Asm. Laura Friedman

This measure would designate the month of January 2018 as Gang Awareness and Prevention Month in the State of California and would encourage cities and constituents across the state to observe the month with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities to prevent future gang activity and honor those who lost their lives due to gang activity.

Existing law generally protects employees who disclose illegal or improper workplace activities by prohibiting interference with, and retaliation for, making such disclosures. Existing law provides procedures for a person to file a complaint alleging violations of legislative ethics. Existing law also authorizes each house of the Legislature to adopt rules for its proceedings and to select committees necessary for the conduct of its business. This bill would impose criminal and civil liability on a Member of the Legislature or legislative employee, as defined, who interferes with, or retaliates against, a legislative employee's exercise of the right to make a protected disclosure, which is defined as a good faith allegation made by a legislative employee to specified entities that a Member of the Legislature or a legislative employee has engaged in, or will engage in, activity that may constitute a violation of law, including sexual harassment, or a violation of a legislative standard of conduct. The bill would also impose civil liability on an entity that interferes with, or retaliates against, a legislative employee's exercise of the right to make a protected disclosure, as specified. By creating new crimes, 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. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

The Political Reform Act of 1974 prohibits a person, other than a small contributor committee or political party committee, from making to a candidate for elective state office, for statewide elective office, or for office of the Governor, and prohibits those candidates from accepting from a person, a contribution totaling more than a specified amount per election. For a candidate for elective state office other than a candidate for statewide elective office, the limitation on contributions is $3,000 per election, as that amount is adjusted by the Fair Political Practices Commission in January of every odd-numbered year. Existing law authorizes a county, city, or district to limit campaign contributions in local elections. Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district or of a community college district to limit campaign expenditures or contributions in elections to district offices. The act specifies that it does not prevent the Legislature or any other state or local agency from imposing additional requirements on a person if the requirements do not prevent the person from complying with the act, and that the act does not nullify contribution limitations or prohibitions by any local jurisdiction that apply to elections for local elective office, as specified. This bill, commencing January 1, 2019, instead would prohibit a person from making to a candidate for local elective office, and would prohibit a candidate for local elective office from accepting from a person, a contribution totaling more than the amount set forth in the act for limitations on contributions to a candidate for elective state office. This bill would also authorize a county, city, special district, or school district to impose a limitation that is different from the limitation imposed by this bill. This bill would repeal the authorization for the governing board of a school district or of a community college district to limit campaign expenditures in elections to district offices. This bill would make specified provisions of the act relating to contribution limitations applicable to a candidate for a local elective office, except as specified. The act makes a violation of its provisions punishable as a misdemeanor and subject to specified penalties. This bill would add the contribution limitation imposed by the bill to the act's provisions, thereby making a violation of the limitation punishable as a misdemeanor and subject to specified penalties. However, the bill would specify that a violation of a limitation imposed by a local government is not subject to the act's enforcement provisions. The bill would authorize a local government that imposes a limitation that is different from the limitation imposed by this bill to adopt enforcement standards for a violation of the limitation imposed by the local government agency, including administrative, civil, or criminal penalties. By expanding the scope of an existing crime with regard to a violation of a contribution limitation imposed by the bill, 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. The Political Reform Act of 1974, an initiative measure, provides that the Legislature may amend the act to further the act's purposes upon a 23 vote of each house of the Legislature and compliance with specified procedural requirements. This bill would declare that it furthers the purposes of the act.

