Existing law prohibits a city, city and county, or local law enforcement agency from entering into a contract with the federal government or any federal agency to house or detain noncitizens for purposes of civil immigration custody in a locked detention facility. Existing law requires the Attorney General to engage in reviews of county, local, and private locked detention facilities in which noncitizens are being housed or detained for purposes of civil immigration proceedings in California. Existing law requires that review to include a review of the conditions of confinement, a review of the standard of care and due process provided to the detainees, and a review of the circumstances around their apprehension and transfer to the facility. This bill would require any private detention facility operator to comply with, and adhere to, the detention standards of care and confinement agreed upon in the facility's contract for operations. The bill would define a private detention facility as a detention facility operated by a private, nongovernmental, for-profit entity pursuant to a contract or agreement with a governmental entity. If a private detention facility commits a tortious action that violates the requirement to comply with detention standards of care and confinement, the bill would allow an individual who has been injured by that tortious action to bring a civil cause of action for relief. The bill would also allow the court to award a prevailing plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees and costs. The bill would state that its provisions are severable.
Sponsored bills
Existing law provides for the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the department, under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services, including federally qualified health center (FQHC) services and rural health clinic (RHC) services. The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid program provisions. FQHC and RHC services are reimbursed, to the extent that federal financial participation is obtained, to providers on a per-visit basis, and a "visit" is defined as a face-to-face encounter between a patient of an FQHC or RHC and specified health care professionals, including dental providers. Existing law prohibits a requirement of in-person contact between a health care provider and a Medi-Cal patient when the service may be provided by telehealth, and, for purposes of telehealth, prohibits the department from limiting the type of setting where Medi-Cal services are provided. Existing law authorizes, to the extent that federal financial participation is available, the use of health care services by store and forward under the Medi-Cal program, subject to billing and reimbursement policies developed by the department, and prohibits a requirement of in-person contact between a health care provider and a Medi-Cal patient when these services are provided by store and forward. This bill would provide that an FQHC or RHC "visit" includes an encounter between an FQHC or RHC patient and a health care provider using telehealth by synchronous interaction or asynchronous store and forward. The bill would specify that an FQHC or RHC is not precluded from establishing a patient who is located within the FQHC's or RHC's federal designated service area through synchronous interaction or asynchronous store and forward as of the date of service if specified requirements are met. The bill would require the department to adopt regulations, as specified, and to provide a status report to the Legislature on a semiannual basis until those regulations have been adopted. The bill would make these provisions inoperative 180 days after the state of emergency for the COVID-19 pandemic has been terminated, as specified.
The Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) , an initiative measure approved as Proposition 64 at the November 8, 2016, statewide general election, 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. 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. MAUCRSA generally divides responsibility for the state licensure and regulation of commercial cannabis activity among the Bureau of Cannabis Control in the Department of Consumer Affairs, the Department of Food and Agriculture, and the State Department of Public Health. This bill would require the powers and duties of the bureau to be subject to review by the appropriate policy committees of the Legislature and would require the review to be performed as if MAUCRSA were scheduled to be repealed as of January 1, 2023. Existing law establishes the Joint Sunset Review Committee, a legislative committee comprised of 10 Members of the Legislature, to identify and eliminate waste, duplication, and inefficiency in government agencies and to conduct a comprehensive analysis of an eligible agency, as defined, for which a date for repeal has been established, to determine if the agency is still necessary and cost effective. Existing law requires each eligible agency scheduled for repeal to submit a report to the committee containing specified information. Existing law requires the committee to take public testimony and evaluate the eligible agency prior to the date the agency is scheduled to be repealed, and requires that an eligible agency be eliminated unless the Legislature enacts a law to extend, consolidate, or reorganize the agency. Existing law specifies that these provisions do not apply to the Bureau of Cannabis Control. This bill would delete the provision that specifies that these provisions do not apply to the Bureau of Cannabis Control.
