This measure would proclaim February 20, 2020, as Introduce a Girl to Engineering Day.
This measure would recognize February 2020 as Black History Month, urge all citizens to join in celebrating the accomplishments of African Americans during Black History Month, encourage the people of California to recognize the many talents of African Americans and the achievements and contributions they make to their communities to create equity and equality for education, economics, and social justice, and recognize the significance in protecting citizens' right to vote and remedying racial discrimination in voting.
The California Constitution requires the Legislature to convene in regular session on specified dates and provides that a majority of the membership constitutes a quorum, although a lesser number may recess from day to day and compel the attendance of absent members. The California Constitution requires the proceedings of each house of the Legislature to be open and public and recognizes the right of the public to attend, record, and broadcast those proceedings. The California Constitution authorizes the Legislature to provide for the convening of the Legislature to meet the needs resulting from a war-caused or enemy-caused disaster in the state. This measure would permit Members to remotely attend and vote in a legislative proceeding, or to vote by proxy in a legislative proceeding if permitted by their house, during the pendency of a state of emergency declared by the Governor or the President of the United States, under specified conditions. The measure would provide, among other conditions, that a Member may remotely attend and vote, or vote by proxy as authorized, in a proceeding only if the state of emergency prevents the Member from safely attending the proceeding in person. The measure would also provide that a Member attending remotely would be included in the determination of a quorum. The measure would provide that if 15 or more of the Members of a house cannot attend a proceeding during a state of emergency because they are deceased, disabled, or missing, a quorum may be established by a majority of those Members able to attend. The measure would specify that the Legislature may provide by statute for temporarily filling the vacant offices of Members with pro tempore members in the event that 15 or more of the Members of a house are deceased, disabled, or missing during a state of emergency. The measure would require the Legislature by concurrent resolution, or each house by separate resolutions, 23 of the membership concurring, to adopt rules to implement this provision no later than the end of the biennial legislative session in which this measure takes effect, except as specified.
Existing law requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) to develop and implement a course of instruction and training for specified peace officers on the topic of hate crimes. Existing law requires that training to be implemented into the basic course and requires, as specified, all state and local law enforcement agencies to provide the training to all peace officers they employ. This bill would require POST to develop and periodically update an interactive refresher course on hate crimes for in-service peace officers, and require specified peace officers to take the course every 5 years.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. The Jobs and Economic Improvement Through Environmental Leadership Act of 2011 (leadership act) authorizes the Governor, until January 1, 2020, to certify as environmental leadership development projects certain projects that meet specified requirements, making those projects eligible for streamlining benefits provided by that act related to compliance with CEQA and streamlining of judicial review of action taken by a public agency. The leadership act requires the project applicant to agree to pay the costs of the court of appeal in hearing and deciding any case, as specified. The leadership act requires that if the Governor determines a leadership project is eligible for streamlining, the Governor submit the determination and any supporting information to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee for concurrence or nonconcurrence, as prescribed. The leadership act provides that if a lead agency fails to approve a project certified by the Governor before January 1, 2021, the certification expires and is no longer valid. The leadership act requires a lead agency to prepare the record of proceedings for the certified project concurrent with the preparation of the environmental documents. The leadership act is repealed by its own terms on January 1, 2021. This bill would extend the authority of the Governor to certify, under the leadership act, a project as an environmental leadership development project to January 1, 2023. The bill would provide that the certification expires and is no longer valid if the lead agency fails to approve a certified project before January 1, 2024. The bill would instead repeal the leadership act on January 1, 2024. Because the bill would extend the obligation of the lead agency to prepare concurrently the record of proceedings, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would modify, and add to, the specific requirements a project must satisfy to be eligible for streamlining benefits under the leadership act, including that the project does not result in any net additional emissions of greenhouse gases, as prescribed, and achieves a 20% reduction in vehicle miles traveled per capita compared to existing development, calculated as specified. The bill would provide that an environmental leadership development project is subject to the rules and regulations of the leadership act that are in place on the date the Governor certified the project. The bill would require the project applicant to pay the costs of the superior court and the court of appeal in hearing and deciding any case. The bill would also eliminate the authority of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee to concur or nonconcur in the Governor's streamlining eligibility determinations. The bill would authorize, before a lead agency's approval of a project certified by the Governor, the Governor to, upon application of the project applicant, certify a project "Alternative," as defined, for streamlining benefits provided by the leadership act, if the Alternative complies with certain conditions in the leadership act in place at the time of the Governor's original certification. The bill would require the project applicant to supply evidence and materials that the Governor deems necessary to make a decision on the project Alternative application, and would require the evidence or materials to be made available by the Governor to the public at least 15 days before the Governor certifies a project Alternative. 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 proclaim March 15, 2020, to March 22, 2020, as California Down Syndrome Awareness Week and March 21, 2020, as California Down Syndrome Day, and would encourage all Californians to support and participate in related activities.
