Existing law, the Public Employees' Retirement Law (PERL) , creates the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) , which provides defined benefits to its members based on age at retirement, service credit, and final compensation. PERL vests the Board of Administration of PERS with management and control of the system. Existing law, the Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA) , which is administered by the Board of Administration of PERS, governs the funding and provision of postemployment health care benefits for eligible retired public employees and their families. PEMHCA authorizes an employee or annuitant, as those terms are defined, of the state to enroll in a health benefit plan approved or maintained by the Board of Administration of PERS. The act generally requires the state and each employee or annuitant to contribute a portion of the cost of providing the benefit coverage afforded under the approved health benefit plan in which the employee or annuitant is enrolled. PEMHCA also prohibits, among other things, employees, annuitants, and family members who become eligible to enroll on or after January 1, 1985, in Part A and Part B of Medicare from being enrolled in a basic health benefit plan. PEMHCA, however, permits the employee, annuitant, or family member to enroll in a Medicare health benefit plan if they are enrolled in Part A and Part B of Medicare. PEMHCA establishes the Public Employees' Contingency Reserve Fund for the purpose of funding health benefits and funding administrative expenses. This fund is continuously appropriated, except with respect to administrative purposes, as specified. PEMHCA also establishes the Annuitants' Health Care Coverage Fund, which is continuously appropriated, for the purpose of prefunding health care coverage for annuitants, including administrative costs. This bill would preclude a person who has retired under PERS and who obtains work with a subsequent employer from receiving any health benefits offered under PEMHCA if the person's subsequent employer offers health care coverage that provides reasonably comparable benefits. The bill would grant the person reinstatement rights upon termination of employment with the subsequent employer. The bill would authorize the board to request information regarding employment and health care coverage offered by a person's subsequent employer. The bill would also prohibit, except as provided and by January 1, 2023, persons who have retired under a public retirement system, as defined, annuitants of a public retirement system, and their beneficiaries who become eligible to enroll on or after January 1, 1985, in Part A and Part B of Medicare from being enrolled in a basic health benefit plan, as defined, offered by the public retirement system.
Sponsored bills
(1) Existing law, the COVID-19 Tenant Relief Act of 2020, establishes certain procedural requirements and limitations on evictions for nonpayment of rent due to COVID-19 rental debt, as defined. The act, among other things, prohibits a tenant that delivers a declaration, under penalty of perjury, of COVID-19-related financial distress from being deemed in default with regard to the COVID-19 rental debt, as specified. Existing law defines COVID-19 rental debt as unpaid rent or any other unpaid financial obligation of a tenant that came due between March 1, 2020, and January 31, 2021. Existing law repeals the act on February 1, 2025. This bill would extend the definition of "COVID-19 rental debt" as unpaid rent or any other unpaid financial obligation of a tenant that came due between March 1, 2020, and December 31, 2021. The bill would also extend the repeal date of the act to January 1, 2026. The bill would make other conforming changes to align with these extended dates. By extending the repeal date of the act, the bill would expand the crime of perjury and create a state-mandated local program. Existing law authorizes a landlord to require a high-income tenant, as defined, to submit additional documentation supporting the claim that the tenant has suffered COVID-19-related financial distress if the landlord provides the tenant with a specified notice. This bill would provide that a tenant is not required to submit that additional supporting documentation unless the landlord provides the tenant with a copy of the proof of income that demonstrates that the tenant qualifies as a high-income tenant. Existing law prohibits a landlord from interrupting or terminating utility service furnished to a tenant with the intent to terminate the occupancy of the tenant, and imposes specified penalties on a landlord who violates that prohibition. Existing law, until February 1, 2021, imposes additional damages in an amount of at least $1,000, but not more than $2,500, on a landlord that violates that prohibition, if the tenant has provided a declaration of COVID-19 financial distress, as specified. This bill would extend the imposition of those additional damages to January 1, 2022, and would remove the condition that the tenant provide a declaration of COVID-19 financial distress. This bill would additionally prohibit a landlord from taking certain actions with respect to a tenant's COVID-19 rental debt, including, among others, charging or attempting to collect late fees, providing different terms or conditions of tenancy, or withholding a service or amenity. Existing law, until February 1, 2021, prohibits a landlord from bringing an action for unlawful detainer based on a cause of action other than nonpayment of COVID-19 rental debt for the purpose of retaliating against the lessee because the lessee has COVID-19 rental debt. This bill would extend that prohibition to January 1, 2022. Existing law, until February 1, 2025, provides that a small claims court has jurisdiction in any action for recovery of COVID-19 rental debt, as defined, regardless of the amount demanded. This bill would extend that provision to January 1, 2026. Existing law prohibits action to recover COVID-19 rental debt from