Existing law provides for the registration and regulation of dispensing opticians, spectacle lens dispensers, nonresident contact lens sellers, and contact lens dispensers by the State Board of Optometry and requires certain fees and fines in connection therewith to be paid to the board. Existing law establishes the Dispensing Opticians Fund and requires that these fees and fines be paid into that fund, and provides that the funds be available, upon appropriation, to the board for specified purposes. Existing law, the Optometry Practice Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of optometrists by the board and requires certain fees and fines in connection therewith to be paid to the board. The act establishes the Optometry Fund and requires that these fees and fines be paid into that fund, and provides that the funds, unless otherwise provided, be available, upon appropriation, to the board in order to carry out the purposes of the act. This bill would abolish the Dispensing Opticians Fund on July 1, 2022, and would require that any moneys in that fund be transferred to the Optometry Fund before July 1, 2022. The bill would make various related conforming changes. Existing law provides that specified provisions of the Medical Practice Act that are not inconsistent or in conflict with certain provisions of law relating to the registration and regulation of dispensing opticians apply to the issuance, and govern the expiration and renewal, of certificates of registration issued to dispensing opticians. This bill would delete that provision. The Optometry Practice Act requires each licensed optometrist, before engaging in the practice of optometry, to notify the board in writing of the address or addresses where the optometrist is to engage in the practice of optometry and of any changes in their place of practice. A violation of the act is a crime. This bill would define "mobile optometric office" to mean a trailer, van, or other means of transportation in which the practice of optometry is performed and which is not affiliated with an approved optometry school in California. The bill would limit ownership of a mobile optometric office to a tax-exempt nonprofit or charitable organization that provides optometric services to patients regardless of the patient's ability to pay. The bill would require the owner and operator of a mobile optometric office to register with the board and to provide specified information on registering. The bill would prohibit the owner and operator of a mobile optometric office from accepting payment for services other than those provided to Medi-Cal beneficiaries. The bill would require the owner and operator of a mobile optometric office to file a quarterly report with the board and to provide a consumer notice prescribed by the board to patients. The bill would require the board, by January 1, 2022, to adopt regulations establishing a registry for mobile optometric offices and to set a registration fee at an amount not to exceed the costs of administration. The bill would authorize the board to adopt regulations to conduct quality assurance reviews for optometrists engaging in the practice of optometry at a mobile optometric office. The bill would prohibit the board from bringing an enforcement action against an owner and operator of a mobile optometric office based solely on its affiliation status with an approved optometry school in California for remotely providing optometric service before January 1, 2022. The bill would require the owner and operator of a mobile optometric office to maintain records, as prescribed, to be made available to the board upon request for inspection. The bill would require a licensed optometrist who provides patient care in conjunction with a mobile optometric office to obtain a statement of licensure with the mobile optometric office's address as registered with the board. The bill would require, if the licensee is not practicing optometry at a location other than with the owner and operator of the mobile optometric office, that the licensee list as their primary address of record the owner and operator of the mobile optometric office's address as registered with the board. The bill would repeal these mobile optometric office provisions on July 1, 2024. Because this bill would expand the scope of an existing crime, it would therefore 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. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 205 of the Business and Professions Code proposed by SB 1474 to be operative only if this bill and SB 1474 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
(1) Existing law establishes procedures and criteria pursuant to which counties, general law cities, and charter cities adopt supervisorial and council district boundaries for the purpose of electing members of a county's board of supervisors or a city's council. This bill would make technical, clarifying, and conforming changes to make these provisions consistent in their application to those jurisdictions. (2) Under the redistricting procedures described above, existing law requires those jurisdictions to adopt the boundaries of districts no earlier than August 1 in each year ending in the number 1, but not later than 151 days before the jurisdiction's next regular election occurring in March in each year ending in the number 2. Existing law requires the board of supervisors or the council to publish the date, time, and location of a public hearing or workshop on redistricting, or a draft map pending adoption as a final map, on the internet at least 3 days in advance if the hearing or workshop is held, or the draft map will be adopted as a final map, within 179 days of the jurisdiction's next regular election. Existing law requires the Citizens Redistricting Commission and the Legislature to coordinate efforts to make publicly