(1) Existing law generally requires the State Department of Public Health to license, regulate, and inspect health and care facilities. Existing law specifically requires the department to adopt regulations that require a general acute care hospital, an acute psychiatric hospital, and a special hospital to meet minimum nurse-to-patient ratios and assign additional staff according to a documented patient classification system for determining nursing care requirements. Existing law also generally requires the department to periodically inspect every health facility for which a license or special permit has been issued for compliance with state laws and regulations, and to ensure that those periodic inspections are not announced in advance of inspection. This bill would require the periodic inspections of these specified health facilities to include reviews of compliance with the nurse-to-patient ratios and staff assignment regulations described above. The bill would require the department to conduct these inspections in a manner that is not announced in advance of the date of inspection. (2) Existing law requires the department to promulgate regulations establishing criteria to assess an administrative penalty against a general acute care hospital, acute psychiatric hospital, or special hospital for a deficiency constituting an immediate jeopardy violation and a violation of the rules and regulations applicable to these types of hospitals that do not constitute an immediate jeopardy. Existing law requires certain penalties collected by the department to be deposited into the Internal Departmental Quality Improvement Account, to be expended, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for internal quality improvement activities in the Licensing and Certification Program. This bill would require the department to assess specified administrative penalties for a violation of the nurse-to-patient ratios and staff assignment regulations described above. The bill would exempt from those administrative penalties a general acute care hospital that demonstrates to the satisfaction of the department that, among other things, prompt efforts were made to maintain required staffing levels, as specified.
Sponsored bills
Existing law establishes the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and sets forth its powers and duties regarding the administration of correctional facilities and the care and custody of inmates. Existing law, until January 1, 2020, authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to enter into one or more agreements with private entities to obtain secure housing capacity in the state or in another state, upon terms and conditions deemed necessary and appropriate to the secretary. Existing law, until January 1, 2020, authorizes the secretary to enter into agreements for the transfer of prisoners to, or placement of prisoners in, community correctional centers, and to enter into contracts to provide housing, sustenance, and supervision for inmates placed in community correctional centers. This bill, on or after January 1, 2020, would prohibit the department from entering into or renewing a contract with a private, for-profit prison to incarcerate state prison inmates, but would not prohibit the department from renewing or extending a contract to house state prison inmates in order to comply with any court-ordered population cap. The bill would also prohibit, after January 1, 2028, a state prison inmate or other person under the jurisdiction of the department from being incarcerated in a private, for-profit prison facility. This bill would also prohibit, with exceptions, the operation of a private detention facility, as defined, within the state.
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 establishes the California College Promise, under the administration of the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, to provide funding, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to each community college meeting prescribed requirements. Existing law authorizes a community college to use that funding to accomplish specified policy goals and to waive some or all of the fees for 2 academic years for certain first-time students who are enrolled in 12 or more semester units or the equivalent at the college and complete and submit either a Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) or a California Dream Act application. This bill would make ineligible for the fee waiver a community college student who has previously earned a degree or certificate from a postsecondary educational institution. The bill would authorize an institution to deem as full time, for the purposes of eligibility for a fee waiver, specified students who are not enrolled in 12 or more semester units. The bill would require the chancellor's office to submit a report to the Legislature on or before July 1, 2024, evaluating the use of funding for the California College Promise to waive student fees, with specified content.
The California Constitution establishes the Public Utilities Commission, with regulatory jurisdiction over all public utilities. Existing law authorizes the commission to fix the rates and charges for every public utility, and requires that those rates and charges be just and reasonable. Existing law requires that any expense resulting from a bonus paid to an executive officer, as defined, of a public utility that has ceased to pay its debts in the ordinary course of business be borne by the shareholders of the public utility and prohibits any such expense from being recovered in rates. This bill would require that any expense incurred by a public utility in assisting or deterring union organizing, as defined, is not recoverable either directly or indirectly in the utility's rates and is required to be borne exclusively by the shareholders of the public utility. Under existing law, a violation of the Public Utilities Act or any order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the commission is a crime. Because the provisions of this bill are within the act and require action by the commission to implement its requirements, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program by creating the crime of violating that commission action. 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.
Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission has regulatory authority over public utilities, including telephone corporations. Existing law, with specified exceptions, directs the commission to require any call identification service offered by a telephone corporation, or by any other person or corporation that makes use of the facilities of a telephone corporation, to allow the caller to withhold, on an individual basis, the display of the caller's telephone number from the telephone instrument of the individual receiving the call. However, existing law prohibits a caller from withholding the display of the caller's business telephone number when that number is being used for telemarketing purposes. Existing federal law, the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009, with certain exceptions, makes it unlawful for any person within the United States, in connection with any telecommunications service or internet protocol enabled voice service, to cause any caller identification service to knowingly transmit misleading or inaccurate caller identification information with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value. This bill would prohibit a caller from entering, or causing to be entered, false government information into a caller identification system with the intent to mislead, cause harm, deceive, or defraud the recipient of the call. The bill would prohibit a person or entity from making a call knowing that false government information was entered into the caller identification system with the intent to mislead, cause harm, deceive, or defraud the recipient of the call. The bill would make the violation of these prohibitions subject to a civil penalty of up to $10,000 for each violation. The bill would authorize a city attorney, district attorney, or the Attorney General to bring an action to enforce the bill's prohibitions and, if in investigating a complaint over the unlawful use of an automatic dialing announcing device the commission determines that a violation of these prohibitions may have occurred, the bill would require the commission to give notice of the potential violation to the district attorney for the county in which the call was received and to the Attorney General. The bill would provide that its requirements and remedies are in addition to any other applicable law prohibiting the same or similar activity.
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.
Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission has regulatory authority over public utilities, including telephone corporations. Existing law prohibits a telephone corporation, when selling or licensing lists of residential subscribers, from including the telephone number of any subscriber assigned an unpublished or unlisted access number without the subscriber's written waiver of this protection. Existing law prohibits a provider of mobile telephony services, as defined, or any affiliate or agent of the provider, when providing the name and dialing number of a subscriber for inclusion in a directory or directory database, from including the dialing number of any subscriber without first obtaining the express consent of that subscriber. However, existing law authorizes providing those telephone numbers without regard to consent to a law enforcement agency, fire protection agency, public health agency, public environmental health agency, city or county emergency services planning agency, or private for-profit agency operating under contract with, and at the direction of, one or more of these agencies, for the sole purpose of responding to a 911 call or communicating an imminent threat to life or property. This bill would additionally authorize providing those telephone numbers to those parties without consent for the purpose of testing systems that respond to 911 calls or that communicate threats to life or property.
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.
This measure would state that the Legislature strongly and unequivocally supports the existing fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards, the preservation of California's authority to enact stricter air pollution standards pursuant to its federal Clean Air Act waiver, and the enactment of a voluntary agreement between the State Air Resources Board and automobile manufacturers that preserves California's status as a leader in the fight for clean air; will consider any and all appropriate actions to maintain and enact vehicle emissions standards for the protection of public health, California residents, and the economy; supports any and all appropriate actions that enhance longstanding protections for the public's health, California residents, and the economy; and strongly urges the President and Vice President of the United States, the Secretary of the United States Department of Transportation, and the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency to reject the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Proposed Rule for Model Years 2021–2026.