Existing law specifies that a hiring of residential real property, for a term not specified by the parties, is deemed to be renewed at the end of the term implied by law unless one of the parties gives written notice to the other of that party's intention to terminate. Existing law requires an owner of a residential dwelling to give notice at least 60 days prior to the proposed date of termination, or at least 30 days prior to the proposed date of termination if any tenant or resident has resided in the dwelling for less than one year, as specified. Existing law requires any notice given by an owner to be given in a prescribed manner, to contain certain information, and to be formatted, as specified. This bill would, with certain exceptions, prohibit an owner, as defined, of residential real property from terminating a tenancy without just cause, as defined, which the bill would require to be stated in the written notice to terminate tenancy when the tenant has continuously and lawfully occupied the residential real property for 12 months, except as provided. The bill would require, for certain just cause terminations that are curable, that the owner give a notice of violation and an opportunity to cure the violation prior to issuing the notice of termination. The bill, if the violation is not cured within the time period set forth in the notice, would authorize a 3-day notice to quit without an opportunity to cure to be served to terminate the tenancy. The bill would require, for no-fault just cause terminations, as specified, that the owner, at the owner's option, either assist certain tenants to relocate, regardless of the tenant's income, by providing a direct payment of one month's rent to the tenant, as specified, or waive in writing the payment of rent for the final month of the tenancy, prior to the rent becoming due. The bill would require the actual amount of relocation assistance or rent waiver provided to a tenant that fails to vacate after the expiration of the notice to terminate the tenancy to be recoverable as damages in an action to recover possession. The bill would provide that if the owner does not provide relocation assistance, the notice of termination is void. The bill would except certain properties and circumstances from the application of its provisions. The bill would require an owner of residential property to provide prescribed notice to a tenant of the tenant's rights under these provisions. The bill would not apply to residential real property subject to a local ordinance requiring just cause for termination adopted on or before September 1, 2019, or to residential real property subject to a local ordinance requiring just cause for termination adopted or amended after September 1, 2019, that is more protective than these provisions, as defined. The bill would void any waiver of the rights under these provisions. The bill would repeal these provisions as of January 1, 2030. Existing law governs the hiring of residential dwelling units and requires a landlord to provide specified notice to tenants prior to an increase in rent. Existing law, the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, prescribes statewide limits on the application of local rent control with regard to certain properties. That act, among other things, authorizes an owner of residential real property to establish the initial and all subsequent rental rates for a dwelling or unit that meets specified criteria, subject to certain limitations. This bill would, until January 1, 2030, prohibit an owner of residential real property from, over the course of any 12-month period, increasing the gross rental rate for a dwelling or unit more than 5% plus the percentage change in the cost of living, as defined, or 10%, whichever is lower, of the lowest gross rental rate charged for the immediately preceding 12 months, subject to specified conditions. The bill would prohibit an owner of a unit of residential real property from increasing the gross rental rate for the unit in more than 2 increments over a 12-month period, after the tenant remains in occupancy of the unit over a 12-month period. The bill would exempt certain properties from these provisions. The bill would require the Legislative Analyst's Office to submit a report, on or before January 1, 2030, to the Legislature regarding the effectiveness of these provisions. The bill would provide that these provisions apply to all rent increases occurring on or after March 15, 2019. The bill would provide that in the event that an owner increased the rent by more than the amount specified above between March 15, 2019, and January 1, 2020, the applicable rent on January 1, 2020, shall be the rent as of March 15, 2019, plus the maximum permissible increase, and the owner shall not be liable to the tenant for any corresponding rent overpayment. The bill would authorize an owner who increased the rent by less than the amount specified above between March 15, 2019, and January 1, 2020, to increase the rent twice within 12 months of March 15, 2019, but not by more than the amount specified above. The bill would void any waiver of the rights under these provisions. The Planning and Zoning Law requires the owner of an assisted housing development in which there will be an expiration of rental restrictions to, among other things, provide notice of the proposed change to each affected tenant household residing in the assisted housing development subject to specified procedures and requirements, and to also provide specified entities notice and an opportunity to submit an offer to purchase the development prior to the expiration of the rental restrictions. This bill would authorize an owner of an assisted housing development, who demonstrates, under penalty of perjury, compliance with the provisions described above with regard to the expiration of rental restrictions, to establish the initial unassisted rental rate for units without regard to the cap on rent increases discussed above, but would require the owner to comply with the above cap on rent increases for subsequent rent increases in the development. The bill would authorize an owner of a deed-restricted affordable housing unit or an affordable housing unit subject to a regulatory restriction contained in an agreement with a government agency limiting rental rates that is not within an assisted housing development to establish the initial rental rate for the unit upon the expiration of the restriction, but would require the owner to comply with the above cap on rent increases for subsequent rent increases for the unit. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2030. The bill would void any waiver of the rights under these provisions. By requiring an owner of an assisted housing development to demonstrate compliance with specified provisions under penalty of perjury, this bill would expand the existing crime of perjury and thus 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.
