(1) The Child Care and Development Services Act has a purpose of providing a comprehensive, coordinated, and cost-effective system of child care and development services for children from infancy to 13 years of age and their parents, including a full range of supervision, health, and support services through full- and part-time programs. Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to develop standards for the implementation of quality child care programs. Existing law authorizes the County of Alameda and the County of Santa Clara, as a pilot project, to develop an individualized county child care subsidy plan, as provided. This bill would authorize, until January 1, 2023, the Counties of Contra Costa, Marin, and Sonoma to develop individualized county child care subsidy plans, as specified. The bill would require the plans to be submitted by the counties to their local planning council and their respective county board of supervisors for approval, as specified. The bill would require the Early Education and Support Division of the State Department of Education to review and approve or disapprove the plans and any subsequent modifications to the plans and, in specified situations, would require the State Department of Social Services to review the plans. The bill would require the counties to annually prepare and submit to the Legislature, the State Department of Social Services, and the State Department of Education a report that contains specified information relating to the success of the counties' plans. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Counties of Contra Costa, Marin, and Sonoma. (2) Existing law authorizes the County of Alameda, as a pilot project, to develop an individualized county child care subsidy plan, as provided. Existing law requires the plan to include specified elements, including the development of a local policy, as provided. Existing law requires the local policy to, among other things, authorize an agency that provides child care and development services in the county through a contract with the State Department of Education and either provides direct services or contracts with licensed providers or centers to apply to the department to amend existing contracts in order to benefit from the local policy. This bill would instead require the local policy, among other things, to authorize an agency that provides child care and development services in the county through a contract with the department to apply to the department to amend existing contracts in order to benefit from the local policy. Existing law authorizes the local policy to supersede state law concerning child care subsidy programs with regard to certain factors, including eligibility criteria relating to CalWORKs participation, with exceptions. This bill would also authorize the local policy to supersede California state preschool eligibility periods, as specified, and would delete the above provisions relating to superseding eligibility criteria relating to CalWORKs participation and the exceptions. Existing law requires the plan to include a recognition that all funding sources utilized by direct service contractors that provide child care and development services in the County of Alameda and contractors that contract with licensed providers and centers are eligible to be included in the county's plan. This bill would instead require the plan to include a recognition that all funding sources utilized by contractors that provide child care and development services in the County of Alameda are eligible to be included in the county's plan.
Sponsored bills
Existing law regulates the sale or offer to sell by a dealer to a consumer of a collectible in or from this state, as specified. Existing law defines the term "collectible" to mean any autographed item, as specified, sold or offered for sale in or from this state by a dealer, to a consumer for $5 or more. Existing law defines the term "autographed" to mean bearing the actual signature of a personality signed by that individual's own hand. Existing law defines a "dealer," among other things, as a person who is principally in the business of selling or offering for sale collectibles in or from this state or a person who by his or her occupation holds himself or herself out as having knowledge or skill peculiar to collectibles. Existing law includes a person engaged in a cable television business for the sale of collectibles in the definition of dealer. Existing law excludes, among other persons, the personality who signs the memorabilia from the definition of dealer. Existing law also excludes from the definition of dealer a provider or operator of an online marketplace, provided that the marketplace provider or operator is not principally in the business of selling, or offering for sale, collectibles, in or from the state, exclusively or nonexclusively, or does not hold itself out as having knowledge or skill peculiar to collectibles. This bill would instead define "autographed collectible" to mean an autographed sports or entertainment media item, as specified, sold or offered for sale by a dealer to a consumer for $50 or more, bearing the signature of a particular person that increases the sale value of the item over that of a comparable item without the actual signature. The bill would exclude, among other items, works of fine art, signed books, furniture, and decorative objects, from the definition of an autographed collectible. The bill would amend the definition of a dealer to be, among other things, a person who is in the business of selling autographed collectibles and who sells 3 or more autographed collectibles in a period of 12 months. The bill would include a person engaged in any television business for the sale of autographed collectibles and an auctioneer or auction company in the definition of dealer. The bill would delete the exclusion of a provider or operator of an online marketplace from the definition of dealer. Existing law requires a dealer to provide a certificate of authenticity, as specified, for each collectible to, among other things, indicate to a buyer whether a collectible item was purchased from a 3rd party and if so, the name and address of the 3rd party. This bill instead would require a dealer to provide an express warranty, as specified. The bill also would require a dealer, for items obtained on and after January 1, 2018, separate from the express warranty, to maintain a record stating whether the autographed collectible was purchased by the dealer from a 3rd party and the name and address of the 3rd party. The bill would permit discovery of this information in a civil dispute, as specified. The bill would require the dealer to keep the 3rd-party information