Asm. Ash Kalra

Existing law vests the Department of Transportation with possession and control of the state highway system and associated property. Existing law prohibits each state agency that has responsibility for roadside vegetation control operations on, or along, a roadway, including a state highway, from conducting a roadside vegetation control operation on a portion of the roadway for which a property owner has made a request for information related to the roadside vegetation control operation until certain conditions are satisfied, as specified. This bill would require the Department of Transportation to adopt, on or before January 1, 2026, a statewide policy to use integrated pest management, as defined, on state roads and highways, as specified, and to implement the statewide policy in cities or counties that have adopted integrated pest management approaches to roadside vegetation management. The bill would require the Department of Transportation, in developing the statewide policy, to consult with the Department of Pesticide Regulation and the University of California Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program. The bill would require the Department of Transportation, when operating in a city or a county that has adopted an integrated pest management policy that is more restrictive than the statewide policy, to the extent feasible, to operate in a manner consistent with the city's or county's integrated pest management policy, as specified. The bill would require the Department of Transportation, on or before December 31, 2026, and annually thereafter, to make publicly available on its internet website the amount, location, and type of pesticides, and the pesticide formulation, by city and county, it uses, and, at least 24 hours before applying a pesticide, would require the Department of Transportation to provide on its internet website and mobile application, and through any other means of communication deemed appropriate by the applicable state transportation district, information on when and where it plans to apply the pesticide. Under existing law, a violation of certain provisions and regulations related to pesticides is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less than $5,000 and not more than $50,000, or by imprisonment of not more than 6 months, or by both the fine and imprisonment. Because a violation of this bill's requirements would be a crime subject to the provision above, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law establishes, until January 1, 2030, the Racial Equity Commission within the Office of Planning and Research and requires the commission to develop resources, best practices, and tools for advancing racial equity by, among other things, developing a statewide Racial Equity Framework that includes methodologies and tools that can be employed to advance racial equity and address structural racism in California. This bill would require the Office of Legal Affairs, which would be established within the California American Freedmen Affairs Agency as provided by SB 1403 of the 2023–24 Regular Session, to, upon appropriation by the Legislature, review, investigate, and make certain determinations regarding applications from persons who claim they are the dispossessed owner, as defined, of property taken as a result of racially motivated eminent domain. The bill would define "racially motivated eminent domain" to mean when the state, county, city, city and county, district, or other political subdivision of the state acquires private property for public use and does not distribute just compensation to the owner at the time of the taking, and the taking, or the failure to provide just compensation, was due, in whole or in part, to the owner's ethnicity or race. Upon a determination that providing property or just compensation is warranted, as provided, the bill would require the Office of Legal Affairs to certify that the dispossessed owner is entitled to the return of the taken property, as specified, or other publicly held property, as defined, of equal value, or financial compensation, as specified. Upon a determination that the dispossessed owner is entitled to other publicly held property of equal value, the bill would require the Office of Legal Affairs to solicit and select, as specified, a list of recommendations of publicly held properties that are suitable as compensation, as provided. Upon a rejection of the determination of the Office of Legal Affairs by the state or local agency that took property by racially motivated eminent domain, the bill would authorize the dispossessed owner, as specified, to bring an action to challenge the taking or the amount of compensation, as provided. Upon a determination that an applicant is not a dispossessed owner or issuing property or just compensation is not warranted, the bill would require the Office of Legal Affairs to notify the applicant of its finding and provide an appeal process, as specified. The bill would make every finding, decision, determination, or other official act of the California American Freedmen Affairs Agency subject to judicial review. Existing law generally prohibits state agencies from employing in-house counsel to act on behalf of the agency or its employees in judicial or administrative adjudicative proceedings, but exempts specified agencies from this provision. This bill would exempt the California American Freedmen Affairs Agency from that provision. This bill would make related findings and declarations, including those related to a gift of public funds.