The Planning and Zoning Law requires the legislative body of each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city that includes, among other mandatory elements, a housing element. Under that law, supportive housing, as defined, is a use by right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted if the developer provides the planning agency with a plan for providing supportive services and the proposed housing development meets specified criteria, including that the housing development consist of 50 units or fewer if it is located in an unincorporated area of a county or city that has a population of fewer than 200,000 and a population of persons experiencing homelessness of 1,500 or fewer. This bill would, additionally, make supportive housing a use by right in zones where emergency shelters are permitted. The bill would revise the above-described limit on the number of units in a housing development to 120 or fewer if it is located within a region served by a contimuum of care, as defined, and the most recently published total homeless point-in-time count for the region is 1,500 or fewer. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA does not apply to the ministerial approval of projects. This bill, by expanding the locations in which, and sizes of, supportive housing that qualify as a use by right, would expand the exemption for the ministerial approval of projects under CEQA. By adding to the duties of local planning officials, 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.
Existing law requires the Board of Registered Nursing, the Physician Assistant Board, the Respiratory Care Board of California, and the Board of Vocational Nursing and Psychiatric Technicians of the State of California to regulate and oversee the practice of healing arts within their respective jurisdictions and to, among other things, collect and report specific demographic data relating to their licensees, subject to a licensee's discretion to report their race or ethnicity, to the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. Existing law requires these boards to collect this data at least biennially, at the times of both issuing an initial license and issuing a renewal license. Existing law also authorizes the Board of Registered Nursing to expend $145,000 to implement these provisions. This bill would repeal the provisions applicable only to the licensees of those boards and, instead, would require all boards that oversee healing arts licensees to collect at the time of electronic application for a license and license renewal, or at least biennially, specified demographic information and to post the information on the internet websites that they each maintain. The bill would also require each board, or the Department of Consumer Affairs on its behalf, beginning on July 1, 2021, to provide the information annually to the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. The bill would require these boards to maintain the confidentiality of the information they receive from licensees and to only release information in aggregate from, as specified. 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 Marks-Roos Local Bond Pooling Act of 1985, authorizes joint powers authorities, among other powers, to issue bonds and loan the proceeds to local agencies to finance specified types of projects and programs. The act authorizes certain joint powers authorities, upon application by a local agency that owns and operates a publicly owned utility, defined to mean certain utilities furnishing water or wastewater service to not less than 25,000 retail customers, to issue rate reduction bonds to finance utility projects, as defined, subject to certain requirements. Under the act, these rate reduction bonds are secured by a pledge of utility project property, and the joint powers authority issuing the bonds may impose on, and collect from, customers of the publicly owned utility a utility project charge to finance the bonds, as provided. The act requires the California Pollution Control Financing Authority, among other things, to review each issuance of rate reduction bonds issued under these provisions. This bill would expand the definition of a publicly owned utility for these purposes to include certain utilities furnishing generation, transmission, or distribution electrical service to retail customers, and would authorize an authority to issue rate reduction bonds to finance or refinance utility projects for the provision of generation, transmission, or distribution electrical service. The bill would include in the allowable costs of a public capital improvement, a utility project, or portion of the improvement or utility project financed with rate reduction bonds all or any part of the cost of financing or refinancing specified charges imposed upon the customers of the electrical corporation from which all or part of the improvement or utility project was acquired. The act prohibits a local agency from applying to an authority for financing or refinancing of a utility project pursuant to these provisions unless the legislative body of the local agency has determined, among other things, that the rates of the publicly owned utility plus the utility project charge resulting from the financing or refinancing of the utility project with rate reduction bonds are expected to be lower than the rates of the publicly owned utility if the utility project was financed or refinanced with bonds payable from revenues of the publicly owned utility. The act authorizes a local agency with a publicly owned utility having 500,000 or more retail customers, in lieu of making that determination, to alternatively determine that the use of rate reduction bonds to finance or refinance utility projects provides substantial benefits to the publicly owned utility. This bill would additionally authorize a local agency that has a population of 800,000 or more with a publicly owned utility that provides, or that will provide upon the acquisition of the utility project, electrical service anywhere within the service area of the local agency, to make that alternative substantial benefit determination. The bill would also make clarifying changes to the act.
The Bay Area County Traffic and Transportation Funding Act authorizes each of the 9 counties in the San Francisco Bay area to impose a 12 of 1% or 1% sales tax for transportation purposes, subject to voter approval. Existing law provides for the establishment of a county transportation authority in each county imposing a sales tax under these provisions, requires the development of a county transportation expenditure plan, and specifies the powers and duties of a county board of supervisors and the county transportation authority in this regard. Existing law requires each county transportation authority to award contracts for the purchase of supplies, equipment, and materials in excess of $75,000 to the lowest responsible bidder after competitive bidding, except in an emergency declared by the vote of 23 of the voting membership of the county transportation authority. This bill would require each county transportation authority to award contracts for the purchase of supplies, equipment, and materials in excess of $150,000, rather than $75,000, either to the lowest responsible bidder or to the responsible bidder whose proposal provides the best value, as defined, on the basis of the factors identified in the solicitation, except in a declared emergency, as specified. The bill would specify that the requirement does not apply to construction contracts.
