UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM N-CSR

CERTIFIED SHAREHOLDER REPORT OF REGISTERED
MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANIES

Investment Company Act File Number: 811-04525

T. Rowe Price California Tax-Free Income Trust

(Exact name of registrant as specified in charter)

100 East Pratt Street, Baltimore, MD 21202

(Address of principal executive offices)

David Oestreicher

100 East Pratt Street, Baltimore, MD 21202

(Name and address of agent for service)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (410) 345-2000

Date of fiscal year end: February 28

Date of reporting period: August 31, 2013

The views and opinions in this report were current as of August 31, 2013. They are not guarantees of performance or investment results and should not be taken as investment advice. Investment decisions reflect a variety of factors, and the managers reserve the right to change their views about individual stocks, sectors, and the markets at any time. As a result, the views expressed should not be relied upon as a forecast of the fund’s future investment intent. The report is certified under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which requires mutual funds and other public companies to affirm that, to the best of their knowledge, the information in their financial reports is fairly and accurately stated in all material respects.

Sign up for our E-mail Program, and you can begin to receive updated fund reports and prospectuses online rather than through the mail. Log in to your account at troweprice.com for more information.

California tax-free municipal bond prices declined in the six-month period ended August 31, 2013, as interest rates rose across all fixed income markets. Intermediate- and long-term municipal and Treasury bond prices fell as Federal Reserve officials clarified their intention to moderate the Fed’s asset purchases later this year—if the economy evolves in line with the central bank’s projections. Shorter-term securities held up somewhat better but still struggled as cash flowed out of the municipal bond market. Lower-quality municipals fared worse than higher-quality issues in both the investment-grade and high yield markets. The California Tax-Free Bond Fund declined but exceeded its benchmark average of similar funds due to its more conservative positioning. The California Tax-Free Money Fund was roughly flat over the period.

The U.S. economy grew at a moderate 2.5% pace in the second quarter of 2013, overcoming the headwinds stemming from the higher tax rates and federal spending reductions that took effect in the first quarter. The housing recovery continues, inflation has been low amid a pullback in commodity prices, and employment growth has maintained a moderate pace. However, the national unemployment rate—measured at 7.3% in August—remains elevated. We believe economic growth in the months ahead will remain moderate.

To support the recovery, the Federal Reserve kept short-term interest rates very low and continued buying $45 billion in Treasuries and $40 billion in agency mortgage-backed securities every month to suppress longer-term rates. However, the Fed is poised to begin tapering its asset purchases later this year if the recovery stays on track. Based on the Fed’s current forecast, asset purchases will cease around mid-2014.

Bond yields rose across both the Treasury and high-quality municipal yield curves in anticipation of reduced stimulus from the Fed, but long-term municipal yields rose more than long-term Treasury yields, which is unusual. In fact, the municipal yield curve is historically steep: High-quality 30-year municipal yields are at least 400 basis points (four percentage points) greater than high-quality munis maturing in two years or less. On a relative basis, this has increased the attractiveness of long-term tax-free bonds as an alternative for fixed income investors. As of August 31, the 4.45% yield offered by a 30-year tax-free bond rated AAA was about 120% of the 3.70% pretax yield offered by a 30-year Treasury bond. An investor in the 28% federal tax bracket would need to invest in a taxable bond yielding about 6.18% to receive the same after-tax income. (To calculate a municipal bond’s taxable-equivalent yield, divide the municipal bond’s yield by the quantity of 1.00 minus your federal tax bracket expressed as a decimal—in this case, 1.00 – 0.28, or 0.72.)

Year-to-date municipal issuance totaled about $228 billion, according to The Bond Buyer. Issuance had been picking up in early 2013, but the sharp increase in bond yields since late April reduced new issuance moderately. Formerly brisk demand for municipal securities evaporated in the last few months as rising rates, bond losses, and credit concerns in certain parts of the muni market prompted investors to lock in gains after more than two years of solid performance. While austerity-minded state and local government leaders remain conservative about adding to indebtedness—which we consider to be supportive and will likely keep 2013 issuance below last year’s level—additional cash flows out of municipal bond portfolios could continue to weigh on the market.