(1) Existing law, the Employee Housing Act, generally regulates employee housing, as defined. Among other things, the act authorizes a development proponent to submit an application for a development that is subject to a streamlined, ministerial process, as specified, and is not subject to a conditional use permit if certain requirements are met, including that the development is located on land designated as agricultural in the applicable city or county general plan, and that the development is an eligible agricultural employee housing development. The act defines eligible agricultural housing development as, among other things, an agricultural employee housing development that consists of no more than 36 units or spaces designed for use by a single family or household and is not ineligible for state funding under a provision that prohibits state funding from being provided to an employer who employs at least one H-2A worker, as specified. This bill would additionally authorize a development proponent to submit an application for a development that would be subject to the above-described conditions, if the development is located on land in the County of Santa Clara or the County of Santa Cruz that is within 15 miles of an area designated as farmland or grazing by the Department of Conservation and is not a site or adjoined to a site where more than 13 of the square footage on the site is dedicated to industrial use, as specified. The bill would also increase the maximum number of units in an eligible agricultural employee housing development from 36 units to 150 units if the development is located with the County of Santa Clara or the County of Santa Cruz. The bill would also specify that an eligible agricultural employee housing development under these provisions may not be ineligible for state funding pursuant to a specified provision of the Joe Serna, Jr., Farmworker Housing Grant Program, which prohibits funding under that program to an agricultural employer or farm labor contractor who employs at least one H-2A worker, as specified, and would make additional clarifying changes. By expanding the scope of housing developments eligible for approval under these provisions, thereby increasing the duties of local officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the County of Santa Clara and the County of Santa Cruz. (2) Existing law establishes a low-income housing tax credit program pursuant to which the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee provides procedures and requirements for the allocation, in modified conformity with federal law, of state insurance, personal income, and corporation tax credit amounts to qualified low-income housing projects that have been allocated, or qualify for, a federal low-income housing tax credit, and farmworker housing. Existing law limits the total annual amount of the state low-income housing credit for which a federal low-income housing credit is required to the sum of $70,000,000, as increased by any percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for the preceding calendar year, any unused credit for the preceding calendar years, and the amount of housing credit ceiling returned in the calendar year. Existing law provides for an additional allocation of $500,000,000 in low-income housing tax credits for the 2020 calendar year and up to $500,000,000 for the 2021 calendar year and thereafter, only if the Budget Act or related legislation specifies an amount available for allocation (additional amount) . Existing law, for calendar years 2024 to 2034, inclusive, allocates the lesser of 5% or $25,000,000 of that additional amount for farmworker housing, as specified. Existing law requires any amount of the farmworker housing funds that are unallocated in a funding round to rollover to consecutive subsequent funding rounds in that calendar year, except that any of those farmworker housing funds that are unallocated prior to the final funding round for that calendar year are returned to the above-described additional amount. This bill would instead require that any of those farmworker housing funds that are unallocated after the final funding round for that calendar year are returned to the above-described additional amount. (3) 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. (4) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Sections 12206, 17058 and 23610.5 of the Revenue and Taxation Code proposed by AB 3160 to be operative only if this bill and AB 3160 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.