on file for 7 years. Existing law requires a dealer displaying or offering for sale a collectible in this state to have at the location and in close proximity to the collectible merchandise a conspicuous sign that informs consumers of the written certificate of authenticity requirement, as specified. Existing law exempts auctioneers selling collectibles from this requirement. Existing law also requires a dealer engaged in a mail-order, telephone-order, or online business for the sale of collectibles in or from this state to, among other things, include in each television or online advertisement a similar disclosure in an onscreen message, as specified. This bill would require an auctioneer, auction company, and a vendor at a trade show to display specified signage regarding the express warranty requirements for autographed collectibles. Existing law grants certain individuals the right to cancel or to rescind certain contracts within a specified number of business days. Existing law requires a retail seller that sells goods to the public in this state that has a policy as to any of those goods of not giving full refunds, or of not allowing equal exchanges, or any combination thereof, for at least 7 days following purchase of the goods, as specified, to conspicuously display that policy, as specified. The bill would grant a consumer the right to cancel the contract for the purchase of an autographed collectible represented by a dealer as authentic until at least midnight of the 3rd day after the day on which the consumer purchased the autographed collectible, except when the autographed collectible is purchased at a public auction or trade show, or as part of a trade or barter, as specified. The bill would specify procedures and conditions of the cancellation. The bill would require the 3-day right of return, except as specified, to be included in the sign and the onscreen message a dealer is required to display. Existing law prohibits a dealer from displaying or offering for sale a collectible in this state at any trade show or similar event primarily featuring sales of collectibles or other memorabilia that offers onsite admission ticket sales, except as provided. Existing law requires a promoter who arranges or organizes a trade show featuring collectibles and autograph signings to provide a specified notification to any dealer who agrees to purchase or rent space in the trade show. This bill would repeal those provisions. Existing law provides that a consumer who is injured by a failure of the dealer to provide a certificate of authenticity is entitled to recover from that dealer, among other things, 10 times his or her actual damages. Existing law also authorizes the court to award additional damages based on the egregiousness of the dealer's conduct. This bill instead would provide for specified civil penalties in a civil action against the dealer for failure to comply with the provisions regarding express warranties. The bill would provide for separate specified civil penalties for providing a false warranty, providing a false warranty as the result of gross negligence, and knowingly providing a false warranty, as well as attorney's fees and other costs to be paid to the consumer. The bill would authorize the court to award punitive damages based on the egregiousness of the dealer's conduct. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
(1) Existing law creates the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) as a regional agency in the 9-county San Francisco Bay area with comprehensive regional transportation planning and other related responsibilities. Existing law creates the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) as a separate entity governed by the same governing board as MTC and makes BATA responsible for the programming, administration, and allocation of toll revenues from the state-owned toll bridges in the San Francisco Bay area. Existing law authorizes BATA to increase the toll rates for certain purposes, including to meet its bond obligations, provide funding for certain costs associated with the bay area state-owned toll bridges, including for the seismic retrofit of those bridges, and provide funding to meet the requirements of certain voter-approved regional measures. Existing law provided for submission of 2 regional measures to the voters of 7 bay area counties in 1988 and 2004 relative to specified increases in bridge auto tolls on the bay area state-owned toll bridges, subject to approval by a majority of the voters. This bill would require the City and County of San Francisco and the other 8 counties in the San Francisco Bay area to conduct a special election, to be known as Regional Measure 3, on a proposed increase in the amount of the toll rate charged on the state-owned toll bridges in that area to be used for specified projects and programs. The bill would require BATA to select the amount of the proposed increase, not to exceed $3, to be placed on the ballot for voter approval. If approved by the voters, the bill would authorize BATA, beginning 6 months after the election approving the toll increase, to phase in the toll increase over a period of time and to adjust the toll increase for inflation after the toll increase is phased in completely. The bill would specify that, except for the inflation adjustment, providing funding to meet the requirements of voter approved regional measures, and as otherwise specified in statute, the toll increase adopted pursuant to the results of this election may not be changed without the statutory authorization of the Legislature. By requiring this election, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require BATA to reimburse from toll revenues, as specified, the counties and the City and County of San Francisco for the cost of submitting the measure to the voters. This bill would require BATA to establish an independent oversight committee within 6 months of the effective date of the Regional Measure 3 toll increase with a specified membership, to ensure the toll revenues generated by the toll increase are expended consistent with a specified expenditure plan. The bill would require BATA to submit an annual report to the Legislature on the status of the projects and programs funded by the toll increase. (2) Existing law authorizes BATA to vary the toll structure on each of the bay area state-owned toll bridges and to provide discounts for vehicles classified by BATA as high-occupancy vehicles. This bill would additionally authorize BATA to provide discounts for vehicles that pay for tolls electronically or through other non-cash methods and to charge differential rates based on the chosen method. This bill, with respect to the Regional Measure 