Existing law provides that generally if an employee is discharged or laid off, wages earned by the employee are due and payable immediately. Existing law provides specified requirements for certain occupations, including temporary services employees, employees engaged in the production or broadcasting of motion pictures, and employees at venues that host live theatrical or concert events. Existing law provides that an employee engaged in the production or broadcasting of motion pictures whose employment terminates is entitled to receive payment of wages earned at the time of termination by the next regular payday. Existing law provides for civil penalties for violations of these provisions. This bill would provide that an "events employee," as defined, whose employment terminates is entitled to receive payment of wages earned at the time of termination by the next regular payday, except as specified. The bill would provide that these provisions do not apply to the payment of wages of specified public employees. The bill would make conforming changes to the provisions requiring payment of wages due upon termination of employment. By expanding the definition of a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Sections 203, 203.1, and 220 of the Labor Code proposed by SB 671 to be operative only if this bill and SB 671 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Sponsored bills
Existing law requires each state agency to make a review of all proprietary state lands over which it has jurisdiction, subject to certain exceptions, and to report to the Department of General Services on those lands in excess of its foreseeable needs. Existing law requires the jurisdiction over lands reported excess to be transferred to the department upon request. Existing law requires the Department of General Services to report to the Legislature annually on the lands declared excess. Existing law requires a city or county to have a general plan for development with a housing element and to submit the housing element to the Department of Housing and Community Development prior to adoption or amendment. Existing law requires that the housing element include an inventory of land suitable and available to residential development, as specified. This bill would require the Department of Housing and Community Development to furnish the Department of General Services with a list of local lands suitable and available for residential development as identified by a local government as part of the housing element of its general plan. The bill would require the Department of General Services to create a database of that information and information regarding state lands determined or declared excess and to make this database available and searchable by the public by means of a link on its internet website. The bill would require for any housing element adopted on or after January 1, 2021, that the local planning agency submit an electronic copy of the inventory of land suitable and available for residential development to the Department of Housing and Community Development. By requiring local governments to electronically submit the inventory of land suitable and available for residential development to the department, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would authorize the Department of Housing and Community Development to review, adopt, amend, and repeal the standards, forms, or definitions to implement provisions regarding the inventory of land suitable and available for residential development. The bill would require a local government to prepare the inventory pursuant to those standards, forms, and definitions. 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 Fair Employment and Housing Act, prohibits housing discrimination, including discrimination through public or private land use practices, decisions, or authorizations, based on specified personal characteristics, including source of income. Existing law defines the term "source of income" for purposes of the provisions relating to discrimination in housing accommodations described above, to mean lawful, verifiable income paid directly to a tenant or paid to a representative of a tenant. Existing law specifies that for the purposes of this definition, a landlord is not considered a representative of a tenant. This bill would instead define the term for purposes of those provisions, to mean verifiable income paid directly to a tenant or to a representative of a tenant, or paid to a housing owner or landlord on behalf of a tenant, including federal, state, or local public assistance and housing subsidies, as specified. The bill would also specify that for the purposes of this definition, a housing owner is not considered a representative of a tenant. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 12927 of the Government Code proposed by AB 1497 and SB 222 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1497 or SB 222 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 12955 of the Government Code proposed by SB 222 to be operative only if this bill and SB 222 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Existing law specifies that a hiring of residential real property, for a term not specified by the parties, is deemed to be renewed at the end of the term implied by law unless one of the parties gives written notice to the other of that party's intention to terminate. Existing law requires an owner of a residential dwelling to give notice at least 60 days prior to the proposed date of termination, or at least 30 days prior to the proposed date of termination if any tenant or resident has resided in the dwelling for less than one year, as specified. Existing law requires any notice given by an owner to be given in a prescribed manner, to contain certain information, and to be formatted, as specified. This bill would, with certain exceptions, prohibit an owner, as defined, of residential real property from terminating a tenancy without just cause, as defined, which the bill would require to be stated in the written notice to terminate tenancy when the tenant has continuously and lawfully occupied the residential real property for 12 months, except as provided. The bill would require, for certain just cause terminations that are curable, that the owner give a notice of violation and an opportunity to cure the violation prior to issuing the notice of termination. The bill, if the violation is not cured within the time period set forth in the notice, would authorize a 3-day notice to quit without an opportunity to cure to be served to terminate the tenancy. The bill would require, for no-fault just cause terminations, as specified, that the owner, at the owner's option, either assist certain tenants to relocate, regardless of the tenant's income, by providing a direct payment of one month's rent to the tenant, as specified, or waive in writing the payment of rent for the final month of the tenancy, prior to the rent becoming due. The bill would require the actual amount of relocation assistance or rent waiver provided to a tenant that fails to vacate after the expiration of the notice to terminate the tenancy to be recoverable as damages in an action to recover possession. The bill would provide that if the owner does not provide relocation assistance, the notice of termination is void. The bill would except certain properties and circumstances from the application of its provisions. The bill would require an owner of residential property to provide prescribed notice to a tenant of the tenant's rights under these provisions. The bill would not apply to residential real property subject to a local ordinance requiring just cause for termination adopted on or before September 1, 2019, or to residential real property subject to a local ordinance