Sponsored bills
Existing law states the intent of the Legislature to establish policies and procedures to address issues related to the downloading and storage of data recorded by a body-worn camera worn by a peace officer, and requires that those policies and procedures be based on best practices. Existing law requires law enforcement agencies, departments, or entities to consider certain best practices regarding the downloading and storage of body-worn camera data when establishing policies and procedures for the implementation and operation of a body-worn camera system, as specified. This bill would prohibit a law enforcement agency or law enforcement officer from installing, activating, or using any biometric surveillance system in connection with an officer camera or data collected by an officer camera. The bill would authorize a person to bring an action for equitable or declaratory relief against a law enforcement agency or officer who violates that prohibition. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2023.
Existing law authorizes a person who was arrested and has successfully completed a prefiling diversion program, a person who has successfully completed a specified drug diversion program, a person who has successfully completed a specified deferred entry of judgment program, and a person who has suffered an arrest that did not result in a conviction, under certain conditions, to petition the court to seal the person's arrest record. Under existing law, if a defendant successfully completes certain diversion programs, the arrest for the crime for which the defendant was diverted is deemed to have never occurred. Existing law authorizes a defendant to petition to withdraw the defendant's plea of guilty or nolo contendere and enter a plea of not guilty, if the defendant has fulfilled the conditions of probation, or if other specified circumstances are met, and the defendant is not then serving a sentence for any offense, on probation for any offense, or charged with the commission of any offense. If relief is granted, existing law requires the court to dismiss the accusation or information against the defendant and release the defendant from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense, with exceptions. Existing law also authorizes a defendant to file a similar petition if the defendant was convicted of a misdemeanor and not granted probation, was convicted of an infraction, or completed a sentence for certain felonies, and the defendant met specified conditions. This bill would, commencing January 1, 2021, and subject to an appropriation in the annual Budget Act, require the Department of Justice, on a monthly basis, to review the records in the statewide criminal justice databases and to identify persons who are eligible for relief by having their arrest records, or their criminal conviction records, withheld from disclosure, as specified. The bill would require the department to grant relief to an eligible person, without requiring a petition or motion. The bill would not limit petitions, motions, or orders for relief, as required or authorized by any other law. The bill would require an update to the state summary criminal history information to document the relief granted. The bill would require the department, on a monthly basis, to electronically submit a notice to the superior court having jurisdiction over the criminal case, informing the court of all cases for which relief was granted. The bill would prohibit the court from disclosing information concerning an arrest or conviction granted relief, with exceptions. The bill would authorize the prosecuting attorney or probation department, no later than 90 calendar days before the date of a person's eligibility for relief, to file a petition to prohibit the department from granting automatic relief for criminal conviction records as described above. If the court grants that petition, the bill would prohibit the department from granting relief, but the person would continue to be eligible for relief through other existing procedures, including petitions to the court. The bill would require the Department of Justice to annually publish statistics regarding relief granted pursuant to the provisions of this bill, as specified. The bill would require a court, at the time of sentencing, to advise each defendant of their right to conviction relief pursuant to the provisions of this bill, as specified. The bill would make conforming changes. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 480 of the Business and Professions Code, as added by Section 4 of Chapter 995 of the Statutes of 2018, proposed by AB 1521 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1521 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
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, and independent institutions of higher education as 3 of the segments of postsecondary education in the state. Existing law, the Cal Grant Program, establishes the Cal Grant A and B Entitlement Awards, the California Community College Transfer Entitlement Awards, the Competitive Cal Grant A and B Awards, the Cal Grant C Awards, and the Cal Grant T Awards under the administration of the Student Aid Commission, and establishes eligibility requirements for awards under these programs for participating students attending qualifying postsecondary educational institutions. Existing law requires each participating postsecondary educational institution to annually report specified information regarding its undergraduate programs in order to be a qualifying institution. This bill would require, on or before June 30, 2020, and on or before June 30 of every year thereafter through 2024, the trustees, the regents, and the appropriate governing bodies of each independent institution of higher education that is a qualifying institution as defined under the Cal Grant Program to report to the appropriate budget subcommittees and policy committees of the Legislature whether their respective institutions provide any manner of preferential treatment in admission to applicants on the basis of their relationships to donors or alumni of the institution. If the institution provides such preferential treatment, the bill would require the institution to also report specified admissions and enrollment information regarding these applicants for the academic year commencing in the previous calendar year.
