Existing law defines a "hate crime" as a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of actual or perceived characteristics of the victim, including, among other things, race, religion, disability, and sexual orientation. Existing law requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) to develop guidelines and a course of instruction and training for law enforcement officers addressing hate crimes. Existing law requires state law enforcement agencies to adopt a framework or other formal policy created by POST regarding hate crimes. Existing law also requires, subject to the availability of adequate funding, the Attorney General to direct local law enforcement agencies to report specified information relative to hate crimes to the Department of Justice. This bill would require the department to carry out various duties relating to documenting and responding to hate crimes, including conducting reviews of all law enforcement agencies every 3 years to evaluate the accuracy of hate crime data provided and agencies' hate crime policies, implementing a school-based program in conjunction with school districts and local law enforcement agencies aimed at educating students regarding how to report all suspected hate crimes to prevent future hate crimes, and submitting specified hate crime reports to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for inclusion in the national crime repository for crime data. The bill would also include a statement of legislative findings and declarations.
Sponsored bills
Existing law requires a motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle, to be equipped with at least 2 headlamps, as specified, and requires the motor vehicle to be operated with at least 2 lighted headlamps during darkness, or inclement weather, or both. A violation of the Vehicle Code is punishable as an infraction. This bill would require every new motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle, manufactured on or after January 1, 2021, and first registered or sold in California on or after January 1, 2021, to be equipped with automatic daytime running headlamps and automatic taillamps, as defined. By creating a new crime, 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.
Existing law makes an act punishable as a hate crime if it is a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of an actual or perceived characteristic of the victim relating to the victim's disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or association with a person or group with one or more of those actual or perceived characteristics. Under existing law, a person who commits a crime that is a hate crime is required to receive an enhanced sentence. This bill would make it a hate crime to commit a criminal act, in whole or in part, because of the victim's actual or perceived homeless status, as defined. By expanding the scope of an enhancement, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would also make technical, conforming changes. 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 a person, when leaving a handgun in an unattended vehicle, to lock the handgun in the vehicle's trunk, lock the handgun in a locked container and place the container out of plain view, lock the handgun in a locked container that is permanently affixed to the vehicle's interior and not in plain view, or to lock the handgun in a locked toolbox or utility box. This bill would make these requirements applicable to all firearms and would additionally require the firearm to be secured to the vehicle's frame using a steel cable lock or chain and padlock or in a locked container that is secured using a steel cable lock or chain and padlock or that is permanently affixed to the vehicle, as specified. Because a violation of these new requirements would be a crime, 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.
(1) Existing law, the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) , an initiative measure enacted by the voters as Proposition 63 at the November 2, 2004, statewide general election, among other things, establishes the Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission to oversee the administration of various parts of the MHSA. The MHSA authorizes the commission to, among other things, establish technical advisory committees, assist in providing technical assistance to accomplish the purposes of the MHSA, and employ all other strategies necessary or convenient to enable it to perform its duties. Existing law authorizes the MHSA to be amended by a 23 vote of the Legislature if the amendments are consistent with, and further the purposes of, the MHSA, and also permits the Legislature to clarify procedures and terms of the MHSA by a majority vote. This bill would require the commission, by January 1, 2021, to establish technical assistance centers and one or more clearinghouses to support counties in addressing mental health issues of statewide concern, with a focus on school mental health and reducing unemployment and criminal justice involvement due to untreated mental health issues. The bill would also require the commission to develop a fiscal transparency and accountability strategy, a program transparency and accountability strategy for local government mental health programs, and an outcome transparency and accountability strategy for local government mental health programs in order to support public understanding of mental health funding, access to mental health services, and outcomes achieved by publicly funded or supported mental health programs. The bill would give the commission access to data, information, policies, procedures, and practices held or maintained by state and local agencies in order to develop these strategies and would require the commission to comply with applicable privacy and confidentiality laws with respect to this data. By requiring local agencies to provide access to the commission, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) The MHSA also requires counties to create plans for innovative programs, funds for which may be expended upon approval by the commission. This bill would, subject to the availability of funds, require the commission, by January 1, 2021, to establish an innovation incubator to support implementation of those innovative programs. (3) By authorizing a new use of MHSA moneys, this bill would amend the MHSA. The bill would state the findings and declarations of the Legislature that this change is consistent with and furthers the intent of the MHSA. (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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