requiring just cause for termination adopted or amended after September 1, 2019, that is more protective than these provisions, as defined. The bill would void any waiver of the rights under these provisions. The bill would repeal these provisions as of January 1, 2030. Existing law governs the hiring of residential dwelling units and requires a landlord to provide specified notice to tenants prior to an increase in rent. Existing law, the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, prescribes statewide limits on the application of local rent control with regard to certain properties. That act, among other things, authorizes an owner of residential real property to establish the initial and all subsequent rental rates for a dwelling or unit that meets specified criteria, subject to certain limitations. This bill would, until January 1, 2030, prohibit an owner of residential real property from, over the course of any 12-month period, increasing the gross rental rate for a dwelling or unit more than 5% plus the percentage change in the cost of living, as defined, or 10%, whichever is lower, of the lowest gross rental rate charged for the immediately preceding 12 months, subject to specified conditions. The bill would prohibit an owner of a unit of residential real property from increasing the gross rental rate for the unit in more than 2 increments over a 12-month period, after the tenant remains in occupancy of the unit over a 12-month period. The bill would exempt certain properties from these provisions. The bill would require the Legislative Analyst's Office to submit a report, on or before January 1, 2030, to the Legislature regarding the effectiveness of these provisions. The bill would provide that these provisions apply to all rent increases occurring on or after March 15, 2019. The bill would provide that in the event that an owner increased the rent by more than the amount specified above between March 15, 2019, and January 1, 2020, the applicable rent on January 1, 2020, shall be the rent as of March 15, 2019, plus the maximum permissible increase, and the owner shall not be liable to the tenant for any corresponding rent overpayment. The bill would authorize an owner who increased the rent by less than the amount specified above between March 15, 2019, and January 1, 2020, to increase the rent twice within 12 months of March 15, 2019, but not by more than the amount specified above. The bill would void any waiver of the rights under these provisions. The Planning and Zoning Law requires the owner of an assisted housing development in which there will be an expiration of rental restrictions to, among other things, provide notice of the proposed change to each affected tenant household residing in the assisted housing development subject to specified procedures and requirements, and to also provide specified entities notice and an opportunity to submit an offer to purchase the development prior to the expiration of the rental restrictions. This bill would authorize an owner of an assisted housing development, who demonstrates, under penalty of perjury, compliance with the provisions described above with regard to the expiration of rental restrictions, to establish the initial unassisted rental rate for units without regard to the cap on rent increases discussed above, but would require the owner to comply with the above cap on rent increases for subsequent rent increases in the development. The bill would authorize an owner of a deed-restricted affordable housing unit or an affordable housing unit subject to a regulatory restriction contained in an agreement with a government agency limiting rental rates that is not within an assisted housing development to establish the initial rental rate for the unit upon the expiration of the restriction, but would require the owner to comply with the above cap on rent increases for subsequent rent increases for the unit. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2030. The bill would void any waiver of the rights under these provisions. By requiring an owner of an assisted housing development to demonstrate compliance with specified provisions under penalty of perjury, this bill would expand the existing crime of perjury and thus 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 provides for the establishment of various special districts that may support and finance housing development, including affordable housing special beneficiary districts that are authorized to promote affordable housing development with certain property tax revenues that a city or county would otherwise be entitled to receive. This bill, the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Housing Finance Act, would establish the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (hereafter the authority) and would state that the authority's purpose is to raise, administer, and allocate funding for affordable housing in the San Francisco Bay area, as defined, and provide technical assistance at a regional level for tenant protection, affordable housing preservation, and new affordable housing production. The bill would provide that the governing board of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission serve as the governing board of the authority. The bill would require the authority board to provide for regular audits of the authority, including an independent financial and performance audit for bonds secured by ad valorem property taxes, and financial reports, as provided. The bill would include findings that the changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities within the San Francisco Bay area, including charter cities. The bill would authorize the authority to, among other things, raise and allocate new revenue, incur and issue bonds and other indebtedness, and allocate funds to the various cities, counties, and other public agencies and affordable housing projects within its jurisdiction to finance affordable housing development projects, preserve and enhance existing affordable housing, and fund tenant protection programs, as specified, in accordance with applicable constitutional requirements. In this regard, the bill would authorize the entity to impose various special taxes, including a parcel tax, and certain business taxes, within its jurisdiction and to issue general obligation bonds secured by the levy of ad valorem property taxes, in accordance with applicable constitutional requirements, and revenue bonds payable from the revenues of the authority, other than revenues generated from ad valorem property taxes. The bill would also authorize the executive board of the Association of Bay Area Governments to impose a commercial linkage fee, as defined, in an amount not to exceed the equivalent of $10, and require a city or county in the San Francisco Bay area that has jurisdiction over the approval of a commercial development project, as defined, to collect that fee as a condition of that approval and remit the amount of fee to the authority, as provided. The bill would require the authority to ratify the commercial linkage fee adopted by the executive board of the Association of Bay Area Governments. The bill would require that revenue generated by the authority pursuant to these provisions be used for specified housing purposes and require the authority to distribute those funds in accordance with specified requirements, including the adoption of a regional expenditure plan. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the San Francisco Bay area. By adding to the duties of local officials with respect to (1) providing staff for the authority and (2) elections procedures for revenue measures on behalf of the authority, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, 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.
