Existing law establishes a workers' compensation system, administered by the Administrative Director of the Division of Workers' Compensation, to compensate an employee, as defined, for injuries sustained in the course of employment. Existing law creates a rebuttable presumption that specified injuries, such as cancer or post-traumatic stress disorder, developed or manifested in the course of employment of a specified member of law enforcement or a specified first responder arose out of and in the course of employment. Existing law makes these provisions applicable to certain active firefighting members, including active firefighting members of a fire department that serves a United States Department of Defense installation or active firefighting members of a fire department that serves a National Aeronautics and Space Administration installation. This bill would, for injuries occurring on or after January 1, 2026, additionally apply these provisions to active firefighting members of a fire department that provides fire protection to a commercial airport, as specified. Existing law creates a rebuttable presumption that other injuries, including pneumonia, tuberculosis, or meningitis, developed or manifested in the course of employment of a specified member of law enforcement or a specified first responder arose out of and in the course of employment. Existing law makes these provisions applicable to certain active firefighting members, including volunteers who are partly paid or fully paid by, among others, the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection or a county forestry or firefighting unit. The bill would, for injuries occurring on or after January 1, 2026, also apply these provisions to active firefighting members of a fire department that provides fire protection to a commercial airport, National Aeronautics and Space Administration installation, or United States Department of Defense installation.
Sponsored bills
Existing law governs motor vehicle conditional sale contracts, as defined, and requires a seller, prior to the execution of a conditional sale contract, to make certain disclosures to the buyer, including a description and the price of each item sold if the contract includes a charge for the item, and the sum of all of those charges. Existing law prohibits a dealer from selling specified used vehicles at retail to an individual for personal, family, or household use without offering the buyer a contract cancellation option agreement that allows the buyer to return the vehicle without cause. Existing law sets forth certain requirements for the contract cancellation option agreement, including prescribing the purchase price for the contract cancellation option and requiring specified disclosures. This bill would enact the California Combating Auto Retail Scams (CARS) Act. The bill would define the terms "vehicle" and "used vehicle" for these purposes. The bill would make it a violation of the act for a dealer to make any misrepresentation regarding material information about specified matters relating to the vehicle sale, including the costs or terms of purchasing, financing, or leasing a vehicle, the availability of vehicles at a total price communicated by the dealer, and the remedy available if a dealer fails to sell or lease a vehicle at the total price, as defined. The bill would also make it a violation of the act for a dealer to fail to make certain disclosures clear and conspicuous, including specified information relating to the total price and any add-on products or services, and would exempt from that provision a used vehicle sold at an auction, as defined. The bill would make it a violation of the act for a dealer, in connection with the sale or financing of a vehicle, to charge for certain items, including an add-on product or service if the vehicle purchaser or lessee would not benefit from the add-on product or service. The bill would repeal the above-described contract cancellation option agreement requirement and would instead prohibit a dealer from selling or leasing specified used vehicles without providing the purchaser or lessee a 3-day right to cancel the purchase or lease, as provided. The bill would require a dealer to create and retain, for a period of 2 years from the date the record is created, all records necessary to demonstrate compliance with the act, including specified records. The bill would make its provisions operative on October 1, 2026. The bill would make related conforming changes.
Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, requires a city or county to adopt a comprehensive general plan for the city's or county's physical development that includes various elements, including, among others, a land use element that designates the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of the land in specified categories, and a circulation element that identifies the location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, any military airports and ports, and other local public utilities and facilities, as specified. This bill, the Local Electrification Planning Act, would require each city, county, or city and county, on or after January 1, 2027, but no later than January 1, 2030, to prepare and adopt a specified plan, or integrate a plan in the next adoption or revision of the general plan, that includes locally based goals, objectives, policies, and feasible implementation measures that include, among other things, the identification of opportunities to expand electric vehicle charging and other zero-emission vehicle fueling infrastructure, as specified, and includes policies and implementation measures that address the needs of disadvantaged communities, low-income households, and small businesses for equitable and prioritized investments in zero-emission technologies that directly benefit these groups. For these purposes, the bill would authorize a city, county, or city and county to designate a previously adopted similar plan that meets the above-described requirements, as specified. By increasing the duties of local public officials, the bill would establish a state-mandated local program. The bill would deem a plan adopted pursuant to these provisions as a regional plan for specified purposes. The bill would require that the above-described provisions only apply to a city, county, or city and county with a population greater than 75,000 residents. The bill would define terms for these purposes. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. 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.