commencing before March 1, 2021. This bill would extend that prohibition to January 1, 2022, or the end of a local jurisdiction's repayment period, whichever is later. (2) Existing law, the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, provides for the regulation of consumer credit reporting agencies that collect credit-related information on consumers and report this information to subscribers and of persons who furnish that information to consumer credit reporting agencies, as provided. This bill would prohibit a housing provider, credit reporting agency, tenant screening company, or other entity that evaluates tenants on behalf of a housing provider from using an alleged COVID-19 rental debt, as defined, as a negative factor for the purpose of evaluating creditworthiness or as the basis for a negative reference to a prospective housing provider. (3) Existing law, the Mobilehome Residency Law, requires the management of a mobilehome park to comply with notice and specified other requirements in order to terminate a tenancy in a mobilehome park due to a change of use of the mobilehome park, including giving homeowners at least 15 days' written notice that the management will be appearing before a local governmental board, commission, or body to request permits for the change of use. This bill would instead require the management to give homeowners at least 60 days' written notice that the management will be appearing before a local governmental board, commission, or body to obtain local approval for the intended change of use of the mobilehome park. (4) Existing law prescribes various requirements to be satisfied before the exercise of a power of sale under a mortgage or deed of trust. In this regard, existing law requires that a notice of default and a notice of sale be recorded and that specified periods of time elapse between the recording and the sale. Existing law establishes certain requirements in connection with foreclosures on mortgages and deeds of trust, including restrictions on the actions mortgage servicers may take while a borrower is attempting to secure a loan modification or has submitted a loan modification application. Existing law, until January 1, 2023, applies those protections to a first lien mortgage or deed of trust that is secured by residential real property that is occupied by a tenant, contains no more than four dwelling units, and meets certain criteria, including that a tenant occupying the property is unable to pay rent due to a reduction in income resulting from the novel coronavirus. The bill, commencing January 1, 2023, would limit the extension of those protections to the above-described first lien mortgages and deeds of trust to instances in which the borrower has been approved for foreclosure prevention, as specified, or the borrower submitted a completed application for a first lien loan modification before January 1, 2023, and, as of January 1, 2023, either the mortgage servicer has not yet determined whether the applicant is eligible, or the appeal period for the mortgage servicer's denial of the application has not yet expired. (5) 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. (6) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law, the Stop Tobacco Access to Kids Enforcement (STAKE) Act, prohibits a person from selling or otherwise furnishing tobacco products, as defined, to a person under 21 years of age. The STAKE Act requires a person engaged in the retail sale of tobacco products to check the identification of a tobacco purchaser to establish the purchaser's age if the purchaser reasonably appears to be under 21 years of age. Among other provisions, the act requires the State Department of Public Health to establish and develop a program to reduce the availability of tobacco products to persons under 21 years of age through various enforcement activities. The act also authorizes enforcing agencies, as defined, to assess specified civil penalties for the furnishing of tobacco products to a person under 21 years of age, but makes these penalties inapplicable if the person being furnished the product is active duty military personnel who is 18 years of age or older. This bill would expressly authorize a city, county, or city and county to adopt an ordinance prohibiting a person under 21 years of age from possessing any tobacco cigarette or other tobacco product. The penalty under the ordinance would be the issuance of an administrative citation requiring the person to participate in an antismoking educational program. The bill would additionally authorize the ordinance to require the confiscation of a tobacco product from a person under 18 years of age, as specified. The bill's prohibitions would not apply with respect to active duty military personnel who are 18 years of age or older.
Existing law, to protect public health and water quality, regulates a broad range of consumer products and processes, including water softeners, water treatment devices, and backflow prevention devices, among others. This bill would require, on or before January 1, 2024, that all washing machines sold as new in California contain a microfiber filtration system with a mesh size of 100 microns or smaller.
Existing law requires the Department of Water Resources, in coordination with the State Water Resources Control Board, and including collaboration with and input from stakeholders, to conduct necessary studies and investigations and authorizes the department and the board to jointly recommend to the Legislature a standard for indoor residential water use. Existing law establishes, beginning January 1, 2025, 52.5 gallons per capita daily and, beginning January 1, 2030, 50 gallons per capita daily, as the standards for indoor residential water use, unless the department and the board recommend more appropriate standards for indoor residential water use. This bill would establish, beginning January 1, 2025, the standard as 47 gallons per capita daily and, beginning January 1, 2030, 42 gallons per capita daily.