Since the 2007–2009 recession, most states have acted responsibly by cutting spending and raising taxes and fees to close budget deficits. While state tax revenues are growing again, the pattern has been slower and more uneven than in the past, and expense pressures continue. We believe that many states deserve high credit ratings and that state governments will be able to continue servicing their outstanding debts. However, we have longer-term concerns about some states’ willingness and ability to address sizable pension obligations and other retirement benefits. In July, Detroit filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection in federal court, but we do not believe that this is evidence of a systemic breakdown in municipal credit fundamentals. On the other hand, the deteriorating fiscal situation in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico could pose greater risk to the broader muni market. Puerto Rico’s liabilities are large relative to the size of its economy, with close to $50 billion of municipal debt outstanding and over $70 billion of general indebtedness for the territory and its various governmental agencies. While we are significantly underweight in exposure to Puerto Rico debt—holding only sales tax-backed and public power bonds and no general obligations (GOs) or appropriations-backed debt—we are following the situation closely.

Municipal bond performance in the last six months reflected a sharp increase in interest rates and a reduction in market liquidity amid broad selling. In terms of sectors, GOs held up slightly better than revenue bonds. We prefer bonds backed by a dedicated revenue stream over GOs, with a bias toward transportation and utility bonds issued by these essential service providers. Among revenue bonds, special tax and industrial revenue were two of the weakest sectors. Health care-related issues also fared poorly, and we are becoming increasingly selective among hospital revenue bonds, as new issue supply and some credit concerns are weighing on the sector. Housing revenue bonds were helped by the residential real estate recovery but still declined moderately.

Moody’s and S&P rate California’s GO debt A1 and A, respectively, with stable outlooks from both agencies. Fitch upgraded its credit rating on California debt to A with a stable outlook in early August. California issues lease- and appropriation-backed debt, which is typically rated one notch below the GO pledge. As of August 1, 2013, California had $74.3 billion of GO bonds and $11.8 billion of lease- and appropriation-backed debt outstanding.

California’s creditworthiness generally improved over the last year as its economy strengthened. The year-over-year nonfarm employment level rose 2.2% to 14.7 million jobs in July 2013, lifted by strong gains in the leisure and hospitality and the professional and business services sectors. The state’s monthly jobless rate fell to 8.7% from 10.7% over the same period. The housing sector continued to strengthen. The median price for a single-family home rose 30.0% to $433,910 in the 12 months ended July 2013; however, sales fell at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 16.2%, suggesting that inventory may be tightening, according to the California Association of Realtors.

For the first two months of fiscal 2014 (ended August 31, 2013), total receipts were $11.9 billion, slightly shy of the governor’s estimate of $12.2 billion, according to the California State Controller’s Office. Personal income and retail sales and use tax receipts fell by $385 million, but this drop was mitigated by $81 million in gains in corporate, other, and nonrevenue receipts. Officials expect a surplus of more than $1 billion in the state’s General Fund in the fiscal 2014 budget approved in June, following a modest gain in fiscal 2013. This is a noteworthy turnaround from previous years, when the General Fund experienced operating deficits.

California Tax-Free Money Fund
The California Tax-Free Money Fund returned 0.01% for the six months ended August 31, 2013, in line with the Lipper California Tax-Exempt Money Market Funds Index. All money market rates continue to be closely tied to the fed funds target range of 0.00% to 0.25%.

Over the last six months, yields in all sectors of the money market continued to drift lower toward the fed funds rate, which currently averages under 0.10%. Low supply in most money market sectors has put downward pressure on yields. In taxable markets, companies have ample cash and banks have plentiful deposits, reducing their need to access the money markets. Municipal issuers, like their taxable counterparts, have until recently found financing in the longer-term bond market more attractive due to low rates. At the same time, assets in money funds remain fairly stable.

Yields across all money market sectors moved lower over the period. For example, the yield on three-month Treasury bills tightened 10 basis points during the past six months to yield 0.02%. In the California money market, rates range from around 0.04% for overnight maturities to around 0.17% for notes maturing in one year. Over the past six months, the money market yield curve steepened slightly as yields on maturities of less than 90 days moved lower while yields on one-year maturities were little changed. This move lower on the front end of the yield curve resulted partly from buying from taxable money market funds, which find the structure and yield of municipal variable rate demand notes attractive. Although yields in the long-term municipal market rose sharply in the middle of our reporting period, the one-year space has remained anchored by the fed funds rate.

