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, including retail commercial cannabis activity. MAUCRSA gives the Bureau of Cannabis Control in the Department of Consumer Affairs the power, duty, purpose, responsibility, and jurisdiction to regulate commercial cannabis activity in the state as provided by the act. MAUCRSA does not supersede or limit the authority of a local jurisdiction to adopt and enforce local ordinances to regulate commercial cannabis businesses within that local jurisdiction. This bill, if more than 50% of the electorate of a local jurisdiction voted in favor of AUMA, would require a local jurisdiction to issue a minimum number of local licenses authorizing specified retail cannabis commercial activity within that jurisdiction that would be permitted by a retailer license issued under MAUCRSA. The bill would require the minimum number of those local licenses required to be issued in that jurisdiction to be16 of the number of currently active on-sale general licenses for alcoholic beverage sales in that jurisdiction, as specified, unless the minimum number would result in a ratio greater than one local license for retail cannabis commercial activity for every 15,000 residents of the local jurisdiction, in which case the bill would require the minimum number to be determined by dividing the number of residents in the local jurisdiction by 15,000 and rounding down to the nearest whole number. The bill would authorize a local jurisdiction to impose a fee on licensees to cover the regulatory costs of issuing those local licenses. The bill would exempt from these provisions a local jurisdiction that, on or after January 1, 2017, and until January 1, 2020, submitted to the electorate of the local jurisdiction a specified local ordinance or resolution relating to retail cannabis commercial activity that received a specified vote of the electorate. This bill would allow any local jurisdiction subject to the requirements of this bill that wants to establish a lower amount of these local licenses to submit an ordinance or other law, that clearly specifies the level of participation in the retail commercial cannabis market it would allow, to the electorate of that local jurisdiction at the next regularly scheduled local election following the operative date of this bill. The bill would provide that the local ordinance or other local law becomes effective if approved by more than 50% of its electorate. The bill would require the local jurisdiction to issue those licenses as otherwise required by this bill within a specified period of time if a local jurisdiction subject to the requirements of this bill does not submit a local ordinance or other local law regarding the lower amount of licenses to the electorate, or that local ordinance or other local law fails to receive more than 50% of the approval of the electorate voting on the issue. The bill would provide that these provisions are prohibited from being construed to require a local jurisdiction to authorize adult-use retail cannabis commercial activity. By imposing additional requirements on local jurisdictions the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. AUMA authorizes the Legislature to amend its provisions with a 23 vote of both houses to further its purposes and intent. This bill would declare that its provisions further the purposes and intent of AUMA.
Sponsored bills
Under existing law, a firearms dealer or licensee means a person who has a valid federal firearms license, has a regulatory or business license, has a valid seller's permit issued by the State Board of Equalization, has a certificate of eligibility issued by the Department of Justice, has a license granted by a duly constituted licensing authority of any city, county, or city and county, and is among those recorded in the centralized list of licensed firearms dealers kept by the Department of Justice. Existing law regulates licensed firearms dealers and provides that a license is subject to forfeiture for a breach of specified prohibitions in existing law. This bill would authorize the Department of Justice to impose a civil fine not exceeding $1000 for a breach of those prohibitions, and a civil fine not exceeding $3,000 for a breach of those prohibitions when the licensee has received written notification from the department regarding the breach and fails to take corrective action, as specified, or the department determines the licensee committed the breach knowingly or with gross negligence. The bill would authorize the department to adopt regulations to carry out these provisions. The bill would, commencing January 1, 2021, require a licensee to obtain a policy of commercial insurance that insures the licensee against liability for damage to property and for injury to or death of any person as a result of the theft, sale, lease or transfer or offering for sale, lease or transfer of a firearm or ammunition, or any other operations of the business and business premises, in the amount of $1,000,000 per incident, as specified. The bill would also provide that these provisions would not preclude or preempt a local ordinance that places additional or more stringent requirements on firearms dealers regarding insurance pertaining to the licensee's business.
