Asm. Matt Haney

Existing law, the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) , an initiative measure, authorizes a person who obtains a state license under AUMA and any applicable local ordinances to engage in commercial adult-use cannabis activity pursuant to that license, if conducted as prescribed. 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, except as specified, prohibits a person or entity from engaging in commercial cannabis activity without a state license issued by the Department of Cannabis Control pursuant to MAUCRSA. Existing law provides that a person engaging in commercial cannabis activity without a license is subject to civil penalties, as specified, and authorizes the Attorney General, a county counsel, a city attorney, or a city prosecutor to bring an action, as specified. This bill would authorize a licensee under MAUCRSA to bring an action in superior court against a person engaging in commercial cannabis activity without a license as required by MAUCRSA. The bill would require the licensee to demonstrate actual harm resulting from the unlicensed commercial cannabis activity. The bill would authorize a court in that action to enter an order enjoining the defendant from engaging in commercial cannabis activity without a license. The bill would entitle a licensee prevailing in that action to their reasonable attorney's fees and costs and either actual damages or statutory damages not to exceed $75,000, as specified. The bill would provide that its provisions do not apply to a violation of the Labor Code and would prohibit the provisions from forming the basis for a cause of action under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. AUMA authorizes the Legislature to amend its provisions with a 23 vote of both houses to further its purposes and intent, except as specified. This bill would declare that its provisions further the purposes and intent of AUMA.

Existing law requires the State Department of Public Health, subject to an appropriation in the Budget Act of 2016, to award funding to local health departments, local governmental agencies, or on a competitive basis to other organizations, as specified, to support or establish programs that provide naloxone or another opioid antagonist to first responders and at-risk opioid users through programs that serve at-risk drug users. Existing law exempts from civil liability a person who, in good faith and not for compensation, renders emergency medical or nonmedical care or assistance at the scene of an emergency other than an act or omission constituting gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct, as provided. This bill would require each stadium, concert venue, and amusement park to maintain unexpired doses of naloxone hydrochloride or any other opioid antagonist on its premises at all times, and to ensure that at least 2 employees are aware of the location of the naloxone hydrochloride or other opioid antagonist. The bill would exempt from civil or criminal liability a person who, in good faith, administers naloxone hydrochloride or another opioid antagonist by nasal spray or auto-injector on the premises of a stadium, concert venue, or amusement park, other than an act or omission constituting gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct, except as specified. The bill would exempt from civil or criminal liability a stadium, concert venue, or amusement park, or its employees, or an entity that owns, occupies, or operates a stadium, concert venue, or amusement park, or its employees, for the administration of naloxone hydrochloride or another opioid antagonist, or the failure to administer naloxone hydrochloride or another opioid antagonist, on the premises of the stadium, concert venue, or amusement park, as provided.

The State Lands Commission has jurisdiction over tidelands and submerged lands of the state. Existing law, the Burton Act, grants to the City and County of San Francisco the right, title, and interest of the State of California in and to certain tidelands and submerged lands in trust for certain purposes. Existing law establishes the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and requires any person or governmental agency wishing to place fill, to extract materials, or to make any substantial change in use of any water, land, or structure, within the area of the commission's jurisdiction to secure a permit from the commission. Existing law authorizes the State Lands Commission to approve a mixed-use development on the San Francisco waterfront at Piers 30-32, which would include a multipurpose venue for events and public assembly, if the State Lands Commission finds, at a properly noticed public meeting, that specified conditions are met. This bill would revise those provisions to instead authorize the State Lands Commission to approve, as consistent with the public trust, as defined, a mixed-use development on the San Francisco waterfront at Piers 30-32, that includes general office use, if the State Lands Commission finds, at a properly noticed public meeting, that specified conditions are met, including, among others, that the mixed-use development is designed to attract the statewide public to the waterfront, increase public enjoyment of the San Francisco Bay, encourage public trust activities, and enhance public use of trust assets and resources on the waterfront. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute because of the unique circumstances applicable only to Piers 30-32 in the City and County of San Francisco.

