Asm. Jesse Gabriel

(1) Existing law requires the Director of Forestry and Fire Protection to identify areas of the state as very high fire hazard severity zones, as provided. Existing law requires each planning agency to prepare, and the legislative body of each county and city to adopt, a comprehensive, long-term general plan, including a safety element, for the physical development of the county or city, as provided. Existing law requires the draft element of, or draft amendment to, the safety element of a county or city's general plan to be submitted to the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection and to every local agency that provides fire protection to territory in the city or county at least 90 days before the adoption or amendment to the safety element of its general plan for each city or county that contains a very high fire hazard severity zone. This bill would require the director to also identify areas of the state as moderate and high fire hazard severity zones, as provided. The bill would also require the draft element of, or draft amendment to, the safety element of a county or city's general plan to be submitted to the state board and to every local agency that provides fire protection to territory in the city or county at least 90 days before the adoption or amendment to the safety element of its general plan for each city or county that contains a moderate or high fire hazard severity zone, as provided. To the extent this would require a higher level of service from a local agency with respect to the submission of a draft element of, or a draft amendment to, a safety element of a county or city's general plan, the bill would impose state-mandated local program. Existing law requires the state board to, and authorizes a local agency to, review the draft or an existing safety element and recommend changes to the planning agency regarding uses of land and policies in state responsibility areas and very high fire hazard severity zones and regarding methods and strategies for wild land fire risk reduction and prevention within state responsibility areas and very high fire hazard severity zones, as provided. This bill would also require the state board to, and authorize a local agency to, review the draft or an existing safety element and recommend changes to the planning agency regarding uses of land and policies in moderate and high fire hazard severity zones and regarding methods and strategies for wild land fire risk reduction and prevention within moderate and high fire hazard severity zones. (2) Existing law, the Subdivision Map Act vests the authority to regulate and control the design and improvement of subdivisions in the legislative body of a local agency, and sets forth procedures governing the local agency's processing, approval, conditional approval, or disapproval, and filing of tentative, final, and parcel maps, and the modification thereof. The act generally requires a subdivider to file a tentative map or vesting tentative map with the local agency, as specified, and the local agency, in turn, to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the map within a specified time period. Before approving a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, for an area located in a state responsibility area or a very high fire hazard severity zone, existing law requires a legislative body of a county to make specified findings. Existing law requires a legislative body of a county to transmit these findings to the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection. This bill would also require a legislative body of a county to make specified findings before approving a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, for areas located in moderate and high fire hazard severity zones, as provided, and would require these findings to be transmitted to the state board. By requiring new duties on a county, 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, 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.

The Mitigation Fee Act authorizes a local agency to establish, increase, or impose a variety of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions for services, and in connection with the approval of a development project, as defined. Existing law prohibits a local agency from imposing fees for specified purposes, including fees for water or sewer connections, capacity charges, zoning variances or changes, use permits, and building inspections or permits, among others, that exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged, unless voter approval is obtained. Existing law requires fees or service charges that create revenues in excess of actual cost to be used to reduce the fee or service charge. Existing law requires a local agency, before levying or increasing a fee or service charge, to hold at least one open and public meeting and requires that notice of the time and place of the meeting be mailed at least 14 days prior to the meeting to any interested party who files a written request with the local agency for mailed notice of the meeting on new or increased fees or service charges. Existing law additionally requires the local agency to make available to the public, at least 10 days prior to the meeting, the data indicating the amount of cost, or estimated cost, required to provide the service for which the fee or service charge is levied and the revenue sources anticipated to provide the service, as specified. Existing law also authorizes the local agency to provide notice via electronic notification to those who specifically request it, and authorizes the legislative body of a local agency to establish a reasonable annual charge for sending notices based on the estimated cost of providing the service. Existing law authorizes any party to protest the imposition of a fee, dedication, reservation, or other exactions imposed on a development project within 90 or 120 days of the imposition of the fee, as applicable, and specifies procedures for those protests and actions. The act imposes the same requirements on a local agency for a new or increased fee for public facilities. Existing law, for specified fees, requires any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul an ordinance, resolution, or motion adopting a new fee or service charge or modifying an existing fee or service charge to be commenced within 120 days of the effective date of the ordinance, resolution, or motion. Existing law also provides that, if an ordinance, resolution, or motion provides for an automatic adjustment in a fee or service charge and the adjustment results in an increase in the fee or service charge, that any action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the increase to be commenced within 120 days of the increase. This bill would increase, for fees and service charges and for fees for specified