Existing law requests the University of California to compile specified information, including a survey of existing resources throughout California's governmental and administrative structure that are available to address the needs of an aging society. Existing law requires the Secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency, based upon the information compiled by the University of California and with the consultation or advice of specified entities, to develop a statewide strategic plan on aging for long-term planning purposes and submit the plan to the Legislature. By executive order, the Governor ordered that a master plan for aging be developed and issued to serve as a blueprint to implement strategies and partnerships that promote healthy aging and prepare the state for upcoming demographic changes. The executive order requires the Secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency to convene a Cabinet-level Workgroup for Aging to advise the secretary in developing and issuing the master plan. This bill would require the secretary, in coordination with the Director of the California Department of Aging, to lead the development and implementation of the master plan established pursuant to that executive order. The bill would require the secretary and the director, with the assistance of the workgroup, to work with specified agencies, as needed, to identify policies, efficiencies, and strategies necessary to implement the master plan. The bill would also require the workgroup to solicit input and gather information to assist with the implementation of the master plan. The bill would require the department to submit a report to the Governor and the Legislature by October 1, 2020, and submit updates annually thereafter, until October 1, 2030, regarding the master plan.
Sponsored bills
Existing law provides for a civil penalty, in addition to, and entirely independent and apart from other penalties, on every person who fails to pay the wages of each employee, as specified, including a provision prohibiting wage differential on the basis of sex, as provided in specified provisions of the Labor Code. Existing law requires the Labor Commissioner to recover that penalty as part of a hearing held to recover unpaid wages and penalties or in an independent civil action. Existing law requires that a specified percentage of the penalty recovered under that provision be paid into a fund within the Labor and Workforce Development Agency dedicated to educating employers about state labor laws and that the remainder be paid into the State Treasury to the credit of the General Fund. This bill would also authorize the affected employee to bring an action to recover specified statutory penalties against the employer as part of a hearing held to recover unpaid wages. The bill would remove the authority for the Labor Commissioner to recover civil penalties in an independent civil action. The bill would also modify the list of statutes that a statutory penalty may be recovered for violation of by adding a provision relating to wages paid to an employee who is licensed under the Barbering and Cosmetology Act. The bill would authorize an employee to either recover statutory penalties under these provisions or to enforce civil penalties under a specified provision of the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, but not both, for the same violation.
Existing law generally regulates classes of insurance, including life and long-term care insurance. Under existing law, a life insurance policy may accelerate long-term care benefits as an alternative to a life settlement. Existing law authorizes an accelerated death benefit to be added to a life insurance policy to provide for the advance payment of a part of the death proceeds if a qualifying event, including a terminal or chronic illness, occurs. Existing law imposes requirements on an insurer before the lapse or termination of a long-term care insurance policy or certificate, and requires a long-term care insurance policy or certificate to provide for reinstatement of coverage if the insured has a cognitive impairment and specified criteria are met. This bill would require a life insurance policy issued on or after January 1, 2021, that contains long-term care benefits and permits policy loans or cash withdrawals to not prohibit or limit a loan or withdrawal while the insured receives payment of long-term care benefits, except as specified. The bill would authorize the payment of an accelerated death benefit for long-term care to be applied toward repayment of a pro rata portion of an outstanding policy loan if the payment results in a pro rata reduction in the cash value of the life insurance policy. The bill would require an insurer to provide a statement to a policyholder or certificate holder at least 30 days before the first payment and no later than 30 days after every payment of an accelerated death benefit for long-term care that includes specified information, including an explanation of policy changes that would or did occur due to the payment. If an insurer approves a loan against or withdrawal from the cash value of a life insurance policy that accelerates benefits for long-term care, the bill would require the insurer to send the policyholder or certificate holder a statement with specified information, including a notice that a loan or cash withdrawal may adversely affect government benefits and may be taxable. The bill would require an applicant and agent for a universal life insurance policy that includes coverage for long-term care, as specified, to complete a disclosure relating to the risk of lapse and an offer of protection against lapse. Existing law requires a premium rate schedule for an individual or group long-term care insurance policy to be filed with and approved by the Insurance Commissioner before a policy is offered, sold, issued, or delivered. This bill would prohibit the Insurance Commissioner from approving an initial premium rate schedule for individual or group long-term care insurance that includes scheduled rate increases based on the attained age of the insured or the policy duration.
