Existing law requires a person or business that conducts business in California and that seeks to sell specified products or services, to take reasonable steps, as specified, to ensure that the purchaser is of legal age at the time of purchase or delivery, including, but not limited to, verifying the age of the purchaser. That law specifies that a person or business that violates these provisions is subject to a civil penalty not exceeding $7,500 for each violation. This bill would add nitrous oxide, as provided, to the above-referenced list of specified products or services. The bill would prohibit an online seller from allowing a purchaser to use a gift card or store credit for specified products or services that are illegal to sell to a minor. The bill would increase the amount of the civil penalty that may be imposed upon a person or business that violates these provisions to $7,500 for each violation, and would also authorize a court to exercise its discretion to increase the civil penalty imposed upon a business if it had annual gross revenues in excess of $25,000,000 in the preceding calendar year, to an amount not exceeding $250,000 per violation if it finds that doing so is necessary to deter future violations. The bill would specify that a public prosecutor that brings an action for violation of these provisions may also seek injunctive relief and attorney's fees and costs.
Existing law, the State Bar Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of attorneys by the State Bar of California (State Bar) , a public corporation governed by a board of trustees. Existing law makes it a misdemeanor for a person who is not a member of the State Bar, or authorized to practice law, to practice law in this state. Existing law regulates, among other things, fee agreements, legal advertising and referral services, the sale of financial products to a client, and the allowable forms of organization of a law practice, including a law corporation. Existing law, until January 1, 2030, prohibits an attorney licensed or otherwise authorized to practice in the state from sharing legal fees directly or indirectly with an out-of-state entity that provides legal services while allowing nonlawyer ownership or decisionmaking authority, except as specified. Existing law authorizes the board of trustees, with the approval of the Supreme Court to formulate and enforce rules of professional conduct on all licensees. A violation of these provisions may result in disciplinary action against a licensed attorney or other remedies. This bill would make a corporate legal funder interfering with a substantive litigation decision or exercising control over a litigation function, an unauthorized practice of law. The bill would prohibit a litigation practice from contracting with a corporate legal funder for specific terms, including restricting an attorney or client from withdrawing from representation in the event of a nonlawyer engaging in the unauthorized practice of law under these provisions. This bill would prohibit a corporate legal funder, or an entity it controls, from entering into any contract, agreement, or arrangement with a litigation practice if the contract would constitute an unauthorized practice of law under these provisions, and would further prohibit and void a contract or terms that would permit or facilitate an unauthorized practice of law under these provisions, as specified. This bill would provide that these provisions shall not be construed to prohibit the practice of nonrecourse litigation finance and that the practice of nonrecourse litigation finance shall not constitute impermissible fee sharing under the above-described provisions or the rules of professional conduct, as provided. The bill would deem a violation of these provisions by an attorney as grounds for the imposition of discipline by the State Bar and subject an attorney and the corporate legal funder to statutory or actual damages, attorney's fees and costs, and other relief, as specified. The bill would define terms for these purposes. This bill would exempt violation of its provisions from the criminal prohibitions. This bill would specify that its provisions only apply to contracts entered into on and after January 1, 2027.
The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, an initiative measure approved by the voters as Proposition 65 at the November 4, 1986, statewide general election, prohibits a person, in the course of doing business, from knowingly and intentionally exposing any individual to a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without giving a specified warning, or from knowingly discharging or releasing that chemical into water, or into or onto land and passing into any source of drinking water, except as specified. The act authorizes a person, acting in the public interest, to bring an action to enforce the requirements of the act if specified requirements are met. If there is a settlement of an action brought by a person in the public interest, the act requires the plaintiff to submit the settlement to the court for approval upon noticed motion, and authorizes the court to approve the settlement only if the court makes specified findings, as provided, including that the award of attorney's fees is reasonable under state law. This bill would additionally require the court to find that the award of attorney's fees is appropriate under state law and that the settlement is in the public interest and provides a public benefit. The bill would further require, under a specified circumstance, the court to find that the settlement would require the defendant to reduce the exposure to the listed chemical from the level that existed before the settlement or provide a warning that complies with the act if that warning was not provided previously. The bill would also establish a procedure pursuant to which the court would be authorized to enter an award of attorney's fees if the Attorney General objects to the award of attorney's fees set forth in the settlement, as provided. Proposition 65 provides that it may be amended by a statute, passed by a 23 vote of each house of the Legislature, to further its purposes. This bill would find and declare that it furthers the purposes of Proposition 65.