Existing law, the Financial Institutions Law, regulates the activities of various financial entities, including commercial banks, industrial banks, trust companies, credit unions, and savings associations. The Banking Law defines and regulates state banks and commits the enforcement of banking laws to the Commissioner of Business Oversight. Existing law prohibits a county from giving or loaning its credit to, or in aid of, any person or corporation. Existing law requires a local agency, as defined, to deposit all money belonging to, or in the custody of, that local agency into specified state or national banks, as defined. Existing law regulates the investment of public funds by local agencies. Existing law, the Nonprofit Corporation Law, regulates the formation and conduct of a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation and a nonprofit public benefit corporation. This bill would define the term "bank" for purposes of the Financial Institutions Law and the Banking Law to include a public bank. The bill would define the term "public bank" to mean a corporation, organized as either a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation or a nonprofit public benefit corporation for the purpose of engaging in the commercial banking business or industrial banking business, that is wholly owned by a local agency, as specified, local agencies, or a joint powers authority. The bill would require a public bank to obtain a certificate of authorization to transact business as a bank from the commissioner and to obtain and maintain insurance, subject to specified requirements. The bill would prohibit the commissioner from issuing more than 2 public bank licenses, as defined, in a calendar year and would prohibit the commissioner from authorizing more than 10 public banks at one time. The bill would require a public bank to include a specified purpose statement in its articles of incorporation and make conforming changes. The bill would require a local agency to conduct and approve, as specified, a study of the viability of a public bank containing specified elements before submitting an application to the commissioner to organize and establish a public bank and would require the local agency to include a copy of that study in the application submitted to the commissioner. The bill would require a local agency that is not a charter city to obtain voter approval of a motion to submit an application to the commissioner, as specified. The bill would authorize a county to lend its available funds to a public bank. The bill also would authorize a local agency to deposit funds in a public bank, and to invest in a public bank, subject to certain requirements. The bill would authorize a public bank to make distributions to its members. The bill would require, as specified, a public bank to conduct retail activities in partnership with local financial institutions and would prohibit a public bank from competing with local financial institutions. The Corporation Tax Law imposes a franchise tax on financial corporations, but provides that the tax is in lieu of all other state and local taxes and licenses, with certain exceptions. That law also exempts specified classes of entities from the franchise and income taxes imposed by that law, including state-chartered credit unions. This bill would additionally exempt from those franchise and income taxes any public bank. This bill would also exempt a public bank from all other state and local taxes and licenses, with certain exceptions. Existing law, the Ralph M. Brown Act, requires that all meetings of the legislative body, as defined, of a local agency be open and public and all persons be permitted to attend unless a closed session is authorized. This bill would authorize the governing board of a public bank or a committee of that governing board to meet in a closed session to consider and take action on matters pertaining to a loan or investment decision, a decision of the internal audit committee, the compliance committee, or the governance committee, and a meeting with a state or federal regulator. The bill would authorize a public bank to make all information received by a shareholder, member, or owner of a public bank confidential, as specified. Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires that public records, as defined, be available to the public for inspection and made promptly available to any person. This bill would exempt specified information and records of a public bank, and related decisions of the directors, officers, and managers of the public bank, from the disclosure requirements of the act, including, among others, records related to alternative investments of the bank, as specified, meeting materials of any closed session, a record containing information regarding a portfolio position in which the public bank invests, information related to a specific account in the bank, and specified correspondence related to meetings with, or a memorandum or letter received from, state and federal banking regulators. 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 local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.
The Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, administered by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, regulates the sale and distribution of alcoholic beverages and the granting of licenses for the manufacture, distribution, and sale of alcoholic beverages within the state. The act also provides for a limitation on the amount of on-sale general licenses that may be issued by the department based on the population of the county in which the licensed premises are located, as provided. Existing law provides an exception to the license limitation for a county of the 6th class, as specified, for 5 new original neighborhood-restricted special on-sale general licenses for premises located within specified census tracts in that county, subject to specified requirements, including that licenses issued pursuant to this exception not be transferred between premises, except where the licensed premises have been destroyed, as provided. This bill would authorize the department to allow for the transfer of a license issued pursuant to the above-described exception if the premises are within the same neighborhood, as described.
This measure would condemn regulations recently adopted by the Department of Homeland Security to prescribe how a determination of inadmissibility for a person who is not a citizen or national is made based on the likelihood that the person will become a public charge. This measure would also urge the federal government to repeal the new regulations.
This measure would state that the Legislature strongly and unequivocally supports the existing fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards, the preservation of California's authority to enact stricter air pollution standards pursuant to its federal Clean Air Act waiver, and the enactment of a voluntary agreement between the State Air Resources Board and automobile manufacturers that preserves California's status as a leader in the fight for clean air; will consider any and all appropriate actions to maintain and enact vehicle emissions standards for the protection of public health, California residents, and the economy; supports any and all appropriate actions that enhance longstanding protections for the public's health, California residents, and the economy; and strongly urges the President and Vice President of the United States, the Secretary of the United States Department of Transportation, and the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency to reject the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Proposed Rule for Model Years 2021–2026.
This measure would call upon all Californians to embrace the individual and social benefits of family and community acceptance, upon religious leaders to counsel on LGBTQ matters from a place of love, compassion, and knowledge of the psychological and other harms of conversion therapy, and upon the people of California and the institutions of California with great moral influence to model equitable treatment of all people of the state.
This measure would designate June 2019 as Second Chances Month in California, highlighting existing services and events to support reentry from incarceration.