Asm. Blanca Pacheco

Existing law establishes procedures through which a successor of the decedent may, without procuring letters of administration or awaiting probate of the will, dispose of a decedent's real and personal property by utilizing an affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury if the gross value of the decedent's estate does not exceed $166,250. Existing law also establishes procedures through which a successor of the decedent may, without procuring letters of administration or awaiting probate of the will, dispose of a decedent's real property by filing a petition in the superior court if the gross value of the decedent's real property does not exceed $166,250. Existing law excludes certain property from the determination of the value of the estate, including property held in joint tenancy. Existing law requires the Judicial Council to adjust the dollar amounts under these provisions, as specified, every 3 years. This bill would exclude real property that was included in a petition to the superior court from the affidavit procedures. The bill would change the petition procedures to apply only to real property that was the decedent's primary residence in this state and has a gross value that does not exceed $750,000 or the amount specified by Judicial Counsel after review. The bill would require a successor who files a petition to deliver notice of the petition to each heir and devisee named in the petition. The bill would specify that, for these purposes, "primary residence" is not limited to the decedent's residence at the time of their death.

Existing law, the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law, authorizes counties and cities to impose local sales and use taxes in conformity with the Sales and Use Tax Law, and existing laws authorize districts, as specified, to impose transactions and use taxes in accordance with the Transactions and Use Tax Law, which generally conforms to the Sales and Use Tax Law. Exemptions from state sales and use taxes are automatically incorporated into the local tax laws. Existing law, the Sales and Use Tax Law, imposes state taxes on retailers measured by the gross receipts from the sale of tangible personal property sold at retail in this state, or on the storage, use, or other consumption in this state of tangible personal property purchased from a retailer for storage, use, or other consumption in this state. The Sales and Use Tax Law provides various exemptions from those taxes, including a partial exemption from those taxes, on and after July 1, 2014, and before July 1, 2030, for the gross receipts from the sale of, and the storage, use, or other consumption of, qualified tangible personal property, as defined, that is, among other things, purchased by a qualified person for use primarily in manufacturing, processing, refining, fabricating, or recycling of tangible personal property, as specified, or purchased for use by a qualified person to be used primarily in research and development. Existing law prohibits the exemption described above from applying with respect to any tax levied by a county, city, or district pursuant to, or in accordance with, the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law or the Transactions and Use Tax Law, sales and use taxes imposed pursuant to certain provisions of the Sales and Use Tax Law, and sales and use taxes imposed pursuant to certain provisions of the California Constitution. The Personal Income Tax Law and the Corporation Tax Law allow various credits against the taxes imposed by those laws. This bill would allow, for a taxable year beginning on or after January 1, 2025, and before January 1, 2030, a credit against those taxes to a taxpayer in an amount equal to the amount of tax reimbursement paid during the taxable year for sales tax on gross receipts that would be exempt from taxation under the Sales and Use Tax Law pursuant to the sales and use tax exemption described above but for the provision that prohibits that exemption from applying with respect to any tax levied by a county, city, or district pursuant to, or in accordance with, the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law or the Transactions and Use Tax Law, sales and use taxes imposed pursuant to certain provisions of the Sales and Use Tax Law, and sales and use taxes imposed pursuant to certain provisions of the California Constitution. This bill would also allow for a taxable year beginning on or after January 1, 2025, and before January 1, 2030, a similar tax credit against those taxes to a taxpayer in an amount equal to the amount of use tax paid during the taxable year for storage, use, or other consumption that would be exempt from taxation under the Sales and Use Tax Law pursuant to the sales and use tax exemption described above but for the provision that prohibits that exemption from applying with respect to any tax levied by a county, city, or district pursuant to, or in accordance with, the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law or the Transactions and Use Tax Law, sales and use taxes imposed pursuant to certain provisions of the Sales and Use Tax Law, and sales and use taxes imposed pursuant to certain provisions of the California Constitution. This bill would require, on or before May 14, 2025, and annually thereafter, the Department of Finance to provide to the legislative budget committees an estimate of the amount of revenue that would not be realized if the credits described above were allowed for that taxable year and would provide that those credits are allowed only for taxable years for which the Legislature appropriates money in the Budget Act for the administration of those credits. Existing law requires any bill authorizing a new tax credit to contain, among other things, specific goals that the tax credit will achieve, detailed performance indicators, and data collection requirements. This bill would make specified findings detailing the goal of the above-described tax credit, performance indicators for determining whether the credit meets that goal, and data collection requirements. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.

