Existing law, the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act) , governs collective bargaining between the state and recognized state public employee organizations. Existing law excludes certain employees from coverage under the Dills Act, including, among others, managerial employees, supervisory employees, and confidential employees, as defined. Existing law creates the Public Employment Relations Board and authorizes it, among other things, to determine appropriate state employee bargaining units, as specified. This bill would enact the Legislature Employer-Employee Relations Act, to provide employees of the Legislature, including some supervisory and managerial employees, the right to form, join, and participate in the activities of employee organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of representation on all matters of employer-employee relations. The bill would prescribe rights, duties, and prohibitions in this context that parallel those in the Dills Act. The bill would prohibit the Public Employment Relations Board from including employees of the Legislature in a bargaining unit that includes employees other than those of the Legislature. The bill would make it a misdemeanor for any person to willfully resist, prevent, impede, or interfere with any member of the board, or any of its agents, in the performance of duties pursuant to its provisions. By expanding the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would provide that the provisions of the Legislature Employer-Employee Relations Act are severable. 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.
Sponsored bills
Existing law provides for various programs that prevent disease and promote health, including the Safe Drinking Water Supplemental Benefit Pilot Program that provides, until July 1, 2020, additional benefits to residents of prioritized disadvantaged communities to purchase safe drinking water. Existing law imposes various taxes, including taxes of the privilege of engaging in certain activities. The Fee Collection Procedures Law provides procedures for the collection of certain fees and surcharges and establishes criminal penalties for specified acts, including making it a misdemeanor to knowingly or willfully file a false return and making it a felony to willfully evade or attempt to evade or defeat the payment of a fee. This bill, subject to specified exemptions, would impose a fee on every distributor, as defined, for the privilege of distributing bottled sugary drinks and concentrate in the state, at a rate of $0.02 per fluid ounce and for the privilege of distributing syrups and powders concentrate in this state, either as concentrate or as sweetened beverages derived from that concentrate, at the rate of $0.02 per fluid ounce of sweetened beverage to be produced from concentrate. The bill would require the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration to administer and collect the fee pursuant to the Fee Collection Procedures Law, to register the distributors upon whom the fee is imposed, and would authorize the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration to promulgate and enforce regulations related to administration of the fee. The bill would require the fees to be deposited into the California Community Health Fund, created by the bill. The bill would require moneys in the fund, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to be allocated to specified entities, including the State Department of Public Health, the State Department of Health Care Services, the State Department of Social Services, and the State Department of Education, to promote health equity, to reduce health disparities, to improve oral health, and to prevent the leading causes of illness, injury, and premature death. The bill would authorize state departments to award competitive grants to local organizations in support of the bill's objectives, and would authorize the State Department of Social Services to prioritize the revenues that it receives from the California Community Health Fund to fund the Safe Drinking Water Supplemental Benefit Pilot Program. The bill would require the State Department of Social Services to coordinate with the State Water Resources Control Board for purposes of conducting any activities related to the Safe Drinking Water Supplemental Benefit Pilot Program and that are funded by the California Community Health Fund. The bill would extend the Safe Drinking Water Supplemental Benefit Pilot Program to July 1, 2025, and would repeal those provisions on January 1, 2026. Because the bill would expand the application of the Fee Collection Procedures Law, the violation of which is a crime, it would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations relating to the consumption of sweetened beverages, diabetes, childhood obesity, and dental disease. 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 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.
Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, it is unlawful to engage in specified discriminatory employment practices, including hiring, promotion, and termination based on certain protected characteristics, including race, unless based on a bona fide occupational qualification or applicable security regulations. The act also prohibits housing discrimination based on specified personal characteristics, including physical or mental disability. The act also prohibits discrimination because of a perception that a person has one of those protected characteristics or is associated with a person who has, or is perceived to have, any of those characteristics. Existing law defines terms such as race, religious beliefs, physical disability, and mental disability among others, for purposes of the act. This bill would revise the definitions of "physical disability" and "mental disability" to include a person who has completed, or is in the process of completing, a rehabilitation program to end illegal drug use, or who is erroneously regarded to be engaging in illegal drug use.
