Rep. Ash Kalra

Existing law establishes the Natural Resources Agency, which consists of various departments, including the Department of Conservation, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Department of Parks and Recreation. Existing law vests in the Natural Resources Agency various powers, including those related to conservation of lands. By Executive Order No. N-82-20, Governor Gavin Newsom directed the Natural Resources Agency to combat the biodiversity and climate crises by, among other things, establishing the California Biodiversity Collaborative and conserving at least 30% of the state's lands and coastal waters by 2030. Existing law requires the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency to prepare and submit, on or before March 31, 2024, and annually thereafter, a report to the Legislature on the progress made in the prior calendar year toward achieving the goal to conserve 30% of California's lands and coastal waters by 2030. Existing law provides that it is the goal of the state to conserve at least 30% of California's lands and coastal waters by 2030, known as the 30x30 goal. Existing law establishes the Equitable Outdoor Access Act (act) , which sets forth the state's commitment to ensuring all Californians can benefit from, and have meaningful access to, the state's rich cultural and natural resources. Existing law declares that it is state policy, among other things, to ensure that all Californians have equitable opportunities to safe and affordable access to nature and access to the benefits of nature, and to prevent and minimize the intentional and unwarranted limitation of sustainable public access to public lands, where appropriate, including, but not limited to, local, regional, state, and federal parks, rivers, lakes, beaches, forests, mountain ranges, deserts, and other natural landscapes. Existing law requires specified state agencies to consider and incorporate, as appropriate, the state policy when revising, adopting, or establishing policies, regulations, or grant criteria, or making expenditures, as specified. Existing law requires all state agencies implementing the above-described state policy to do so in a manner consistent with the mission of their agency and that protects the health and safety of the public and conserves natural and cultural resources. This bill would establish the Outdoors for All initiative, to be administered by the Natural Resources Agency, in consultation with specified state entities, to advance the objectives of the act and to implement and update specified priorities, including, among other related priorities, establishing outdoor public recreation spaces, as defined, connecting people and the outdoors, and aligning funding to achieve the initiative's goals, as specified. The bill would require the agency to report, on or before January 1, 2028, and annually thereafter, to the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature on the progress made to achieve the initiative's goals, as specified.

Existing law makes it a crime for a law enforcement officer to wear a facial covering in the performance of their duties, except as specified. Existing law defines law enforcement officer for these purposes as anyone designated by California law as a peace officer who is employed by a city, county, or other local agency, and any officer or agent of a federal law enforcement agency, agency or law enforcement agency of another state, or any person acting on behalf of a federal law enforcement agency. This bill would add peace officers employed by a state agency to the definition of law enforcement officers, thereby making those law enforcement officers subject to those criminal penalties. The bill would specify that facial coverings does not include certain items, including, among other things, sunglasses. The bill would, for all of the items excluded from the definition of facial coverings, limit that exclusion if the items are combined or otherwise used in a manner intended to conceal or obscure an officer's identity. By expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law prohibits any person who is found to have committed an assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, abuse of process, or malicious prosecution, while wearing a facial covering in a knowing and willful violation of these provisions, from asserting any privilege or immunity for their tortious conduct against a claim of civil liability, and makes that person liable for the greater of actual damages or statutory damages of not less than $10,000, whichever is greater. This bill would instead make a person who is found liable for false imprisonment or false arrest liable for those damages if the trier of fact finds that the person knowingly and willfully concealed their identity through the use of a facial covering at the time of the conduct giving rise to liability. Existing law requires a law enforcement agency operating in California to, by July 1, 2026, maintain and publicly post a written policy limiting the use of facial coverings, as specified. Existing law defines a law enforcement agency for these purposes as any entity of a city, county, or other local agency, that employs anyone designated by California law as a peace officer, any federal law enforcement agency, or any law enforcement agency of another state. This bill would add to the definition of law enforcement agency, a state entity that employs a peace officer and would change the date any law enforcement agency has to comply with that requirement to January 1, 2027. The bill would also require those policies to exempt certain surveillance operations related to enforcement of the Fish and Game Code, or similar federal law. 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 makes it a misdemeanor to willfully fail to appear in court, as specified. Existing law, when a person has failed to appear and has not posted bail, requires the magistrate to issue a warrant for the person's arrest within 20 days of the failure to appear. This bill would make those sections only apply when the underlying charge is not an infraction. (2) Existing law authorizes the issuance of a bench warrant of arrest when a person fails to appear in court as promised in specified criminal proceedings. This bill would prohibit the issuance of a bench warrant of arrest when the underlying crime is an infraction issued pursuant to the Vehicle Code. The bill would require bench warrants for other infractions to be limited to only authorizing arrest and booking at the scene followed by immediate release, as specified. (3) Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to willfully fail to appear in court for a violation of the Vehicle Code, and requires the court to report a conviction of this offense to the Department of Motor Vehicles. This bill would make that misdemeanor only apply when the underlying charge is not an infraction. The bill would also remove the requirement for the court to report a conviction of this offense to the department. (4) Existing law authorizes the imposition of a civil assessment or the issuance of an arrest warrant when a person fails to make an installment payment on bail imposed by the court for an infraction violation of the Vehicle Code. Existing law also makes it a misdemeanor to fail to pay bail in installments or to fail to pay a fine imposed for the violation of a state or local traffic law. This bill would remove the misdemeanor for failure to pay a bail installment or fine if the original charge was an infraction. The bill would remove the authorization to issue an arrest warrant for failure to pay a bail installment. (5) Existing law, if a defendant does not appear at the time the case is called for a violation of the Vehicle Code, authorizes the court to declare the bail forfeited and order that no further proceedings be had in the case, or to issue a warrant for the arrest of the defendant. However, if a defendant is charged with specified crimes, including disposing of a flaming or glowing substance on or near a road and littering a highway, has previously been convicted of the same crime, and fails to appear at the time the case is called to trial, existing law authorizes the court to declare the bail forfeited and requires the court to issue a bench warrant for the arrest of the person charged, unless the magistrate finds that undue hardship will be imposed by requiring the defendant to appear. This bill would remove the requirement that the magistrate issue a bench warrant when the person has committed one of the crimes specified above.