3 toll increase, would require BATA to provide a 50% discount on the amount of that toll increase on the 2nd bridge crossing for those commuters using a two-axle vehicle, who pay tolls electronically or through other noncash methods and who cross 2 bridges during commute hours, as specified. Existing law, if BATA establishes high-occupancy vehicle lane fee discounts or access for vehicles classified by BATA as high-occupancy vehicles for any bridge, requires BATA to collaborate with the Department of Transportation to reach agreement on how the occupancy requirements shall apply on each segment of highway that connects with that bridge. This bill would instead require BATA to establish those occupancy requirements in consultation with the department. (3) Existing law establishes the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) , governed by a board of directors, with specified powers and duties relative to the construction and operation of a rapid transit system. This bill would create the Independent Office of the BART Inspector General within BART. The bill would provide for the board of directors to nominate 3 persons to the Governor and for the Governor to appoint one of those nominees to serve as the Inspector General for a 4-year term. The bill would require the Inspector General to be removed from office by the board of directors, subject to the approval of the Governor, under certain circumstances. The bill would specify the duties and responsibilities of the Inspector General and would require the Inspector General to submit an annual report to the board of directors and the Legislature. The bill would provide for the office to receive $1,000,000 from an allocation of bridge toll revenue from BATA and, in the second and subsequent years of operation of the office, would authorize BATA to increase that amount, as specified. The bill would make these provisions operative upon an affirmative vote to increase tolls on the bay area state-owned toll bridges pursuant to Regional Measure 3 or related provisions. (4) Existing law authorizes the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to conduct, administer, and operate a value pricing high-occupancy toll (HOT) lane program on 2 corridors included in the high-occupancy vehicle lane system in Santa Clara County. Existing law authorizes a HOT lane established as part of this program on State Highway Route 101 to extend into the County of San Mateo as far as the high-occupancy lane in the County of San Mateo existed as of January 1, 2011, subject to agreement of the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. This bill would delete the authorization for a HOT lane to extend into the specified portion of San Mateo County as part of a value pricing program established on 2 corridors in Santa Clara County. The bill would instead authorize VTA to specifically conduct, administer, and operate a value pricing high-occupancy toll lane program on State Highway Route 101 in San Mateo County in coordination with the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority, as prescribed. (5) 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.
(1) Existing law, the California Healthy Youth Act, requires school districts to ensure that all pupils in grades 7 to 12, inclusive, receive comprehensive sexual health education and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention education, as specified. Under the act, this instruction includes, among other things, information about sexual harassment, sexual assault, adolescent relationship abuse, intimate partner violence, and sex trafficking. This bill would require that instruction to additionally include information about sexual abuse and to include information about human trafficking instead of sex trafficking. To the extent that this requirement would impose additional duties on school districts, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law authorizes a school district to provide sexual abuse and sex trafficking prevention education, as described, and authorizes the periodic conducting of in-service training of school district personnel relating to sexual abuse and sex trafficking. This bill would recast those provisions to instead authorize a school district to provide abuse, including sexual abuse, and human trafficking prevention education, and to require the availability and periodic conducting of continuation, rather than in-service, training of school district personnel relating to abuse, including sexual abuse, and human trafficking. (3) Existing law establishes the Commercially Sexually Exploited Children Program, which is administered by the State Department of Social Services, in order to adequately serve children who have been sexually exploited. The program requires the department, in consultation with the County Welfare Directors Association of California, to develop an allocation methodology to distribute funding for the program. The program authorizes the use of these funds by counties electing to participate in the program for certain prevention and intervention activities and services to children who are victims, or at risk of becoming victims, of commercial sexual exploitation, for the provision of training to county children's services workers to identify, intervene, and provide case management services to children who are victims of commercial sexual exploitation, and for the training of county workers and foster caregivers for the prevention and identification of potential victims, as specified. This bill would amend various provisions of the program to include components relating to education and training, as specified. Existing law requires a county that elects to receive funds from the program to develop an interagency protocol to be utilized in serving sexually exploited children. Existing law requires the protocol to be developed by a team that includes representatives from specified agencies. This bill would require that team to include representatives from the county office of education and the sheriff's department, as specified. Under existing law, the program also requires the department to ensure that the Child Welfare Services/Case Management System is capable of collecting data concerning children who are commercially sexually exploited, as specified. Existing law requires the department to implement these provisions by June 1, 2015. This bill would extend the requirement that the provision be implemented to June 1, 2018. (4) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 51934 of the Education Code proposed by AB 643 to be operative only if this bill and AB 643 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (5) 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.
