Asm. Alex Lee

Under existing law if the management of a mobilehome park provides both master-meter and submeter service of utilities to a homeowner, for each billing period the charges for the period are required to be separately stated along with the opening and closing readings for the homeowner. Existing law requires management to post, in a conspicuous place, the specific current residential utility rate as published by the serving utility. Existing law authorizes management of a mobilehome park to also post the internet website address of the specific current residential utility rate schedule, as specified. This bill would, if the management of a mobilehome park elects to separately bill water utility service to homeowners, limit charges and fees on homeowners in connection with those services to specified types of charges and fees. The specified charges and fees would be for (1) the homeowner's volumetric usage based on the homeowner's proportion of total usage, or, where the water purveyor uses a tiered rate schedule, based on the homeowner's proportion of the tier's usage, or based on a mobilehome space rate; (2) any recurring fixed charge, however that charge is designated, for water service that has been billed to management by the water purveyor, determined on the basis of either the homeowner's proportional share of volumetric use or the total charge divided by the number of mobilehome spaces; and (3) a billing, administrative, or other fee representing the costs of both management and the billing agent combined, not to exceed $4.75 or 25% of the charge for the homeowner's volumetric usage, whichever is less. The bill would prohibit volumetric usage charges from including water usage by a park's common area facilities or by any other person or entity other than the homeowner. This bill would provide that these provisions do not prevent management from recovering its costs to install, maintain, or improve its internal water delivery system, as may otherwise be allowed in any rental agreement or local regulation. The bill would define terms for these purposes.

The Donahoe Higher Education Act establishes the University of California, under the administration of the Regents of the University of California, the California State University, under the administration of the Trustees of the California State University, and the California Community Colleges, under the administration of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, as the 3 segments of public postsecondary education in this state. The act applies to the University of California only to the extent that the regents, by appropriate resolution, make it applicable. The Equity in Higher Education Act provides that it is the policy of the state to afford all persons, regardless of specified characteristics, including gender identity and gender expression, equal rights and opportunities in the postsecondary educational institutions of the state. This bill, as part of the Donahoe Higher Education Act, would require a campus of the University of California, California State University, or California Community Colleges to update a former student's records to include the student's updated legal name or gender if the institution receives government-issued documentation, as described, from the student demonstrating that the former student's legal name or gender has been changed. The bill would require the institution to reissue specified documents conferred upon, or issued to, the former student with the former student's updated legal name or gender, if requested by the former student. The bill would prohibit an institution from charging a higher fee for correcting, updating, or reissuing a document based on a legal name or gender change than the fee it charges for correcting, updating, or reissuing that document generally. Commencing with the 2023–24 graduating class, the bill would require an institution to provide an option for a graduating student to request that the diploma to be conferred by the institution list the student's chosen name, as specified. Because this bill imposes new duties on community college districts, it would constitute 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.

Existing law, the Fair Food Delivery Act of 2020, defines a "food delivery platform" as an online business that acts as an intermediary between consumers and multiple food facilities, as defined, to submit food orders and arrange for the delivery of the order, and prohibits a food delivery platform from arranging for the delivery of an order from a food facility without first obtaining an agreement with the food facility. This bill would make it unlawful for a food delivery platform to charge a customer any purchase price, as defined, for food or beverage that is higher than the price posted on the food delivery platform's internet website by the food facility at the time of the order. The bill would make it unlawful for a food delivery platform to retain any portion of amounts designated as a tip or gratuity. The bill would require a food delivery platform to pay any tip or gratuity for a delivery order, in its entirety, to the person delivering the food or beverage, and to pay any tip or gratuity for a pickup order, in its entirety, to the food facility. The bill would require a food delivery platform to disclose to the customer and the food facility a cost breakdown of each transaction, including, with certain exceptions, prescribed information. The bill would make the provisions of the act severable.