This measure would proclaim the month of October 2026 as California Firefighter Appreciation Month and October 3, 2026, as California Firefighters Memorial Day.

Existing law generally regulates the business of renting passenger vehicles to the public. The law prohibits a rental company from taking various actions, including requiring the purchase of a damage waiver, optional insurance, or another optional good or service, and using electronic surveillance technology to track a renter in order to impose fines or surcharges relating to the renter's use of a rental vehicle. This bill would require any privately owned vehicle rented by, or furnished to, any federal, state, or local law enforcement agency for the use of detaining, arresting, or transporting persons who have violated, or are suspected of having violated, any law, to display a temporary decal displaying the agency name and logo, as specified. The bill would authorize certain attorneys, including the Attorney General, to pursue a civil action against the entity renting the vehicle from the private owner for failure to comply with these provisions. The bill would require the rental car contract to include a term that compliance with state law is mandatory. The bill would exempt privately owned vehicles rented or otherwise furnished or loaned to a law enforcement agency for specified purposes and rental car contracts entered into prior to January 1, 2027, from these provisions. The bill would make related findings and declarations.

Existing law, the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, establishes procedures for the reporting, investigation, and prosecution of elder and dependent adult abuse. Existing law requires a mandated reporter of suspected financial abuse of an elder or dependent adult, as defined, to report financial abuse in a specified manner, including by telephone or through a confidential internet reporting tool, as specified, immediately, or as soon as practicably possible. If reported by telephone, existing law requires a written report to be sent, or an internet report to be made through the internet reporting tool, to the local adult protective services agency or the local law enforcement agency within 2 working days. Existing law deems all officers and employees of a financial institution to be mandated reporters of suspected financial abuse of an elder or dependent adult. A mandated reporter who fails to report financial abuse of an elder or dependent adult is liable for civil penalties, as specified. If a report of financial abuse is made by a mandated reporter, as described above, this bill would also require a report to be made to the Federal Bureau of Investigation Internet Crime Complaint Center within 2 working days. Within 48 hours of filing a report, the bill would require a financial institution to notify the elder or dependent adult identified in the report, as specified, and provide additional required information. The bill would require a financial institution to provide annual training to its mandated reporters on how to escalate internally and report suspected financial abuse of an elder or a dependent adult to both local and federal authorities, as specified. The bill would specify that violations of these provisions would not incur the above-described liability for civil penalties. The bill would make its provisions operative on January 1, 2028.

(1) Existing law tolls the periods of limitation to bring specific civil actions for up to 2 years, if during that time that the claimant is imprisoned on a criminal charge, as specified. However, under existing law these tolling provisions do not apply to an action brought against a public entity or public employee, as specified. This bill would, notwithstanding any other law, provide that the period for bringing an action for sexual assault against a public entity or public employee that is alleged to have occurred while the claimant was imprisoned on a criminal charge, or in execution under the sentence of a criminal court, is tolled during the entire period of the claimant's imprisonment or sentence. Under the bill, any claim for sexual assault against a public entity or public employee subject to that provision is exempt from all state and local government claim presentation requirements. (2) Existing law establishes the Office of the Sexual Abuse in Detention Elimination Ombudsperson with the authority to inspect all of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation institutions and to interview all inmates and wards. Under existing law, if an investigation confirms that any employee of the department has sexually abused an inmate or ward, that employee is required to be terminated. Existing law prohibits retaliation against an inmate or ward for making an allegation of sexual abuse. Existing law requires the department to keep statistics on the sexual abuse of inmates and wards and make that data available to the Office of the Sexual Abuse in Detention Elimination Ombudsperson. This bill would prohibit an employee who has been terminated after an investigation confirms that the employee has sexually abused an incarcerated person or ward from future employment with the department. This bill would require the department to monitor for 90 days an incarcerated person who reports sexual assault, and the incarcerated person reported to have suffered the sexual assault, by a staff member for possible retaliation. The bill would require the department to make specific notifications and reporting after an incarcerated person is reported to have suffered a sexual assault. The bill would require the department, on or before January 1, 2028, to develop and implement procedures for notifications of an incarcerated person's contact person, as defined. The bill would require the department to minimize the transfer of an incarcerated person who is reported to have suffered a sexual assault by a staff member for 90 days following the report, unless there is an operational need to do so or there are safety, security, or health concerns. The bill would define terms for its purposes and declare these provisions are severable.

