Sen. Catherine Blakespear

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. This bill would require, on and after January 1, 2027, for a project, located in a geographic area for which the Governor declared a state of emergency on or after January 1, 2023, that is to maintain, repair, restore, demolish, or replace property or facilities damaged or destroyed by wildfire, and the project is not otherwise exempt from CEQA, as specified, the lead agency to prepare the record of proceeding concurrently with the administrative process. The bill would also require an action or proceeding brought to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the certification of an environmental impact report, or the adoption of a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration, for the project to be resolved, to the extent feasible, within 270 calendar days of the filing of the certified record of proceedings. The bill would require an applicant to agree to pay the costs of the trial court and court of appeal in hearing and deciding any action or proceeding brought under these provisions, as provided. The bill would require the Judicial Council to adopt rules of court to implement these requirements. The bill would require the project to be consistent with the applicable zoning and land use ordinances. By requiring a lead agency to prepare the record of proceedings concurrently with the administrative process, this 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.

(1) Existing law, known as the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, among other things, prohibits an affected city or an affected county, as defined, from approving a housing development project that will require the demolition of occupied or vacant protected units, as defined, or that is located on a site where protected units were demolished in the previous 5 years unless specified requirements are met. Among these requirements, existing law requires that the project replace all existing protected units and protected units demolished on or after January 1, 2020, and, if the project is a housing development project, as defined, it will include at least as many residential dwelling units as the greatest number of residential dwelling units that existed on the project site within the last 5 years. Existing law requires that specified protected units replaced under these provisions be considered in determining whether the housing development project satisfies certain state and local requirements that the project provide a certain percentage of residential rental units affordable to, and occupied by, households with incomes that do not exceed the limits for moderate-income, lower income, very low income, or extremely low income households, as specified. This bill would additionally require that the above-described replaced protected units be considered in determining whether the housing development project satisfies requirements that the project provide a certain percentage of residential rental units affordable to, and occupied by, households with incomes that do not exceed the limits for acutely low income households, as specified. This bill, notwithstanding the above-described requirements, in the case of rehabilitation or replacement of an existing single-room occupancy building that meets prescribed criteria, would permit an affected city or an affected county to reduce the number of replacement units required if the project meets specified requirements, including, among others, that the reduction in replacement units is necessary to accommodate the conversion of single-room occupancy units, as provided, and that the converted units will be rental units with affordable rents, as specified. The bill would include specified findings declaring legislative intent with respect to these provisions. The bill would permit a borrower to conduct a market study to support the unit sizes proposed in the replacement housing plan, as provided. (2) Existing law establishes the Department of Housing and Community Development and requires it to administer various programs intended to promote the development of housing, including, among others, the Multifamily Housing Program, pursuant to which the department provides financial assistance in the form of deferred payment loans to pay for the eligible costs of development of specified types of housing projects. Existing law sets forth various general powers of the department in implementing these programs, including authorizing the department to enter into long-term contracts or agreements of up to 30 years for the purpose of servicing loans or grants or enforcing regulatory agreements or other security documents. This bill, for purposes of determining eligibility for an individual displaced from or returning to a single-room occupancy unit undergoing rehabilitation or a replacement unit that received funds from the department and is for a homeless individual or family, would (A) specify that an individual is deemed homeless if they meet certain criteria and (B) prohibit an individual or family meeting these criteria from being subject to a requirement that the unit be filled through a referral from a coordinated entry system, as defined, or a similar referral system.

Existing law generally requires the sale or transfer of firearms to be conducted through a licensed firearms dealer. For purposes of these provisions, existing law defines "firearm" to mean a device, designed to be used as a weapon, from which is expelled through a barrel a projectile by the force of an explosion or other form of combustion and to include the frame or receiver of the weapon, including both a completed frame or receiver, or a firearm precursor part. For these purposes, existing law defines "firearm precursor part" as any forging, casting, printing, extrusion, machined body, or similar article that has reached a stage in manufacture where it may readily be completed, assembled, or converted to be used as the frame or receiver of a functional firearm, or that is marketed or sold to the public to become or be used as the frame or receiver of a functional firearm once completed, assembled, or converted. This bill would, except as specified, prohibit the sale or transfer of a firearm barrel, as defined, unless the transaction is completed in person by a licensed firearms dealer. The bill would also prohibit a person from possessing a firearm barrel with the intent to sell, or offering to sell, unless the person is a licensed firearms dealer. Commencing on July 1, 2027, except as specified, the bill would require the licensed firearms dealer to conduct an eligibility check of the purchaser or transferee and to record specified information pertaining to the transaction, including the date of the sale or transfer. The bill would make a first and 2nd violation of these provisions punishable as a misdemeanor, and any additional violations punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony, as specified. The bill would require the department to require the licensed firearms dealer to charge a fee up to $5 for each firearm barrel eligibility check, as specified. By creating a new crime, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. The bill would declare the severability of its provisions.