(1) Existing law 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 establishes the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services and under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services. The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid program provisions. Existing law requires the department to notify Medi-Cal beneficiaries, prospective beneficiaries, and members of the public of the availability of language assistance services free of charge and in a timely manner, when those services are necessary to provide meaningful access to individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP) . Existing law requires the department to require all managed care plans contracting with the department to provide Medi-Cal services to provide language assistance services to LEP Medi-Cal beneficiaries who are mandatorily enrolled in managed care. This bill would, commencing January 1, 2020, require the field testing of all Medi-Cal beneficiary materials, and informing materials, as defined, that are translated into threshold languages and released by the department and managed care plans, respectively, except as specified. The bill would define "field testing" as a review of translations for accuracy, cultural appropriateness, and readability. The bill would also define a "managed care plan" for these purposes. The bill would also require the department to consult with stakeholders to identify at least 10 documents that are released to Medi-Cal beneficiaries, including certain documents, and to designate a readability expert to revise those documents, as specified. The bill would require the readability expert and the stakeholders to provide the department with specific recommendations for revising the selected documents to improve the readability of the documents. The bill would require the department to rerelease the documents with revisions based on those recommendations, and would require the translation and field testing of those documents. The bill would require the implementation of these provisions no later than January 1, 2021.
Existing law requires each county to provide cash assistance and other social services to needy families through the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program using federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant program, state, and county funds. Existing law generally makes persons between the ages of 6 and 18 years of age subject to compulsory full-time education, unless exempted. Existing law also requires children in a CalWORKs assistance unit for whom school attendance is compulsory to attend school, except as specified. Under existing law, the needs of a child in the assistance unit who is 16 years of age or older are not considered in computing the specified grant of the family for any month in which the county is informed by a school district or a county school attendance review board that the child did not attend school, unless at least one of certain conditions is present. This bill would require applicants for and recipients of CalWORKs to be informed of the general compulsory education requirements. The bill would repeal the prohibition against considering the needs of a child in an assistance unit who is 16 years of age or older who did not attend school, thereby allowing the needs of that child to be considered in computing the monthly family grant. Under existing law, all applicants for or recipients of CalWORKs are required to ensure and provide documentation that each child in the assistance unit who is not required to be enrolled in school has received all age-appropriate immunizations, unless it has been medically determined that an immunization for a child is not appropriate or the applicant or recipient has filed with the county welfare department an affidavit that the immunizations are contrary to the applicant's or recipient's beliefs. Existing law requires documentation of immunization to be provided by all recipients for aid within 30 days of the determination of eligibility for Medi-Cal benefits, within 45 days for applicants already eligible for Medi-Cal benefits, and for all recipients for CalWORKs, within 45 days of full or financial redetermination. Existing law prohibits the needs of all parents or caretaker relatives in the assistance unit from being considered in determining the grant to the assistance unit until the required documentation is provided. Existing law requires a notice of the obligation to secure immunizations to be given to the applicant or recipient at the time of application and at the next redetermination of eligibility for aid, and specifies information to be required in the notice. This bill would, on the effective date of the bill, eliminate the personal belief exception for immunizations required under the CalWORKs program for applicants and recipients who do not already exercise the personal belief exemption, and eliminate that exception for recipients currently exercising the personal belief exemption on the effective date of the remaining provisions of the bill. The bill would extend to 60 days the above deadlines for providing immunization documentation and would instead authorize the department to require counties, after a 60-day grace period, to exclude the needs of all parents or caretaker relatives in the assistance unit in determining the grant to the assistance unit until the required documentation is provided. The bill would revise the information required to be given to all applicants and recipients to include a statement that Medi-Cal will provide coverage for nonmedical transportation for a child who is enrolled in Medi-Cal to receive the required immunizations and to include notice of the 60-day grace period. By increasing the duties of counties, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would, except as otherwise described above, make its provisions effective on or after January 1, 2021, or the date that the department notifies the Legislature that the Statewide Automated Welfare System can perform specified automation, whichever date is later. The bill would require the department to implement its provisions through an all-county letter or similar instruction, as specified. Existing law continuously appropriates moneys from the General Fund to defray a portion of county costs under the CalWORKs program. This bill would provide that the continuous appropriation would not be made for the purposes of implementing the bill. 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.