Our investment selection focuses on debt with the highest credit quality. We are overweight to highly rated hospitals, higher education, water and sewer revenue, and rerated prerefunded bonds. Issuers in these sectors include Kaiser Health Systems, University of California, and Los Angeles Department of Water and Sewer. Bank liquidity providers always play a big part in financing short-term municipal debt. The banking sector’s health has significantly improved in recent years, helped by stricter regulatory requirements. Still, the supply of bank liquidity in the municipal money market remains limited. Our largest bank liquidity exposures continue to be JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, U.S. Bank, and Federal Home Loan Bank. (Please refer to the fund’s portfolio of investments for a complete list of our holdings and the amount each represents in the portfolio.)

In June 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed further changes to the regulations governing money market funds. The SEC accepted comments on these proposals until September 17, 2013. We do not expect new regulations to become final until late 2014 and expect the SEC to grant a substantial amount of time for advisors to implement any changes.

While prospects for Fed tapering will affect longer-term munis, the money markets will remain anchored by the fed funds target range, which we don’t expect to change until 2015. Therefore, we expect yields to remain range-bound for the foreseeable future. Given this outlook, we continue to operate in the longer range of our targeted weighted average maturity of 50 to 55 days. As always, we are committed to managing a high-quality, diversified portfolio focused on liquidity and stability of principal.

California Tax-Free Bond Fund
The California Tax-Free Bond Fund returned -6.75% for the six months ended August 31, 2013, outperforming the -7.52% return of our Lipper peer group of similarly managed funds. While the fund’s absolute return was disappointing, it did not fall as sharply as some of our peers due to its more conservative posture.

From a performance perspective, bonds with longer maturities and longer duration saw the greatest declines, while bonds with shorter maturities—namely, 10 years and under—declined the least over the reporting period. Underweight allocations to tobacco and Puerto Rico debt, both of which underperformed the overall market, significantly benefited our relative performance. Tax-exempt bonds issued by various entities for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico—whose interest income is exempt from federal and state taxes in all 50 states—have drastically declined in price due to growing concerns about the territory’s longstanding fiscal challenges and rising debt. We have been decreasing our Puerto Rico holdings for the past two years. Long-term health care and transportation bonds—particularly airport debt—also underperformed. However, an underweight to low-coupon and zero-coupon bonds, which both underperformed, mitigated losses.

Our yield curve positioning changed little over the reporting period. Our exposure to longer maturities declined by roughly 4%, yet we remain overweight relative to the Barclays Municipal Bond Index. Longer-dated munis suffered the most as the yield curve steepened sharply in recent months, but our holdings in this segment—mainly premium coupon bonds—were more defensive in nature. The fund carries an underweight to bonds in the 3- to 10-year range and a market weight versus the benchmark to bonds maturing in 15 years. Valuations in the latter range have declined less than longer-dated bonds but may be more vulnerable once the Fed begins to tighten monetary policy. We have maintained cash balances at higher-than-normal levels through this volatile period.

The fund’s duration increased from 5.3 to 6.6 years and is longer than that of the benchmark. (A longer duration means the fund is more sensitive to changes in interest rates.) Its weighted average maturity, however, fell by a little over one year to 16.8 years as we sold bonds with longer maturities. The fund has lagged its peer group in recent years due to its more conservative credit posture; however, in the past six months, our conservative approach has benefited relative performance, allowing us to gain significantly on our peers.

Our investment strategy of maintaining an underweight to GO debt and an overweight to revenue-backed bonds remains intact. Our underweight is mainly attributable to local GO debt, an area in which we have been highly selective given our outlook for elevated fiscal challenges. We are more positive at the state level, however, with California’s recent fiscal improvement and ongoing fiscal conservatism. The fund’s quality diversification changed little over the past six months. We slightly increased the fund’s overweight in the A rated sector, largely as a result of increasing our bond holdings with California State as a guarantor.

The decline in municipal bond prices has rattled some investors, but it does not represent a fundamental change in the nature, quality, or risk characteristics of the market. We continue to believe that it is a high-quality market, offering good investment opportunities for those with a long-term focus and attractive tax-free income—particularly for those in the highest tax brackets—in what is still a very low interest rate environment. The recent underperformance of long-term munis makes their nominal and taxable-equivalent yields even more attractive, as noted earlier, but if rates continue rising unabated and market outflows persist, further price declines are likely.

We have been concerned about the potential for rising rates for some time. Our interest rate strategy and economics teams regularly make forward-looking projections of rates and yield curves, and these assessments are incorporated in our investment strategies. Given the potential for rates to rise further, we will remain careful with any investment shift that might materially increase our portfolios’ interest rate sensitivity. However, we believe further rate increases will be more modest than what we have seen in the last few months.