(1) Existing law, the Political Reform Act of 1974, provides for the comprehensive regulation of campaign financing and activities. The act requires a committee that supports or opposes ballot measures to name and identify itself using a name or phrase that clearly identifies the economic or other special interests of its major donors of $50,000 or more. The act also requires that the identity of a common employer shared by major donors be disclosed. This bill would repeal these provisions. (2) The act defines "expenditure" as a payment, a forgiveness of a loan, a payment of a loan by a 3rd party, or an enforceable promise to make a payment, unless it is clear from the surrounding circumstances that it is not made for political purposes. This bill, which would be known as the California Disclose Act, would describe circumstances in which a payment would be made for political purposes within the meaning of the definition of "expenditure." (3) The act prohibits a candidate or committee from sending a mass mailing unless the name, street address, and city of the candidate or committee are shown on the outside of each piece of mail in the mass mailing, as specified. This bill would additionally require the name of such an entity to be disclosed in a mass electronic mailing, as defined, that the entity sends. The bill would provide that these disclosure requirements do not apply if the mass mailing or mass electronic mailing is paid for by an independent expenditure. (4) The act prohibits a candidate, committee, or slate mailer organization from expending campaign funds to pay for specified telephone calls that advocate support of, or opposition to, a candidate, ballot measure, or both, unless the name of the organization that authorized or paid for the call is disclosed to the recipient of the call during the course of each call. This bill would instead apply these requirements to a candidate, a candidate controlled committee established for an elective office for the controlling candidate, a political party committee, and a slate mailer organization that expends campaign funds to pay for such telephone calls. The bill would provide that these disclosure requirements do not apply if the telephone call is paid for by an independent expenditure. (5) The act also requires advertisements, as defined, to include prescribed disclosure statements, including, among others, a requirement that the disclosure statements include the names of the persons who made the 2 highest cumulative contributions, as defined, to the committee paying for the advertisement. This bill would repeal and recast provisions of the act relating to advertisement disclosure statements. The bill would revise the definition of "advertisement" to exclude a number of communications, including communications that involve wearing apparel, sky writing, and certain electronic media communications, as specified. The bill would also replace existing advertisement disclosure statements with newly prescribed disclosure statements that identify the name of the committee paying for the advertisement and the top contributors to that committee. The bill would define "top contributors" for purposes of these provisions as the persons from whom the committee paying for the advertisement received its 3 highest cumulative contributions, as specified. The bill would exempt certain committees, including committees that make independent expenditures totaling $1,000 or more in a calendar year, from the requirement to disclose the top contributors in advertisement disclosure statements. The bill would also prescribe location and format criteria for the disclosure statements that are specific to radio and telephone, television and video, print, and electronic media advertisements. (6) The act imposes, in addition to other penalties, a fine of up to triple the amount of the cost of an advertisement on a person who violates the disclosure requirements for advertisements. This bill would revise the scope of violations subject to that fine by specifying that it applies to certain disclosure requirements and intentional violations. (7) The act prohibits a person from making a contribution as an intermediary on behalf of another person without disclosing to the recipient of the contribution specified information about both the intermediary and the source of the contribution. The act also prohibits a person from making a contribution to a committee on the condition or with the agreement that it will be contributed to a particular candidate unless the contribution is disclosed in compliance with those requirements for contributions made by an intermediary. This bill would prohibit a person from making a contribution to a committee or candidate that is earmarked unless the contribution is disclosed in compliance with the requirements for contributions made by an intermediary. The bill would also describe circumstances in which a contribution is deemed to be earmarked. The bill would impose additional disclosure requirements in connection with earmarked contributions from one committee to another. (8) Because a violation of the act is punishable as a misdemeanor, 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. (9) The Political Reform Act of 1974, an initiative measure, provides that the Legislature may amend the act to further the act's purposes upon a 23 vote of each house of the Legislature and compliance with specified procedural requirements. This bill would declare that it furthers the purposes of the act. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