Existing law provides for the licensure and regulation by the State Department of Public Health of health facilities, as defined. Existing law requires a health facility to allow a patient's domestic partner, the children of the patient's domestic partner, and the domestic partner of the patient's parent or child to visit unless no visitors are allowed, the facility reasonably determines that the presence of a particular visitor would endanger the health or safety of a patient, member of the health facility staff, or other visitor to the health facility, or would significantly disrupt the operations of a facility, or the patient has indicated to the health facility staff that the patient does not want this person to visit. A violation of this provision is a misdemeanor. This bill, Dianne's Law, would require a health facility to allow specified persons to visit, including the patient's children and grandparents. The bill would require the health facility to develop alternate visitation protocols, if circumstances require the health facility to restrict visitor access to the facility due to health or safety concerns, that allow visitation to the greatest extent possible while maintaining patient, visitor, and staff health and safety. Notwithstanding the requirement mentioned above, the bill would prohibit a health facility from prohibiting in-person visitation in end-of-life situations unless the patient has indicated to the health facility staff that the patient does not want this person to visit, as specified, and would authorize a health facility to require visitors to adhere to personal protective equipment and testing protocols not greater than those required of facility staff for the duration of their visit. The bill would also require the facility to provide personal protective equipment and testing resources to each visitor for a patient in an end-of-life situation, to the extent that those resources have been made readily available to the facility by state or local entities for that purpose. By expanding an existing crime, 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 requires the State Board of Education to adopt at least 5 basic instructional materials in specified subject areas, including, among others, social science, for use in kindergarten and grades 1 to 8, inclusive, as specified. Existing law establishes the Instructional Quality Commission, as specified, and requires the commission to, among other things, develop criteria for evaluating instructional materials. This bill would require the commission, when the state board adopts new instructional materials for history-social science on or after January 1, 2025, to consider providing for inclusion, in its evaluation criteria, content on the case of Mendez v. Westminster School District of Orange County. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 51226.3 of the Education Code proposed by AB 1821 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1821 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.

Existing law generally regulates classes of insurance, including automobile liability insurance. Existing law prohibits classifying a private passenger motor vehicle as a commercial vehicle, for-hire vehicle, permissive use vehicle, or livery solely because its owner allows it to be shared, if specified criteria are met, including if the annual revenue received by the vehicle's owner generated by the personal vehicle sharing of the vehicle does not exceed the annual expenses of owning and operating the vehicle. Existing law requires a personal vehicle sharing program, for each vehicle that it facilitates the use of, among other things, to provide insurance coverages for the vehicle and operator of the vehicle that are equal to or greater than the insurance coverages maintained by the vehicle owner, but no less than 3 times the minimum coverage amounts for private passenger vehicles. Existing law requires an owner or operator of a motor vehicle, or an owner of a vehicle used to transport passengers for hire not regulated by the Public Utilities Commission, to maintain liability insurance coverage for the named insured and any other person using the vehicle with permission in the amount of $15,000 for the bodily injury or death of any one person, $30,000 for the bodily injury or death of all persons, and $5,000 for damage to the property of others resulting from any one accident. Existing law increases these minimum amounts to $30,000, $60,000, and $15,000, respectively, on January 1, 2025. This bill would require a personal vehicle sharing program to provide, instead, insurance coverages for the vehicle and operator at a minimum of $45,000 for bodily injury or death for one person, $90,000 for bodily injury or death for all persons, and $15,000 for property damage, and, on and after January 1, 2031, to provide liability coverage at least 3 times the minimum insurance requirements for private passenger vehicles. The bill would require a personal vehicle sharing program to disclose to a vehicle owner and any person that operates the vehicle specified information, including the minimum mandatory coverage and limits that the personal vehicle sharing program is required to provide and the coverages and limits provided. The bill would require a personal vehicle sharing program to disclose in writing specified information to the vehicle owner, including that the vehicle owner's personal automobile insurance may expressly exclude coverage for the vehicle while it is being operated pursuant to a personal vehicle sharing program. A violation of these requirements would make a person liable for a specified civil penalty.