Existing law provides for the procedure of approving and accepting bail, and issuing an order for the appearance and release of an arrested person. Existing law requires that bail be set in a fixed amount, as specified, and requires, in setting, reducing, or denying bail, a judge or magistrate to take into consideration the protection of the public, the seriousness of the offense charged, the previous criminal record of the defendant, and the probability of his or her appearing at trial or at a hearing of the case. Under existing law, the magistrate or commissioner to whom the application is made is authorized to set bail in an amount that he or she deems sufficient to ensure the defendant's appearance or to ensure the protection of a victim, or family member of a victim, of domestic violence, and to set bail on the terms and conditions that he or she, in his or her discretion, deems appropriate, or he or she may authorize the defendant's release on his or her own recognizance. Existing law provides that a defendant being held for a misdemeanor offense is entitled to be released on his or her own recognizance, unless the court makes a finding on the record that his or her release would compromise public safety or would not reasonably ensure the appearance of the defendant as required. This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to safely reduce the number of people detained pretrial, while addressing racial and economic disparities in the pretrial system, to ensure that people are not held in pretrial detention simply because of their inability to afford money bail. This bill would implement a revised pretrial release procedure. The bill would require, except when a person is arrested for certain felonies, that a pretrial services agency conduct a pretrial risk assessment on an arrested person and prepare a pretrial services report that includes the results of the pretrial risk assessment and recommendations on conditions of release for the person immediately upon booking. The bill would require the pretrial services agency to transmit the report to a magistrate, judge, or court commissioner and the magistrate, judge, or court commissioner, within an unspecified number of hours, to issue an oral or written order to release the person, with or without release conditions, subject to the person signing a specified release agreement. The bill would require, if a person is in custody at the time of his or her arraignment, the judge or magistrate to consider the pretrial services report and any relevant information provided by the prosecuting attorney or the defendant and to order the pretrial release of the person, with or without conditions, subject to the person signing a specified release agreement. If the judge or magistrate determines that pretrial release, with or without conditions, will not reasonably ensure the appearance of the person in court as required, the bill would require the judge or magistrate to set monetary bail at the least restrictive level necessary to ensure the appearance of the defendant in court as required. The bill would authorize, if the judge or magistrate has set monetary bail, the person to execute an unsecured appearance bond, execute a secured appearance bond, or deposit a percentage of the sum mentioned in the order setting monetary bail. The bill would authorize a prosecuting attorney to file a motion seeking the pretrial detention of a person in certain circumstances, including when the person has been charged with a capital crime and the prosecuting attorney alleges that the facts are evident or the presumption great. The bill would require, if this motion has been filed, a hearing to be held to determine whether to release the person pending trial, unless the person waives the hearing. The bill would authorize the person to be detained pretrial only if the court makes one of several specified findings. The bill would require each county to establish a pretrial services agency that would be responsible for gathering information about newly arrested persons, conducting pretrial risk assessments, preparing individually tailored recommendations to the court regarding release options and conditions, and providing pretrial services and supervision to persons on pretrial release. The bill would require an unspecified agency to take certain actions relating to the implementation of the revised pretrial release procedure, including, among others, selecting a pretrial risk assessment tool to be used in conducting pretrial risk assessments that meets specified requirements and reviewing collected data to monitor compliance with state law and guidelines relating to pretrial release. The bill would also authorize that agency to take certain actions relating to the implementation of the revised pretrial release procedure, including, among other things, providing training and assistance to judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, pretrial services agencies, jail staff, and law enforcement agencies. The bill would require the Board of State and Community Corrections, in consultation with that unspecified agency, to develop a plan that establishes statewide requirements for counties relating to annual reporting of pretrial release and detention information. By imposing additional duties on local agencies, 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.

Existing law establishes that it is the policy of the state that certain rivers that possess extraordinary scenic, recreational, fishery, or wildlife values shall be preserved in their free-flowing state, together with their immediate environments, for the benefit and enjoyment of the people of the state. This bill would revise that policy to specify that certain rivers that possess scenic, recreational, fishery, wildlife, historical, cultural, geological, or other similar values shall be preserved in their free-flowing state, together with their immediate environments, for the benefit and enjoyment of the people of the state, and would revise the definition of "immediate environments," and define the term "extraordinary value" for purposes of that policy.