(1) Existing law, the State Bar Act, makes it a cause for suspension, disbarment, or other discipline for any member of the State Bar to report suspected immigration status or threaten to report suspected immigration status of a witness or party to a civil or administrative action or his or her family member, as defined, to a federal, state, or local agency because the witness or party exercises or has exercised a right related to his or her employment. This bill would expand that provision to make it a cause for suspension, disbarment, or other discipline for a member of the State Bar to report suspected immigration status or threaten to report suspected immigration status of a witness or party to a civil or administrative action or his or her family member, as defined, to a federal, state, or local agency because the witness or party exercises or has exercised a right related to the hiring of residential real property. (2) Existing law provides that a tenant of real property, property for a term less than life, or the executor of his or her estate, is guilty of unlawful detainer if, among other things, he or she continues in possession, in person or by subtenant, of the property or any part of the property, after the expiration of the term for which it is let to him or her, except as specified. Existing law authorizes a tenant of residential real property to assert as an affirmative defense in an unlawful detainer action based upon a default in the payment of rent that the lessor failed to comply with certain requirements relating to the safety and habitability of the dwelling. This bill would prohibit a lessor from causing a tenant or occupant to quit involuntarily or bring an action to recover possession because of the immigration or citizenship status of a tenant, occupant, or other person known to the lessor to be associated with a tenant or occupant, unless the lessor is complying with any legal obligation under any federal government program that provides for rent limitations or rental assistance to a qualified tenant. The bill would authorize a tenant or occupant to assert as an affirmative defense in an unlawful detainer action that a lessor violated this provision. The bill would also establish a rebuttable presumption that an affirmative defense is successful if the lessor approved the tenant or occupant to take possession of the unit before filing the unlawful detainer action and included in the unlawful detainer action specified claims. (3) Existing law makes it unlawful for a lessor to engage in specified activities for the purpose of influencing a lessee to vacate a dwelling, including using, or threatening to use, force, willful threats, or menacing conduct that interferes with the tenant's quiet enjoyment of the premises and that would create an apprehension of harm in a reasonable person. This bill would also prohibit a lessor from threatening to disclose information regarding or relating to the immigration status or citizenship status of a tenant, occupant, or other person associated with a tenant or occupant for the purpose of influencing a tenant to vacate a dwelling. (4) Existing law prohibits a lessor, or an agent of a lessor, from making any inquiry regarding or based on the immigration or citizenship status of a tenant, prospective tenant, occupant, or prospective occupant of residential real property, or from requiring a tenant, prospective tenant, occupant, or prospective occupant of the rental property make any statement, representation, or certification concerning his or her immigration or citizenship status. Existing law provides that the prohibitions described above do not prohibit a lessor from complying with any legal obligation under federal law. This bill would also prohibit a lessor, or an agent of a lessor, from disclosing to any person or entity information regarding or relating to the immigration or citizenship status of any tenant, prospective tenant, occupant, or prospective occupant of the rental property for the purpose of, or with the intent of, harassing or intimidating a tenant, prospective tenant, occupant, or prospective occupant, retaliating against a tenant or occupant for the exercise of his or her rights, influencing a tenant or occupant to vacate a dwelling, or recovering possession of the dwelling. The bill would clarify that the term "federal law" in the provision described above includes any legal obligation of a lessor under a federal government program that provides for rent limitations or rental assistance to a qualified tenant, and would broaden that provision to include any legal obligation of a lessor under a subpoena, warrant, or other order issued by a court. This bill would make it unlawful for a lessor to disclose to any immigration authority, law enforcement agency, or local, state, or federal agency information regarding or relating to the immigration or citizenship status of any tenant, occupant, or other person known to the lessor to be associated with a tenant or occupant, as provided, for the purpose of, or with the intent of, harassing or intimidating a tenant or occupant, retaliating against a tenant or occupant for the exercise of his or her rights, influencing a tenant or occupant to vacate a dwelling, or recovering possession of the dwelling, unless the lessor is complying with any legal obligation under federal law, or a subpoena, warrant, or order issued by a court. The bill would require a court to order a lessor to pay specified civil penalties in the event of a violation of these provisions to the tenant, and to issue injunctive relief to prevent the lessor from engaging in similar conduct in the future, and would require the court to notify the district attorney of the county in which the real property for hire at issue was located of a