Irrespective of interest rate movements, the credit and economic environment for municipalities is likely to remain challenging. Modest economic growth and improving income and sales tax revenues are providing some support for state and local governments. However, cutbacks in state support for municipalities and persistent downward pressure on property tax revenues could keep local municipal issuers vulnerable. If the economy weakens, municipalities would face even tougher challenges.

State and local government liabilities, such as pension benefits and health care costs, are a growing long-term concern. While most municipal governments are maintaining balanced budgets, fewer municipalities have addressed these longer-term liabilities meaningfully. States will need to continue these efforts on their own, as a federal bailout of state and local governments without some losses to bondholders seems unlikely. As for Detroit, we will be monitoring the bankruptcy proceedings closely because there is the potential for adverse legal precedents to arise out of the case.

We believe T. Rowe Price’s strong credit research capabilities have been and will remain an asset for our investors. Even as interest rates return to more normal levels, bonds will remain an important asset class, and we expect to continue finding good investment opportunities for long-term-oriented, income-seeking investors. We continue to conduct thorough research and assign our own independent credit ratings before making investment decisions. As always, we are on the lookout for attractively valued bonds issued by municipalities with good long-term fundamentals—an investment strategy that we believe will continue to serve our long-term investors well.

Joseph K. Lynagh
Chairman of the Investment Advisory Committee
California Tax-Free Money Fund

Konstantine B. Mallas
Chairman of the Investment Advisory Committee
California Tax-Free Bond Fund

The committee chairmen have day-to-day responsibility for managing the portfolios and work with committee members in developing and executing the funds’ investment programs.

Since money market funds are managed to maintain a constant $1.00 share price, there should be little risk of principal loss. However, there is no assurance the fund will avoid principal losses if fund holdings default or are downgraded or if interest rates rise sharply in an unusually short period. In addition, the fund’s yield will vary; it is not fixed for a specific period like the yield on a bank certificate of deposit. An investment in the fund is not insured or guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) or any other government agency. Although a money market fund seeks to preserve the value of your investment at $1.00 per share, it is possible to lose money by investing in it.

Bonds are subject to interest rate risk (the decline in bond prices that usually accompanies a rise in interest rates) and credit risk (the chance that any fund holding could have its credit rating downgraded or that a bond issuer will default by failing to make timely payments of interest or principal), potentially reducing the fund’s income level and share price. The fund is less diversified than one investing nationally. Some income may be subject to state and local taxes and the federal alternative minimum tax.

Barclays Municipal Bond Index: A broadly diversified index of tax-exempt bonds.

Duration: A measure of a bond fund’s sensitivity to changes in interest rates. For example, a fund with a duration of five years would fall about 5% in price in response to a one-percentage-point rise in interest rates, and vice versa.

Federal funds rate: The interest rate charged on overnight loans of reserves by one financial institution to another in the United States. The Federal Reserve sets a target federal funds rate to affect the direction of interest rates.

General obligation (GO) debt: A government’s strongest pledge that obligates its full faith and credit, including, if necessary, its ability to raise taxes.

Investment grade: High-quality bonds as measured by one of the major credit rating agencies. For example, Standard & Poor’s designates the bonds in its top four categories (AAA to BBB) as investment grade.

Lipper averages: The averages of available mutual fund performance returns for specified time periods in categories defined by Lipper Inc.

Lipper indexes: Fund benchmarks that consist of a small number (10 to 30) of the largest mutual funds in a particular category as tracked by Lipper Inc.

Prerefunded bond: A bond that originally may have been issued as a general obligation or revenue bond but that is now secured by an escrow fund consisting entirely of direct U.S. government obligations that are sufficient for paying the bondholders.

SEC yield (7-day simple): A method of calculating a money fund’s yield by annualizing the fund’s net investment income for the last seven days of each period divided by the fund’s net asset value at the end of the period. Yield will vary and is not guaranteed.

SEC yield (30-day): A method of calculating a fund’s yield that assumes all portfolio securities are held until maturity. Yield will vary and is not guaranteed.

Weighted average life: A measure of a fund’s credit quality risk. In general, the longer the average life, the greater the fund’s credit quality risk. The average life is the dollar-weighted average maturity of a portfolio’s individual securities without taking into account interest rate readjustment dates. Money funds must maintain a weighted average life of less than 120 days.

