-described civil penalties to be deposited into the fund, and would make moneys in the fund available upon appropriation by the Legislature to PERB for the purpose of administering the above-specified provisions. The bill would authorize PERB to rely on its own decisions and precedent under the NLRA and would authorize review of its decisions by a state appellate court, as specified. Existing law, the Alatorre-Zenovich-Dunlap-Berman Agricultural Labor Relations Act of 1975, grants agricultural employees the right to form and join labor organizations and engage in collective bargaining, as specified, and prohibits agricultural employers and labor organizations from engaging in unfair labor practices. Those provisions establish the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB) and empower the ALRB to prevent any person from engaging in those practices. Existing law establishes various definitions for these purposes. Existing law requires the ALRB to follow applicable precedents of the NLRA. This bill would specify that the ALRB has exclusive jurisdiction in all phases of the administration of the act, and to determine whether any person or entity meets one or more of those definitions. The bill would instead authorize the board to follow applicable precedents of the NLRA, but would not obligate the board to follow precedents where the ALRB deems it inappropriate to do so. This bill would make related findings and declarations and would make its provisions severable. 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.

Existing law prohibits a person or business, as defined, from collecting, using, disclosing, or retaining the personal information of a person who is physically located at, or within a precise geolocation of, a family planning center, as defined, except as necessary to perform the services or provide the goods requested and prohibits a person or business from selling or sharing this personal information. Existing law authorizes an aggrieved person or entity to institute and prosecute a civil action against a person or business for a violation of these provisions and specifies the damages and costs authorized to be recovered. This bill would recast the above-described provisions, and instead prohibit the collection, use, disclosure, sale, sharing, or retention of the personal information of a natural person who is physically located at, or within a precise geolocation of, a family planning center, except under certain circumstances, including, among others, for the collection or use as necessary to perform the services or provide the goods requested. The bill would also provide that these provisions do not alter applicable law regarding use by a law enforcement agency, as defined, of personal information generated by an electronic monitoring device. The bill would authorize an aggrieved person to institute and prosecute a civil action against a natural person, association, proprietorship, corporation, trust, foundation, partnership, or any other organization or group of people acting in concert for a violation of these provisions. The bill would also make other nonsubstantive changes. This bill would, subject to specified exceptions, prohibit geofencing, or selling or sharing personal information with a third party to geofence, as defined, an entity that provides in-person health care services in California for specified purposes, and would prohibit the use of personal information obtained in violation of this provision. The bill would provide that violators are subject to an injunction and liable for a civil penalty assessed and recovered in a civil action brought by the Attorney General, and deposited in the California Reproductive Justice and Freedom Fund. The bill would require those penalties to be awarded by the State Department of Public Health for grants to implement a program or to fund an existing program that provides and promotes medically accurate and comprehensive reproductive and sexual health education, as provided. The bill would also provide that a statement signed under penalty of perjury, as specified, that the personal information will not be used for selling or sharing personal information in violation of these geofencing provisions is prima facie evidence that the personal information was not sold or shared in violation of these geofencing provisions. By expanding the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law, the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA) , generally prohibits a provider of health care, a health care service plan, or a contractor from disclosing medical information regarding a patient, enrollee, or subscriber without first obtaining an authorization, unless a specified exception applies. The CMIA prohibits a provider of health care, a health care service plan, a contractor, or an employer from releasing medical information that would identify an individual or related to an individual seeking or obtaining an abortion in response to a subpoena or a request or to law enforcement if that subpoena, request, or the purpose of law enforcement for the medical information is based on, or for the purpose of enforcement of, either another state's laws that interfere with a person's rights to choose or obtain an abortion or a foreign penal civil action. This bill would, similar to the provisions of the CMIA, prohibit the release of research records, in a personally identifying form, developed or acquired by a person in the course of conducting research relating to anyone seeking or obtaining health care services, or relating to personal information, in response to a subpoena or a request or to law enforcement if that subpoena, request, or the purpose of law enforcement for the medical information is based on, or for the purpose of enforcement of, either another state's laws that interfere with a person's rights to choose or obtain an abortion or a foreign penal civil action. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

This measure would designate November 1, 2025, as Fernando Valenzuela Day, to highlight the positive impact his legacy created in the Latino and Hispanic community.

This measure would recognize the importance of California Native American Day, celebrated this year on September 26, 2025, and the annual California Indian Cultural Awareness Conference, to the enhancement of awareness of California Indian culture.