Existing law, commonly known as the Cyberbullying Protection Act, requires a social media platform, as defined, to disclose all cyberbullying reporting procedures in the social media platform's terms of service and to establish a mechanism within its internet-based service that allows an individual, whether or not that individual has a profile on the internet-based service, to report cyberbullying or content that violates the existing terms of service. The act defines "cyberbullying" to mean any severe or pervasive conduct made by an electronic act, as specified, committed by a pupil or group of pupils directed toward one or more pupils that has, or can reasonably be predicted to have, certain effects, including placing a reasonable pupil in fear of harm to that pupil's person or property. The act makes a social media platform that violates its provisions liable for a civil penalty of not more than $7,500 for each intentional violation to be assessed and recovered in a civil action brought in the name of the people of the State of California by the Attorney General. The act also authorizes a court to order injunctive relief to obtain compliance with these provisions. This bill would generally apply the act's provisions to minors rather than pupils. The bill would define the phrase "severe or pervasive conduct" to include only content that has, or can be reasonably predicted to have, specified harmful, detrimental, or substantially interfering effects. The bill would provide that "severe conduct" may also include conduct that, among other things, calls for self-injury or suicide of a minor or a specific person or of a group of individuals related to a minor. The bill would additionally require the mechanism required by the act to meet additional criteria, including that the mechanism provides, within 36 hours of receipt of a report, written confirmation to the reporting individual that the social media platform received that individual's report. The bill would authorize civil actions for relief only by a parent, legal guardian, or administrator who submits a report of cyberbullying to the social media platform, a city attorney, a district attorney, a county counsel, or the Attorney General. The bill would increase the civil liability for violating the act to $10,000 and would make a social media platform that violates the act's provisions liable for compensatory and punitive damages, as provided. The bill would authorize a court to award reasonable attorney's fees and costs to the prevailing plaintiff, as specified. This bill would state that its provisions are severable. The bill would also make a nonsubstantive change.
(1) Existing law, until January 1, 2025, authorizes the Los Angeles Unified School District's Inspector General of the Office of the Inspector General to conduct audits and investigations, as specified, including administering oaths or affirmations. Existing law makes it a misdemeanor, punishable as specified, for a person, after the administration of an oath or affirmation by the inspector general, to state or affirm as true any material matter that they know to be false. Existing law requires the inspector general to submit to the Legislature annual interim reports and a final cumulative report. This bill would extend the authority of the inspector general of the Los Angeles Unified School District indefinitely. By extending the operation of a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the inspector general to instead submit an annual report to the Legislature on or before July 1 of each year. The bill would expressly require the inspector general to be appointed by the Board of Education of the Los Angeles Unified School District for a term of 3 years, subject to the terms of the inspector general's employment contract, and would require the Office of the Inspector General to conform to the Principles and Standards for Offices of Inspector General and would require audits performed by the Office of the Inspector General to be conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, as provided. (2) 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. (3) This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Los Angeles Unified School District.
Existing unemployment compensation disability law requires workers to pay contribution rates based on, among other things, wages received in employment and benefit disbursement, for payment into the Unemployment Compensation Disability Fund, for purposes of compensating in part for the wage loss sustained by any individual who is unable to work due to the employee's own sickness or injury, among other reasons. Existing law sets forth standards for eligibility to receive unemployment compensation disability benefits. Existing law establishes, within the above state disability insurance program, a family temporary disability insurance program, also known as the paid family leave program, for the provision of wage replacement benefits for up to 8 weeks to workers who take time off work for prescribed purposes, including to care for a seriously ill family member. Existing law requires, for purposes of unemployment compensation disability benefits, the Employment Development Department to issue the initial payment for unemployment compensation disability benefits to a monetarily eligible claimant who is otherwise determined eligible by the department within 14 days of receipt of the claimant's properly completed first disability claim. Existing law provides for purposes of the paid family leave program that eligible workers shall receive benefits generally in accordance with unemployment and disability compensation law. This bill would instead require, for purposes of unemployment compensation disability benefits, the issuance of the initial payment for those benefits within 14 days of receipt of the claimant's properly completed first disability claim or as soon as eligibility begins, whichever is later. The bill would apply the same initial payment issuance schedule applicable to unemployment compensation disability benefits to the paid family leave program and repeal the requirement that eligible workers receive benefits generally in accordance with unemployment and disability compensation law. The bill would make these changes operative when these changes are incorporated in the Employment Development Department's integrated claims management system as part of the EDDNext project. Under the state disability insurance and paid family leave programs, a first claim is required to be filed not later than the 41st consecutive day following the first compensable day with respect to which the claim is made for benefits, as specified. This bill would authorize an individual to initiate the claims process up to 30 days in advance of the anticipated first compensable day. The bill would make these changes operative when the changes are incorporated in the Employment Development Department's integrated claims management system as part of the EDDNext project.