Existing law specifies that a hiring of residential real property, for a term not specified by the parties, is deemed to be renewed at the end of the term implied by law unless one of the parties gives written notice to the other of that party's intention to terminate. Existing law requires an owner of a residential dwelling to give notice at least 60 days prior to the proposed date of termination, or at least 30 days prior to the proposed date of termination if any tenant or resident has resided in the dwelling for less than one year, as specified. Existing law requires any notice given by an owner to be given in a prescribed manner, to contain certain information, and to be formatted, as specified. This bill would, with certain exceptions, prohibit an owner, as defined, of residential real property from terminating a tenancy without just cause, as defined, which the bill would require to be stated in the written notice to terminate tenancy when the tenant has continuously and lawfully occupied the residential real property for 12 months, except as provided. The bill would require, for certain just cause terminations that are curable, that the owner give a notice of violation and an opportunity to cure the violation prior to issuing the notice of termination. The bill, if the violation is not cured within the time period set forth in the notice, would authorize a 3-day notice to quit without an opportunity to cure to be served to terminate the tenancy. The bill would require, for no-fault just cause terminations, as specified, that the owner, at the owner's option, either assist certain tenants to relocate, regardless of the tenant's income, by providing a direct payment of one month's rent to the tenant, as specified, or waive in writing the payment of rent for the final month of the tenancy, prior to the rent becoming due. The bill would require the actual amount of relocation assistance or rent waiver provided to a tenant that fails to vacate after the expiration of the notice to terminate the tenancy to be recoverable as damages in an action to recover possession. The bill would provide that if the owner does not provide relocation assistance, the notice of termination is void. The bill would except certain properties and circumstances from the application of its provisions. The bill would require an owner of residential property to provide prescribed notice to a tenant of the tenant's rights under these provisions. The bill would not apply to residential real property subject to a local ordinance requiring just cause for termination adopted on or before September 1, 2019, or to residential real property subject to a local ordinance requiring just cause for termination adopted or amended after September 1, 2019, that is more protective than these provisions, as defined. The bill would void any waiver of the rights under these provisions. The bill would repeal these provisions as of January 1, 2030. Existing law governs the hiring of residential dwelling units and requires a landlord to provide specified notice to tenants prior to an increase in rent. Existing law, the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, prescribes statewide limits on the application of local rent control with regard to certain properties. That act, among other things, authorizes an owner of residential real property to establish the initial and all subsequent rental rates for a dwelling or unit that meets specified criteria, subject to certain limitations. This bill would, until January 1, 2030, prohibit an owner of residential real property from, over the course of any 12-month period, increasing the gross rental rate for a dwelling or unit more than 5% plus the percentage change in the cost of living, as defined, or 10%, whichever is lower, of the lowest gross rental rate charged for the immediately preceding 12 months, subject to specified conditions. The bill would prohibit an owner of a unit of residential real property from increasing the gross rental rate for the unit in more than 2 increments over a 12-month period, after the tenant remains in occupancy of the unit over a 12-month period. The bill would exempt certain properties from these provisions. The bill would require the Legislative Analyst's Office to submit a report, on or before January 1, 2030, to the Legislature regarding the effectiveness of these provisions. The bill would provide that these provisions apply to all rent increases occurring on or after March 15, 2019. The bill would provide that in the event that an owner increased the rent by more than the amount specified above between March 15, 2019, and January 1, 2020, the applicable rent on January 1, 2020, shall be the rent as of March 15, 2019, plus the maximum permissible increase, and the owner shall not be liable to the tenant for any corresponding rent overpayment. The bill would authorize an owner who increased the rent by less than the amount specified above between March 15, 2019, and January 1, 2020, to increase the rent twice within 12 months of March 15, 2019, but not by more than the amount specified above. The bill would void any waiver of the rights under these provisions. The Planning and Zoning Law requires the owner of an assisted housing development in which there will be an expiration of rental restrictions to, among other things, provide notice of the proposed change to each affected tenant household residing in the assisted housing development subject to specified procedures and requirements, and to also provide specified entities notice and an opportunity to submit an offer to purchase the development prior to the expiration of the rental restrictions. This bill would authorize an owner of an assisted housing development, who demonstrates, under penalty of perjury, compliance with the provisions described above with regard to the expiration of rental restrictions, to establish the initial unassisted rental rate for units without regard to the cap on rent increases discussed above, but would require the owner to comply with the above cap on rent increases for subsequent rent increases in the development. The bill would authorize an owner of a deed-restricted affordable housing unit or an affordable housing unit subject to a regulatory restriction contained in an agreement with a government agency limiting rental rates that is not within an assisted housing development to establish the initial rental rate for the unit upon the expiration of the restriction, but would require the owner to comply with the above cap on rent increases for subsequent rent increases for the unit. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2030. The bill would void any waiver of the rights under these provisions. By requiring an owner of an assisted housing development to demonstrate compliance with specified provisions under penalty of perjury, this bill would expand the existing crime of perjury and thus would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to sexually assault certain animals for the purpose of gratifying the sexual desires of a person. This bill would repeal that provision and would instead prohibit sexual contact, as defined, with any animal. The bill would make a violation of these provisions punishable as a misdemeanor. The bill would also authorize the seizure of an animal used in the violation of this offense. Existing law makes it a misdemeanor for persons convicted of certain animal abuse crimes to own, possess, maintain, care for, reside with, or have custody of an animal for a specified period after conviction. This bill would add animal sexual abuse to the list of offenses which result in that prohibition. By creating new crimes, 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 authorizes the governing board of any school district or community college district to order an election and submit to the electors of the district the question of whether the bonds of the district shall be issued and sold to raise money for specified purposes. Existing law generally requires, to pass a school bond measure, that either at least 23 of the votes cast on the proposition of issuing bonds be in favor of issuing the bonds to pass the measure, or, if certain conditions are met, at least 55% of the votes cast on the proposition of issuing bonds be in favor of issuing the bonds. Existing law prohibits the total amount of bonds issued by a school district or community college district from exceeding 1.25% of the taxable property of the district, as provided. This bill would raise that limit to 2%. (2) Existing law also authorizes a unified school district to issue bonds receiving at least 55% of the votes cast on the proposition of issuing the bonds that, in aggregation with bonds issued with a 23 favorable vote, do not exceed 2.5% of the taxable property of the district, as provided. This bill would raise that limit to 4%. The bill would make a similar percentage increase for community college districts. (3) The Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998 provides for the adoption of rules, regulations, and procedures, under the administration of the Director of General Services, for the allocation of state funds by the State Allocation Board for the construction and modernization of public school facilities. This bill would, among other things, require a school district to submit to the Department of General Services a 5-year school facilities master plan or updated 5-year school facilities master plan, as provided, as a condition of participating in the school facilities program under the act, would require the school district to submit specified information in the school district's application for an apportionment of state funds, and would make other changes to requirements a school district is required to comply with before participating in programs under the act. The bill would require the department to process applications to participate in the program, as specified, and would make other changes to the method by which the board makes apportionments of moneys under the act. This bill would establish the 2020 State School Facilities Fund, and authorize the board to apportion, and make disbursements of, moneys in the fund, as provided. The bill would require, for bonds approved by voters in 2020 or thereafter, the board to adjust a school district's required local and state contribution, as specified. The bill would authorize new construction and modernization grants to be used for seismic mitigation purposes and, among other things, to establish schoolsite-based infrastructure to provide broadband internet access. The bill would also authorize modernization grants to be used, among other things, for the control, management, or abatement of lead and for the demolishment and construction of a building on an existing schoolsite that meets specified conditions. The bill would prohibit the use of new construction and modernization grants for the purchase of portable electronic devices with a useful life of less than 3 years. This bill would authorize funding for health and safety projects by a school district, as provided. This bill would authorize the board to provide a grant to test for lead in water outlets used for drinking or preparing food on schoolsites serving kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive, as provided. The bill would specify procedures that small school districts, as defined, may use to obtain project and construction management, new construction grants, and modernization grants. The bill would also make conforming changes in, and remove inoperative provisions from, the act. (4) The act also requires the board to adopt regulations for determining the amount of funding and the eligibility and prioritization of funding that school districts with a financial hardship may receive from bond acts for construction, modernization, or relocation assistance. The act requires those regulations to include consideration of various factors, including whether the school district's total bonding capacity is $5,000,000 or less, in which case the school district shall be deemed eligible for financial hardship. This bill, for purposes of the regulations related to financial hardship eligibility, would increase the total bonding capacity cap to $15,000,000, to be adjusted as specified. (5) The California Constitution prohibits the Legislature from creating a debt or liability that singly or in the aggregate with any previous debts or liabilities exceeds the sum of $300,000, except by an act that (A) authorizes the debt for a single object or work specified in the act, (B) has been passed by a 23 vote of all the Members elected to each house of the Legislature, (C) has been submitted to the people at a statewide general or primary election, and (D) has received a majority of all the votes cast for and against it at that election. This bill would set forth the Public Preschool, K-12, and College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2020 as a state general obligation bond act that would provide $15,000,000,000 to construct and modernize education facilities, as specified. This bond act would become operative only if approved by the voters at the March 3, 2020, statewide primary election. The bill would also provide for the submission of the bond act to the voters at that election. (6) Existing law establishes the California State University, which is administered by the Board of Trustees of the California State University, and the University of California, under