Existing law authorizes a probation officer, parole officer, or peace officer to rearrest a person without warrant or other process during the period that a person is released on probation, conditional sentence or summary probation, or mandatory supervision, or when the person is subject to revocation of postrelease community supervision or parole supervision, if the officer has probable cause to believe that the supervised person is violating the terms of their supervision. Existing law allows a court to order the release of a supervised person from custody under terms and conditions the court deems appropriate, unless the person is serving a period of flash incarceration. This bill would require a court that elects to order the release of persons on probation pursuant to this provision to release persons on probation on their own recognizance pending a formal revocation hearing absent a finding by clear and convincing evidence that conditions of release are required by the individual circumstances of the case in order to reasonably protect the public and provide reasonable assurance of the person's future appearance in court. The bill would prohibit a court from imposing cash bail as a condition of release absent a showing by clear and convincing evidence that other reasonable conditions of release would be inadequate to encourage the person to attend court in compliance with the court's orders. The bill would require the court to consider the person's ability to pay cash bail and would require any bail order to be set at a level the person could reasonably afford. The bill would also prohibit the court from imposing the costs of any imposed conditions on the supervised person. The bill would prohibit the court from denying release for a person on probation for felony conduct before the court holds a formal probation revocation hearing unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that there are no means reasonably available that would encourage the person to attend court as ordered. The bill would make related conforming changes. The bill would specify that these provisions do not limit the court's authority to hold, release, limit release, or impose conditions of release for new charges.

(1) Under existing law, a person who enters or remains upon any land, facilities, or vehicles owned, leased, or possessed by specified transit entities that are used to provide public transportation by rail or passenger bus, or are directly related to that use, without permission, or whose entry, presence, or conduct upon the property interferes with, interrupts, or hinders the safe and efficient operation of the transit-related facility, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Existing law creates the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) . Existing law authorizes BART to acquire, construct, own, operate, control, or use rights-of-way, rail lines, bus lines, stations, platforms, switches, yards, terminals, parking lots, and any and all other facilities necessary or convenient for rapid transit service, as specified. This bill would specify that a person who enters or remains upon any property, facilities, or vehicles upon which BART owes policing responsibilities to a local government pursuant to an operations and maintenance agreement or similar interagency agreement without permission, or whose entry, presence, or conduct upon that property interferes with, interrupts, or hinders the safe and efficient operation of the transit-related facility, is guilty of a misdemeanor. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law prohibits a person from committing certain actions related to the property, facilities, or vehicles of a transit district, including prohibiting a person from operating, interfering with, entering into, or climbing on or in, a property, facility, or vehicle owned or operated by the transit district without the permission or approval of the transit district. Existing law authorizes specified transit districts to issue prohibition orders to any person that is cited 3 times within a period of 90 days for specified infractions committed in or on a vehicle, bus stop, or train or light rail station of a transit district, and prohibits a person issued a prohibition order from entering those properties, facilities, or vehicles, as specified. This bill would extend those prohibitions and the scope of the prohibition orders to include the property, facilities, or vehicles upon which BART owes policing responsibilities to a local government pursuant to an operations and maintenance agreement or similar interagency agreement. (3) Existing law authorizes a public transportation agency, as defined, to enact and enforce an ordinance to impose and enforce an administrative penalty for specified acts. This bill would authorize a transit district's ordinance to be enforced outside of the transit district's jurisdiction only where the local jurisdiction has adopted the transit district's ordinance by reference as authorized by the local jurisdiction's governing body. (4) This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for BART. (5) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 99171 of the Public Utilities Code proposed by SB 357 to be operative only if this bill and SB 357 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (6) 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.

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. The act requires a distributor of beverage containers to pay to the department the redemption payment for every beverage container sold or transferred to a dealer for deposit into the California Beverage Container Recycling Fund. The act defines "recycling" for its purposes as the reuse or refilling of empty beverage containers, or the process of sorting, cleansing, treating, and reconstituting empty postfilled beverage containers for the purpose of using the altered form. The act requires the department to certify processors and requires certified processors to comply with specified requirements for operation, including, among others, taking the actions necessary and approved by the department to cancel containers to render them unfit for redemption. A violation of the act is an infraction. This bill would authorize the department to authorize a processor to satisfy that cancellation requirement by washing a reusable beverage container or transferring a reusable beverage container for subsequent washing to a processor approved by the department. The bill would authorize the department to certify additional models of processors that are determined necessary to implement that provision and would require, by January 1, 2024, the Director of Resources Recycling and Recovery to adopt by regulation the requirements and standards for the certification and operation of those processors, as specified. By creating crimes relating to reusable beverage containers, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would define "reusable beverage container" for purposes of the act to mean a glass beverage container with a refund value established pursuant to the act and that is processed by a processor for subsequent washing for refill and sale by a beverage manufacturer. 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, the CalSavers Retirement Savings Trust Act, creates in state government the CalSavers Retirement Savings Board and requires the board to, among other things, design and implement the CalSavers Retirement Savings Program. This bill, the California Public Banking Option Act, until January 1, 2032, would require the Treasurer to convene, on or before September 1, 2022, the CalAccount Blue Ribbon Commission to be composed of certain members, including the Treasurer or the Treasurer's designee. The act would require the commission to, on or before July 1, 2024, conduct, by contracting with one or more entities with appropriate expertise, and deliver, as prescribed, a market analysis to determine if it is feasible to implement a "CalAccount Program," which, if implemented, would have certain characteristics, including that it would be a program established by the state for the purpose of protecting consumers who lack access to traditional banking services from predatory, discriminatory, and costly alternatives, which offers Californians access to a voluntary, zero-fee, zero-penalty, federally insured transaction account, known as a CalAccount, and related payment services at no cost to accountholders, including robust and geographically diverse mechanisms for accessing account funds and account management tools that facilitate the automation of basic financial transactions designed to serve the needs of individuals with low or fluctuating income. The bill would require the commission to hold a public hearing to review the market analysis and, after holding that hearing, would authorize the commission to issue a report to accompany the market analysis, as prescribed. The bill would make the operation of the act contingent upon an appropriation by the Legislature in the Budget Act or another statute for its purposes.