Existing law defines rape as an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person not the spouse of the perpetrator under certain circumstances, including where the victim is incapable of giving legal consent because of a mental disorder or developmental or physical disability, where the victim is not aware of the essential characteristics of the act due to the perpetrator's fraudulent representation that the act serves a professional purpose, and where the victim submits to the act under the belief that the perpetrator is someone known to the victim other than the perpetrator, and the perpetrator intentionally and fraudulently induces that belief. Existing law separately defines rape of a spouse as an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with the spouse of the perpetrator under similar circumstances as nonspousal rape, except that spousal rape does not include acts of sexual intercourse accomplished under the specific circumstances described above. This bill would repeal the provisions relating to spousal rape and make conforming changes, thereby making an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a spouse punishable as rape if the act otherwise meets the definition of rape. By changing the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law authorizes an employer to request from the Department of Justice records of all convictions or any arrest pending adjudication for specified offenses for a person who applies for a license, employment, or volunteer position, in which the person would have supervisory or disciplinary power over a minor and requires the employer to notify the parent or guardian of a child if a person with specified convictions will have supervisory or disciplinary power over that child. Existing law exempts certain convictions, including spousal rape, from that notification requirement. This bill would remove the exemption for spousal rape or any other felony conviction and would instead exempt only misdemeanor convictions from that notification. The bill would make numerous 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 creates the High-Speed Rail Authority with specified powers and duties related to the development and implementation of a high-speed train system. Existing law, pursuant to the Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century, approved by the voters as Proposition 1A at the November 4, 2008, statewide general election, provides for the issuance of $9.95 billion in general obligation bonds for high-speed rail and related rail purposes. This bill would require the Legislative Analyst's Office, for the purpose of reviewing the planning, financing, expenditures, and other elements of the statewide high-speed rail system, to review any materials submitted to the authority and documents the authority requests from contractors, consultants, or external parties, as specified, and to provide recommendations to the policy and budget committees of the Legislature regarding the statewide high-speed rail system and the development of shared mobility systems statewide. The bill would require the authority, and any entity contracting with the authority, to provide to the Legislative Analyst's Office any information that it requests and to permit representatives of the Legislative Analyst's Office to attend the authority's internal meetings. The bill would repeal these requirements on January 1, 2031.
(1) Existing law, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, authorizes the involuntary commitment and treatment of persons with specified mental health disorders for the protection of the persons so committed. Under the act, if a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is a danger to others, or to themselves, or is gravely disabled, the person may, upon probable cause, be taken into custody by a peace officer, a member of the attending staff of an evaluation facility, designated members of a mobile crisis team, or another designated professional person, and placed in a facility designated by the county and approved by the State Department of Social Services as a facility for 72-hour treatment and evaluation. The act also authorizes a conservator of the person, of the estate, or of both, to be appointed for a person who is gravely disabled as a result of a mental health disorder. For these purposes, existing law defines "gravely disabled" to mean either a condition in which a person, as a result of a mental health disorder or chronic alcoholism, is unable to provide for the person's basic personal needs for food, clothing, or shelter, or a condition in which a person has been found mentally incompetent, as specified. This bill would expand the definition of "gravely disabled" for these purposes to also include a condition in which a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is unable to provide for their basic personal needs for medical treatment, as defined, if the failure to receive medical treatment is either for an existing life-threatening medical condition or the person is in imminent danger of physical injury or life-threatening medical condition and there is a substantial and imminent risk, in either instance, of either death or prolonged hospitalization. By expanding the definition of "gravely disabled" and thereby increasing the duties of local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill, on or before July 1, 2023, would require the State Department of State Hospitals to create a model discharge plan for counties and hospitals to follow when discharging those held under temporary holds or conservatorship. The bill would require county mental health departments to collaborate with facilities and hospitals to develop, implement, and adhere to an adequate discharge plan that ensures continuity of services and care in the community for all individuals exiting holds or conservatorship and to implement that plan across the entire network of acute and subacute facilities on or before February 1, 2024. The bill would require the county discharge plan to require that an individual exiting a temporary hold or a conservatorship be provided with a detailed treatment plan that includes a scheduled first appointment with their referred service provider. By placing additional duties on counties, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would prohibit a county from discharging an individual from a hold unless the first followup appointment, made in conformance to the detailed treatment plan, is scheduled and the appointment information has been provided to the individual. The