potential violation of specified laws relating to extortion. The bill would also require a court to award attorney fees and costs to the prevailing party in an action under these provisions. The bill would prohibit a tenant, occupant, or person known to the landlord to be associated with a tenant or occupant, from waiving his or her rights under these provisions. The bill would authorize a nonprofit organization exempt from federal income taxation to bring an action for injunctive relief under these provisions. (5) Existing law provides that, if a lessor retaliates against a lessee of a dwelling for exercising his or her rights or because of a complaint to an appropriate agency as to tenantability and if the lessee is not in default as to the payment of rent, the lessor may not recover possession, cause the lessee to quit involuntarily, increase the rent, or decrease any services within 180 days of the occurrence of specified events. This bill would provide that a lessor would violate that prohibition if the lessor reported, or threatened to report, the lessee, or individuals known to the lessor to be associated with the lessee, to immigration authorities, but would provide that a lessor would not violate that prohibition if the lessor was complying with any legal obligation under any federal government program that provides for rent limitations or rental assistance to a qualified tenant. (6) Existing law prohibits a lessor from retaliating against a lessee because he or she has lawfully organized or participated in a lessees' association or an organization advocating lessees' rights or has lawfully and peaceably exercised any rights under the law by increasing rent, decreasing services, causing a lessee to quit involuntarily, bringing an action to recover possession, or from threatening to do any of those acts. This bill would provide that a lessor would violate that prohibition if the lessor reported, or threatened to report, the lessee, or individuals known to the lessor to be associated with the lessee, to immigration authorities, but would provide that a lessor would not violate that prohibition if the lessor was complying with any legal obligation under any federal government program that provides for rent limitations or rental assistance to a qualified tenant. (7) Existing law declares that all protections, rights, and remedies available under state law are available to all individuals in the state who have applied for employment or are employed, regardless of immigration status, as specified. Existing law also declares, for the purposes of enforcing state labor, employment, civil rights, and employee housing laws, that a person's immigration status is irrelevant to the issue of liability and that discovery into a person's immigration status is prohibited unless the person seeking to make the inquiry has shown by clear and convincing evidence that the inquiry is necessary to comply with federal immigration law. Existing law also provides that the immigration status of a minor child seeking recovery under any applicable law is irrelevant to the issues of liability or remedy and would prohibit discovery or other inquiry in a civil action or proceeding into a minor child's immigration status, with specified exceptions. This bill would declare that the immigration or citizenship status of any person is irrelevant to any issue of liability or remedy under specified provisions of law relating to the rights of tenants, and would prohibit inquiry being made in a civil action initiated to enforce those laws into a person's immigration or citizenship status unless 2 exceptions to that prohibition apply. (8) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1940.3 of the Civil Code proposed by AB 299 to be operative only if this bill and AB 299 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
(1) Existing law establishes the California State University, under the administration of the Trustees of the California State University; the University of California, under the administration of the Regents of the University of California; the California Community Colleges, under the administration of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges; and independent institutions of higher education as the 4 segments of postsecondary education in this state. Existing provisions of the Donahoe Higher Education Act set forth the missions and functions of these 4 postsecondary educational segments. No provision of the Donahoe Higher Education Act applies to the University of California except to the extent that the regents, by appropriate resolution, make that provision applicable. This bill would express findings and declarations of the Legislature relating to the possible impacts on public postsecondary educational institutions in this state of changes in federal immigration policies and enforcement. The bill would add to the Donahoe Higher Education Act provisions that would require the Trustees of the California State University, the governing boards of community college districts, and independent institutions of higher education that are qualifying institutions for purposes of the Cal Grant Program, and would request the regents, to the fullest extent consistent with state and federal law, to: refrain from disclosing personal information concerning students, faculty, and staff, except under specified circumstances; advise all students, faculty, and staff to notify the office of the chancellor or president, or his or her designee, as soon as possible, if he or she is advised that an immigration officer, as defined, is expected to enter, or has entered, the campus to execute a federal immigration order; notify, as