Existing law creates various transit districts throughout the state, with specified powers and duties relative to providing public transit service. Existing law provides various provisions applicable to all public transit and transit districts. Existing law requires the Mineta Transportation Institute at San Jose State University to, on or before December 31, 2023, develop and make available on its internet website a survey for the purpose of promoting consistency in the collection of specified survey data to inform efforts to improve the safety of riders and reduce street harassment on public transit. This bill would require a transit operator, as defined, to collect and publish specified survey data for the purpose of informing efforts to improve the safety of riders and reduce street harassment on public transit on or before December 31, 2024, to the extent feasible with the funding it receives to conduct these activities from the Department of Transportation under a funding agreement with a transit operator to collect and publish that survey data, as provided. The bill would require the department to enter into these funding agreements on or before July 1, 2024. The bill would require a transit operator to conduct outreach activities with subpopulations of riders who are underrepresented in surveys and impacted by street harassment to gain insight into the perspectives of these riders based on their experiences. The bill would authorize a transit operator to collect survey data in multiple languages to reach limited-English-proficient riders impacted by street harassment, as provided. The bill would require a transit operator to publish and make publicly available on its internet website the survey data collected pursuant to these provisions and promptly notify the Governor and the Legislature of publication of the survey data. The bill would provide that specified information collected by a transit operator in the 5 years before the effective date of this bill is deemed to be survey data collected by the transit operator for purposes of the bill, and that specified outreach activity conducted by a transit operator in the 5 years before the effective date of this bill is deemed to be outreach activity conducted by the transit operator for purposes of the bill. To the extent the bill imposes additional duties on a local agency, 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, 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 Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 requires the State Air Resources Board to adopt regulations to require the reporting and verification of statewide greenhouse gas emissions and to monitor and enforce compliance with the act. The act requires the state board to make available, and update at least annually, on its internet website the emissions of greenhouse gases, criteria pollutants, and toxic air contaminants for each facility that reports to the state board, as provided. This bill would require, on or before January 1, 2026, and biennially thereafter, a covered entity, as defined, to prepare a climate-related financial risk report disclosing the entity's climate-related financial risk and measures adopted to reduce and adapt to climate-related financial risk. The bill would require the covered entity to make a copy of the report available to the public on its own internet website. The bill would require the state board to contract with a climate reporting organization, as defined, to biennially prepare a public report that contains specified information, including a review of the disclosure of climate-related financial risk contained in a subset of publicly available climate-related financial risk reports and an analysis of the systemic and sectorwide climate-related financial risks facing the state. The bill would require the state board to adopt regulations that authorize it to seek administrative penalties from covered entities for failing to make the report publicly available on its internet website or publishing an inadequate or insufficient report, as specified. The bill would require covered entities to pay an annual fee for the state board's actual and reasonable costs to administer and implement the bill. The bill would create the Climate-Related Financial Risk Disclosure Fund, require the proceeds of the fees to be deposited in the fund, and continuously appropriate the moneys in the fund to the state board for purposes of the bill. By creating a continuously appropriated fund, the bill would make an appropriation.