Existing sales and use tax laws impose a tax on retailers measured by the gross receipts from the sale of tangible personal property sold at retail in this state, or on the storage, use, or other consumption in this state of tangible personal property purchased from a retailer for storage, use, or other consumption in this state. Those laws provide various exemptions from those taxes. This bill, on and after January 1, 2020, and before January 1, 2024, would exempt from those taxes the gross receipts from the sale in this state of, and the storage, use, or other consumption in this state of, retail hydrogen vehicle fuel, as defined. The bill would make findings specifying the goals, purposes, and objectives of this tax exemption and would detail the performance indicators for the Legislature to use when measuring whether the exemption meets these goals, purposes, and objectives. The Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law authorizes counties and cities to impose local sales and use taxes in conformity with the Sales and Use Tax Law, and existing laws authorize districts, as specified, to impose transactions and use taxes in accordance with the Transactions and Use Tax Law, which generally conforms to the Sales and Use Tax Law. Amendments to the Sales and Use Tax Law are automatically incorporated into the local tax laws. Existing law requires the state to reimburse counties and cities for revenue losses caused by the enactment of sales and use tax exemptions. This bill would provide that, notwithstanding Section 2230 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, no appropriation is made and the state shall not reimburse any local agencies for sales and use tax revenues lost by them pursuant to this bill. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
The California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act, which is administered by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, is established to promote beverage container recycling and provides for the payment, collection, and distribution of certain payments and fees based on minimum refund values established for beverage containers. This bill would require the department to conduct a study on the changes to the international recycling market since January 1, 2018, and provide, by January 1, 2021, recommendations to the Legislature on how to foster more recycling of beverage container materials within the state.
This bill would make appropriations for the support of state government for the 2019–20 fiscal year. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a Budget Bill.
(1) Existing law authorizes a development proponent to submit an application for a multifamily housing development that satisfies specified planning objective standards to be subject to a streamlined, ministerial approval process, as provided, and not subject to a conditional use permit. This bill would authorize a development proponent of a neighborhood multifamily project located on an eligible parcel to submit an application for a streamlined, ministerial approval process that is not subject to a conditional use permit. The bill would define a "neighborhood multifamily project" to mean a project to construct a multifamily structure on vacant land, or to convert an existing structure that does not require substantial exterior alteration into a multifamily structure, consisting of up to 4 residential dwelling units and that meets local height, setback, and lot coverage zoning requirements as they existed on July 1, 2019. The bill would also define "eligible parcel" to mean a parcel that meets specified requirements, including requirements relating to the location of the parcel and restricting the demolition of certain housing development that may already exist on the site. This bill would require a local agency to notify the development proponent in writing if the local agency determines that the development conflicts with any of the requirements provided for streamlined ministerial approval within 60 days of the submission of the development to the local agency. If the local agency does not notify the development proponent within this time period, the development would be deemed to comply with those requirements. The bill would limit the authority of a local agency to impose parking standards or requirements on a streamlined development approved pursuant to these provisions, as provided. The bill would provide that the approval of a project under these provisions expires 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 3 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 agency 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. This bill would allow a local agency to exempt a project from the streamlined ministerial approval process described above by finding that the project will cause a specific adverse impact to public health and safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact. 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. CEQA does not apply to the approval of ministerial projects. This bill would establish a streamlined ministerial approval process for neighborhood multifamily projects, thereby exempting these projects from the CEQA approval process. (2) Existing law, known as the density bonus law, requires, when an applicant proposes a housing development within the jurisdiction of a local government, that the city, county, or city and county provide the developer with a density bonus and other incentives or concessions for the production of lower income housing units or for the donation of land within the development if the developer, among other things, agrees to construct a specified percentage of units for very low, low-, or moderate-income households or qualifying residents. This bill, on or after January 1, 2023, would require a specified city, county, or city and county to grant upon request an equitable communities incentive when a development proponent seeks and agrees to construct a