The Planning and Zoning Law requires a city or county to adopt a general plan for land use development within its boundaries that includes, among other things, a housing element. Existing law, the Housing Element Law, prescribes requirements for the preparation of the housing element, including a requirement that a planning agency submit a draft of the element or draft amendment to the element to the Department of Housing and Community Development prior to the adoption of the element or amendment to the element. Existing law requires the department to review the draft and report its written findings, as specified. Existing law also requires the department, in its written findings, to determine whether the draft substantially complies with the Housing Element Law. Existing law also requires the department to review any action or failure to act by the city or county that it determines is inconsistent with an adopted housing element or a specified provision of the Housing Element Law and to issue written findings, as specified, whether the action or failure to act substantially complies with the Housing Element Law. If the department finds that the action or failure to act by the city or county does not substantially comply with the Housing Element Law, and if it has issued findings as described above that an amendment to the housing element substantially complies with the Housing Element Law, existing law authorizes the department, after allowing no more than 30 days for a local agency response, to revoke its findings until it determines that the city or county has come into compliance with the Housing Element Law. Existing law also requires the department to notify the city or county that the city or county is in violation of state law if the department makes certain findings of noncompliance or a violation of specified provisions related to housing. This bill would authorize the city or county to submit evidence that the city or county is no longer in violation of state law to the department and to request the department to issue a finding that the city or county is no longer in violation of state law. If the department finds that the city or county is no longer in violation of state law, the bill would require the department to notify the city or county. The bill would, on or before January 1, 2025, prohibit a city or county found to be in violation of state law, as described above, from applying for a state grant, unless the fund source of the state grant is protected by a specified provision of the California Constitution relating to state taxes and fees on motor vehicles and motor vehicle fuels or the state grant funds, if awarded to the city or county, would assist the city or county in complying with the Housing Element Law.
Under existing law, a firearms dealer or licensee means a person who has a valid federal firearms license, has a regulatory or business license, has a valid seller's permit issued by the State Board of Equalization, has a certificate of eligibility issued by the Department of Justice, has a license granted by a duly constituted licensing authority of any city, county, or city and county, and is among those recorded in the centralized list of licensed firearms dealers kept by the Department of Justice. Existing law regulates licensed firearms dealers and provides that a license is subject to forfeiture for a breach of specified prohibitions in existing law. This bill would authorize the Department of Justice to impose a civil fine not exceeding $1000 for a breach of those prohibitions, and a civil fine not exceeding $3,000 for a breach of those prohibitions when the licensee has received written notification from the department regarding the breach and fails to take corrective action, as specified, or the department determines the licensee committed the breach knowingly or with gross negligence. The bill would authorize the department to adopt regulations to carry out these provisions. The bill would, commencing January 1, 2021, require a licensee to obtain a policy of commercial insurance that insures the licensee against liability for damage to property and for injury to or death of any person as a result of the theft, sale, lease or transfer or offering for sale, lease or transfer of a firearm or ammunition, or any other operations of the business and business premises, in the amount of $1,000,000 per incident, as specified. The bill would also provide that these provisions would not preclude or preempt a local ordinance that places additional or more stringent requirements on firearms dealers regarding insurance pertaining to the licensee's business.
Existing law defines which persons are peace officers and the authority of those persons. Existing law also defines those types of law enforcement agencies that may employ peace officers. Existing law creates the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to set minimum standards for the recruitment and training of peace officers. Existing law also creates various programs within the Department of Justice for the support and coordination of local law enforcement agency efforts to prevent crime and apprehend criminals. This bill would require the Attorney General to convene a task force, as specified, to study the use of deadly force by law enforcement officers and to develop recommendations, including a model written policy, for law enforcement agencies. The bill would also require the Attorney General, commencing on July 1, 2021, to create a program within the Department of Justice to review the policies on the use of deadly force of any law enforcement agency, as specified, that requests a review, and to make recommendations.
Under existing law, except as otherwise exempted, a person completing a term of imprisonment in the state prison shall be released for a period of supervised parole. Existing law specifies the length of parole for various classifications of inmates. Under existing law, an inmate is released to the county of their residence before incarceration or, when the interest of public safety is best served, to another location specified by the Board of Parole Hearings. Existing law authorizes the Board of Parole Hearings to establish and enforce rules and regulations governing parole. Existing regulations prohibit a parolee from traveling more than 50 miles from their residence without the approval of a parole agent. This bill would create a program under which the length of a parolee's period of parole would be reduced through the successful completion of specified education, training, or treatment programs, or by participating in volunteer service, while adhering to the conditions of parole. The bill would make this program inapplicable to a person who is required to register as a sex offender. The bill would also increase the 50-mile travel restriction for a parolee who successfully participates in the program, subject to certain restrictions. The bill would require the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the Board of Parole Hearings to adopt regulations to carry out the program.