Existing law requires a city or county to prepare and adopt a general plan for its jurisdiction that contains certain mandatory elements, including a housing element. Existing law requires the housing element to identify adequate sites for housing, including rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, and emergency shelters, among other things. Existing law requires the housing element to contain an assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs, including by identifying one or more zoning designations that allow residential uses, including mixed uses, where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit and that are suitable for residential uses. Existing law requires an emergency shelter to include other interim interventions, including, but not limited to, a navigation center, bridge housing, and respite or recuperative care. This bill would additionally require an emergency shelter to include all services provided onsite, including the addition or expansion of services that are consistent with certain written, objective standards. By imposing a higher level of service on cities and counties in preparing and adopting a general plan, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to administer the Emergency Housing and Assistance Program. Under the program, moneys from the continuously appropriated Emergency Housing and Assistance Fund are available for the purposes of providing shelter, as specified, to homeless persons at as low of a cost and as quickly as possible, without compromising the health and safety of shelter occupants, to encourage the move of homeless persons from shelters to a self-supporting environment as soon as possible, to encourage provision of services for as many persons at risk of homelessness as possible, to encourage compatible and effective funding of homeless services, and to encourage coordination among public agencies that fund or provide services to homeless individuals, as well as agencies that discharge people from their institutions. Existing law defines "emergency shelter" to mean, in part, housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of 6 months or less by a homeless person. This bill would modify that definition to mean housing with supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of 6 months or less by a homeless person. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65583 of the Government Code proposed by AB 610 and AB 650, to be operative only if this bill and either 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, commonly referred to as the Density Bonus Law, requires a city or county to provide a developer that proposes a housing development, as defined, within the city or county with a density bonus, other incentives or concessions, and waivers or reductions of development standards, as specified, if the developer agrees to construct specified units and meets other requirements. This bill would specify that a concession and incentive shall not result in a proposed project, as prescribed, with a specified commercial floor area ratio. The bill would also specify that certain provisions of the Density Bonus Law do not require a city, county, or city and county to approve, grant a concession or incentive requiring approval of, or waive or reduce development standards otherwise applicable to, transient lodging as part of a housing development, except as specified.

Existing law requires each county to develop a procedure for electronically transmitting, upon the issuance of certain types of protective orders, the contents of the order and other specified information to the Department of Justice through the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System. Existing law also requires the department to maintain a California Restraining and Protective Order System and to make specified information electronically available to court clerks and law enforcement personnel. This bill, Wyland's Law, would, subject to an appropriation by the Legislature, authorize the department to establish, or contract with a vendor to establish, an automated protected person information and notification system to provide a petitioner or a protected person in a protective order case with automated access to information about their case, as specified. The bill would require a record demonstrating whether the superior court has fulfilled its transmission obligations or a record demonstrating receipt of information about a protective order that the department maintains to be open to public inspection and copying.