residential development, as defined, that satisfies specified criteria, including, among other things, that the residential development is either a job-rich housing project or a transit-rich housing project, as those terms are defined; the site does not contain, or has not contained, housing occupied by tenants or accommodations withdrawn from rent or lease in accordance with specified law within specified time periods; and the residential development complies with specified additional requirements under existing law. The bill would impose additional requirements on a residential development located within a county with a population equal to or less than 600,000. The bill would require that a residential development within a county with a population greater than 600,000 that is eligible for an equitable communities incentive receive, upon request, waivers from maximum controls on density; minimum automobile parking requirements greater than 0.5 parking spots per unit; and specified additional waivers if the residential development is located within a 12-mile or 14-mile radius of a major transit stop, as defined. For a residential development within a county with a population equal to or less than 600,000, the bill would instead require that the incentive provide waivers from maximum controls on density, subject to certain limitations; maximum height limitations less than or equal to one story, or 15 feet, above the highest allowable height for mixed use or residential use; certain requirements governing the size of the parcel and the area that the building may occupy; and minimum automobile parking requirements, as provided. The bill would require a local government to grant an equitable communities incentive unless it makes a specified finding regarding the effects of the incentive on any real property or historic district that is listed on a federal or state register of historical resources. The bill would authorize a local government to modify or expand the terms of an equitable communities incentive, provided that the equitable communities incentive is consistent with these provisions. The bill would delay implementation of these provisions in potentially sensitive communities, as defined, until July 1, 2023. The bill would further delay implementation of these provisions in sensitive communities, determined as provided, until January 1, 2026, unless the city or county in which the area is located votes to make these provisions applicable after a specified petition and public hearing process. On and after January 1, 2026, the bill would apply these provisions to a sensitive community unless the city or county adopts a community plan for the area that meets certain requirements. The bill would also exempt from these provisions a local government that has a local flexibility plan that has been reviewed and certified by the Department of Housing and Community Development, as specified. The bill, on or before July 1, 2021, would require the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, in consultation with the Department of Housing and Community Development, to develop and publish on its internet website rules, regulations, or guidelines for the submission and approval of a local flexibility plan, as specified. The bill, on or after July 1, 2021, would authorize a local government to submit a local flexibility plan for review and approval by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to those rules, regulations, or guidelines. The bill would include findings that the changes proposed by these provisions address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. The Housing Accountability Act prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning approval in a manner that renders infeasible, a housing development project that complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria in effect at the time the application for the project is deemed complete unless the local agency makes specified written findings based on a preponderance of the evidence in the record. That law provides that the receipt of a density bonus is not a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision of that act. This bill would additionally provide that the receipt of an equitable communities incentive is not a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision of that act. (3) By adding to the duties of local planning officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (4) 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 name the public street, circle, and plaza at 914 and 915 Capitol Mall in the City of Sacramento as the Willie L. Brown, Jr. Circle and Plaza. The measure would request the Department of General Services to determine the cost of erecting the appropriate signage commemorating this special designation and, upon receiving donations from nonstate sources, to cover that cost to erect that signage.
Existing law requires the Attorney General to establish and maintain an online database known as the Prohibited Armed Persons File, sometimes referred to as the Armed Prohibited Persons System, to cross-reference persons who have ownership or possession of a firearm on or after January 1, 1996, and who, subsequent to the date of that ownership or possession of a firearm, fall within a class of persons who are prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm. The Budget Act of 2019 appropriated $3,000,000 to the Counties of Alameda, San Diego, Santa Cruz, and Ventura to support local law enforcement activities related to seizing weapons and ammunition from persons who are prohibited from possessing them through a Gun Violence Reduction Pilot Program. This bill would require the Counties of Alameda, San Diego, Santa Cruz, and Ventura on or before 15 months after receiving these funds appropriated in the Budget Act of 2019, to submit a report to the Department of Justice and to the Legislature containing specified information relating to the efficacy of their programs.