Proposition 117, an initiative measure approved by the electors at the June 5, 1990, direct primary election, enacted the California Wildlife Protection Act of 1990. The act creates the Habitat Conservation Fund and requires the moneys in the fund to be used for specified purposes generally relating to the acquisition, enhancement, or restoration of wildlife habitat. The act requires the Controller, until June 30, 2020, to annually transfer $30,000,000 from the General Fund to the Habitat Conservation Fund, less any amount transferred to the Habitat Conservation Fund from specified accounts and funds. The act, until July 1, 2020, continuously appropriates specified amounts from the Habitat Conservation Fund to the Department of Parks and Recreation, the State Coastal Conservancy, the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, and the California Tahoe Conservancy, and continuously appropriates the balance of the fund to the Wildlife Conservation Board. Chapter 31 of the Statutes of 2019 requires the Controller to continue to annually transfer $30,000,000 from the General Fund, less any amount transferred to the Habitat Conservation Fund from specified accounts and funds, to the Habitat Conservation Fund until June 30, 2030, and continuously appropriates that amount on an annual basis in the same proportions to the specified entities until July 1, 2030. This bill would require the Controller to continue to annually transfer $30,000,000 from the General Fund, less any amount transferred to the Habitat Conservation Fund from specified accounts and funds, to the Habitat Conservation Fund until June 30, 2035, and would continuously appropriate that amount on an annual basis in the same proportions to the specified entities described above until July 1, 2035.
Existing law prohibits a person from being tried or adjudged to punishment while that person is mentally incompetent. Existing law establishes a process by which a defendant's mental competency is evaluated. Existing law, in the case of a misdemeanor charge in which the defendant is found incompetent, requires the court to hold a hearing to determine if the defendant is eligible for diversion. Existing law requires, if the defendant is not eligible for diversion, the court to hold a hearing to determine whether the defendant will be referred to outpatient treatment, conservatorship, or the CARE program, or if the defendant's treatment plan will be modified. Existing law requires the court to dismiss the case if a defendant does not qualify for the above-described services. Existing law prohibits, except as specified, a person confined in a county jail from being administered any psychiatric medication without prior informed consent. Existing law authorizes a county department of mental health, or other designated county department, to involuntarily administer psychiatric medication to an inmate on a nonemergency basis only after the inmate is provided, among other things, a hearing before a superior court judge, a court-appointed commissioner or referee, or a court-appointed hearing officer. Existing law also provides for the involuntary administration of psychiatric medication to an inmate in an emergency situation. Existing law limits the duration during which an inmate can be involuntarily administered psychiatric medication on an emergency basis and requires that, except as specified, the inmate be provided the same due process protections they would be entitled to when psychiatric medication is involuntarily administered on a nonemergency basis. Existing law specifies that an emergency exists for these purposes when there is a sudden and marked change in an inmate's mental condition so that action is immediately necessary for the preservation of life or the prevention of serious bodily harm to the inmate or others and it is impractical, due to the seriousness of the emergency, to first obtain informed consent. This bill would, if an individual has been found incompetent to stand trial after having been charged with a misdemeanor, additionally authorize the administration of antipsychotic medication to the individual without their prior informed consent on an emergency basis when treatment is necessary to address the emergency condition and the medication is administered in the least restrictive manner, as specified. The bill would specify that a determination made pursuant to these provisions is valid for up to 72 hours if the medication is necessary to address the emergency condition, except as provided. The bill would require the court, prior to issuing an involuntary medication order after hearing, to find by clear and convincing evidence that, among other things, a psychiatrist or psychologist has determined that the individual has a serious mental health disorder that can be treated with antipsychotic medication, and there is no less intrusive alternative to the involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication, and involuntary administration of the medication is in the individual's best interest. The bill would require the court to review that order at least every 60 days and would require the psychiatrist to file an affidavit at that review, as specified. By expanding the crime of perjury, the bill would create a state-mandated local program. The bill would also enumerate certain rights for individuals, prior to the administration of involuntary medication pursuant to these provisions. The bill would make these provisions inoperative and would repeal them on January 1, 2030, subject to a later enacted statute. Existing law provides that if a person in charge of a county jail, city jail, or juvenile detention facility, or a judge, as specified, believes that a person in custody may have a mental health disorder, that person or judge may cause the prisoner to be taken to a facility for 72 hours of treatment and evaluation. The bill would prohibit certain factors, including the person's temporary access to food, clothing, and shelter, while transferred to a 72-hour facility for treatment and evaluation, from being a basis to conclude that the person is able to provide for their basic personal needs. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law, the Political Reform Act of 1974, prohibits a public officer from expending, and a candidate from accepting, public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office. This bill would remove prohibitions imposed on a public officer or candidate to expend or accept public funds, as defined, for the purpose of seeking elective office unless the funds are earmarked by a state or local entity for education, transportation, or public safety. The bill would require candidates to abide by specified expenditure limits and meet strict criteria, as defined, to qualify for public funds. The bill would prohibit public funds from being used to pay legal defense fees or fines or to repay personal loans to their campaign. The bill would permit a statute, ordinance, or charter to establish standards to increase the expenditure limits for each qualified, voluntarily participating candidate pursuant to a specified formula. The bill would provide that the Fair Political Practices Commission is not responsible for administering or enforcing a system of public funding of candidates established by a local governmental agency. Existing law prohibits a foreign government or foreign principal, as defined, from making a contribution, expenditure, or independent expenditure in connection with the qualification or support of, or opposition to, any state or local ballot measure or in connection with the election of a candidate to state or local office. Under existing law, a person who violates this prohibition is guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a fine equal to the amount contributed or expended. This bill would instead require that a person guilty of that misdemeanor, in addition to other penalties, be fined an amount at least equal to the amount contributed or expended, but not exceeding a maximum amount of 3 times the amount contributed or expended. The Political Reform Act of 1974, an initiative measure, provides that the act may be amended by a statute that becomes effective upon approval of the voters. This bill would require the Secretary of State to submit the provisions of the bill, as specified, to the voters for approval at the November 3, 2026, statewide general election. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 85320 of the Government Code proposed by AB 953 to be operative pursuant to specified conditions.
Existing law, the Personal Income Tax Law and the Corporation Tax Law, in conformity with federal income tax law, generally defines "gross income" as income from whatever source derived, except as specifically excluded, and provides various exclusions from gross income. Existing federal law authorizes an applicable entity, as defined, to receive a refund for specified environmental credits against the taxes imposed under federal law and excludes a refund payment made pursuant to that law from gross income. Existing federal law also authorizes an eligible taxpayer, as defined, to transfer the value of that refundable credit and exempts from gross income payment received by the transferor as consideration for the transfer. Existing federal law prohibits the transferee from deducting the amount paid as consideration for the transfer. This bill, in conformity with federal law, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2026, and before January 1, 2031, would exclude from gross income a refund payment made for the specified federal environmental credits described above and any payment received by a transferor as consideration for a transfer, as provided. The bill would also prohibit a transferee from deducting the amount paid as consideration for the transfer, in conformity with federal law. Existing law requires a bill authorizing a new tax expenditure to contain, among other things, specific goals, purposes, and objectives the tax expenditure will achieve, detailed performance indicators, and data collection requirements. This bill would include additional information required for any bill authorizing a new tax expenditure. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
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 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 makes it a misdemeanor to wear a mask, false whiskers, or any personal disguise, as specified, with the purpose of evading or escaping discovery, recognition, or identification while committing a public offense, or for concealment, flight, evasion, or escape from arrest or conviction for any public offense. This bill would make it a crime for a law enforcement officer to wear a facial covering in the performance of their duties, except as specified. The bill would define law enforcement officer 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 or law enforcement agency of another state, or any person acting on behalf of a federal law enforcement agency or agency of another state. The bill would make a violation of these provisions punishable as an infraction or a misdemeanor, as specified. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require any 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. The bill would exempt personnel of any agency from the crime of wearing a facial covering if an agency maintains a policy pursuant to this section no later than July 1, 2026. The bill would deem a policy consistent with these provisions for the purposes of that exception unless a member of the public, an oversight body, or a local governing authority challenges it. The bill would also impose a specified civil penalty against certain officers for tortious conduct, including, but not limited to, false imprisonment or false arrest of an individual while wearing a facial covering. The bill would, if the agency does not address deficiencies within 90 days, authorize the complaining party to proceed to a court of competent jurisdiction for a judicial determination of the exemption, as specified. The bill would define 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. By imposing additional duties on local law enforcement agencies, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. This bill would declare its provisions to be severable. 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.