Existing law, the Alfred E. Alquist Hospital Facilities Seismic Safety Act of 1983, establishes, under the jurisdiction of the Department of Health Care Access and Information, a program of seismic safety building standards for certain hospitals constructed on and after March 7, 1973. Existing law requires that, by January 1, 2030, owners of these hospitals must either demolish, replace, or change to nonacute care use all hospital buildings that are not in compliance with these standards or seismically retrofit all acute care inpatient hospital buildings so they are in substantial compliance with these standards, unless subject to an abeyance. This bill would authorize a hospital owner or operator to submit an application, by specified dates, to the department for additional extensions to the compliance deadline. The bill would require the department to grant or deny an extension of the deadline for substantial compliance with seismic safety regulations or standards up to January 1, 2035. The bill would require the application to contain a seismic compliance plan, a specified evaluation report, a financial plan, and an attestation to the department that the appropriate governing board of that hospital is aware that the hospital building is required to be in substantial compliance with the seismic safety regulations or standards. By imposing the above-described attestation, this bill would expand the crime of perjury and impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would require the hospital and the department to identify specified milestones that are used for determining whether the hospital is making progress towards meeting the hospital's seismic compliance deadline. The bill would require the hospital to demonstrate efforts to comply with the seismic compliance deadline by providing the department with a plan outlining how seismic construction costs and other financial responsibilities will be met and what funding sources will be used if the hospital fails to meet an agreed-upon milestone due to circumstances that were within the hospital owner's or operator's control. The bill would require the owner or operator of that hospital to submit to the department an attestation that the appropriate governing board of that hospital is aware of the hospital's responsibility to comply with the associated construction costs to meet the seismic compliance deadlines. By requiring the owner or operator of a hospital to submit to the department an attestation, this bill would expand the crime of perjury and impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would require the department, before granting an extension past January 1, 2030, to provide public notice of a hospital's request for an extension, provide copies, upon request, of any publicly available material submitted by the hospital in support of their extension to interested parties, and allow the public to submit written comments on the extension proposal, as specified. The bill would require the department, beginning January 1, 2027, to post on the department's internet website specified information, including, among other things, its decision to grant or deny any extension. The bill would require the department to notify the county board of supervisors, the city council, and the Assembly and Senate representative in writing and electronically if a hospital within their district has been granted or denied an extension. This bill would require the department, on or before January 1, 2026, to adopt regulations and standards or revise regulations and standards, or both, to extend the deadlines for meeting the structural performance and nonstructural performance requirements. The bill would specify that regulatory submissions made by the department to the California Building Standards Commission are deemed to be emergency regulations and that the adoption of these regulations are to be deemed an emergency and necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, and general welfare. Existing law requires, before January 1, 2024, the owner of an acute care inpatient hospital that includes a building that does not substantially comply with seismic safety regulations or standards to post in a lobby or waiting area generally accessible to patients or the public a notice provided by the department that the hospital is not in compliance with the seismic safety requirements the hospital is required to meet by January 1, 2030. Existing law requires, on or before January 1, 2024, and annually thereafter, the owner of an acute care inpatient hospital that includes a building that does not substantially comply with seismic safety regulations or standards to provide an annual status update on the Structural Performance Category ratings of the buildings and the services provided in each hospital building on the hospital campus to specified entities until each of the hospital buildings owned by that hospital building owner is compliant. This bill would require, before January 1, 2025, the owner or operator of an acute care inpatient hospital that includes a building that does not substantially comply with the seismic safety regulations or standards to post in any lobby or waiting area generally accessible to patients or the public the notice mentioned above. The bill would also require, on or before January 1, 2025, and annually thereafter, the owner or operator to provide an annual status update, as specified. This bill would specify that the provisions of this act are 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.

This measure would, among other things, urge the United States Congress and President Joseph R. Biden to fully fund the United States Environmental Protection Agency's Comprehensive Infrastructure Solution for the Tijuana River due to the ongoing impacts to public health, the environment, and the local economy caused by cross-border pollution and would urge President Joseph R. Biden to declare a national emergency due to those ongoing impacts.

This measure would urge the Congress of the United States to repeal the state and local tax deduction limitation so that residents of California and married taxpayers are no longer penalized by the federal tax code.

Maddy summaryAssembly Concurrent Resolution 120 designates January 2024 as Positive Parenting Awareness Month in California. This measure does not change laws or allocate funding but instead encourages state agencies, communities, and organizations to focus on the importance of positive parenting strategies. The resolution highlights how supportive family environments can improve children's health and well-being while acknowledging the diverse forms families take in the state. It serves as a formal acknowledgment of existing programs and resources rather than creating new mandates or policies.

This measure would proclaim September 20, 2024, and September 20 of each year thereafter, as California Youth Climate Action Day to honor and support the efforts of young people in their pursuit of environmental sustainability, climate justice, and the preservation of biodiversity.