available a computerized database which contains data necessary for redistricting. Existing law authorizes a candidate for elective office in a county or charter city to submit a petition containing signatures of a specified number of registered voters in lieu of a filing fee, and requires an elections official to make forms for securing signatures available commencing 60 days before the first day for circulating nomination papers, except as specified. This bill would, for redistricting occurring in 2031 and thereafter, instead require district boundaries to be adopted no later than 205 days before the jurisdiction's next regular election occurring after January 1 in each year ending in the number 2. For redistricting occurring before 2031, the bill would require boundaries to be adopted not later than 174 days before the next regular election if the election is held after January 1, 2022, and before July 1, 2022, and not later than 205 days before the next regular election if the election is held on or after July 1, 2022. For redistricting in counties and charter cities to which the 174 day deadline applies, the bill would prohibit forms for securing signatures in lieu of a filing fee from being made available until at least 28 days after the adoption of a final map, and would require an elections official in a county or charter city to reduce the number of signatures required, as specified, if that prohibition reduces the amount of time in which a candidate can collect signatures before the first day for circulating nomination papers. The bill would instead require the board of supervisors or council to publish the date, time, and location of a hearing or workshop on the internet at least 3 days in advance if the hearing or workshop is held within 28 days of the deadline for the jurisdiction to adopt district boundaries. The bill would prohibit a board of supervisors or council, or their contractors, from releasing draft maps of districts earlier than 3 weeks after the database described above is made publicly available, unless the database is made available less than 90 days before the deadline to adopt a map, in which case the 3 week period would be shortened or waived, as specified. (4) Existing law establishes the Citizens Redistricting Commission in the County of Los Angeles and the Independent Redistricting Commission in the County of San Diego for the purpose of adjusting the boundaries of supervisorial districts of the boards of supervisors in those counties. Existing law requires each of the supervisorial districts in the jurisdiction of one of those commissions to have a reasonably equal population with other districts in the same jurisdiction, except as specified. Existing law requires each of those commissions to adopt a redistricting plan adjusting the boundaries of supervisorial districts and to file the plan with specified county officials before August 15 of the year following the year in which each federal decennial census is taken. Existing law requires the commissions to conduct public hearings before drawing a map that proposes redistricting. Existing law provides that a redistricting plan is not effective until 30 days after it is filed. This bill would require the measure of population equality for supervisorial districts in those counties to be based on the total population of residents of the respective county as determined by the most recent federal decennial census for which specified redistricting data is available, and would prohibit an incarcerated person from being counted as part of a county's population, unless specified redistricting data shows that the incarcerated person's last known place of residence may be assigned to the county. The bill would instead require each of those commissions to file their redistricting plans pursuant to the deadlines for adopting district boundaries described above that are applicable to counties. The bill would also apply to those commissions the provisions described above that prohibit counties or their contractors from releasing draft maps within certain time periods following the date on which redistricting data becomes publicly available. The bill would authorize the commissions to change the location of a hearing, including the use of virtual hearings that permit remote access and participation, if a public health order that prohibits large gatherings is in place, subject to specified requirements. The bill would repeal the provisions described above delaying the effective date of a redistricting plan. (5) The California Constitution authorizes a city to adopt a charter by a majority vote of its electors, and authorizes a charter city to make and enforce all ordinances and regulations in respect to municipal affairs. The California Constitution provides that it shall be competent in a city charter to provide for the manner in which, the method by which, the times at which, and the terms for which municipal officers and employees shall be elected or appointed. Existing law establishes criteria pursuant to which charter cities adjust or adopt council district area boundaries, as applicable, for the purpose of electing members of the city council. These criteria encourage council districts to be geographically contiguous and compact, to respect the geographic integrity of communities of interest, as defined, and to have easily identifiable and understandable boundaries. This bill would provide that these criteria do not apply to a charter city that has adopted comprehensive or exclusive redistricting criteria, as defined, in its city charter. The bill would clarify that if a council assigns the power to adopt new district boundaries to an advisory, hybrid, or independent redistricting commission, the charter city remains subject to the same redistricting deadlines, requirements, and restrictions that are applicable to the council.