public facilities, the time for mailing the notice of the time and place of the meeting to at least 45 days before the meeting. The bill would require the local agency to make that information available to the public at least 30 days before the meeting. The bill would require a local agency to additionally make available to the public all of the data demonstrating the requisite relationship between the amount of a fee for public facilities and the need for the public facilities. The bill would require the data to also be made available to the public on the local agency's internet website. The bill would authorize interested parties to file an electronic request to receive the notice of the meeting time and place, and would require the local agency to mail or electronically send the notice as requested by the party. The bill would prohibit the legislative body of a local agency from establishing a reasonable annual charge for sending electronic notices. The bill would prohibit a local agency, when defending a protest or action filed for a fee or service charge, or for fees for specified public facilities, from using as evidence, or relying on in any way, data not made available to the public pursuant to these provisions. The bill would require revenues in excess of actual cost to be used to reimburse the payor of the fee or service charge. This bill would also delete the provisions requiring a judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul an ordinance within 120 days of the effective date of the ordinance or increase, as applicable. The bill would instead require a judicial action or proceeding to be conducted in accordance with other procedures that, among other things, require a protest to be filed within 90 days after the imposition of the fees and an action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the imposition of the fees to be filed within 180 days after delivery of a specified notice by the local agency. By imposing new duties on local agencies, 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 establishes the California Violence Intervention and Prevention (CalVIP) Grant Program, administered by the Board of State and Community Corrections, to award competitive grants for the purpose of violence intervention and prevention. Existing law imposes various taxes, including taxes on the privilege of engaging in certain activities. The Fee Collection Procedures Law, the violation of which is a crime, provides procedures for the collection of certain fees and surcharges. This bill, the Gun Violence Prevention, Healing, and Recovery Act, would, commencing July 1, 2023, and subject to an appropriation as specified, impose an excise tax in the amount of 10% of the sales price of a handgun and 11% of the sales price of a long gun, rifle, firearm precursor part, and ammunition, as specified. The tax would be collected by the state pursuant to the Fee Collection Procedures Law. The bill would require that the revenues collected be deposited in the Gun Violence Prevention, Healing, and Recovery Fund, which the bill would establish in the State Treasury. This bill would include a change in state statute that would result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax within the meaning of Section 3 of Article XIII A of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of 23 of the membership of each house of the Legislature. Because this bill would expand the scope of the Fee Collection Procedures Law, the violation of which is 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. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Existing law imposes various limitations on the emissions of air contaminants for the control of air pollution from vehicular and nonvehicular sources. Existing law assigns the responsibility for controlling vehicular sources of air pollution to the State Air Resources Board. This bill would require the state board, by July 1, 2022, consistent with federal law, to adopt cost-effective and technologically feasible regulations to prohibit engine exhaust and evaporative emissions from new small off-road engines, as defined by the state board. The bill would require the state board to identify and, to the extent feasible, make available funding for commercial rebates or similar incentive funding as part of any updates to existing applicable funding program guidelines to local air pollution control districts and air quality management districts to implement to support the transition to zero-emission small off-road equipment operations.

(1) The Alcoholic Beverage Control Act contains various provisions regulating the application for, the issuance of, the suspension of, and the conditions imposed upon alcoholic beverage licenses by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. Existing law generally provides that a violation of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act is a misdemeanor. Existing law authorizes the issuance of a caterer's permit, upon application to the department, to a licensee under an on-sale general license, an on-sale beer and wine license, a club license, or a veterans' club license, that authorizes the holder of the permit to sell alcoholic beverages at specified locations and events, including, among others, conventions, sporting events, and trade exhibits. Under existing law, licensees are required to first obtain consent from the department for sales of alcoholic beverages at each event in the form of a catering or event authorization. The department, pursuant to its powers and in furtherance of emergency declarations and orders of the Governor under the California Emergency Services Act regarding the spread of the COVID-19 virus, has prescribed temporary relief measures to suspend certain legal restrictions relating to, among other things, the expansion of a licensed footprint, sales of alcoholic beverages to-go, and delivery privileges. This bill would prohibit the issuance of a catering authorization for use at any one premises for more than 36 events in one calendar year, except as specified. This bill would authorize the department, for a period of 365 days following the end of the state of emergency proclaimed by the Governor on March 4, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, to permit licensees to exercise license privileges in an expanded license area authorized pursuant to a COVID-19 Temporary Catering Authorization approved in accordance with the Fourth Notice of Regulatory Relief issued by the department, as specified. The bill would also authorize the department to extend the period of time during which the COVID-19 Temporary Catering Authorization is valid beyond 365 days if the licensee has filed a pending application with the department for the permanent expansion of their premises before the 365-day time period expires. The bill would make