(1) Under existing law, the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, if a person or persons, whether or not acting under color of law, interferes or attempts to interfere, by threats, intimidation, or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by any individual or individuals of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state, the Attorney General, or any district attorney or city attorney, is authorized to bring a civil action for injunctive and other appropriate equitable relief in the name of the people of the State of California, in order to protect the exercise or enjoyment of the right or rights secured. Existing law also authorizes an action brought by the Attorney General, or any district attorney or city attorney, to seek a civil penalty of $25,000. Existing law also allows an individual whose exercise or enjoyment of rights has been interfered with to prosecute a civil action for damages on their own behalf. The bill would eliminate certain immunity provisions for peace officers and custodial officers, or public entities employing peace officers or custodial officers sued under the act. (2) Existing laws defines persons who are peace officers and the entities authorized to appoint them. Existing law requires certain minimum training requirements for peace officers including the completion of a basic training course, as specified. Existing law prescribes certain minimum standards for a person to be appointed as a peace officer, including moral character and physical and mental condition, and certain disqualifying factors for a person to be employed as a peace officer, including a felony conviction. This bill would prohibit a person who has been convicted of a felony, as specified, from regaining eligibility for peace officer employment based upon any later order of the court setting aside, vacating, withdrawing, expunging or otherwise dismissing or reversing the conviction, unless the court finds the person to be factually innocent of the crime for which they were convicted at the time of entry of the order. The bill would disqualify a person from being employed as a peace officer if that person has been convicted of, or has been adjudicated in an administrative, military, or civil judicial process as having committed, a violation of certain specified crimes against public justice, including the falsification of records, bribery, or perjury. The bill would also disqualify any person who has been certified as a peace officer by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training and has surrendered that certification or had that certification revoked by the commission, or has been denied certification. The bill would disqualify any person previously employed in law enforcement in any state or United States territory or by the federal government, whose name is listed in the national decertification index, or any other database designated by the federal government, or who engaged in serious misconduct that would have resulted in their certification being revoked in this state. The bill would require a law enforcement agency employing certain peace officers to employ only individuals with a current, valid certification or pending certification. (3) Existing law establishes the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to set minimum standards for the recruitment and training of peace officers and to develop training courses and curriculum. Existing law authorizes the commission to establish a professional certificate program that awards basic, intermediate, advanced, supervisory, management, and executive certificates on the basis of a combination of training, education, experience, and other prerequisites, for the purpose of fostering the professionalization, education, and experience necessary to adequately accomplish the general police service duties performed by peace officers. Existing law authorizes the commission to cancel a certificate that was awarded in error or obtained through misrepresentation or fraud, but otherwise prohibits the commission from canceling a certificate that has properly been issued. This bill would require the Department of Justice to provide the commission with necessary disqualifying felony and misdemeanor conviction data for all persons known by the department to be current or former peace officers, as specified. The bill would grant the commission the power to investigate and determine the fitness of any person to serve as a peace officer in the state. The bill would direct the commission to issue or deny certification, which includes a basic certificate or proof of eligibility, to a peace officer in accordance with specified criteria. The bill would require the commission to issue a proof of eligibility or basic certificate, as specified, to certain persons employed as a peace officer on January 1, 2022, who do not otherwise possess a certificate. The bill would declare certificates or proof of eligibility awarded by the commission to be property of the commission and would authorize the commission to suspend or revoke a proof of eligibility or certificate on specified grounds, including the use of excessive force, sexual assault, making a false arrest, or participating in a law enforcement gang, as defined. The bill would create the Peace Officer Standards Accountability Division within the commission to review investigations conducted by law enforcement agencies and to conduct additional investigations into serious misconduct that may provide grounds for suspension or revocation of a peace officer's certification, as specified. The bill would require the division to review grounds for decertification and make findings as to whether grounds for action against an officer's certification exist. The bill would require the division to notify the officer subject to