Weighted average maturity: A measure of a fund’s interest rate sensitivity. In general, the longer the average maturity, the greater the fund’s sensitivity to interest rate changes. The weighted average maturity may take into account the interest rate readjustment dates for certain securities. Money funds must maintain a weighted average maturity of less than 60 days.

Yield curve: A graph depicting the relationship between yields and maturity dates for a set of similar securities. These curves are in constant flux. One of the key activities in managing any fixed income portfolio is to study the trends reflected by yield curves.

This chart shows the value of a hypothetical $10,000 investment in the fund over the past 10 fiscal year periods or since inception (for funds lacking 10-year records). The result is compared with benchmarks, which may include a broad-based market index and a peer group average or index. Market indexes do not include expenses, which are deducted from fund returns as well as mutual fund averages and indexes.

As a mutual fund shareholder, you may incur two types of costs: (1) transaction costs, such as redemption fees or sales loads, and (2) ongoing costs, including management fees, distribution and service (12b-1) fees, and other fund expenses. The following example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) of investing in the fund and to compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the most recent six-month period and held for the entire period.

Actual Expenses
The first line of the following table (Actual) provides information about actual account values and expenses based on the fund’s actual returns. You may use the information on this line, together with your account balance, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number on the first line under the heading “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes
The information on the second line of the table (Hypothetical) is based on hypothetical account values and expenses derived from the fund’s actual expense ratio and an assumed 5% per year rate of return before expenses (not the fund’s actual return). You may compare the ongoing costs of investing in the fund with other funds by contrasting this 5% hypothetical example and the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period.

Note: T. Rowe Price charges an annual account service fee of $20, generally for accounts with less than $10,000. The fee is waived for any investor whose T. Rowe Price mutual fund accounts total $50,000 or more; accounts electing to receive electronic delivery of account statements, transaction confirmations, prospectuses, and shareholder reports; or accounts of an investor who is a T. Rowe Price Preferred Services, Personal Services, or Enhanced Personal Services client (enrollment in these programs generally requires T. Rowe Price assets of at least $100,000). This fee is not included in the accompanying table. If you are subject to the fee, keep it in mind when you are estimating the ongoing expenses of investing in the fund and when comparing the expenses of this fund with other funds.

You should also be aware that the expenses shown in the table highlight only your ongoing costs and do not reflect any transaction costs, such as redemption fees or sales loads. Therefore, the second line of the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. To the extent a fund charges transaction costs, however, the total cost of owning that fund is higher.

T. Rowe Price California Tax-Free Income Trust (the trust), is registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the 1940 Act). The California Tax-Free Money Fund (the fund) is a diversified, open-end management investment company established by the trust. The fund commenced operations on September 15, 1986. The fund seeks to provide preservation of capital, liquidity, and, consistent with these objectives, the highest level of income exempt from federal and California state income taxes.

Basis of Preparation The accompanying financial statements were prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, which require the use of estimates made by management. Management believes that estimates and valuations are appropriate; however, actual results may differ from those estimates, and the valuations reflected in the accompanying financial statements may differ from the value ultimately realized upon sale or maturity.

Investment Transactions, Investment Income, and Distributions Income and expenses are recorded on the accrual basis. Premiums and discounts on debt securities are amortized for financial reporting purposes. Income tax-related interest and penalties, if incurred, would be recorded as income tax expense. Investment transactions are accounted for on the trade date. Realized gains and losses are reported on the identified cost basis. Distributions to shareholders are recorded on the ex-dividend date. Income distributions are declared daily and paid monthly.

Credits The fund earns credits on temporarily uninvested cash balances held at the custodian, which reduce the fund’s custody charges. Custody expense in the accompanying financial statements is presented before reduction for credits.

New Accounting Guidance On March 1, 2013, the fund adopted new accounting guidance, issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board, that requires an entity to disclose information about offsetting and related arrangements to enable users of its financial statements to understand the effect of those arrangements on its financial position. Adoption had no effect on the fund’s net assets or results of operations.

The fund’s financial instruments are valued and its net asset value per share (NAV) is computed at the close of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), normally 4 p.m. ET, each day the NYSE is open for business. The fund’s financial instruments are reported at fair value, which GAAP defines as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. The T. Rowe Price Valuation Committee (the Valuation Committee) has been established by the fund’s Board of Trustees (the Board) to ensure that financial instruments are appropriately priced at fair value in accordance with GAAP and the 1940 Act. Subject to oversight by the Board, the Valuation Committee develops and oversees pricing-related policies and procedures and approves all fair value determinations.