The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 requires the State Air Resources Board to adopt regulations to require the reporting and verification of statewide greenhouse gas emissions and to monitor and enforce compliance with the act. The act requires the state board to make available, and update at least annually, on its internet website the emissions of greenhouse gases, criteria pollutants, and toxic air contaminants for each facility that reports to the state board, as provided. This bill would require the state board, on or before January 1, 2025, to develop and adopt regulations requiring specified partnerships, corporations, limited liability companies, and other business entities with total annual revenues in excess of $1,000,000,000 and that do business in California, defined as "reporting entities," to publicly disclose to the emissions reporting organization, as defined, and obtain an assurance engagement on, starting in 2026 on a date to be determined by the state board, and annually thereafter, their scope 1 and scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions, as defined, and, starting in 2027 and annually thereafter, their scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions, as defined, from the reporting entity's prior fiscal year, as provided. The bill would require the state board to review during 2029, and update as necessary on or before January 1, 2030, these deadlines to evaluate trends in scope 3 emissions reporting and to consider changes to the deadlines, as provided. The bill would require a reporting entity to obtain an assurance engagement, performed by an independent third-party assurance provider, of the entity's public disclosure as provided. The bill would require the state board, in developing these regulations, to consult with the Attorney General, other government stakeholders, investors, stakeholders representing consumer and environmental justice interests, and reporting entities that have demonstrated leadership in full-scope greenhouse gas emissions accounting and public disclosure and greenhouse gas emissions reductions. The bill would also require the state board to ensure that the assurance process minimizes the need for reporting entities to engage multiple assurance providers and ensures sufficient assurance provider capacity, as well as timely reporting implementation, as required. The bill would further require the state board to contract with an emissions reporting organization to develop a reporting program to receive and make publicly available the required disclosures. The bill would authorize the state board, starting in 2033 and every 5 years thereafter, to assess the global greenhouse gas accounting and reporting standards and to adopt an alternative standard if it determines that using the alternative standard would more effectively further the goals of the bill. This bill would require the state board, on or before July 1, 2027, to contract with the University of California, the California State University, a national laboratory, or another equivalent academic institution to prepare a report on the public disclosures made by reporting entities to the emissions reporting organization. The bill would require, in preparing the report, consideration to be given to, at a minimum, greenhouse gas emissions from reporting entities in the context of state greenhouse gas emissions reduction and climate goals. The bill would require the state board to provide the report to the emissions reporting organization to post on a digital platform that would be required to be created by the emissions reporting organization, and publicly accessible, to house the state board's report and the reporting entities' public disclosures. The bill would require the emissions reporting organization to provide the state board's report to the relevant policy committees of the Legislature. This bill would require a reporting entity, upon filing its disclosure, to pay to the state board an annual fee set by the state board, as provided. The bill would create the Climate Accountability and Emissions Disclosure Fund, require the proceeds of the fees to be deposited in the fund, and continuously appropriate the moneys in the fund to the state board for purposes of the bill. By creating a continuously appropriated fund, the bill would create an appropriation. The bill would require the state board to adopt regulations that authorize it to seek administrative penalties for violations of these provisions, as specified.

Existing law, the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act) , governs collective bargaining between the state and recognized state public employee organizations. Existing law excludes certain employees from coverage under the Dills Act, including, among others, managerial employees, supervisory employees, and confidential employees, as defined. Existing law creates the Public Employment Relations Board and authorizes it, among other things, to determine appropriate state employee bargaining units, as specified. This bill would enact the Legislature Employer-Employee Relations Act, to provide employees of the Legislature, except certain specified categories of excluded employees, the right to form, join, and participate in the activities of employee organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of representation on all matters of employer-employee relations. The bill would prescribe rights, duties, and prohibitions in this context that parallel those in the Dills Act. For the purposes of bargaining or meeting and conferring in good faith, the bill would define "employer" to mean the Assembly Committee on Rules or the Senate Committee on Rules. The bill would require the employer to meet and confer with representatives of recognized employee organizations regarding matters within the scope of representation. The bill would exclude certain matters from the scope of representation, as specified. The bill would grant exclusive jurisdiction to the Public Employment Relations Board to make an initial determination as to whether charges of unfair practices are justified, and, if so, the necessary remedy, as specified. However, the bill would prohibit the board from issuing a decision or order that intrudes upon or interferes with the Legislature's core function of efficient and effective lawmaking or the essential operation of the Legislature. The bill would require the board to determine appropriate bargaining units, and would prohibit the board from including employees in a bargaining unit that includes employees other than those of the employer. The bill would prohibit the board from including within a bargaining unit employees from both the Assembly and Senate. This bill would make it a misdemeanor for any person to willfully resist, prevent, impede, or interfere with any member of the board, or any of its agents, in the performance of duties pursuant to its provisions. By expanding the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would provide that the provisions of the Legislature Employer-Employee Relations Act are severable. The bill would become operative on July 1, 2026. 