Existing law establishes the State Department of Public Health, which has authority over various programs promoting public health. Existing law requires the department, subject to an appropriation in the Budget Act of 2016, to award naloxone grant funding to local health departments, local government agencies, or other specified entities, in order to reduce the rate of fatal overdose from opioid drugs, including heroin and prescription opioids. Under existing law, the department licenses and regulates manufacturers of drugs or devices in this state, and the California State Board of Pharmacy licenses and regulates wholesalers of dangerous drugs or devices, as specified. This bill would, commencing with the 2021–22 fiscal year, require a manufacturer or wholesaler, as defined, that sells or distributes opioid drugs in this state to submit to the department a report, including specified information, that details all opioid drugs sold or distributed in this state during the preceding fiscal year, except as specified. The bill would, commencing with the 2021–22 fiscal year, require the department, in consultation with the board, to calculate the ratable share of a manufacturer or wholesaler, which is the individual portion of the collective sum of $50,000,000 or a lesser amount, as specified, to be paid by the manufacturers and wholesalers, based on the information reported, without double-counting the opioid drug if both a manufacturer and a wholesaler sold or distributed the drug in this state. The bill would subject the manufacturer and wholesaler to specified civil penalties for failing to comply with the reporting or payment requirements. The bill would require the deposit of the payments and penalties, less refunds and the department's administrative costs, into the continuously appropriated Opioid Prevention and Rehabilitation Program Fund, which the bill would create, thereby making an appropriation. The bill would require the department to distribute moneys in the fund to counties or local nonprofit community-based organizations for purposes of opioid prevention and rehabilitation programs. The bill would base the distribution of moneys on county needs, using only specified information relating to opioid overdose in the counties. The bill would require the department to report to the Legislature annually regarding recommendations for how the distributed moneys might be spent and how the distributed moneys were spent during the previous year. This bill would make these provisions inoperative on July 1, 2027, and would repeal them as of January 1, 2028. This bill would state that its provisions are severable. 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 XIIIA of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of 23 of the membership of each house of the Legislature. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
Existing law establishes within the Department of Housing and Community Development the California Housing Finance Agency and provides that the primary purpose of the agency is to meet the housing needs of persons and families of low or moderate income. Existing law requires the California Housing Finance Agency administer the Roberti-Greene Home Purchase Assistance Program, to provide home purchase assistance to low- and moderate-income homebuyers to qualify for the purchase of owner-occupied homes. Existing law authorizes the agency, pursuant to specified objectives, to create its own home purchase assistance programs, home purchase assistance products, or both, on terms and conditions as the agency deems prudent. Existing law requires the agency to provide to the Legislature and the Legislative Analyst an annual report containing information concerning all units produced, assisted, or insured using agency funds. This bill would require the Legislative Analyst to conduct a study, and present the findings thereof to the Legislature, to inform the creation of a low-interest loan program for first responders. The bill would require the report to be submitted on or before January 1, 2024. The bill would require the report to include a recommendation as to which state department is best suited to administer the program, an estimation of the amount of funding that would be necessary to conduct the program, and recommendations for qualifications for participation in the program.