Existing law prohibits any person from selling, leasing, or transferring any firearm unless the person is licensed as a firearms dealer, as specified. Existing law prescribes certain requirements and prohibitions for licensed firearms dealers. A violation of any of these requirements or prohibitions is grounds for forfeiture of a firearms dealer's license. For purposes of these provisions, existing law defines "machinegun" to mean, among other definitions, any weapon that shoots or is designed to shoot automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. This bill would, on and after July 1, 2026, prohibit a licensed firearms dealer to sell, offer for sale, exchange, give, transfer, or deliver any semiautomatic machinegun-convertible pistol, except as specified. For these purposes, the bill would define "machinegun-convertible pistol" as any semiautomatic pistol with a cruciform trigger bar that can be readily converted by hand or with common household tools into a machinegun by the installation or attachment of a pistol converter, as specified, and "pistol converter" as any device or instrument that, when installed in or attached to the rear of the slide of a semiautomatic pistol, replaces the backplate and interferes with the trigger mechanism and thereby enables the pistol to shoot automatically more than one shot by a single function of the trigger. The bill would make a violation of these provisions punishable by a fine, a 2nd violation punishable by a fine that may result in a suspension or revocation of the dealer's license and removal from certain centralized lists maintained by the Department of Justice, and a 3rd violation punishable as a misdemeanor that shall result in the revocation of the dealer's license and removal from certain centralized lists. Existing law prohibits the manufacture, sale, possession, or transportation of a machinegun, except as authorized. A violation of these prohibitions is punishable as a felony. This bill would expand the above definition of "machinegun" to include any machinegun-convertible pistol equipped with a pistol converter and, thus, prohibit the manufacture, sale, possession, or transportation of a machinegun-convertible pistol equipped with a pistol converter. Existing law, subject to certain exceptions, generally makes it an offense to manufacture or sell an unsafe handgun, as defined, and requires the Department of Justice to compile a roster listing all of the handguns that have been tested and determined not to be unsafe handguns. Existing law establishes criteria for determining if a handgun is an unsafe handgun, including, for firearms manufactured after a certain date and not already listed on the roster, the lack of a chamber load indicator and a magazine disconnect mechanism. For any pistol listed on the roster on January 1, 2026, that was not subject to the above-described requirements to be on the list because it was submitted for testing before specified dates, that is thereafter only modified to change the design features that brought the pistol within the definition of a machinegun-convertible pistol, and that is submitted to an independent certified laboratory for testing pursuant to the above-described testing provisions before January 1, 2027, this bill would authorize that pistol to be submitted for testing and added to the roster without meeting those requirements. This bill would make these provisions severable. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 3273.50 of the Civil Code proposed by AB 1263 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1263 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. By creating a new crime and expanding the application of an existing crime, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