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. This bill would additionally exempt from public inspection records related to activities governed by the Legislature Employer-Employee Relations Act that reveal the employer's deliberative processes, impressions, evaluations, opinions, recommendations, meeting minutes, research, work product, theories, or strategy, or that provide instruction, advice, or training to employees who do not have full collective bargaining and representation rights under the Legislature Employer-Employee Relations Act. 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 Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014 (act) , establishes requirements relating to paid sick days and paid sick leave, as described. The act excludes specified employees from its provisions, including an employee covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement, as described (CBA employees) . This bill would exclude railroad carrier employers and their employees from the act's provisions. Existing law, with certain exceptions, entitles an employee to paid sick days for certain purposes if the employee works in California for the same employer for 30 or more days within a year from the commencement of employment. Existing law imposes procedural requirements on employers regarding the use of paid sick days, including by prohibiting retaliation for using paid sick days, by prohibiting the imposition of certain conditions on the use of paid sick days, and by requiring the use of paid sick days for specified health care and situations. Existing law requires the leave to be accrued at a rate of no less than one hour for every 30 hours worked, and to be available for use beginning on the 90th day of employment. This bill would extend the above-described procedural requirements on the use of paid sick days to CBA employees. Existing law authorizes an employer to use a different accrual method as long as an employee has no less than 24 hours of accrued sick leave or paid time off by the 120th calendar day of employment or each calendar year, or in each 12-month period. Existing law also provides that an employer may satisfy the accrual requirements by providing not less than 24 hours or 3 days of paid sick leave that is available to the employee to use by the completion of the employee's 120th calendar day of employment. This bill would modify the employer's alternate sick leave accrual method to additionally require that an employee have no less than 40 hours of accrued sick leave or paid time off by the 200th calendar day of employment or each calendar year, or in each 12-month period. The bill would modify that satisfaction provision to authorize an employer to satisfy accrual requirements by providing, in addition to the existing criteria for satisfaction above, not less than 40 hours or 5 days of paid sick leave that is available to the employee to use by the completion of the employee's 200th calendar day of employment. Existing law requires accrued paid sick days to carry over to the following year of employment. Existing law, however, authorizes an employer to limit an employee's use of accrued paid sick days to 24 hours or 3 days in each year of employment, calendar year, or 12-month period. Under existing law, this provision is satisfied and no accrual or carryover is required if the full amount of leave is received at the beginning of each year of employment, calendar year, or 12-month period. Existing law defines "full amount of leave" for these purposes to mean 3 days or 24 hours. This bill would raise the employer's authorized limitation on the use of carryover sick leave to 40 hours or 5 days in each year of employment. The bill would redefine "full amount of leave" to mean 5 days or 40 hours. Existing law also entitles individual providers of in-home supportive services and waiver personal care services, as defined, to paid sick days in specified amounts in accordance with minimum wage increases, up to a maximum of 24 hours or 3 days each year of employment when the minimum wage has reached $15 per hour. Existing law authorizes the State Department of Social Services to implement and interpret these provisions. This bill would increase the sick leave accrual rate for these providers to 40 hours or 5 days in each year of employment, beginning January 1, 2024. Under existing law, an employer is not required to provide additional paid sick days pursuant to these provisions if the employer has a paid leave or paid time off policy, makes an amount of leave available to employees that may be used for the same purposes and under the same conditions as these provisions, and the policy satisfies one of specified conditions. Under that law, one of those conditions requires the employer to have provided paid sick leave or paid time off in a manner that results in an employee's eligibility to earn at least 3 days or 24 hours of sick leave or paid time off within 9 months of employment. This bill would change that condition so that the employee must be eligible to earn at least 5 days or 40 hours of sick leave or paid time off within 6 months of employment. Under existing law, an employer has no obligation under these provisions to allow an employee's total accrual of paid sick leave to exceed 48 hours or 6 days, provided that an employee's rights to accrue and use paid sick leave are not otherwise limited, as specified. This bill would increase those accrual thresholds for paid sick leave to 80 hours or 10 days. Existing paid sick days law sets forth provisions on, among other things, compensation for accrued, unused paid sick days upon specified employment events, the lending of paid sick days to employees, written notice requirements, the calculation of paid sick leave, reasonable advance notification requirements, and payment of sick leave taken. This bill would provide that these provisions shall preempt any local ordinance to the contrary. 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.