these provisions effective only until July 1, 2024, and repeal them as of that date. (2) Existing law, with exceptions, prohibits a licensee from having, upon the licensed premises, any alcoholic beverages other than the alcoholic beverage that the licensee is authorized to sell at the premises under their license, and makes a violation of this prohibition punishable as a misdemeanor. This bill would, as an exception to that prohibition, authorize a licensed manufacturer to share a common licensed area with multiple licensed retailers, subject to specified provisions, including, but not limited to, that (A) a licensee sharing the common licensed area with a licensed manufacturer is prohibited from selling or serving any alcoholic beverages that are manufactured, produced, bottled, processed, imported, rectified, distributed, represented, or sold by the manufacturer, as provided, (B) the licensed manufacturer may, in connection with the operation of the shared common area only, advertise or promote the common licensed area, provided that each retailer pays its pro rata share of the costs of such advertising or promotion, as specified, (C) no thing of value may be given or furnished by the manufacturer to the retailers, except as specified, (D) the manufacturer may have on the area of its licensed premises that encompass the shared common licensed area alcoholic beverages that would not otherwise be permitted on the manufacturer's licensed premises, as provided, (E) all licensees sharing the common licensed area are required to hold the same license type retailers, (F) all licensees holding licenses within the shared common licensed area are jointly responsible for compliance with all laws that may subject their license to discipline, and (G) the manufacturer maintains records necessary to establish its compliance, as specified. (3) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Existing law generally regulates the sale and transfer of firearms, including, among other things, requiring transactions of firearms to be completed through a licensed firearms dealer. Existing law generally makes a violation of the requirements relating to the sale, lease, or transfer of a firearm a misdemeanor. This bill would prohibit an officer, employee, operator, lessee, or licensee of the 32nd District Agricultural Association, as defined, from contracting for, authorizing, or allowing the sale of any firearm, firearm precursor part, or ammunition on the property or in the buildings that comprise the OC Fair and Event Center, as specified. The bill would exempt from its provisions a gun buyback event held by a law enforcement agency, the sale of a firearm by a public administrator, public guardian, or public conservator within the course of their duties, a sale that occurs pursuant to a contract that was entered into before January 1, 2022, and the purchase of ammunition on state property by a law enforcement agency in the course of its regular duties. Because a violation of this prohibition 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.

Existing law requires, during the next revision of the publication "Health Framework for California Public Schools," the Instructional Quality Commission to consider developing, and recommending for adoption by the State Board of Education, a distinct category on mental health instruction to educate pupils about all aspects of mental health. Existing law requires mental health instruction for these purposes to include, but not be limited to, specified elements, including reasonably designed and age-appropriate instruction on the overarching themes and core principles of mental health. This bill would require each school district, county office of education, state special school, and charter school that offers one or more courses in health education to pupils in middle school or high school to include in those courses instruction in mental health that meets the requirements of the bill, as specified. The bill would require that instruction to include, among other things, reasonably designed instruction on the overarching themes and core principles of mental health. The bill would require that instruction and related materials to, among other things, be appropriate for use with pupils of all races, genders, sexual orientations, and ethnic and cultural backgrounds, pupils with disabilities, and English learners. The bill would require the State Department of Education to develop a plan to expand mental health instruction in California public schools on or before January 1, 2024.

(1) Existing law prohibits a person subject to a protective order, as defined, from owning, possessing, purchasing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition while that protective order is in effect and makes a willful and knowing violation of a protective order a crime. Existing law requires the court, when issuing the order with both parties present, to inform the parties of this information and to order the restrained person to relinquish any firearm in the person's immediate possession or control or subject to their immediate possession or control. Existing law specifies the means of relinquishment if the law enforcement officer serving the protective order does not request the immediate surrender of the firearm, including, surrender to law enforcement, or by selling the firearm to a licensed gun dealer. This bill would require a court to order the restrained person to relinquish ammunition and to notify the parties of how any firearms or ammunition still in the restrained party's possession are to be relinquished and how to submit a receipt to the court. The bill would require the court to review the file to determine whether the receipt has been filed and inquire as to whether the person has complied with the requirement. The bill would require violations of the firearms or ammunition prohibition to be reported to the prosecuting attorney in the jurisdiction where the order has been issued within 2 business days of the court hearing unless the restrained party provides a receipt showing compliance at a subsequent hearing or by direct filing with the clerk of the court. The bill would authorize the relinquishment to occur by transferring the firearm or ammunition or relinquishing them for storage if the firearm or ammunition is not immediately surrendered to law enforcement upon service of the protective order. This bill would also require the court, at a noticed hearing relating to a domestic violence protective order in family court or juvenile court, to consider information presented that the restrained person has possession or control of a firearm or ammunition. The bill would authorize the court, upon making this finding, to set a review hearing, as specified, to determine whether the person has possession or control of a firearm or ammunition in