Existing law, the Alfred E. Alquist Hospital Facilities Seismic Safety Act of 1983, establishes a program of seismic safety building standards for certain hospitals. Existing law requires, by January 1, 2030, owners of all acute care inpatient hospitals to either seismically retrofit all acute care inpatient hospitals, or demolish, replace, or change to nonacute care use all hospital buildings not in substantial compliance with regulations and standards developed by the department in accordance with the act, as specified. This bill would authorize the Children's Hospital Los Angeles to seek approval from the Department of Health Care Access and Information for an extension to the January 1, 2030, compliance deadline described above by up to 3 years. The bill would authorize the hospital to submit a seismic compliance plan, as specified, and, if necessary, a Nonstructural Performance Category-5 evaluation report in order to seek an extension. The bill would also require the hospital and department to identify least 2 major milestones relating to the seismic compliance plan that will be used as the basis for determining whether a hospital is making adequate progress towards meeting the hospital's seismic compliance deadline. The bill would subject the submitted seismic compliance plan to departmental review for reasonableness and require the hospital seeking the extension to submit any documentation requested by the department to assist its review. The bill would require the department to approve or deny a seismic compliance plan and any extension to the seismic compliance deadline within 120 days. The bill would also authorize the department to adjust the approved extension of time, the milestones agreed upon, or both, as necessary to deal with contractor, labor, or material delays, acts of God, governmental entitlements, or other circumstances beyond the hospital's control. The bill would impose a fine of $5,000 per calendar day for the hospital's failure to comply with a revised construction schedule or to meet any major milestone established by the department until the requirements or milestones, respectively, are met. The bill would also generally prohibit these hospitals from being issued a building permit for any building in the facility except those required for seismic compliance, maintenance, and emergency repairs until the milestone is met and the hospital is adequately progressing toward meeting the hospital's seismic compliance, as determined by the department. The bill would require the department to implement the above-described provisions by regulation, as specified. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the County of Los Angeles.
Existing law, the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act of 2016 (AUMA) , an initiative measure, authorizes a person who obtains a state license under AUMA to engage in commercial adult-use cannabis activity pursuant to that license and applicable local ordinances. Existing law, the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA) , among other things, consolidates the licensure and regulation of commercial medicinal and adult-use cannabis activities and requires the Department of Cannabis Control to administer its provisions. Under MAUCRSA, the Department of Cannabis Control has sole authority to license and regulate commercial cannabis activity, which MAUCRSA defines to include, among other activities, the sale of cannabis and cannabis products. Existing law requires all civil penalties imposed and collected by a court in actions brought for violations of MAUCRSA to be deposited into the General Fund, except as provided. Existing law places various advertising and marketing restrictions on licensees, including prohibiting a licensee from publishing or disseminating advertising or marketing that is attractive to children, and from advertising or marketing cannabis or cannabis products in a manner intended to encourage consumption by persons under 21 years of age or on an advertising sign within 1,000 feet of a daycare center, school, or youth center. Existing law also prohibits a licensee from advertising or marketing on a billboard or similar advertising device located on an interstate highway or on a state highway that crosses the California border. This bill would expand the above-described restrictions to a person engaged in commercial cannabis activity, whether licensed or unlicensed. Existing law governs the cultivation of industrial hemp in this state and establishes a registration program administered by county agricultural commissioners and the Department of Food and Agriculture for growers of industrial hemp, hemp breeders, and established agricultural research institutions, as defined. The Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, among other things, regulates the labeling of food, beverages, and cosmetics and makes it a crime to distribute in commerce any food, drug, device, or cosmetic if its packaging or labeling does not conform to these provisions. Violation of the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law is a misdemeanor. Existing law imposes various advertising requirements on hemp manufacturers, as defined, including, among other things, prohibiting directly targeting advertising or marketing to children or to persons who are pregnant or breastfeeding. This bill would instead require a manufacturer, distributor, or seller of industrial hemp to comply with advertising and marketing restrictions similar to those under MAUCRSA as described above. By expanding the scope of a misdemeanor, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would authorize the Attorney General, a city attorney, or a county counsel to bring and maintain an action to redress a violation of the above-described advertising and marketing restrictions. The bill would require the Attorney General, a city attorney, or a county counsel who prevails in an action to be awarded injunctive relief and would authorize them to be awarded reasonable attorney's fees and costs and civil penalties of not more than $5,000 per violation for a licensed cannabis business or an industrial hemp registrant and not more than $30,000 for an unlicensed cannabis business or an unregistered business engaged in the sale of products that contain industrial hemp, as specified. The bill would require civil penalties awarded in an action to be distributed pursuant to existing law provisions referenced above. The bill would prohibit a defendant from being subject to more than one action in connection with the same, or substantially similar, advertising or marketing, except as provided. The bill would prohibit these provisions from being construed to limit or otherwise alter, in any way, any other authority conferred by law upon the Attorney General, the department, or any other state or local officer or agency, as specified. 