(1) Existing law prohibits a person from carrying a concealed firearm or carrying a loaded firearm in public. Existing law authorizes a licensing authority, as specified, if certain requirements and other criteria are met, including, among other things, the applicant has completed a specified course of training, to issue a license to carry a concealed handgun or to carry a loaded and exposed handgun, as specified. Existing law requires a licensing authority to conduct an investigation to determine whether an applicant can receive or renew a license that includes, among other things, a review of all information provided in the application for a license, and a review of the information in the California Restraining and Protective Order System. Existing law prohibits the licensing authority from issuing a license if, among other things, the applicant has been convicted of contempt of court, has been subject to a restraining order, protective order, or other type of court order, unless that order expired or was vacated or otherwise canceled more than 5 years prior to receipt of the completed application, or, in the 10 years prior to the licensing authority receiving the completed application, has been convicted of specified criminal statutes. This bill would also prohibit a licensing authority from issuing a license if an applicant was convicted of, under any federal law or law of any other state that includes comparable elements of, contempt of court or specified criminal statutes in the 10 years prior to the completed application, was subject to any restraining order, protective order, or other type of court order, or is an unlawful user of, or addicted to, any controlled substance, as specified. Upon determining that an applicant is a disqualified person due to being an unlawful user of, or addicted to, any controlled substance, the bill would require the licensing authority to, within 5 days, submit to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System Index specified information of the disqualified person and supporting documentation, as specified. This bill would require the review of the California Restraining and Protective Order System to include information concerning whether the applicant is reasonably likely to be a danger to self, others, or the community at large, as specified. By imposing new duties on local licensing authorities, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. The bill would additionally exempt from the licensure prohibition for applicants previously subject to a restraining order, protective order, or other type of court order, applicants who were previously subject to an above-described order that did not receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before the order was issued. (2) Existing law prohibits a person who is licensed to carry a firearm from carrying a firearm in specified places, including schools, government buildings, hospitals, zoos, parks, churches, and a bus, train, or other form of public transportation. Existing law exempts a firearm that is secured in a lock box, as specified, under certain circumstances, from these prohibitions. This bill would exempt a firearm that is unloaded and locked in a lock box for the purpose of transporting the firearm from the prohibition on carrying the firearm on a bus, train, or other form of public transportation, including a building, real property, or parking area under the control of a public transportation authority. (3) Existing law requires, when a person applies for a new license or license renewal to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, a licensing authority, as specified, to issue or renew a license if the applicant has provided proof that, among other things, the applicant has completed a specified course of training, including live-fire shooting exercises on a firing range, and the applicant is the recorded owner of the pistol, revolver, or other firearm for which the license will be issued. This bill would clarify that these requirements for a new license or license renewal specifically apply to a California resident. For non-California residents, the bill would additionally require, among other requirements, the applicant to attest, under oath, that the jurisdiction in which the applicant has applied is the primary location in California in which they intend to travel or spend time, and that the applicant has completed live-fire shooting exercises for each pistol, revolver, or other firearm for which the applicant is applying to be licensed to carry in California. By requiring local agencies to issue licenses for concealed firearms to non-California residents and expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. If a psychological assessment on an initial application to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person is required by a licensing authority, existing law requires the applicant to be referred to a licensed psychologist acceptable to the licensing authority. This bill would authorize a licensing authority to allow a non-California resident applicant to satisfy this psychological assessment with a virtual psychological assessment, as specified, or approve this examination with a provider located within 75 miles of the applicant's residence. Existing law prohibits a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person from being issued if the Department of Justice determines that the applicant is prohibited by state or federal law from possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a firearm. Existing law also requires this license to be revoked by the local licensing authority if, at any time, the local licensing authority determines that, among other reasons, the licensee is prohibited by state or federal law from owning or purchasing a firearm. This bill would revoke or prohibit the issuance of that license by the local licensing authority if any certain situation occurred, including that an applicant knowingly provides any inaccurate or incomplete information in connection with an application for a license, a license renewal, or an amendment to a license. The bill would require a licensee to inform the local authority that issued the license of any restraining order or arrest, charge, or conviction of a specified crime and would prohibit the issuance of, or require the revocation of, that license based on the licensee's failure to inform the local licensing authority of any restraining order or arrest, charge, or conviction of a specified crime. (4) Existing law prohibits a person from making an application to purchase more than one firearm within any 30-day period. Existing law prohibits a dealer from delivering a firearm to a purchaser when the dealer is notified by the Department of Justice that, within the preceding 30-day period, the purchaser has made another application to purchase a firearm. Existing law requires a licensed dealer of firearms to conspicuously post a prescribed firearms safety warning message within the licensed premises, including that no person shall make an application to purchase more than one firearm, as specified, within any 30-day period, and no delivery shall be made to any person who has made an application to purchase more than one firearm, as specified, within any 30-day period. An existing federal district court order in a case pending appeal has enjoined the enforcement of the law limiting the number of firearms that a person is allowed to purchase in a 30-day period. This bill would, beginning April 1, 2026, increase the number of firearms that a person can apply to purchase within any 30-day period from one to 3 and would prohibit, beginning April 1, 2026, delivery of a firearm by a dealer if the dealer is notified by the Department of Justice that the purchaser has made an application to purchase one or more firearms that would result in the purchase of more than 3 firearms cumulatively within the 30-day period preceding the date of the application, as specified. The bill would make a conforming change to the required firearms safety warning. (5) Existing law makes it a crime for a person to own or possess a firearm if the person has been convicted of a felony, as specified. Existing law makes those provisions inapplicable to a conviction or warrant for a felony if, both the conviction of a like offense under California law can only result in imposition of felony punishment and the defendant received either, or both, a sentence to a federal correctional facility for more than 30 days and a fine exceeding $1,000. This bill would additionally make those provisions inapplicable to a conviction for a nonviolent felony under the laws of any other state if the conviction has been vacated, set aside, expunged, or otherwise dismissed and, if the conviction resulted in a firearms prohibition, the conviction relief restored the firearms rights, or if the conviction did not involve the use of a dangerous weapon and the person received a pardon, as specified. (6) Existing law requires a licensing authority to give written notice to an applicant, who is applying for a new license or license renewal to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, indicating if the license is approved or denied. Existing law requires the licensing authority to give this notice within 120 days of receiving the completed application for a new license or 30 days after receipt of specified information and report from the Department of Justice, whichever is later, and for a license renewal, the licensing authority has within 120 days of receiving the completed application to give this notice. In determining whether to approve or deny these applications, existing law requires the licensing authority to apply the statutory requirements in effect as of the date the licensing authority received the completed applications, except as specified. This bill would apply the 120-day notice requirement for a license renewal to a completed application for a license renewal submitted prior to September 1, 2026. For license renewal applications submitted on or after September 1, 2026, the bill would apply the above notice requirement for a completed application for a new license. The bill would delete the provision requiring the licensing authority to apply the statutory requirements in effect as of the date of receiving the completed application. 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.