Existing law requires that a weapon acquired by a specified governmental entity under specified circumstances, including as part of a "gun-buyback" program, be destroyed. This bill would require a law enforcement agency that contracts with a third party for the destruction of firearms or weapons to ensure that the contract for those services prohibits the sale of any parts of, or attachments to, the firearm or other weapon, as specified. The bill would also exempt from the destruction requirement, any firearm obtained through a "gun-buyback" program that is donated to a historical society, museum, or institutional collection, as specified. By requiring a higher level of service for local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 18005 of the Penal Code proposed by SB 1019 and AB 2739 to be operative only if this bill and either one or both of those bills are enacted and this bill is enacted last. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, 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 requires a hospital to maintain a written charity care policy and a discount payment policy for uninsured patients or patients with high medical costs who are at or below 400 percent of the federal poverty level. Existing law requires the written policy regarding discount payments to also include a statement that an emergency physician who provides emergency medical services in a hospital that provides emergency care is also required by law to provide discounts to uninsured patients or patients with high medical costs who are at or below 400 percent of the federal poverty level. Existing law authorizes an emergency physician to choose to grant eligibility for a discount payment policy to patients with incomes over 350% of the federal poverty level. Existing law defines "high medical costs" for these purposes to mean, among other things, specified annual out-of-pocket costs incurred by the individual at the hospital or a hospital that provided emergency care. This bill would authorize an emergency physician to choose to grant eligibility for a discount payment policy to patients with incomes over 400% of the federal poverty level. The bill would also clarify that out-of-pocket costs for the above-described definition of "high medical costs" means any expenses for medical care that are not reimbursed by insurance or a health coverage program, such as Medicare copays or Medi-Cal cost sharing. Existing law requires a hospital's discount payment policy to clearly state the eligibility criteria based upon income, and authorizes a hospital to consider the income and monetary assets of the patient or the patient's family, as defined, in determining eligibility under its charity care policy. This bill would prohibit a hospital from considering the monetary assets of the patient in determining eligibility for both the charity care and the discount payment policies, but would authorize the hospital to consider the availability of a patient's health savings account held by the patient or the patient's family, as specified. The bill would revise the definition of patient's family, as specified. The bill would instead require that the eligibility for charity care or discounted payments be determined at any time the hospital is in receipt of, among other things, recent pay stubs or income tax returns. The bill would prohibit a hospital or an emergency physician from imposing time limits for applying for charity care or discounted payments, and would prohibit a hospital or emergency physician from denying eligibility based on the timing of a patient's application. The bill would authorize a hospital or emergency physician to waive or reduce Medi-Cal and Medicare cost-sharing amounts as part of its charity care program or discount payment program, as specified. Existing law requires a hospital or an emergency physician to establish a written policy defining standards and practices for the collection of debt. Existing law authorizes a hospital or emergency physician to consider only income and monetary assets, as specified, in determining the amount of debt a hospital or emergency physician may seek to recover from patients who are eligible under the hospital's or emergency physician's charity care or discount payment policy. This bill would eliminate the authorization for a hospital or an emergency physician to consider monetary assets in determining the amount of debt the hospital or emergency physician may seek to recover from patients who are eligible under these policies. Existing law prohibits a hospital, in dealing with patients eligible under the hospital's charity care or discount payment policies, or emergency physician, in dealing with patients eligible under the emergency physician's discount payment policies, from using liens on primary residences as a means of collecting unpaid hospital or emergency physician bills. Existing law prohibits a collection agency, in dealing with a patient under a hospital's charity care or discount payment policies or in dealing with a patient under the emergency physician's discount payment policy, from conducting a sale of a patient's primary residence, as specified, as a means of collecting unpaid hospital or emergency physician bills. This bill would prohibit a hospital or emergency physician from using liens on any real property as a means of collecting unpaid hospital or emergency physician bills, and would prohibit a collection agency from conducting a sale of any real property owned, in part or completely, by a patient or placing a lien on any real property as a means of collecting unpaid hospital or emergency physician bills. The bill would define "charity care" and "discount payment" for the purposes described above. Existing law requires a hospital to reimburse a patient any amount actually paid in excess of the amount due, including interest. Under existing law, a hospital is not required to reimburse the patient or pay interest if the amount due is less than $5. This bill would authorize the hospital to reimburse the patient, but is not required to do so, if the hospital or the department determines that a patient qualified for financial assistance at the time the patient was first billed and it has been 5 years or more since the last payment to the hospital, hospital assignee, or debt buyer or the patient debt was sold to a debt buyer in accordance with state law in effect at the time the debt was sold, if sold before January 1, 2022. Existing law requires the State Department of Public Health to be responsible for the enforcement of the hospital pricing policy provisions for violations occurring prior to January 1, 2024. Existing law requires the Department of Health Care Access and Information to be responsible for the enforcement of these provisions for violations occurring on or after January 1, 2024. This bill would require the Department of Health Care Access and Information to also have enforcement authority to assess penalties for violations that occurred on or after January 1, 2022, that arise out of the same investigation for investigations involving hospital actions occurring on or after January 1, 2024, as specified. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 127425 of the Health and Safety Code proposed by Senate Bill 1061, to be operative only if this bill and Senate Bill 1061 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.