(1) Existing law authorizes a development proponent to submit an application for a multifamily housing development that satisfies specified planning objective standards to be subject to a streamlined, ministerial approval process, as provided, and not subject to a conditional use permit. This bill would authorize a development proponent of a neighborhood multifamily project located on an eligible parcel to submit an application for a streamlined, ministerial approval process that is not subject to a conditional use permit. The bill would define a "neighborhood multifamily project" to mean a project to construct a multifamily structure on vacant land, or to convert an existing structure that does not require substantial exterior alteration into a multifamily structure, consisting of up to 4 residential dwelling units and that meets local height, setback, and lot coverage zoning requirements as they existed on July 1, 2019. The bill would also define "eligible parcel" to mean a parcel that meets specified requirements, including requirements relating to the location of the parcel and restricting the demolition of certain housing development that may already exist on the site. This bill would require a local agency to notify the development proponent in writing if the local agency determines that the development conflicts with any of the requirements provided for streamlined ministerial approval within 60 days of the submission of the development to the local agency. If the local agency does not notify the development proponent within this time period, the development would be deemed to comply with those requirements. The bill would limit the authority of a local agency to impose parking standards or requirements on a streamlined development approved pursuant to these provisions, as provided. The bill would provide that the approval of a project under these provisions expires automatically after 3 years, unless that project qualifies for a one-time, one-year extension of that approval. The bill would provide that approval pursuant to its provisions would remain valid for 3 years and remain valid thereafter, so long as vertical construction of the development has begun and is in progress, and would authorize a discretionary one-year extension, as provided. The bill would prohibit a local agency from adopting any requirement that applies to a project solely or partially on the basis that the project receives ministerial or streamlined approval pursuant to these provisions. This bill would allow a local agency to exempt a project from the streamlined ministerial approval process described above by finding that the project will cause a specific adverse impact to public health and safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA does not apply to the approval of ministerial projects. This bill would establish a streamlined ministerial approval process for neighborhood multifamily projects, thereby exempting these projects from the CEQA approval process. (2) Existing law, known as the density bonus law, requires, when an applicant proposes a housing development within the jurisdiction of a local government, that the city, county, or city and county provide the developer with a density bonus and other incentives or concessions for the production of lower income housing units or for the donation of land within the development if the developer, among other things, agrees to construct a specified percentage of units for very low, low-, or moderate-income households or qualifying residents. This bill, on or after January 1, 2023, would require a specified city, county, or city and county to grant upon request an equitable communities incentive when a development proponent seeks and agrees to construct a residential development, as defined, that satisfies specified criteria, including, among other things, that the residential development is either a job-rich housing project or a transit-rich housing project, as those terms are defined; the site does not contain, or has not contained, housing occupied by tenants or accommodations withdrawn from rent or lease in accordance with specified law within specified time periods; and the residential development complies with specified additional requirements under existing law. The bill would impose additional requirements on a residential development located within a county with a population equal to or less than 600,000. The bill would require that a residential development within a county with a population greater than 600,000 that is eligible for an equitable communities incentive receive, upon request, waivers from maximum controls on density; minimum automobile parking requirements greater than 0.5 parking spots per unit; and specified additional waivers if the residential development is located within a 12-mile or 14-mile radius of a major transit stop, as defined. For a residential development within a county with a population equal to or less than 600,000, the bill would instead require that the incentive provide waivers from maximum controls on density, subject to certain limitations; maximum height limitations less than or equal to one story, or 15 feet, above the highest allowable height for mixed use or residential use; certain requirements governing the size of the parcel and the area that the building may occupy; and minimum automobile parking requirements, as provided. The bill would require a local government to grant an equitable communities incentive unless it makes a specified finding regarding the effects of the incentive on any real property or historic district that is listed on a federal or state register of historical resources. The bill would authorize a local government to modify or expand the terms of an equitable communities incentive, provided that the equitable communities incentive is consistent with these provisions. The bill would delay implementation of these provisions in potentially sensitive communities, as defined, until July 1, 2023. The bill would further delay implementation of these provisions in sensitive communities, determined as provided, until January 1, 2026, unless the city or county in which the area is located votes to make these provisions applicable after a specified petition and public hearing process. On and after January 1, 2026, the bill would apply these provisions to a sensitive community unless the city or county adopts a community plan for the area that meets certain requirements. The bill would also exempt from these provisions a local government that has a local flexibility plan that has been reviewed and certified by the Department of Housing and Community Development, as specified. The bill, on or before July 1, 2021, would require the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, in consultation with the Department of Housing and Community Development, to develop and publish on its internet website rules, regulations, or guidelines for the submission and approval of a local flexibility plan, as specified. The bill, on or after July 1, 2021, would authorize a local government to submit a local flexibility plan for review and approval by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to those rules, regulations, or guidelines. The bill would include findings that the changes proposed by these provisions address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. The Housing Accountability Act prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning approval in a manner that renders infeasible, a housing development project that complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria in effect at the time the application for the project is deemed complete unless the local agency makes specified written findings based on a preponderance of the evidence in the record. That law provides that the receipt of a density bonus is not a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision of that act. This bill would additionally provide that the receipt of an equitable communities incentive is not a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision of that act. (3) By adding to the duties of local planning officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (4) 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.