the administration of the Regents of the University of California, as segments of public postsecondary education in this state. This bill would require the Board of Trustees and the Regents to comply with certain conditions, as provided, before receiving funds from the 2020 University Capital Outlay Bond Fund established pursuant to the Public Preschool, K-12, and College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2020. (7) Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district to impose, as specified, an alternative fee, charge, dedication, or requirement on developers to fund school facilities, until the date new construction bond proceeds authorized by the Preschool-College Public Education Bond Act of 2016 are expended, or December 31, 2020, whichever is earlier. This bill would remove this authority beginning the earlier of January 1, 2021, or the date new construction bond proceeds authorized by the 2016 bond act are expended or apportioned, until January 1, 2028. The bill would also exempt multifamily housing developments that are located no further than 12 mile from a major transit stop, and reduce by 20% from specified amounts for any other multifamily housing developments, as specified, from any fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement for the construction or reconstruction of school facilities, as provided. (8) This bill, except for the provision making the provisions of the bill severable, would become effective upon the adoption of the Public Preschool, K-12, and College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2020 by the voters at the March 3, 2020, statewide primary election.
Existing law, the Financial Institutions Law, regulates the activities of various financial entities, including commercial banks, industrial banks, trust companies, credit unions, and savings associations. The Banking Law defines and regulates state banks and commits the enforcement of banking laws to the Commissioner of Business Oversight. Existing law prohibits a county from giving or loaning its credit to, or in aid of, any person or corporation. Existing law requires a local agency, as defined, to deposit all money belonging to, or in the custody of, that local agency into specified state or national banks, as defined. Existing law regulates the investment of public funds by local agencies. Existing law, the Nonprofit Corporation Law, regulates the formation and conduct of a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation and a nonprofit public benefit corporation. This bill would define the term "bank" for purposes of the Financial Institutions Law and the Banking Law to include a public bank. The bill would define the term "public bank" to mean a corporation, organized as either a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation or a nonprofit public benefit corporation for the purpose of engaging in the commercial banking business or industrial banking business, that is wholly owned by a local agency, as specified, local agencies, or a joint powers authority. The bill would require a public bank to obtain a certificate of authorization to transact business as a bank from the commissioner and to obtain and maintain insurance, subject to specified requirements. The bill would prohibit the commissioner from issuing more than 2 public bank licenses, as defined, in a calendar year and would prohibit the commissioner from authorizing more than 10 public banks at one time. The bill would require a public bank to include a specified purpose statement in its articles of incorporation and make conforming changes. The bill would require a local agency to conduct and approve, as specified, a study of the viability of a public bank containing specified elements before submitting an application to the commissioner to organize and establish a public bank and would require the local agency to include a copy of that study in the application submitted to the commissioner. The bill would require a local agency that is not a charter city to obtain voter approval of a motion to submit an application to the commissioner, as specified. The bill would authorize a county to lend its available funds to a public bank. The bill also would authorize a local agency to deposit funds in a public bank, and to invest in a public bank, subject to certain requirements. The bill would authorize a public bank to make distributions to its members. The bill would require, as specified, a public bank to conduct retail activities in partnership with local financial institutions and would prohibit a public bank from competing with local financial institutions. The Corporation Tax Law imposes a franchise tax on financial corporations, but provides that the tax is in lieu of all other state and local taxes and licenses, with certain exceptions. That law also exempts specified classes of entities from the franchise and income taxes imposed by that law, including state-chartered credit unions. This bill would additionally exempt from those franchise and income taxes any public bank. This bill would also exempt a public bank from all other state and local taxes and licenses, with certain exceptions. Existing law, the Ralph M. Brown Act, requires that all meetings of the legislative body, as defined, of a local agency be open and public and all persons be permitted to attend unless a closed session is authorized. This bill would authorize the governing board of a public bank or a committee of that governing board to meet in a closed session to consider and take action on matters pertaining to a loan or investment decision, a decision of the internal audit committee, the compliance committee, or the governance committee, and a meeting with a state or federal regulator. The bill would authorize a public bank to make all information received by a shareholder, member, or owner of a public bank confidential, as specified. Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires that public records, as defined, be available to the public for inspection and made promptly available to any person. This bill would exempt specified information and records of a public bank, and related decisions of the directors, officers, and managers of the public bank, from the disclosure requirements of the act, including, among others, records related to alternative investments of the bank, as specified, meeting materials of any closed session, a record containing information regarding a portfolio position in which the public bank invests, information related to a specific account in the bank, and specified correspondence related to meetings with, or a memorandum or letter received from, state and federal banking regulators. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.