Existing law requires the Department of Housing and Community Development, through its Office of Migrant Services, to assist in the development, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or operation of migrant farm labor centers, as provided. Existing law authorizes the Director of Housing and Community Development to contract with specified local public and private entities, including school districts and housing authorities, for the procurement or construction of housing or shelter and to obtain specified services, including education, for migratory agricultural workers. Existing law authorizes a migrant farm labor center subject to these contracts to be operated for an extended period prior to or beyond the standard 180-day period, but not to exceed 275 days in any calendar year, if certain conditions are satisfied. This bill would require the department, by January 1, 2026, to engage and solicit feedback from specified stakeholders on the definition of "migratory agricultural worker" for the purposes of updating the definition. The bill would also require the department to develop, and by July 1, 2027, submit to specified legislative committees, a report that analyzes the feasibility and impact of transitioning housing units at Office of Migrant Services centers to year-round availability. The bill would require the report to include specified criteria, including, among other things, the quantity of housing units at each center. The bill would require the department, by December 31, 2028, and following the completion of the report, to coordinate with the Department of General Services and the Department of Food and Agriculture to identify available excess sites in proximity to migrant farm labor centers and prioritize those locations for the development of permanent farmworker housing. The bill would prescribe various requirements on the department, including that the department conduct an annual inspection of each migrant farm labor center to determine whether health, safety, and infrastructure standards are properly met. The bill would also prescribe various requirements on entities operating a migrant farm labor center, including that the entities ensure that each housing unit complies with all applicable local health and safety laws and prescreen Office of Migrant Services program applicants for eligibility in farmworker-restricted units on properties funded by the Joe Serna, Jr. Farmworker Housing Grant Program. By imposing additional duties on entities with regard to operating a farm labor center, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would make related findings and declarations. 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 requires a defendant, in a summary proceeding for obtaining possession of real property, to file a response within five days, excluding specified days, after the complaint is served on the defendant. Existing law permits a defendant in such a proceeding to, on or before the day fixed for their appearance, appear and answer or demur. This bill would extend the time in which a defendant, in a summary proceeding for obtaining possession of real property, must file a response from 5 to 10 days, excluding specified days, after the complaint is served on the defendant. The bill would specify additional procedures and deadlines for filing a demurrer or a motion to strike a complaint as well as an opposition to and reply in support of such a motion.

Existing law, the Recreational Vehicle Park Occupancy Law, prescribes various terms and conditions applicable to recreational vehicle park tenancies. The bill would prohibit a person from requiring an occupant, tenant, or resident, as defined, in a qualified recreational vehicle park to reregister if the purpose of the reregistration requirement is to prevent the occupant, tenant, or resident from gaining or maintaining status as a resident, and would make a person who violates these provisions liable for a civil penalty of $500, as specified. The bill would define "qualified recreational vehicle park" as a recreational vehicle park located within the City of Imperial Beach. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City of Imperial Beach.

Existing law, the California Seed Law, regulates seed sold in California. The California Seed Law prohibits any person from shipping, delivering, transporting, or selling agricultural or vegetable seed that is treated after harvest with any substance that is likely to be poisonous or toxic to human beings or animals unless it is labeled with specified information, including the chemical or generic name of the treatment material, as provided. The California Seed Law requires, when more than one substance is applied to the seed, each substance applied to the seed to be noted on the label and the seed to be labeled for the substance with the higher level of toxicity. This bill would additionally require, when more than one substance is applied to the seed, that the seed be labeled for each substance applied with the signal word for the substance with the highest level of toxicity. The bill would, beginning January 1, 2027, require that the label for seeds treated with certain substances and packaged on or after January 1, 2027, include each pesticide's registration number from the United States Environmental Protection Agency, if applicable, and the quantity applied by weight or amount per seed.

Existing law, the State Aeronautics Act, governs various matters relative to aviation in the state, and authorizes the Department of Transportation to adopt, administer, and enforce rules and regulations for the administration of the act. Under existing law, a violation of the State Aeronautics Act is a crime. This bill would prohibit an airport operator or aviation retail establishment, as defined, from selling, distributing, or otherwise making available leaded aviation gasoline to consumers on or after January 1, 2031, as provided. Because these provisions would be part of the State Aeronautics Act, 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.