Existing law deems the month of May to be Labor History Month throughout the public schools, and encourages school districts to commemorate that month with appropriate educational exercises that make pupils aware of the role the labor movement has played in shaping California and the United States. This bill would require the week of each year that includes April 28 to be known as "Workplace Readiness Week." The bill would require all public high schools, including charter schools, to annually observe that week by providing information to pupils on their rights as workers, and would specify the topics to be covered. The bill would require the observances to be integrated into the regular school program in grades 11 and 12, consistent with the history-social science framework. By imposing additional duties on public school officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the Superintendent of Public Instruction to annually send a written notice to every public high school, including charter schools, with certain information relating to Workplace Readiness Week, as provided. Existing law authorizes specific school administrators to issue a work permit to pupils subject to specific requirements, including requiring certain information to be included on the work permit. This bill would require, beginning August 1, 2024, any minor seeking the signature of a verifying authority on a Statement of Intent to Employ a Minor and Request for a Work Permit-Certificate of Age to be issued, before or at the time of receiving the signature of the verifying authority, a document clearly explaining basic labor rights extended to workers, as provided. The bill would encourage the University of California Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education to produce, with input from bona fide labor organizations, a draft template for the document to be provided to minors, including translations into languages other than English, as specified. The bill would require the document to express those labor rights in plain, natural terminology easily understood by the pupil. The bill would require the document, in English, to be in a physical form and include a Uniform Resource Locator for, and a quick response code linked to, an internet website with electronic versions of the document, including any translated versions of the document, produced by the University of California Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education. To the extent these requirements would impose additional duties on public school 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, 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, after a tenant has continuously and lawfully occupied a residential real property for 12 months, prohibits the owner of the residential real property from terminating the tenancy without just cause and requires that just cause to be stated in the written notice to terminate tenancy. Existing law distinguishes between at-fault just cause and no-fault just cause and defines no-fault just cause to mean intent to occupy the residential real property by the owner or the owner's spouse, domestic partner, children, grandchildren, parents, or grandparents, withdrawal of the residential real property from the rental market, the owner complying with specified government orders that necessitate vacating the real property, and intent to demolish or to substantially remodel the residential real property. This bill would, with respect to the no-fault just cause related to an eviction based on an intent to occupy the residential real property, require, among other things, that the owner, as defined, or the owner's spouse, domestic partner, children, grandchildren, parents, or grandparents occupy the residential real property for a minimum of 12 continuous months as the person's primary residence, as provided. The bill would also, with respect to the no-fault just cause related to withdrawal of the residential real property from the rental market, require the rental units at the rental property be withdrawn from the rental market, as prescribed. The bill would require an owner who displaces a tenant to substantially remodel or demolish a unit to provide the tenant with written notice providing the tenant with specified information, including a description of the substantial remodel to be completed and the expected duration of the repairs, or the expected date by which the property will be demolished, and a copy of permits required to undertake the substantial remodel or demolition, as specified. This bill would also prescribe new enforcement mechanisms with respect to the provisions described above, including by making an owner who attempts to recover possession of a rental unit in material violation of those provisions liable to the tenant in a civil action for damages of up to 3 times the actual damages, in addition to punitive damages. The bill would authorize the Attorney General and the city attorney or county counsel, within whose jurisdiction the rental unit is located, to bring actions for injunctive relief against the owner, as specified. Existing law, until January 1, 2030, prohibits an owner of residential real property from, over the course of any 12-month period, increasing the gross rental rate for a dwelling or a unit more than 5% plus the percentage change in the cost of living, or 10%, whichever is lower, of the lowest gross rental rate charged for that dwelling or unit at any time during the 12 months before the effective date of the increase, subject to specified conditions. This bill would make an owner who demands, accepts, receives, or retains any payment of rent in excess of the maximum rent increase allowed, as prescribed, liable in a civil action to the tenant from whom those payments are demanded, accepted, received, or retained for certain relief, including, upon a showing that the owner has acted willfully or with oppression, fraud, or malice, damages up to 3 times the amount by which any payment demanded, accepted, received, or retained exceeds the maximum allowable rent. This bill would authorize the Attorney General and the city attorney or county counsel, within whose jurisdiction the residential property is located, to enforce the bill's provisions and bring an action for injunctive relief, as specified. This bill would also make a technical, nonsubstantive change to those provisions. The bill would provide that its provisions become effective on April 1, 2024.