soon as possible, the emergency contact of a student, faculty, or staff person if there is reason to suspect that the person has been taken into custody as the result of an immigration enforcement action; comply with a request from an immigration officer for access to nonpublic areas of the campus only upon presentation of a judicial warrant, except as specified; advise all students, faculty, and staff responding to or having contact with an immigration officer executing a federal immigration order, to promptly refer the entity or individual to the office of the chancellor or president, or his or her designee, for purposes of verifying the legality of any warrant, court order, or subpoena; designate a staff person to serve as a point of contact for those who may be subject to immigration actions, as specified; maintain a contact list of legal services providers who provide legal immigration representation, and provide it free of charge to any and all students who request it; adopt and implement, by March 1, 2019, the model policy developed by the Attorney General or an equivalent policy pursuant to a specified statute, limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible consistent with federal and state law, as specified; post on its Internet Web site, and provide via email quarterly or each semester to all students, faculty, and staff, and update as often as is necessary, a copy of the policy referenced above, and guidance informing them of their rights under state and federal immigration laws and how to respond to a federal immigration action or order; and ensure that certain benefits and services provided to undocumented students are continued in the event that they are subject to a federal immigration order. Because this bill would create new duties for community college districts, it would constitute a state-mandated local program. (2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, 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 prohibits an employer or other person or entity from engaging in, or to directing another person or entity to engage in, unfair immigration-related practices against a person for exercising specified rights. Existing law defines unfair immigration-related practices for these purposes. Existing law grants the Labor Commissioner access to places of labor and authorizes the commissioner to conduct investigations and prosecute actions in relation to the prescribed duties of the office. Existing law creates the Labor Enforcement and Compliance Fund, moneys in which, upon appropriation by the Legislature, are available to support the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement. This bill would impose various requirements on public and private employers with regard to federal immigration agency immigration worksite enforcement actions. Except as otherwise required by federal law, the bill would prohibit an employer or other person acting on the employer's behalf from providing voluntary consent to an immigration enforcement agent to enter nonpublic areas of a place of labor unless the agent provides a judicial warrant, except as specified. Except as required by federal law, the bill would prohibit an employer or other person acting on the employer's behalf from providing voluntary consent to an immigration enforcement agent to access, review, or obtain the employer's employee records without a subpoena or court order, subject to a specified exception. The bill would grant the Labor Commissioner or the Attorney General the exclusive authority to enforce these provisions and would require that any penalty recovered be deposited in the Labor Enforcement and Compliance Fund. The bill would prescribe penalties for failure to satisfy the prohibitions described above of $2,000 up to $5,000 for a first violation and $5,000 up to $10,000 for each subsequent violation, as defined. The bill would specify circumstances for which penalties do not apply. The bill, except as required by federal law, would require an employer to provide a current employee notice containing specified information, by posting in the language the employer normally uses to communicate employment information, of an inspection of I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms or other employment records conducted by an immigration agency within 72 hours of receiving the federal notice of inspection. The bill would require an employer, upon reasonable request, to provide an affected employee a copy of the notice of inspection of I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms. The bill would require the Labor Commissioner, by July 1, 2018, to create a template for these purposes and make it available, as specified. The bill would require an employer to provide to an affected current employee, and to the employee's authorized representative, if any, a copy of the written immigration agency notice that provides for the inspection results and written notice of the obligations of the employer and the affected employee arising from the action, as specified. The bill would define affected employee for these purposes. The bill would prescribe penalties for failure to provide the notices of $2,000 up to $5,000 for a first violation and $5,000 up to $10,000 for each subsequent violation, except as specified, to be collected by the Labor Commissioner. Except as required by federal law, the bill would prohibit an employer from reverifying the employment eligibility of a current employee at a time or in a manner not required by specified federal law. The bill would prescribe a penalty of up to $10,000 for a violation of this prohibition to be recoverable by the Labor Commissioner.