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, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Disparities Reduction Act, requires the State Department of Public Health, among other specified state entities, in the course of collecting demographic data directly or by contract as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians, to collect voluntary self-identification information pertaining to sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersexuality. This bill would replace the term "intersexuality" with the term "variations in sex characteristics/intersex status" and would make conforming changes to related provisions. Existing law, as an exception to the provision above, authorizes those state entities, instead of requiring them, to collect the demographic data under either of the following circumstances: (a) pursuant to federal programs or surveys, whereby the guidelines for demographic data collection categories are defined by the federal program or survey; or (b) demographic data are collected by other entities, including other state agencies, surveys administered by third-party entities and the state department is not the sole funder, or third-party entities that provide aggregated data to a state department. This bill, notwithstanding the exception above, would require the State Department of Public Health to collect the demographic data from third parties, including, but not limited to, local health jurisdictions, on any forms or electronic data systems, unless prohibited by federal or state law. To the extent that the bill would create new duties for local officials in facilitating the department's data collection, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would specify that the provisions above do not require (1) the State Department of Public Health to collect demographic data from an individual under 18 years of age, as specified, or (2) health care providers or other third parties to collect, disclose, or report information that is not voluntarily provided self-identification information pertaining to sexual orientation, gender identity, and variations in sex characteristics/intersex status (SOGISC) . Existing law requires the above-described state entities to report to the Legislature the data collected and the method used to collect the data, and to make the data available to the public, except for personally identifiable information. Existing law deems that personally identifiable information confidential and prohibits its disclosure. Existing law sets forth different deadlines, depending on the specified state entity, for complying with those requirements. This bill would require the State Department of Public Health, for purposes of the data collected by the department on SOGISC, to comply with the above-described requirements as early as possible but no later than March 28, 2029. (2) Existing law authorizes local health officers and the State Department of Public Health to operate immunization information systems. Existing law requires health care providers and other certain agencies, including schools and county human services agencies, to disclose specified immunization and other information about the patient or client to local health departments and the State Department of Public Health. Existing law authorizes local health departments and the State Department of Public Health to disclose most of that same information, as specified, to each other and to other entities. Existing law authorizes a patient or a patient's parent or guardian to refuse to permit recordsharing, as specified. Under existing law, the information that is subject to disclosure under those provisions includes, among other things, certain data on immunizations received, the patient's or client's date of birth, race and ethnicity, and gender. This bill would add the adult patient's or client's SOGISC and sex assigned at birth to the list of information subject to disclosure. Under the bill, a health care provider would only be required to disclose SOGISC information that is voluntarily provided by the patient or client. The bill would prohibit a health care provider from disclosing that information as it relates to any patient or client who is under 18 years of age. The bill would make conforming changes to the above-described provisions on data sharing. By expanding the duties of local officials with regard to disclosing demographic information to certain entities, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) The bill would require the State Department of Public Health to prepare an annual report concerning SOGISC data collected by the department. The bill would require the department to annually post and make available the report on the department's internet website and to annually submit the report to the Legislature, excluding any personally identifiable information. The bill would require the annual report to include, among other certain information, the department's efforts to collect, analyze, and report SOGISC data and, until fully implemented, the progress that the department has made in implementing recommendations set forth in a related 2023 report by the California State Auditor's Office. (4) 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. (5) 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, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care, and makes a willful violation of the act a crime. Existing law provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Department of Insurance. Existing law sets forth specified coverage requirements for health care service plan contracts and health insurance policies, and limits the copayment, coinsurance, deductible, and other cost sharing that may be