Existing law, the Optometry Practice Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of the practice of optometry by the State Board of Optometry and makes a violation of the act a misdemeanor. Existing law authorizes an optometrist to practice optometry at a health facility or residential care facility, subject to specified conditions, including that the optometrist maintain and disclose patient records in a specified manner. Existing law requires an optometrist to be certified to use therapeutic pharmaceutical agents in order to diagnose and treat specified conditions. This bill would require an optometrist to obtain a home residence permit to engage in the practice of optometry at a home residence, as defined, except for a person engaging in the temporary practice of optometry. The bill would authorize an optometrist who is certified as a therapeutic pharmaceutical agent to obtain a home residence permit by submitting an application to the board and paying applicable fees, and would establish a process for the issuance and renewal of home residence permits, including prescribing application, renewal, and delinquency fees. The bill would require an optometrist engaging in the practice of optometry at any health facility or residential care facility, or home residence to provide each patient with a consumer notice, as specified, prescribed by the board. The bill would require a certified home residence optometrist, before engaging in the practice of optometry at a home residence, to provide the patient with a prescribed consumer notice and an authorization to release the patient's medical information related to the optometrist's provision of optometry services to the board for specified purposes, including investigating complaints and conducting the board's enforcement duties. By expanding the scope of a 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.
The California Constitution grants the retirement board of a public employee retirement system plenary authority and fiduciary responsibility for investment of moneys and administration of the retirement fund and system. The California Constitution qualifies this grant of powers by reserving to the Legislature the authority to prohibit investments if it is in the public interest and the prohibition satisfies standards of fiduciary care and loyalty required of a retirement board. Existing law prohibits the boards of administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System and the State Teachers' Retirement System from making investments in certain countries and in thermal coal companies, as specified, subject to the boards' plenary authority and fiduciary responsibility for investment of moneys and administration of the systems. This bill, upon the passage of a federal law that imposes sanctions on the government of Turkey for failure to officially acknowledge its responsibility for the Armenian Genocide, would prohibit the boards of administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System and the State Teachers' Retirement System from making additional or new investments, or renewing existing investments, of public employee retirement funds in an investment vehicle in the government of Turkey that is issued by the government of Turkey or that is owned by the government of Turkey. The bill would require the boards to liquidate existing investments in the government of Turkey within 18 months of the passage of the above-described federal law. The bill would require these boards to make specified reports to the Legislature and the Governor regarding these actions within one year of the passage of a federal law imposing those sanctions on the government of Turkey and on or before January 1, 2024. The bill would specify that its provisions do not require a board to take any action that the board determines in good faith is inconsistent with its constitutional fiduciary responsibilities to the retirement system. The bill would indemnify from the General Fund and hold harmless the present, former, and future board members, officers, and employees of, and investment managers under contract with, the boards, in connection with actions relating to these investments. The bill would repeal the above-described prohibited investment and reporting provisions on January 1, 2025, or if a determination is made by the board, the Department of State, the Congress of the United States, or another appropriate federal agency that the government of Turkey has officially acknowledged its responsibility for the Armenian Genocide, whichever occurs first.
This measure would condemn regulations recently adopted by the Department of Homeland Security to prescribe how a determination of inadmissibility for a person who is not a citizen or national is made based on the likelihood that the person will become a public charge. This measure would also urge the federal government to repeal the new regulations.