(1) Existing law, the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act, requires every beverage container sold or offered for sale in this state to have a minimum refund value. Under the act, the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery is required to calculate a processing fee for each beverage container with a specified scrap value, which is required to be paid by beverage manufacturers for each beverage container sold or transferred to a distributor or dealer. The department is required to calculate the processing fee in a specified manner so that the actual processing fee generally equals 65% of the processing payment that the department is required to pay to processors if the scrap value of the container having a refund value pursuant to the act is less than the cost of recycling. Existing law provides that a violation of the act or a regulation adopted pursuant to the act is a crime. This bill, on and after January 1, 2021, would require the total number of plastic beverage containers filled with a beverage by a beverage manufacturer, as specified, to contain, on average, specified amounts of postconsumer recycled plastic content per year pursuant to a tiered plan that would require the total number of plastic beverage containers to contain, on average, no less than 50% postconsumer recycled plastic content per year on and after January 1, 2030, except as specified. The bill would impose civil penalties, in specified amounts, on a beverage manufacturer for a violation of these requirements, except as specified. The bill would authorize the department to enforce these provisions and would authorize the department to conduct audits and investigations of a beverage manufacturer for the purpose of ensuring compliance. The bill would exempt from the California Public Records Act information resulting from those audits and investigations. The bill would require penalties collected to be deposited in the Recycling Enhancement Penalty Account, which the bill would create. The bill would require moneys in the Recycling Enhancement Penalty Account to be expended upon appropriation for the sole purpose of supporting the recycling, infrastructure, collection, and processing of plastic beverage containers in this state. The bill would require the department to contract with a research university for a specified study and would authorize the department to allocate moneys from the California Beverage Container Recycling Fund, upon appropriation, for the study. The bill would require the study to be completed by May 1, 2025. The bill would prohibit a city, county, or other local government jurisdiction from adopting an ordinance regulating the minimum recycled plastic content requirements for plastic beverage containers. Because a violation of these provisions would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) The act requires the department to pay a market development payment to a reclaimer, as defined, for empty plastic beverage containers that have been collected for recycling in the state, and that the reclaimer washes and processes into flake, pellet, sheet, or any other form that is then usable as input for the manufacture of new plastic products, as defined, by product manufacturers in the state. The act also requires the department to pay a market development payment to a product manufacturer, as defined, for plastic flake, pellet, sheet, or any other form of plastic purchased from a reclaimer and used by that product manufacturer to manufacture a plastic product in the state. The act makes these provisions inoperative on July 1, 2022. This bill, for when the department is determining which entity to make a market development payment to, would require the department to prioritize allocations that increase the collection, production, procurement, and usage of beverage-grade recycling plastic in beverage containers, as specified. (3) Existing law requires a manufacturer of a beverage sold in a plastic beverage container subject to the California Redemption Value, as specified, to annually report to the department the amount of virgin plastic and postconsumer recycled plastic used by the manufacturer for plastic beverage containers subject to the California Redemption Value for sale in the state in the previous calendar year. This bill would require, beginning March 1, 2020, and annually thereafter, a plastic material reclaimer to report to the department, under penalty of perjury, the number of empty plastic beverage containers, as specified, that the plastic material reclaimer has collected and sold in the previous calendar year. The bill also would require, beginning March 1, 2020, and annually thereafter, a manufacturer of postconsumer recycled plastic to report to the department, under penalty of perjury, the amount in pounds of "food-grade" flake, pellet, sheet, fines, or other forms that were sold in the previous calendar year and their capacity to produce "food-grade" material, as specified. By requiring that the information be submitted under penalty of perjury, this bill would expand the crime of perjury and impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the department to post on its internet website, beginning July 1, 2020, a specified summary annually, and, beginning September 1, 2020, a specified analysis biennially. (4) Existing law requires all rigid plastic bottles and rigid plastic containers sold in the state to be labeled with a code indicating the resin used to produce the rigid plastic bottle or rigid plastic container. This bill would specify that the above labeling requirement does not apply to rigid plastic containers or rigid plastic bottles that are medical devices, medical products that are required to be sterile, prescription medicine, and packaging used for those products. (5) 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. 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.