violation of the above provisions. Existing law requires a court, prior to a hearing on the issuance or denial of a protective order, to ensure that a search has been conducted to determine if the subject of the order has been convicted of a serious or violent felony, a misdemeanor conviction involving domestic violence, weapons, or other violence, has an outstanding warrant, is currently on parole or probation, has a registered firearm, or has a prior restraining order or a violation of a restraining order. Existing law requires the court to notify law enforcement officials if some of those conditions exist, including the person being on parole or probation or having an outstanding warrant. This bill, as part of the search, would require the court to make a written record as to whether the subject has relinquished the firearm. If evidence of compliance with the prohibition on firearms or ammunition is not provided, the bill would require the clerk of the court to notify law enforcement officials and would require those law enforcement officials to take all actions necessary to obtain any firearms or ammunition owned, possessed, or controlled and to address any violation of the order with respect to firearms or ammunition, as specified. By requiring additional duties of local law enforcement officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires a family court to determine the best interest of the child for purposes of deciding child custody in proceedings for dissolution of marriage, nullity of marriage, legal separation of the parties, petitions for exclusive custody of a child, and proceedings under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act. Existing law establishes a rebuttable presumption that an award of sole or joint physical or legal custody of a child to a person who has perpetrated domestic violence is detrimental to the best interest of a child and establishes factors to be considered in rebutting that presumption, including that the perpetrator is restrained by a protective order and has, or has not, complied with that order. This bill, for purposes of rebutting the presumption, would require the court to also consider whether the person is a restrained person in possession or control of a firearm or ammunition in violation of the law. Existing law authorizes the court to issue an ex parte order determining the temporary custody and visitation of a minor child, on the conditions the court determines, to a party who has established a parent and child relationship with the child, based on the best interest of the child. Existing law authorizes the court to suspend or deny custody or visitation or to limit visitation or custody only to situations in which a 3rd person is present. This bill would require the court, in making that determination, to consider whether the party is a restrained person in possession or control of a firearm or ammunition. (2) Existing law requires a law enforcement agency to enter all firearms that have been reported stolen, lost, found, recovered, held for safekeeping, or under observation into the Automated Firearms System (AFS) . This bill would also require law enforcement to enter in all firearms that are relinquished as part of a domestic violence protective order. (3) Existing law specifies how firearms and ammunition may be transported and prohibits open or concealed carry in specified circumstances. Existing law requires a license to sell, lease, or transfer firearms. Existing law, the Safety for All Act of 2016, enacted by the voters as Proposition 63 at the November 8, 2016, General Election, requires a valid ammunition vendor license to sell more than 500 rounds of ammunition in any 30-day period. Proposition 63 authorizes amendments of its provisions by a vote of 55% of both houses of the Legislature if the amendments are consistent with, and further the purposes of, the act. This bill would exempt people who are complying with the firearms provisions of a protective order from those provisions, including amending Proposition 63 to exempt a person from the limitation on the sale of over 500 rounds of ammunition in a 30-day period in order to comply with the protective order. (4) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 3044 of the Family Code proposed by AB 1579 and AB 1171, to be operative only if this bill and AB 1579, AB 1171, or both are enacted and this bill is enacted last. The bill would also incorporate additional changes to Section 11108.2 of the Penal Code proposed by SB 715, to be operative only if this bill and SB 715 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, specifies that all persons within the jurisdiction of the state are free and equal. Existing law entitles people regardless of their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind. This bill would establish the Commission on the State of Hate in the state government. The bill would provide for the appointment of 9 members, appointed by the Governor, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the Senate Committee on Rules, as provided. The bill would prescribe the goals of the commission, which would include, among other things, providing resources to various state agencies and the public to inform them on the state of hate and advising the Legislature, the Governor, and state agencies on policy recommendations to promote intersocial education designed to foster mutual respect and understanding among California's diverse population. The bill would require the commission to host and coordinate a minimum of 4 in-person or virtual community forums, open to the public, on the state of hate per year. The bill would require the commission to seek to protect civil liberties in accordance with applicable law. The bill would authorize the commission to seek, apply for, or accept funding from sources other than the General Fund, as provided. Starting July 1, 2023, the bill would require the commission to make publically available and issue to the Governor and the Legislature an Annual State of Hate Commission Report that describes its activities for the previous year and its recommendations for the following year. The bill would require this report, among other things, to provide a comprehensive accounting of hate crime activity statewide and report on relevant national hate crime trends and statistics. The bill would require the commission to report to the Legislature through the Joint Committee on Rules annually, as provided. This bill would make the operation of these provisions contingent on funding appropriated by the Legislature for these purposes, and would require the commission to post notice of the appropriation on the homepage of its internet website and send notice of the funding to the Secretary of State and the Legislative Counsel. This bill would be repealed by its own provisions on January 1, 2027.