imposed for specified health care services. This bill would require a health care service plan contract or health insurance policy issued, amended, or renewed on or after January 1, 2025, to provide coverage for the prophylaxis, diagnosis, and treatment of Pediatric Autoimmune Neuropsychiatric Disorder Associated with Streptococcal Infections (PANDAS) and Pediatric Acute-onset Neuropsychiatric Syndrome (PANS) that is prescribed or ordered by the treating physician and surgeon and is medically necessary, as specified. The bill would prohibit coverage for PANDAS and PANS from being subject to a copayment, coinsurance, deductible, or other cost sharing that is greater than that applied to other benefits. The bill would prohibit a plan or insurer from denying or delaying coverage for PANDAS or PANS therapies because the enrollee or insured previously received treatment for PANDAS or PANS or was diagnosed with or received treatment for the condition under a different diagnostic name. Because a willful violation of these provisions by a health care service plan would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law establishes the University of California, under the administration of the Regents of the University of California, as one of the segments of postsecondary education in the state. This bill would request the University of California to post, on or before December 1, 2026, and each December 1 thereafter, in a report on a publicly accessible internet website of the University of California, data on students enrolled in a University of California school of medicine. The bill would request the report to include, among other categories of data, the total number of first-generation students and the total number of federal Pell Grant recipients enrolled in a University of California school of medicine. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2035.
(1) Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district to accept pupils from other school districts by adopting a resolution to become a school district of choice, in accordance with various programmatic and procedural requirements and limitations, including, among other requirements and limitations, that the school district of choice accept all pupils who apply to transfer until the school district of choice is at maximum capacity, and that pupils are selected through an unbiased process, as specified. Existing law prohibits school districts of choice from targeting their communications to individual parents or residential neighborhoods on the basis of a pupil's or pupils' actual or perceived academic skill or other personal characteristics. This bill would expand that prohibition to also prohibit school districts of choice from targeting their communications to individual parents or residential neighborhoods on the basis of a pupil's or pupils' actual or perceived proficiency in English, family income, or their disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of a hate crime, as defined. (2) Existing law requires the governing board of each local educational agency to either provide for an audit of the books and accounts of the local educational agency, including an audit of income and expenditures by source of funds, or make arrangements with the county superintendent of schools having jurisdiction over the local educational agency to provide for that auditing. Existing law requires that audit to include compliance with the above-described provisions. This bill would require the audit to instead include compliance with all provisions of the district of choice program. (3) Existing law authorizes a school district of choice to reject the transfer of a pupil if the transfer of that pupil would require the school district to create a new program to serve that pupil, except that a school district of choice is prohibited from rejecting the transfer of a special needs pupil, including an individual with exceptional needs, as defined, and an English learner. This bill would expand that prohibition to further prohibit a school district of choice from rejecting the transfer of a pupil who is a foster youth, as defined, or a homeless child or youth, as defined. (4) Existing law requires school districts of choice to give first priority for attendance to siblings of children already in attendance in the school district, and requires school districts of choice to give second priority for attendance to pupils eligible for free or reduced-price meals. This bill would require school districts of choice to also give second priority for attendance to pupils who are foster youth or homeless children or youth. (5) Existing law authorizes school districts of residence with an average daily attendance greater than 50,000 to limit the number of pupils transferring out each year to 1% of its current year estimated average daily attendance. Existing law authorizes school districts of residence with an average daily attendance of 50,000 or less to limit the number of pupils transferring out to 3% of its current year estimated average daily attendance, and to limit the maximum number of pupils transferring out for the duration of the school district of choice program to 10% of the average daily attendance for that period. Existing law authorizes a school district of residence that has a negative status on the most recent budget certification completed by the county superintendent of schools in any fiscal year, regardless of its average daily attendance, to limit the number of pupils who transfer out of the district in that fiscal year. This bill would require the 1%, 3%, and 10% transfer caps to be based off the average daily attendance as reported as of the first principal apportionment of the prior fiscal year instead of its current year estimated average daily attendance. The bill would authorize a school district of residence with either a qualified or negative status, instead of only those with a negative status, on the most recent budget certification completed by the county superintendent of schools in any fiscal year, regardless of its average daily attendance, to limit the number of pupils who transfer out of the district in that fiscal year. The bill would require a county office of education, upon request of a school district of residence to determine the percentage