Existing law defines an electric bicycle and classifies electric bicycles into 3 classes with different restrictions. Under existing law, a "class 1 electric bicycle" is a bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling and ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour. Under existing law, a "class 2 electric bicycle" is a bicycle equipped with a motor that may be used exclusively to propel the bicycle and is not capable of providing assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour. Under existing law, a "class 3 electric bicycle" is a bicycle equipped with a speedometer and a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 28 miles per hour. Existing law prohibits a person under 16 years of age from operating a class 3 electric bicycle. This bill, the San Mateo Electric Bicycle Safety Pilot Program, would, until January 1, 2031, authorize a local authority within the County of San Mateo, or the County of San Mateo in unincorporated areas, to adopt an ordinance or resolution that would prohibit a person under 12 years of age from operating a class 1 or 2 electric bicycle. For the first 60 days following the adoption of an ordinance or resolution for this purpose, the bill would make a violation of the ordinance or resolution punishable by a warning notice. After 60 days, the bill would make a violation of the ordinance or resolution punishable by a fine of $25, except as specified. This bill would make a parent or legal guardian with control or custody of an unemancipated minor who violates the ordinance or resolution jointly and severally liable with the minor for the amount of the fine imposed. The bill would, if an ordinance or resolution is adopted, require the county to, by January 1, 2030, submit a report to the Legislature that includes, among other things, the total number of traffic stops initiated for a violation of the ordinance or resolution, the results of those traffic stops, and the actions taken by a peace officer during a traffic stop, as specified. The bill would require a local authority or county to administer a public information campaign for at least 30 calendar days prior to the enactment of the ordinance or resolution, as specified.
Existing law establishes the Instructional Quality Commission and requires the commission to, among other things, recommend curriculum frameworks to the State Board of Education. This bill would require the commission, during the next revision of the publication "Health Framework for California Public Schools," to consider including, and recommending for adoption by the state board, specific content related to sexual health instruction to educate pupils about dating abuse and digital violence, as described.
Existing law subjects a person between 12 and 17 years of age, inclusive, who commits a crime, and a person under 12 years of age who commits specified crimes, to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge that person to be a ward of the court. Under existing law, as added by the Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Act of 1998, approved as Proposition 21 at the March 7, 2000, statewide primary election, a minor may be eligible for deferred entry of judgment if certain circumstances apply, including, among others, that the minor has not previously been declared to be a ward of the court for the commission of a felony offense. Existing law requires, once eligibility is established, the court to determine whether the minor is suitable for deferred entry of judgment and would benefit from education, treatment, and rehabilitation efforts. This bill would require the court to consider whether the minor is charged with an offense of carrying a loaded firearm, as specified, when evaluating suitability of the minor for deferred entry of judgment.
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 (EIR) 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. The Permit Streamlining Act sets forth various procedures for the review and approval of development project applications. Among other things, the act requires a public agency that is the lead agency or a responsible agency for a development project to approve or disapprove the project within a specified period of time, which varies depending on the project's phase in the CEQA process. The act defines "development project" to include specified housing development projects, as provided. This bill would additionally require approval or disapproval of a housing development project within 30 days from the date of certification by the lead agency of the EIR, if the EIR is prepared pursuant to specified provisions of CEQA if certain other conditions are met. The bill would also define "housing development project" for the purposes of the Permit Streamlining Act and make additional conforming changes. By imposing additional duties on local agencies, 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, the California Public Records Act, requires each state or local agency, upon a request for a copy of records that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records, to make the records promptly available to any person upon payment of fees covering direct costs of duplication, or a statutory fee if applicable, except with respect to public records exempt from disclosure by express provisions of law. Existing law requires each agency, within 10 days of a request for a copy of records, to determine whether the request seeks copies of disclosable public records in possession of the agency and to promptly notify the person of the determination and the reasons therefor. Existing law authorizes that time limit to be extended by no more than 14 days under unusual circumstances, as defined. This bill would instead require each agency to determine whether the request seeks copies of disclosable public records in possession of the agency and to promptly notify the person as described above within 10 business days of a request for a copy of records. The bill would instead authorize the time period for each agency to respond to be extended by no more than 14 business days. The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. 