(1) Existing law requires the State Department of Public Health to license, regulate, and inspect health facilities, as specified. Existing law requires a hospital that provides emergency medical services to, as soon as possible, but not later than 90 days prior to a planned reduction or elimination of the level of emergency medical services, provide notice of the intended change to the department, other specified entities, and the public. Existing law also requires a health facility to provide public notice, as specified, not less than 30 days prior to closing the health facility, eliminating a supplemental service, as defined, or relocating the provision of supplemental services to a different campus. This bill would require a hospital that provides emergency medical services to provide notice, as specified, at least 180 days before a planned reduction or elimination of the level of emergency medical services. The bill would require a health facility to provide at least 120 days' notice, as specified, prior to closing the health facility and at least 90 days prior to eliminating or relocating a supplemental service, except as specified. The bill would require the mandatory public notice to include specific notifications, including, among others, a continuous notice posted in a conspicuous location within the internet website of a newspaper of general circulation serving the local geographical area in which the hospital or health facility is located. (2) Under existing law, violation of the provisions relating to health facility licensure is a misdemeanor. By expanding the scope of 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.
This measure would designate a specified portion of State Route 35 that runs through the City of Daly City in the County of San Mateo as the Alice Peña Bulos Memorial Highway. The measure would also request the Department of Transportation to determine the cost of appropriate signs showing this special designation and, upon receiving donations from nonstate sources covering that cost, to erect those signs.
This measure would designate a specified portion of State Route 50 in the County of El Dorado as the Deputy Sheriff Brian "Ish" Ishmael Memorial Highway. The measure would request that the Department of Transportation determine the cost of appropriate signs showing this special designation and, upon receiving donations from nonstate sources covering that cost, erect those signs.
Existing law authorizes a court to allow a defendant sentenced to county jail for a felony to withdraw their plea of guilty or plea of nolo contendere and enter a plea of not guilty, after the lapse of one or 2 years following the defendant's completion of the sentence, provided that the defendant is not under supervision, and is not serving a sentence for, on probation for, or charged with the commission of any offense. Existing law requires the defendant to be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which the defendant was convicted, except as specified. This bill would allow a defendant who successfully participated in the California Conservation Camp Program or a county incarcerated individual hand crew as an incarcerated individual hand crew member, and has been released from custody, to petition to withdraw their plea of guilty or plea of nolo contendere and enter a plea of not guilty. The bill would make persons convicted of specified violent felonies and sex offenses ineligible for relief. The bill would allow the court, if the defendant is eligible for relief, to dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant at the court's discretion and in the interest of justice and would release the defendant from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense, except as provided. In granting this relief, the bill would require the court to order the early termination of probation, parole, or supervised release if the court determines that the defendant has not violated any of the terms or conditions of their release during the pendency of the petition.
Existing provisions of the California Constitution establish the University of California as a public trust under the administration of the Regents of the University of California. The California Constitution grants to the regents all the powers necessary or convenient for the effective administration of this public trust. Pursuant to the California Constitution, there are 7 ex officio members of the regents and 18 appointive members appointed by the Governor and approved by the Senate, a majority of the membership concurring. This measure would enact the University of California Equal Employment Opportunity Standards Act, which would, effective January 1, 2021, except as specified, require the regents to ensure that all contract workers, as defined, who are paid to perform support services for students, faculty, patients, or the general public at any campus, dining hall, medical center, clinic, research facility, laboratory, or other university location, are at all times subject to and afforded the same equal employment opportunity standards, as defined, as university employees performing similar services. The measure would authorize the regents, or any campus or other entity of the University of California, to contract for, or otherwise arrange to use, contract labor, as defined, to perform support services only under specified conditions, only if authorized to do so by statute, and only to the extent necessary to address one or more of prescribed needs. The measure would authorize the Legislature to enact statutes to further the purposes of, and to aid the enforcement of, this measure.