Existing law provides that when there is reason to believe that a person arrested for a violation of specified controlled substance provisions may not be a citizen of the United States, the arresting agency shall notify the appropriate agency of the United States having charge of deportation matters. This bill would repeal those provisions. Existing law provides that whenever an individual who is a victim of or witness to a hate crime, or who otherwise can give evidence in a hate crime investigation, is not charged with or convicted of committing any crime under state law, a peace officer may not detain the individual exclusively for any actual or suspected immigration violation or report or turn the individual over to federal immigration authorities. This bill would, among other things and subject to exceptions, prohibit state and local law enforcement agencies, including school police and security departments, from using money or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes, as specified, and would, subject to exceptions, proscribe other activities or conduct in connection with immigration enforcement by law enforcement agencies. The bill would apply those provisions to the circumstances in which a law enforcement official has discretion to cooperate with immigration authorities. The bill would require, by October 1, 2018, the Attorney General, in consultation with the appropriate stakeholders, to publish model policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible for use by public schools, public libraries, health facilities operated by the state or a political subdivision of the state, and courthouses, among others. The bill would require, among others, all public schools, health facilities operated by the state or a political subdivision of the state, and courthouses to implement the model policy, or an equivalent policy. The bill would state that, among others, all other organizations and entities that provide services related to physical or mental health and wellness, education, or access to justice, including the University of California, are encouraged to adopt the model policy. The bill would require that a law enforcement agency that chooses to participate in a joint law enforcement task force, as defined, submit a report annually pertaining to task force operations to the Department of Justice, as specified. The bill would require the Attorney General, by March 1, 2019, and annually thereafter, to report on the types and frequency of joint law enforcement task forces, and other information, as specified, and to post those reports on the Attorney General's Internet Web site. The bill would require law enforcement agencies to report to the department annually regarding transfers of persons to immigration authorities. The bill would require the Attorney General to publish guidance, audit criteria, and training recommendations regarding state and local law enforcement databases, for purposes of limiting the availability of information for immigration enforcement, as specified. The bill would require the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to provide a specified written consent form in advance of any interview between a person in department custody and the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement regarding civil immigration violations. This bill would state findings and declarations of the Legislature relating to these provisions. By imposing additional duties on public schools and local law enforcement agencies, 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.
(1) The Planning and Zoning Law requires a city or county to adopt a general plan for land use development within its boundaries that includes, among other things, a housing element. The Planning and Zoning Law requires a planning agency, after a legislative body has adopted all or part of a general plan, to provide an annual report to the legislative body, the Office of Planning and Research, and the Department of Housing and Community Development on the status of the general plan and progress in meeting the community's share of regional housing needs. Existing law requires the housing element portion of the annual report to be prepared through the use of forms and definitions adopted by the department pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act. This bill would require the housing element portion of the annual report to be prepared through the use of standards, forms, and definitions adopted by the department. The bill would eliminate the requirement that the forms and definitions be adopted by the department pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act and would instead authorize the department to review, adopt, amend, and repeal the standards, forms, or definitions, as provided. The bill would also require the planning agency to include in its annual report specified information regarding units of net new housing, including rental housing and for-sale housing that have been issued a completed entitlement, building permit, or certificate of occupancy. The bill would also require the Department of Housing and Community Development to post an annual report submitted pursuant to the requirement described above on its Internet Web site, as provided. (2) Existing law requires an attached housing development to be a permitted use, not subject to a conditional use permit, on any parcel zoned for multifamily housing if at least certain percentages of the units are available at affordable housing costs to very low income, lower income, and moderate-income households for at least 30 years and if the project meets specified conditions relating to location and being subject to a discretionary decision other than a conditional use permit. Existing law provides for various incentives intended to facilitate and expedite the construction of affordable housing. This bill would authorize a development proponent to submit an application for a multifamily housing development, which satisfies specified planning objective standards, that is subject to a streamlined, ministerial approval process, as provided, and not subject to a conditional use permit. The bill would require a local government to notify the development proponent in writing if the local government determines that the development conflicts with any of those objective standards by a specified time; otherwise, the development is deemed to comply with those standards. The bill would limit the authority of a local government to impose parking standards or requirements on a streamlined development approved pursuant to these provisions, as provided. The bill would provide that if a local government approves a project pursuant to that process, that approval will not expire if that project includes investment in housing affordability, and would otherwise provide that the approval of a project expire automatically after 3 years, unless that project qualifies for a one-time, one-year extension of that approval. The bill would provide that approval pursuant to its provisions would remain valid for three years and remain valid thereafter so long as vertical construction of the development has begun and is in progress, and would authorize a discretionary one-year extension, as provided. The bill would prohibit a local government from adopting any requirement that applies to a project solely or partially on the basis that the project receives ministerial or streamlined approval pursuant to these provisions. The bill would repeal these provisions as of January 1, 2026. (3) The bill would make findings that ensuring access to affordable housing is a matter of statewide concern and declare that its provisions would apply to all cities and counties, including a charter city, a charter county, or a charter city and county. (4) By imposing new duties upon local agencies with respect to the streamlined approval process and reporting requirement described above, 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. (5) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65400 of the Government Code proposed by AB 879 to be operative only if this bill and AB 879 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65582.1 of the Government Code proposed by AB 73 to be operative only if this bill and AB 73 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.