Under existing law, the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act (act) , if a person or persons, whether or not acting under color of law, interferes or attempts to interfere, by threats, intimidation, or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by any individual or individuals of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state, the Attorney General, or any district attorney or city attorney, is authorized to bring a civil action for injunctive and other appropriate equitable relief in the name of the people of the State of California, in order to protect the exercise or enjoyment of the right or rights secured. Under that act, an individual may also institute and prosecute in their own name and on their own behalf a civil action for damages, as described, for any resulting interference or attempt at interference of the individual's exercise or enjoyment of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States or this state. The act authorizes the court to award the petitioner or plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees in addition to any damages, injunction, or other equitable relief awarded in these civil actions (attorney's fees authorization) . Existing federal law provides that every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any state, territory, or the District of Columbia, subjects or causes to be subjected any United States citizen or other person within the jurisdiction to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, is liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except as provided. This bill would also provide that every natural person, as defined, who, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, as defined, subjects or causes to be subjected any citizen of this state or any person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the United States Constitution, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except as specified. The bill would apply the aforementioned attorney's fees authorization, except as specified, to any action brought under these provisions. The bill would authorize a court, in its discretion, to also award costs, except as specified, to the prevailing plaintiff in any action brought under these provisions. This bill would authorize a defendant in an action brought under these provisions to assert and receive the benefit of a defense of absolute or qualified immunity only to the same extent as a person sued under certain federal provisions under like circumstances, as specified, and would specify that nothing in these provisions is to be construed to waive or abrogate any defense of sovereign immunity otherwise available to a party, as specified. The bill would prohibit any civil action brought under these provisions from being commenced later than 2 years after the date that the cause of action accrues. The bill would make its provisions severable. The bill would specify that these provisions apply retroactively to March 1, 2025, as provided. This bill would declare the intent of the Legislature in enacting these provisions. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Existing law establishes the sovereignty of the state. This bill would require the state government to support California Native Americans to maintain cultural and linguistic traditions, practice ecosystem stewardship, and engage in good faith government-to-government consultations with all California Native American tribes regarding policies that may affect tribal communities. Existing law establishes various state water policies, including the policy that the use of water for domestic purposes is the highest use of water and the human right to water. Existing law requires the State Water Resources Control Board to act upon all applications for a permit to appropriate water. This bill would declare that it is the established policy of the state to recognize and address the inequities, as described, inflicted upon all California Native American tribes through financial assistance, protection of tribal beneficial uses, consultation on water projects, plans, and policies, and incorporation of indigenous knowledge to restore and protect ecosystems. The bill would require specified state agencies, including the State Water Resources Control Board, regional water quality control boards, and the Natural Resources Agency, to incorporate this policy when revising, adopting, or establishing policies, regulations, permits, or grant criteria to address identified inequities. The bill would require those state entities to identify and offer financial assistance to the tribes consistent with existing legal and policy requirements for financial assistance programs. If there is a dispute between a California Native American tribe and one of those state agencies over the implementation of that policy, the bill would require that matter to be brought before the Governor's Office of Tribal Affairs for mediation before the state agency action is challenged in court and would specify procedures and timelines for mediation, as provided. Existing law authorizes the board to conduct investigations and to issue information orders in administering water rights, as provided. The bill would require the state board, in furtherance of an investigation and upon request, to consult with a tribe whose ancestral territory includes the water body or water bodies at issue for the claimed riparian or appropriative right.

Existing law appropriates $10,000,000 from the General Fund for the 2021–22 fiscal year to the Superintendent of Public Instruction to administer the Dual Language Immersion Grant Program for the purpose of expanding access to quality dual language learning and fostering languages that English learners bring to California's education system. Under that program, the State Department of Education is required to award a minimum of 25 one-time Dual Language Immersion Grants over a period of 3 fiscal years of up to $380,000 per grant to an eligible entity to expand or establish dual language immersion programs. This bill would require, upon appropriation by the Legislature, the department, on or before July 1, 2027, to establish a Dual Language Immersion Coordinator to provide coordination between local educational agencies, as defined, to share resources and knowledge on dual language immersion programs, as defined. The bill would require the Dual Language Immersion Coordinator to (1) act as the point of contact within the department for local educational agencies seeking to, among other things, establish new or expand existing dual language immersion programs, and (2) establish, publish, and maintain on the department's internet website, on or before January 1, 2028, a directory of operative dual language immersion programs, as specified. To the extent the bill would impose additional duties on local educational agencies relating to the establishment and maintenance of the directory, 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.