bill would also require a facility discharging a conservatee to establish a detailed treatment plan, schedule the first followup appointment, and provide the individual with the appointment information. The bill would require a service provider to whom a person released from hold or a conservatorship is referred for services to make a good faith effort to contact the referred individual no less than 3 times, either by email, telephone, mail, or in-person outreach. (2) 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, establishes the continuously appropriated Mental Health Services Fund to fund various county mental health programs. The MHSA also established the Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission to oversee the administration of various parts of the act. This bill, to the extent permitted under state and federal law and consistent with the Mental Health Services Act and for the purposes of the above-mentioned provisions of the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, would clarify that counties may pay for the services authorized in those provisions using funds from the Mental Health Services Fund when included in county plans, as specified, and would also authorize counties to pay for those services with specified funds from the Local Revenue Fund and the Local Revenue Fund 2011. The bill would require the State Department of Health Care Services to, on or before July 1, 2022, issue guidance specifying which services authorized under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act may be paid by counties with funds from the Mental Health Services Fund. This bill would require the commission to develop, implement, and oversee a public and comprehensive framework for tracking and reporting spending on mental health programs and services from all major fund sources and of program- and service-level and statewide outcome data, as specified. The bill would require counties to report to the commission its expenses in specific categories, including, but not limited to, inpatient care or intensive outpatient services, as well as their unspent funding from all major funding sources. By imposing new reporting requirements on counties, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) 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 prohibits a jury or judge from convicting a defendant, finding a special circumstance true, or using a fact in aggravation based on the uncorroborated testimony of an in-custody informant. Existing law defines "in-custody informant" for these purposes as a person, other than a codefendant, percipient witness, accomplice, or coconspirator, whose testimony is based on statements allegedly made by the defendant while both the defendant and the informant were held within a city or county jail, state penal institution, or correctional institution. Existing law provides that, except as otherwise provided by statute, all relevant evidence is admissible. The California Constitution provides for the Right to Truth-In-Evidence, which requires a 23 vote of the Legislature to exclude any relevant evidence from any criminal proceeding, as specified. This bill would instead make testimony by, or information obtained by, an in-custody informant, as defined, regarding statements made by the defendant while the defendant was in custody, inadmissible, as specified. The bill would provide an exemption for such testimony relating to a crime or incident occurring within a correctional facility and testimony obtained pursuant to a law enforcement operation, as described, that meets specified criteria.
Existing law establishes a basic speed law that prohibits a person from driving a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent given the weather, visibility, traffic, and highway conditions, and in no event at a speed that endangers the safety of persons or property. This bill would authorize, until January 1, 2027, the Cities of Los Angeles, Oakland, San Jose, one city in southern California, and the City and County of San Francisco to establish the Speed Safety System Pilot Program for speed limit enforcement in certain areas, if the system meets specified requirements, including that the presence of a fixed or mobile system is clearly identified. The bill would require the participating cities or city and county to adopt a Speed Safety System Use Policy and a Speed Safety System Impact Report before implementing the program, and would require the city or city and county to engage in a public information campaign at least 30 days before implementation of the program, including information relating to when the systems would begin detecting violations and where the systems would be utilized. The bill would require the participating cities or city and county to issue warning notices rather than notices of violations for violations detected within the first 30 calendar days of the program. The bill would require the participating cities or city and county to develop uniform guidelines for, among other things, the processing and storage of confidential information. The bill would designate all photographic, video, or other visual or administrative records made by a system as confidential, and would only authorize public agencies to use and allow access to these records for specified purposes. This bill would specify that any violation of a speed law recorded by a speed safety system authorized by these provisions would be subject only to the provided civil penalties. The bill would, among other things, provide for the issuance of a notice of violation, an initial review, an administrative hearing, and an appeals process, as specified, for a violation under this program. The bill would require any program created pursuant to these provisions to offer a diversion program for indigent speed safety system violation recipients, as specified. The bill would require a city or city and county participating in the pilot program to submit reports to the Legislature, as specified, to evaluate the speed safety system to determine the system's impact on street safety and economic impact on the communities where the system is utilized. Existing law establishes a $25 filing fee for specified appeals and petitions. This bill would require a $25 filing fee for an appeal challenging a notice of violation issued as a result of a speed safety system until January 1, 2027. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Cities of Los Angeles, Oakland, San Jose, and the City and County of San Francisco. 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.