of pupils transferring out of the school district of residence for the duration of the program, and would require the county office of education to request data from the school district of choice regarding the number of pupils transferring into the school district of choice. By imposing additional duties on county offices of education, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. If the school district of choice does not provide the number of pupils transferring into the school district of choice to the county office of education within 30 days, the bill would prohibit the school district of choice from accepting new pupil transfers pursuant to the school district of choice program until the school district of choice complies with the county office of education data request. (6) Existing law prescribes an application process for the school district of choice program that includes specified deadlines and requires, among other things, that the governing board of the school district of choice include in a written notification to the parent that the number of pupils applying to transfer exceeded the capacity of the school district of choice and that the pupil was not selected during the random drawing. This bill would revise and recast those provisions by, among other things, (A) requiring the written notification to specify whether the number of pupils applying to transfer exceeded the capacity of the school district of choice or the specific school or program to which the pupil applied, (B) requiring the school district of choice, on or before January 15, to notify the school district of residence of the number and names of the pupils who are requesting transfers, and (C) requiring the school district of residence, on or before February 15, to notify the school district of choice of the total number and names of the pupils requesting transfers in excess of the above-described caps, as specified. (7) Existing law establishes a public school financing system that requires state funding for county superintendents of schools, school districts, and charter schools to be calculated pursuant to a local control funding formula, as specified. Existing law requires the local control funding formula, in part, to be based on average daily attendance, as specified. If an audit identifies a school district of choice as having accepted pupils from a school district of residence after the school district of residence has provided the notice that it has reached one of the above-described caps, this bill would require the auditor to determine the average daily attendance generated by each pupil in excess of the applicable cap whose transfer originated from the school district of residence subsequent to the notice, disaggregated by local control funding formula grade span, to calculate the portion of the school district of choice's local control funding formula apportionment attributable to that average daily attendance, and to report that amount to the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and would require the Superintendent, notwithstanding any other law, to reduce the school district of choice's local control funding formula apportionment each year by the amount calculated and reported by the auditor. (8) Existing law requires each school district of choice to keep an accounting of all requests made for transfers pursuant to a school district of choice program and records of all disposition of those requests, which are required to include, among other things, the number of pupils transferred out of the school district of choice pursuant to the program, the number of pupils transferred into the school district of choice pursuant to the program, and the race, ethnicity, gender, self-reported socioeconomic status, eligibility for free or reduced-price meals, and the school district of residence of each of those pupils. This bill would add a pupil's foster youth status and homeless child or youth status to that required accounting. (9) Existing law requires the Legislative Analyst's Office to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the school district of choice program and prepare recommendations regarding the program. Existing law requires the evaluation and recommendations to be submitted to the appropriate education policy committees of the Legislature and to the Department of Finance by September 30, 2026. This bill would repeal those requirements. (10) Existing law makes the school district of choice program inoperative as of July 1, 2028, and repeals its provisions as of January 1, 2029. This bill would repeal those sunset provisions, thereby extending the school district of choice program indefinitely. (11) This bill also would make other nonsubstantive changes. (12) 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 generally regulates employment and, with certain exceptions, requires a 3-part test, commonly known as the "ABC" test, to determine if workers are employees or independent contractors for purposes of the Labor Code, the Unemployment Insurance Code, and the wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission. This bill would impose minimum requirements, commencing January 1, 2025, relating to contracts between a hiring party and a freelance worker, defined as a person, as specified, that is hired or retained as a bona fide independent contractor by a hiring party to provide professional services in exchange for an amount equal to or greater than $250, as specified. Specifically, the bill would require a hiring party to pay a freelance worker the compensation specified by a contract for professional services on or before the date specified by the contract or, if the contract does not specify a date, no later than 30 days after completion of the freelance worker's services. The bill would require a contract between a hiring party and a freelance worker to be in writing and would require a hiring party to retain the contract for no less than 4 years. The bill would prohibit a hiring party from discriminating or taking adverse action against a freelance worker for taking specified actions relating to the enforcement of these provisions. The bill would authorize an aggrieved freelance worker or a public prosecutor to bring a civil action to enforce these provisions, as specified.