decertification of their findings and allow the officer to request review. The bill would also create the Peace Officer Standards Accountability Advisory Board with 9 members to be appointed as specified. The bill would require the board to hold public meetings to review the findings after an investigation made by the division and to make a recommendation to the commission. The bill would require the commission to review the recommendation made by the board based on whether there is evidence that reasonably supports the board's conclusion that misconduct has been established and, if action is to be taken against an officer's certification, return the determination to the division to commence formal proceedings consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act. The bill would require the commission to notify the employing agency and the district attorney of the county in which the officer is employed of this determination, as specified. The bill would make all records related to the revocation of a peace officer's certification public and would require that records of an investigation be retained for 30 years. The bill would require an agency employing peace officers to report to the commission the employment, appointment, or separation from employment of a peace officer, any complaint, charge, allegation, or investigation into the conduct of a peace officer that could render the officer subject to suspension or revocation, findings by civil oversight entities, and civil judgements that could affect the officer's certification. In case of a separation from employment or appointment, the bill would require each agency to execute an affidavit-of-separation form adopted by the commission describing the reason for separation. The bill would require the affidavit to be signed under penalty of perjury. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the board to report annually on the activities of the division, board, and commission, relating to the certification program, including the number of applications for certification, the events reported, the number of investigations conducted, and the number of certificates surrendered or revoked. By imposing new requirements on local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 832.7 of the Penal Code proposed by SB 16 to be operative only if this bill and SB 16 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. 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 authorizes a peace officer to use reasonable force to effect the arrest, to prevent escape, or to overcome resistance. Existing law requires law enforcement agencies to maintain a policy on the use of force, as specified. Existing law requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to implement courses of instruction for the regular and periodic training of law enforcement officers in the use of force. This bill would prohibit the use of kinetic energy projectiles or chemical agents by any law enforcement agency to disperse any assembly, protest, or demonstration, except in compliance with specified standards set by the bill, and would prohibit their use solely due to a violation of an imposed curfew, verbal threat, or noncompliance with a law enforcement directive. The bill would include in the standards for the use of kinetic energy projectiles and chemical agents to disperse gatherings the requirement that, among other things, those weapons only be used to defend against a threat to life or serious bodily injury to any individual, including a peace officer, or to bring an objectively dangerous and unlawful situation safely and effectively under control. The bill would define chemical agents to include, among other substances, chloroacetophenone tear gas or 2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile gas. The bill would make these provisions inapplicable within a county jail or state prison facility. This bill would also require each law enforcement agency, within a specified timeframe, to post on their internet website a summary, as described, of any incident in which a kinetic energy projectile or chemical agent is deployed by that agency for the purpose of crowd control. The bill would require the Department of Justice to provide a compiled list of links to these reports on its internet website. (2) Existing law requires each law enforcement agency to annually report specified use of force incidents to the Department of Justice and requires the Department of Justice to annually publish a summary of those incidents, as specified. This bill would require these reports to be made monthly. By imposing new duties on law enforcement agencies, this bill would create 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.

Existing law authorizes a peace officer to make an arrest pursuant to a warrant or based upon probable cause, as specified. Under existing law, an arrest is made by the actual restraint of the person or by submission to the custody of the arresting officer. Existing law authorizes a peace officer to use reasonable force to effect the arrest, to prevent escape, or to overcome resistance. Existing law requires law enforcement agencies to maintain a policy on the use of force, as specified. Existing law requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to implement courses of instruction for the regular and periodic training of law enforcement officers in the use of force. Existing law prohibits a law enforcement agency from authorizing the use of a carotid restraint or a choke hold, as defined. This bill would additionally prohibit a law enforcement agency from authorizing techniques or transport methods that involve a substantial risk of positional asphyxia, as defined. By requiring local agencies to amend use of force policies, 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.