Various valuation techniques and inputs are used to determine the fair value of financial instruments. GAAP establishes the following fair value hierarchy that categorizes the inputs used to measure fair value:

Level 1 – quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical financial instruments that the fund can access at the reporting date

Level 2 – inputs other than Level 1 quoted prices that are observable, either directly or indirectly (including, but not limited to, quoted prices for similar financial instruments in active markets, quoted prices for identical or similar financial instruments in inactive markets, interest rates and yield curves, implied volatilities, and credit spreads)

Observable inputs are developed using market data, such as publicly available information about actual events or transactions, and reflect the assumptions market participants would use to price the financial instrument. Unobservable inputs are those for which market data are not available and are developed using the best information available about the assumptions that market participants would use to price the financial instrument. GAAP requires valuation techniques to maximize the use of relevant observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs. Input levels are not necessarily an indication of the risk or liquidity associated with financial instruments at that level but rather the degree of judgment used in determining those values. For example, securities held by a money market fund are generally high quality and liquid; however, they are reflected as Level 2 because the inputs used to determine fair value are not quoted prices in an active market.

In accordance with Rule 2a-7 under the 1940 Act, the fund values its securities at amortized cost, which approximates fair value. Securities for which amortized cost is deemed not to reflect fair value are stated at fair value as determined in good faith by the Valuation Committee. On August 31, 2013, all of the fund’s financial instruments were classified as Level 2 in the fair value hierarchy.

Consistent with its investment objective, the fund engages in the following practices to manage exposure to certain risks and/or to enhance performance. The investment objective, policies, program, and risk factors of the fund are described more fully in the fund’s prospectus and Statement of Additional Information.

Restricted Securities The fund may invest in securities that are subject to legal or contractual restrictions on resale. Prompt sale of such securities at an acceptable price may be difficult and may involve substantial delays and additional costs.

No provision for federal income taxes is required since the fund intends to continue to qualify as a regulated investment company under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code and distribute to shareholders all of its income and gains. Distributions determined in accordance with federal income tax regulations may differ in amount or character from net investment income and realized gains for financial reporting purposes. Financial reporting records are adjusted for permanent book/tax differences to reflect tax character but are not adjusted for temporary differences. The amount and character of tax-basis distributions and composition of net assets are finalized at fiscal year-end; accordingly, tax-basis balances have not been determined as of the date of this report.

The fund intends to retain realized gains to the extent of available capital loss carryforwards. Net realized capital losses may be carried forward indefinitely to offset future realized capital gains.

At August 31, 2013, the cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $82,436,000.

The fund is managed by T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. (Price Associates), a wholly owned subsidiary of T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. (Price Group). The investment management agreement between the fund and Price Associates provides for an annual investment management fee, which is computed daily and paid monthly. The fee consists of an individual fund fee, equal to 0.10% of the fund’s average daily net assets, and a group fee. The group fee rate is calculated based on the combined net assets of certain mutual funds sponsored by Price Associates (the group) applied to a graduated fee schedule, with rates ranging from 0.48% for the first $1 billion of assets to 0.275% for assets in excess of $400 billion. The fund’s group fee is determined by applying the group fee rate to the fund’s average daily net assets. At August 31, 2013, the effective annual group fee rate was 0.30%.

The fund is also subject to a contractual expense limitation through June 30, 2015. During the limitation period, Price Associates is required to waive its management fee and reimburse the fund for any expenses, excluding interest, taxes, brokerage commissions, and extraordinary expenses that would otherwise cause the fund’s ratio of annualized total expenses to average net assets (expense ratio) to exceed its expense limitation of 0.55%. For a period of three years after the date of any reimbursement or waiver, the fund may repay Price Associates for expenses previously reimbursed and management fees waived to the extent its net assets have grown or expenses have declined sufficiently to allow repayment without causing the fund’s expense ratio to exceed its expense limitation. Such repayment is subject to shareholder approval. Pursuant to this agreement, management fees in the amount of $48,000 were waived during the six months ended August 31, 2013. Including these amounts, management fees waived in the amount of $325,000 remain subject to repayment by the fund at August 31, 2013.