The California Constitution and existing statutory law provide for the electors to propose statutes or amendments to the Constitution by initiative. Existing law authorizes a person who is a voter or who is qualified to register to vote in California to circulate an initiative or referendum petition within the state. The California Constitution enables electors to initiate a recall of state or local officers by gathering sufficient signatures within a specified time period. Existing statutory law requires that the proponents of a recall be registered voters of the electoral jurisdiction of the officer they seek to recall. Existing law requires that an initiative petition contain specified language advising the public of its right to determine whether the person circulating the petition is a paid signature gatherer or a volunteer. Existing law prescribes other requirements regarding the form, content, and presentation of initiative and referendum petitions. This bill would require, for a state or local initiative, referendum, or recall petition that requires voter signatures and for which the circulation is paid for by a committee, as specified, that an Official Top Funders disclosure be made, either on the petition or on a separate sheet, that identifies the name of the committee, any top contributors, as defined, and the month and year during which the Official Top Funders disclosure is valid, among other things. The bill would require the committee to create an Official Top Funders sheet meeting certain requirements and would authorize the committee to create a page on an internet website that includes a link to the most recent Official Top Funders sheet and a link to the full text of the measure. The bill would require the committee to submit the Official Top Funders sheet and any updates to the Secretary of State, who would be required to post that statement on the Secretary of State's internet website along with the previous versions the committee submitted. The bill would amend existing provisions to make certain misrepresentations with regard to the Official Top Funders disclosures a crime. By expanding the scope of an existing crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the circulator to certify under the penalty of perjury that the circulator showed each signer a valid and unfalsified Official Top Funders sheet if the petition does not include a specified disclosure statement. By expanding the crime of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize the pages of a petition to be bound together by any reasonable method, including the use of staples. By expanding the duties of local elections officials, 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law authorizes a person who was arrested and has successfully completed a prefiling diversion program, a person who has successfully completed a specified drug diversion program, a person who has successfully completed a specified deferred entry of judgment program, and a person who has suffered an arrest that did not result in a conviction, under certain conditions, to petition the court to seal the person's arrest record. Under existing law, if a defendant successfully completes certain diversion programs, the arrest for the crime for which the defendant was diverted is deemed to have never occurred. Existing law authorizes a defendant to petition to withdraw the defendant's plea of guilty or nolo contendere and enter a plea of not guilty, if the defendant has fulfilled the conditions of probation, or if other specified circumstances are met, and the defendant is not then serving a sentence for any offense, on probation for any offense, or charged with the commission of any offense. If relief is granted, existing law requires the court to dismiss the accusation or information against the defendant and release the defendant from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense, with exceptions. Existing law also authorizes a defendant to file a similar petition if the defendant was convicted of a misdemeanor and not granted probation, was convicted of an infraction, or completed a sentence for certain felonies, and the defendant met specified conditions. This bill would, commencing January 1, 2021, and subject to an appropriation in the annual Budget Act, require the Department of Justice, on a monthly basis, to review the records in the statewide criminal justice databases and to identify persons who are eligible for relief by having their arrest records, or their criminal conviction records, withheld from disclosure, as specified. The bill would require the department to grant relief to an eligible person, without requiring a petition or motion. The bill would not limit petitions, motions, or orders for relief, as required or authorized by any other law. The bill would require an update to the state summary criminal history information to document the relief granted. The bill would require the department, on a monthly basis, to electronically submit a notice to the superior court having jurisdiction over the criminal case, informing the court of all cases for which relief was granted. The bill would prohibit the court from disclosing information concerning an arrest or conviction granted relief, with exceptions. The bill would authorize the prosecuting attorney or probation department, no later than 90 calendar days before the date of a person's eligibility for relief, to file a petition to prohibit the department from granting automatic relief for criminal conviction records as described above. If the court grants that petition, the bill would prohibit the department from granting relief, but the person would continue to be eligible for relief through other existing procedures, including petitions to the court. The bill would require the Department of Justice to annually publish statistics regarding relief granted pursuant to the provisions of this bill, as specified. The bill would require a court, at the time of sentencing, to advise each defendant of their right to conviction relief pursuant to the provisions of this bill, as specified. The bill would make conforming changes. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 480 of the Business and Professions Code, as added by Section 4 of Chapter 995 of the Statutes of 2018, proposed by AB 1521 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1521 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Existing law declares that timely DNA analysis of rape kit evidence is a core public safety issue affecting men, women, and children in the State of California. Existing law finds and declares that law enforcement agencies should either submit sexual assault forensic evidence received on or after January 1, 2016, to a crime lab within 20 days after it is booked into evidence or to ensure that a rapid turnaround DNA program is in place, as specified. Existing law also finds and declares that a crime lab that receives sexual assault forensic evidence on or after January 1, 2016, should either process the evidence, create DNA profiles when able, and upload qualifying DNA profiles into the Combined DNA Index System, as specified, or transmit the sexual assault forensic evidence to another crime lab as soon as practically possible, but no later than 30 days after receiving the evidence, for processing of the evidence for the presence of DNA. This bill would instead require a law enforcement agency to either submit sexual assault forensic evidence to a crime lab or ensure that a rapid turnaround DNA program is in place, as specified, and require a crime lab to either process the evidence or transmit the evidence to another crime lab for processing, as specified. Because this bill would impose a higher level of service on local law enforcement agencies in processing that evidence, it 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, 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 authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to charge a $5 fee for each inmate-initiated medical visit of an inmate confined in the state prison, except under specified circumstances, and requires that the moneys received be expended to reimburse the department for direct provision of inmate health care services. Existing law also authorizes a sheriff, chief or director of corrections, or chief of police to charge a $3 fee for each inmate-initiated medical visit of an inmate confined in a county or city jail, except as specified, and requires that the moneys received be transferred to the county or city general fund. Existing law also authorizes a county or city to recover from an inmate or a person legally responsible for the inmate's care the costs of necessary medical care rendered to the inmate, under certain conditions. This bill would instead prohibit the secretary or a sheriff, chief or director of corrections, or chief of police from charging a fee for an inmate-initiated medical visit of an inmate of the state prison or a county or city jail, and would make a conforming change. The bill would also prohibit those officials from charging an inmate of the state prison or a city or county jail a fee for durable medical equipment or medical supplies, as defined.
Existing law, the Pharmacy Law, provides for the licensure and regulation of pharmacists by the California State Board of Pharmacy and makes a violation of these requirements a crime. Existing law generally authorizes a pharmacist to dispense or furnish drugs only pursuant to a valid prescription, except as provided, such as furnishing emergency contraceptives, hormonal contraceptives, and naloxone hydrochloride, pursuant to standardized procedures. This bill would authorize a pharmacist to furnish preexposure prophylaxis and postexposure prophylaxis in specified amounts and would require a pharmacist to furnish those drugs if certain conditions are met, including that the pharmacist determines the patient meets the clinical criteria for preexposure prophylaxis or postexposure prophylaxis consistent with federal guidelines. The bill would require a pharmacist, before furnishing preexposure prophylaxis or postexposure prophylaxis, to complete a training program approved by the board. Because a violation of these requirements would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law provides for the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services, under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services pursuant to a schedule of benefits, including pharmacist services, which are subject to approval by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid program provisions. This bill would expand the Medi-Cal schedule of benefits to include preexposure prophylaxis and postexposure prophylaxis as pharmacist services, as specified. 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 also provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Department of Insurance. Existing law authorizes health care service plans and health insurers that cover prescription drugs to utilize reasonable medical management practices, including prior authorization and step therapy, consistent with applicable law. For combination antiretroviral drug treatments medically necessary for the prevention of AIDS/HIV, existing law prohibits plans and insurers, until January 1, 2023, from having utilization management policies or procedures that rely on a multitablet drug regimen instead of a single-tablet drug regimen, except as specified. This bill would additionally prohibit plans and insurers from subjecting antiretroviral drugs, including preexposure prophylaxis or postexposure prophylaxis, to prior authorization or step therapy, except that if the United States Food and Drug Administration has approved one or more therapeutic equivalents of a drug, device, or product for the prevention of AIDS/HIV, the bill would instead require the plan or insurer to cover at least one of the therapeutically equivalent versions without prior authorization or step therapy. The bill would also prohibit plans and insurers from prohibiting, or allowing a pharmacy benefit manager to prohibit, a pharmacy provider from providing preexposure prophylaxis or postexposure prophylaxis, except as specified. The bill would prohibit plans and insurers from covering preexposure prophylaxis that has been furnished by a pharmacist in excess of specified amounts. Because a willful violation of these provisions by a health care service plan would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.