Existing law, the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act, requires the State Department of Developmental Services to allocate funds to private nonprofit regional centers for the provision of community services and supports for persons with developmental disabilities and their families. Existing law permits regional centers to purchase in-home respite services for regional center clients. Existing law defines in-home respite services as intermittent or regularly scheduled temporary nonmedical care and supervision provided in the client's own home, for a regional center client who resides with a family member. Existing law, the Aid to Families with Dependent Children-Foster Care (AFDC-FC) program, requires foster care providers to be paid a per-child per-month rate, established by the State Department of Social Services, for the care and supervision of the child placed with the provider. Existing law generally provides for the placement of foster youth in various placement settings. Existing law provides for the implementation of the resource family approval process and defines a resource family as an individual or family who has successfully met both the home environment assessment standards and permanency assessment criteria, as specified, necessary for providing care for a child placed by a public or private child placement agency by court order, or voluntarily placed by a parent or legal guardian. Existing law prohibits children who receive both AFDC-FC benefits and regional center services and who reside with a relative, nonrelative extended family member, or specified community care facility that is not vendored by the regional center as a residential facility from being prohibited from receiving in-home respite services. This bill would add children who receive both AFDC-FC benefits and regional center services and who reside with a resource family to the above-described prohibition. The bill would also add Indian children who receive both AFDC-FC benefits and regional center services and who reside with an extended family member, as defined, or a tribally approved home, as defined, to the above-described prohibition. The bill would require regional centers to assess a small family home for service need, as specified, prior to approving in-home respite services for children in that placement type. To the extent that the bill increases the duties of the county in administering the AFDC-FC program, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would make other technical changes. This bill would clarify that, for purposes of the provisions relating to children who receive both AFDC-FC benefits and regional center services, the terms "child" and "children" include a nonminor dependent, as defined. The bill would find and declare that this provision is declaratory of existing law. 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 Planning and Zoning Law, among other things, authorizes a development proponent to submit an application for a housing development that is subject to a specified streamlined, ministerial approval process not subject to a conditional use permit, if the development satisfies certain objective planning standards. 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 does not apply to the approval of ministerial projects. This bill would make a development that meets specified objective planning standards, including that, among other things, it is on a parcel that is within a zone where office, retail, health care, or parking are a principally permitted use, a permitted use and would require a local agency to review an application for that development on an administrative, nondiscretionary basis. The bill would require a local agency, within 60 calendar days of receiving an application pursuant to these provisions, to approve or deny the application subject to specified requirements, including that, among other things, if the local agency determines that the development is in conflict with any of the above-described standards, the local agency is required to provide the development proponent written documentation of which standard or standards the development conflicts with, as specified. The bill would provide that a development eligible for approval pursuant to this process is not a "project" for purposes of CEQA, thereby expanding the exemption for ministerial approval of projects under CEQA. By increasing duties on local governments in reviewing and approving these developments, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize a development proponent to bring an action to enforce the bill's provisions, as specified, and would make its provisions enforceable by the Attorney General and provide the Attorney General an unconditional right to intervene to enforce the bill's provisions. The bill would define various terms for these purposes. 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 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.