Price Associates may voluntarily waive all or a portion of its management fee and reimburse operating expenses to the extent necessary for the fund to maintain a zero or positive net yield (voluntary waiver). This voluntary waiver is in addition to the contractual expense limit in effect for the fund. Any amounts waived or reimbursed under this voluntary agreement are not subject to repayment by the fund. Price Associates may amend or terminate this voluntary arrangement at any time without prior notice. For the six months ended August 31, 2013, management fees waived and operating expenses reimbursed totaled $167,000.

In addition, the fund has entered into service agreements with Price Associates and a wholly owned subsidiary of Price Associates (collectively, Price). Price Associates computes the daily share price and provides certain other administrative services to the fund. T. Rowe Price Services, Inc., provides shareholder and administrative services in its capacity as the fund’s transfer and dividend disbursing agent. For the six months ended August 31, 2013, expenses incurred pursuant to these service agreements were $46,000 for Price Associates and $20,000 for T. Rowe Price Services, Inc. The total amount payable at period-end pursuant to these service agreements is reflected as Due to Affiliates in the accompanying financial statements.

A description of the policies and procedures used by T. Rowe Price funds and portfolios to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available in each fund’s Statement of Additional Information. You may request this document by calling 1-800-225-5132 or by accessing the SEC’s website, sec.gov.

The description of our proxy voting policies and procedures is also available on our website, troweprice.com. To access it, click on the words “Social Responsibility” at the top of our corporate homepage. Next, click on the words “Conducting Business Responsibly” on the left side of the page that appears. Finally, click on the words “Proxy Voting Policies” on the left side of the page that appears.

Each fund’s most recent annual proxy voting record is available on our website and through the SEC’s website. To access it through our website, follow the above directions to reach the “Conducting Business Responsibly” page. Click on the words “Proxy Voting Records” on the left side of that page, and then click on the “View Proxy Voting Records” link at the bottom of the page that appears.

The fund files a complete schedule of portfolio holdings with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year on Form N-Q. The fund’s Form N-Q is available electronically on the SEC’s website (sec.gov); hard copies may be reviewed and copied at the SEC’s Public Reference Room, 100 F St. N.E., Washington, DC 20549. For more information on the Public Reference Room, call 1-800-SEC-0330.

On March 5, 2013, the fund’s Board of Trustees (Board), including a majority of the fund’s independent trustees, approved the continuation of the investment management agreement (Advisory Contract) between the fund and its investment advisor, T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. (Advisor). In connection with their deliberations, the Board requested, and the Advisor provided, such information as the Board (with advice from independent legal counsel) deemed reasonably necessary. The Board considered a variety of factors in connection with its review of the Advisory Contract, also taking into account information provided by the Advisor during the course of the year, as discussed below:

Services Provided by the Advisor
The Board considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services provided to the fund by the Advisor. These services included, but were not limited to, directing the fund’s investments in accordance with its investment program and the overall management of the fund’s portfolio, as well as a variety of related activities such as financial, investment operations, and administrative services; compliance; maintaining the fund’s records and registrations; and shareholder communications. The Board also reviewed the background and experience of the Advisor’s senior management team and investment personnel involved in the management of the fund, as well as the Advisor’s compliance record. The Board concluded that it was satisfied with the nature, quality, and extent of the services provided by the Advisor.

Investment Performance of the Fund
The Board reviewed the fund’s three-month, one-year, and year-by-year returns, as well as the fund’s average annualized total returns over the 3-, 5-, and 10-year periods, and compared these returns with a wide variety of previously agreed-upon comparable performance measures and market data, including those supplied by Lipper and Morningstar, which are independent providers of mutual fund data.

On the basis of this evaluation and the Board’s ongoing review of investment results, and factoring in the relative market conditions during certain of the performance periods, the Board concluded that the fund’s performance was satisfactory.

Costs, Benefits, Profits, and Economies of Scale
The Board reviewed detailed information regarding the revenues received by the Advisor under the Advisory Contract and other benefits that the Advisor (and its affiliates) may have realized from its relationship with the fund, including any research received under “soft dollar” agreements and commission-sharing arrangements with broker-dealers. The Board considered that the Advisor may receive some benefit from soft-dollar arrangements pursuant to which research is received from broker-dealers that execute the applicable fund’s portfolio transactions. The Board received information on the estimated costs incurred and profits realized by the Advisor from managing T. Rowe Price mutual funds. While the Board did not review information regarding profits realized from managing the fund in particular because the fund had not achieved sufficient scale to produce meaningful profit margin percentages, the Board concluded that the Advisor’s profits were reasonable in light of the services provided to the funds.