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. Existing law authorizes the Director of the Department of Managed Health Care to authorize a pilot program in southern California under which approved providers may undertake risk-bearing arrangements with a voluntary employees' beneficiary association with enrollment of more than 100,000 lives, as specified, beginning no earlier than January 1, 2022, to December 31, 2027, inclusive, if certain criteria are met. Existing law requires the association and each participating health care provider to report to the department information regarding cost savings and clinical patient outcomes compared to a fee-for-service payment model. Existing law requires the department to report those findings to the Legislature after the termination of the pilot program and before January 1, 2027. Existing law repeals these provisions on January 1, 2030. This bill would extend that repeal date to January 1, 2031. The bill would extend the end date of the pilot program to December 31, 2030, but would authorize the department to terminate the pilot program for specified reasons and would require the department to terminate the pilot program prior to the pilot program's end date based on any significant negative findings in any report, including if the department identifies any serious deficiencies that could cause enrollee harm. The bill would, instead of requiring the department to report findings to the Legislature after the termination of the pilot program, require the department to submit an interim report of the findings described above and policy recommendations regarding the continuation of the pilot program to the Legislature before January 1, 2029.
Existing law requires the State Department of Health Care Services to license and regulate adult alcohol or other drug recovery or treatment facilities that provide residential nonmedical services, as specified, and further requires the department to certify and regulate alcohol and other drug programs, as specified. This bill would require an alcohol or other drug treatment facility and an alcohol or other drug program to participate in a public consumer protection platform, as defined, designated or designed by the department in order to be licensed or certified. The bill would specify that participation in the public consumer protection platform pursuant to these provisions is only required if the department determines that sufficient funding has been appropriated or otherwise secured to cover the costs of participation in the platform, as specified. The bill would authorize the department to charge a reasonable fee to alcohol or other drug treatment facilities and alcohol or other drug programs required to enroll in the platform, as specified, and would prohibit the administrator of the public consumer protection platform from accepting payment from the entities subject to these provisions. The bill would authorize the department to verify compliance with participation in the public consumer protection platform as part of the certification or licensing process. The bill would prohibit participation in the consumer protection platform from being used as a criterion in evaluating bids, proposals, network participation, reimbursement, or contract performance for publicly funded substance use disorder treatment services. The bill would require the consumer protection platform, if managed by an entity other than the department, to collect and publicly display information from each participating treatment provider on the provider's adoption of evidence-based practices in substance use disorder care, as specified. The bill would authorize the department to implement, interpret, or make specific those provisions by means of provider bulletins, written guidelines, or similar instructions.
Under existing law, if parties to pending litigation settle the matter, the court may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement and, upon stipulation by the settling parties, dismiss the settling parties without prejudice while retaining jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement. This bill would permit the enforcement, pursuant to the above provision and under specified conditions, of a settlement agreement that resolves a tort claim against a local public entity that is eligible for payment from a victims' compensation fund or other victim-related financial assistance program, as specified. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
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 and other incentives or concessions, as specified, if the developer agrees to construct, among other options, 20% of the total units, as defined, for lower income students in a student housing development that meets certain requirements. These requirements include, among other things, that all units in the student housing development be used exclusively for undergraduate, graduate, or professional students enrolled full time at an institution of higher learning, and the rent provided in the applicable units of the development for lower income students is calculated at 30% of 65% of the area median income for a single-room occupancy unit type. This bill, for the purposes of a student housing development being eligible for a density bonus and other incentives or concessions, would revise and recast the rent requirements for the applicable units of the development for lower income students. The bill would also require a city or county to provide an additional density bonus, as specified, for a student housing development that meets the requirements for being eligible for the above-described density bonus and meets other specified criteria, including that the development provides 24% of the total units to lower income students, and the applicant agrees to include additional rental units affordable to moderate-income students, as defined, provided that the resulting student housing development would not restrict more than 50% of the total units, as defined, to moderate-income or lower income students. By imposing new duties on local governments, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65915 of the Government Code proposed by AB 2433, SB 1383, or both, to be operative only if this bill and AB 2433, SB 1383, or both are enacted and this bill is enacted last. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