Existing law generally regulates the licensing and operation of health facilities and other facilities providing health care in this state. Existing law, the Medical Practice Act, creates the Medical Board of California to license and regulate physicians and surgeons. Under existing law, the Dental Practice Act, the Dental Board of California licenses and regulates dentists. Existing law, the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law, generally requires a nonprofit public benefit corporation to give written notice to the Attorney General before it sells, leases, conveys, exchanges, transfers, or disposes of its assets, except as specified. Existing law provides specific procedures for health facilities and additionally requires these facilities to obtain the consent of the Attorney General prior to entering into a specified agreement or transaction. This bill would prohibit a private equity group or hedge fund, as defined, involved in any manner with a physician or dental practice doing business in this state from interfering with the professional judgment of physicians or dentists in making health care decisions and exercising power over specified actions, including, among other things, making decisions regarding coding and billing procedures for patient care services. The bill would prohibit a private equity group or hedge fund from entering into a contract or other agreement or arrangement with a physician or dental practice if the contract or other agreement or arrangement would enable the person or entity to engage in the prohibited actions described above and would make provisions of those contracts or other agreements that violate that prohibition void and unenforceable. The bill would prohibit and render void and unenforceable specified types of contracts between a physician or dental practice and a private equity group or hedge fund that include any clause barring any provider in that practice from competing with that practice in the event of a termination or resignation, or from disparaging, opining, or commenting on that practice in any manner as to any issues involving quality of care, utilization of care, ethical or professional challenges in the practice of medicine or dentistry, or revenue-increasing strategies employed by the private equity group or hedge fund, as specified. This bill would entitle the Attorney General to injunctive relief and attorney's fees and costs incurred in remedying violations of these provisions, as specified. The bill would make its provisions severable.

Existing law, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) , establishes the Civil Rights Department to enforce civil rights laws with respect to housing and employment and to protect and safeguard the right of all persons to obtain and hold employment without discrimination based upon specified characteristics or status. The FEHA makes certain discriminatory employment and housing practices unlawful, and authorizes a person claiming to be aggrieved by an alleged unlawful practice to file a verified complaint with the department. The FEHA requires the department to make an investigation in connection with a filed complaint alleging facts sufficient to constitute a violation of the FEHA, and requires the department to endeavor to eliminate the unlawful practice by conference, conciliation, and persuasion. Existing law authorizes a complaint to be filed by an aggrieved person or the department on behalf and as representative of a group or class if the alleged unlawful practice adversely affects, in a similar manner, a group or class of persons of which the aggrieved person is a member. This bill would define the term "group or class complaint" for purposes of the FEHA. Existing law tolls the time for a complainant to file a civil action alleging a violation of specified civil rights provisions commencing with the filing of a complaint with the department until the department files a civil action for the alleged violation or until one year after the department issues written notice that it has closed its investigation without filing a civil action. This bill would additionally toll the time for a complainant to file a civil action if the complainant timely appeals to the department the closure of their complaint until one year after the department issues written notice that it remains closed following the appeal. Existing law authorizes the director to bring a civil action in the name of the department, acting in the public interest, on behalf of an aggrieved person if conference, conciliation, mediation, or persuasion fails to eliminate an unlawful practice. Existing law imposes a deadline of one or 2 years for the department to bring a civil action, as specified. Existing law requires those deadlines to be tolled during a dispute resolution proceeding. This bill would additionally require those deadlines to be tolled pursuant to a written agreement by the complainant and the department, during the pendency of a petition to compel, and for the duration of an appeal to the department for the closure of a complaint. Under existing law, if the department does not file a civil action, the department is required to promptly issue the person claiming to be aggrieved a right-to-sue notice upon request, as specified, or upon completion of its investigation and not later than one year after the filing of the complaint. For a complaint treated as a group or class complaint, existing law requires the department to issue a right-to-sue notice upon completion of its investigation and not later than 2 years after the filing of the complaint. Existing law requires these deadlines to be tolled during a dispute resolution proceeding. Under this bill, if the department determines that an aggrieved person's complaint relates to a complaint filed in the name of the director or a group or class complaint, as specified, the department would be required to issue a right-to-sue notice after the director's or group or class complaint has been fully and finally disposed of and all administrative proceedings, civil actions, appeals, or related proceedings have terminated. The bill would require this deadline and the above-described deadlines relating to issuing a right-to-sue notice to additionally be tolled pursuant to a written agreement by the complainant and the department, during the pendency of a petition to compel, and for the duration of an appeal to the department for the closure of a complaint. Existing law authorizes the department, in the case of failure to eliminate specified violations relating to housing discrimination that have occurred, or that are about to occur, as specified, to bring a civil action in the name of the department. Existing law authorizes the action to be filed in any county where the unlawful practice is alleged to have been committed, the records relevant to that practice are maintained and administered, the aggrieved party would have resided, or the defendant's residence or principal office is located, as specified. This bill would remove the above-described provisions specifying the counties where the civil action may be filed.