The Board also considered whether the fund benefits under the fee levels set forth in the Advisory Contract from any economies of scale realized by the Advisor. Under the Advisory Contract, the fund pays a fee to the Advisor for investment management services composed of two components—a group fee rate based on the combined average net assets of most of the T. Rowe Price mutual funds (including the fund) that declines at certain asset levels and an individual fund fee rate based on the fund’s average daily net assets—and the fund pays its own expenses of operations (subject to an expense limitation agreed to by the Advisor). In addition to the contractual expense limitation, the Board also noted that an arrangement is in place whereby the Advisor may voluntarily waive all or a portion of the management fee it is entitled to receive from the fund or pay all or a portion of the fund’s operating expenses in order to maintain a zero or positive net yield for the fund. The Board concluded that the advisory fee structure for the fund continued to provide for a reasonable sharing of benefits from any economies of scale with the fund’s investors.

Fees
The Board was provided with information regarding industry trends in management fees and expenses, and the Board reviewed the fund’s management fee rate, operating expenses, and total expense ratio in comparison to fees and expenses of other comparable funds based on information and data supplied by Lipper. The information provided to the Board indicated that the fund’s management fee rate (after including reductions resulting from management fee waivers) was below the median for comparable funds and the fund’s total expense ratio (after including reductions resulting from management fee waivers and expenses paid by the Advisor) was at or below the median for comparable funds.

The Board also reviewed the fee schedules for institutional accounts and private accounts with similar mandates that are advised or subadvised by the Advisor and its affiliates. Management provided the Board with information about the Advisor’s responsibilities and services provided to institutional account clients, including information about how the requirements and economics of the institutional business are fundamentally different from those of the mutual fund business. The Board considered information showing that the mutual fund business is generally more complex from a business and compliance perspective than the institutional business and that the Advisor generally performs significant additional services and assumes greater risk in managing the fund and other T. Rowe Price mutual funds than it does for institutional account clients.

On the basis of the information provided and the factors considered, the Board concluded that the fees paid by the fund under the Advisory Contract are reasonable.

Approval of the Advisory Contract
As noted, the Board approved the continuation of the Advisory Contract. No single factor was considered in isolation or to be determinative to the decision. Rather, the Board concluded, in light of a weighting and balancing of all factors considered, that it was in the best interests of the fund and its shareholders for the Board to approve the continuation of the Advisory Contract (including the fees to be charged for services thereunder). The independent trustees were advised throughout the process by independent legal counsel.

A code of ethics, as defined in Item 2 of Form N-CSR, applicable to its principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer or controller, or persons performing similar functions is filed as an exhibit to the registrant’s annual Form N-CSR. No substantive amendments were approved or waivers were granted to this code of ethics during the registrant’s most recent fiscal half-year.

(a) Not applicable. The complete schedule of investments is included in Item 1 of this Form N-CSR.

Item 7. Disclosure of Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures for Closed-End Management Investment Companies.

Item 9. Purchases of Equity Securities by Closed-End Management Investment Company and Affiliated Purchasers.

(a) The registrant’s principal executive officer and principal financial officer have evaluated the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures within 90 days of this filing and have concluded that the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures were effective, as of that date, in ensuring that information required to be disclosed by the registrant in this Form N-CSR was recorded, processed, summarized, and reported timely.

(b) The registrant’s principal executive officer and principal financial officer are aware of no change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s second fiscal quarter covered by this report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

(a)(1) The registrant’s code of ethics pursuant to Item 2 of Form N-CSR is filed with the registrant’s annual Form N-CSR.

(2) Separate certifications by the registrant's principal executive officer and principal financial officer, pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and required by Rule 30a-2(a) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, are attached.

(3) Written solicitation to repurchase securities issued by closed-end companies: not applicable.

(b) A certification by the registrant's principal executive officer and principal financial officer, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and required by Rule 30a-2(b) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, is attached.

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Company Act of 1940, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

T. Rowe Price California Tax-Free Income Trust

	By	/s/ Edward C. Bernard
		Edward C. Bernard
		Principal Executive Officer

Date October 16, 2013

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Company Act of 1940, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.

	By	/s/ Edward C. Bernard
		Edward C. Bernard
		Principal Executive Officer

Date October 16, 2013


	By	/s/ Gregory K. Hinkle
		Gregory K. Hinkle
		Principal Financial Officer

Date October 16, 2013