The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 designates the State Air Resources Board as the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of emissions of greenhouse gases. The act authorizes the state board to include the use of market-based compliance mechanisms. The act requires the state board to approve a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit equivalent to the statewide greenhouse gas emissions level in 1990 to be achieved by 2020 and to ensure that statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 40% below the 1990 level by 2030. The act requires the state board, when adopting rules and regulations to achieve greenhouse gas emissions reductions beyond the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit and to protect the state's most impacted and disadvantaged communities, to follow specified requirements, consider the social costs of the emissions of greenhouse gases, and prioritize specified emission reduction rules and regulations. This bill would additionally require the state board to consider and account for the social costs of the emissions of greenhouse gases when adopting those rules and regulations. The bill would authorize the state board to adopt or amend regulations that establish a market-based compliance mechanism, applicable from January 1, 2021, to December 31, 2030, to complement direct emissions reduction measures in ensuring that statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 40% below the 1990 level by 2030. The bill would authorize the state board to adopt no-trade zones or facility-specific declining greenhouse gas emissions limits where facilities' emissions contribute to a cumulative pollution burden that creates a significant health impact. This bill would require the state board, in consultation with affected air pollution control and air quality management districts, to adopt air pollutant emissions standards for emissions of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants at industrial facilities that are subject to a market-based compliance mechanism. The bill would prohibit the state board from allocating allowances as part of a market-based compliance mechanism to industrial facilities that do not meet the air pollutant emissions standards for criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants. This bill would require the state board, in ensuring that statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 40% below the 1990 level by 2030, to adopt the most effective and equitable mix of emissions reduction measures and ensure that emissions reduction measures collectively and individually support achieving air quality and other environmental and public health goals.

Existing law authorizes the governing boards of 2 or more school districts to enter into an agreement for the interdistrict attendance of pupils who are residents of the school districts. If the governing board of either school district fails to approve a request for a permit to attend a school district that is a party to the agreement within 30 calendar days after the person having legal custody of a pupil has requested the permit, or, in the absence of an agreement between the school districts, fails or refuses to enter into an agreement, the person requesting the permit shall be advised of the right to appeal to the county board of education, as specified. Existing law requires the county board of education, within 30 calendar days after the appeal is filed, to determine whether the pupil should be permitted to attend the school district in which the pupil desires to attend and the applicable period of time, unless the county board of education is located in a class 1 or class 2 county, as defined, in which case the county board of education, until July 1, 2018, is required to make this determination within 40 schooldays. This bill would require the governing board of a school district to approve or deny a request for interdistrict attendance within 30 business days of receipt of the request from the person having legal custody of the pupil. The bill would specify that, if the governing board of either school district fails to approve a request for a permit to attend a school district that is a party to the agreement within 30 business, rather than calendar, days after the person having legal custody of a pupil has requested the permit, or, in the absence of an agreement between the school districts, fails or refuses to enter into an agreement, the person requesting the permit shall be advised of the right to appeal to the county board of education, as specified.

The Planning and Zoning Law requires a city or county to prepare and adopt a general plan, containing various elements, including a housing element, and requires the housing element to contain an assessment of the city's or county's housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of those needs. That law requires that assessment to include the city's or county's share of the regional housing need, as determined by the Department of Housing and Community Development in consultation with each council of governments, and requires a council of governments to develop a proposed methodology for distributing the existing and projected regional housing need, as specified. This bill would require a noncompliant city or county, as defined, to pay a penalty, as provided, to the Department of Housing and Community Development. The bill would define a "noncompliant city or county" to mean a city or county that has not met at least 13 of its share of the regional housing need for low-income and very low income housing during its current housing element planning period on or before January 1, 2021. The bill would require the penalty to be deposited in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment Compliance Fund, which the bill would create, and would continuously appropriate money in the fund to the department for the distribution of grants, as specified, to compliant cities and counties, as defined. The bill would require compliant cities and counties to use the grant for specified purposes. The bill, on or after January 1, 2021, would prohibit a noncompliant city or county from collecting established fees, or imposing new fees, as a condition of approval of a development project, as specified, and from requiring the payment of building permit fees.