Asm. Sharon Quirk-Silva

The Planning and Zoning Law requires each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for its physical development, and the development of certain lands outside its boundaries, that includes, among other mandatory elements, a housing element. That law allows a development proponent to submit an application for a development that is subject to a specified streamlined, ministerial approval process not subject to a conditional use permit, if the development satisfies certain objective planning standards. Existing law, the Zenovich-Moscone-Chacon Housing and Home Finance Act, establishes the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee within the Department of Housing and Community Development. Existing law requires the committee to allocate state low-income housing tax credits in conformity with state and federal law that establishes a maximum rent that may be charged to a tenant for a project unit constructed using low-income housing tax credits. This bill would require that a housing development project be a use by right upon the request of an applicant who submits an application for streamlined approval, on any land owned by an independent institution of higher education or religious institution on or before January 1, 2024, if the development satisfies specified criteria, including that the development is not adjoined to any site where more than one-third of the square footage on the site is dedicated to industrial use. The bill would define various terms for these purposes. Among other things, the bill would require that 100% of the units, exclusive of manager units, in a housing development project eligible for approval as a use by right under these provisions be affordable to lower income households, except that 20% of the units may be for moderate-income households, and 5% of the units may be for staff of the independent institution of higher education or the religious institution that owns the land, provided that the units affordable to lower income households are offered at affordable rent, as set in an amount consistent with the rent limits established by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee, or affordable housing cost, as specified. The bill would authorize the development to include ancillary uses on the ground floor of the development, as specified. This bill would specify that a housing development project that is eligible for approval as a use by right under the bill is also eligible for a density bonus, incentives, or concessions, or waivers or reductions of development and parking standards, except as specified. The bill would require a development subject to these provisions to provide off-street parking of up to one space per unit, unless a state law or local ordinance provides for a lower standard of parking, in which case the law or ordinance applies. The bill would prohibit a local government from imposing any parking requirement on a development subject to these provisions if the development is located within one-half mile walking distance of public transit, either a high-quality transit corridor or a major transit stop, as those terms are defined, or it is within one block of a car share vehicle. This bill would require a local government that determines a proposed development is in conflict with any objective planning standards, as specified, to provide the developer with written documentation explaining those conflicts under a specified timeframe. The bill would provide that the development shall be deemed to satisfy the required objective planning standards if the local government fails to provide the requisite documentation explaining any conflicts. The bill would authorize a local government to conduct a design review, as described, only if the design review focuses on compliance with the requisite criteria of a streamlined, ministerial review process. The bill would prohibit a local government from using a design review, as specified, from inhibiting, chilling, or precluding a streamlined, ministerial approval. The bill would require a local government to issue a subsequent permit for developments approved under the provisions of this act. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. 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 does not apply to the ministerial approval of projects. This bill, by requiring approval of certain development projects as a use by right, would expand the exemption for ministerial approval of projects under CEQA. The bill would repeal its provisions as of January 1, 2036. By adding to the duties of local planning officials with respect to approving certain development projects, 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 prescribes requirements for the disposal of land determined to be surplus land by a local agency. Those requirements include a requirement that a local agency, prior to disposing of a property or participating in negotiations to dispose of that property with a prospective transferee, send a written notice of availability of the property to specified entities, depending on the property's intended use, and send specified information in regard to the disposal of the parcel of surplus land to the Department of Housing and Community Development. Existing law, among other enforcement provisions, makes a local agency that disposes of land in violation of these disposal provisions, after receiving notification of violation from the department, liable for a penalty of 30% of the final sale price of the land sold in violation for a first violation and 50% for any subsequent violation. Under existing law, except as specified, a local agency has 60 days to cure or correct an alleged violation before an enforcement action may be brought. Existing law provides for the deposit and use of penalty revenues for housing, as prescribed. This bill, until January 1, 2030, would require the County of Orange, or any city located within the County of Orange, if notified by the department that its planned disposal of surplus land is in violation of existing law, to cure or correct the alleged violation within 60 days, as prescribed. The bill would prohibit a County of Orange jurisdiction that has not cured or corrected any alleged violation from disposing of the parcel until the department determines that it has complied with existing law or deems the alleged violation not to be a violation. The bill would authorize a local agency that receives that notice to provide to the Department of Housing and Community Development a statement describing the actions taken to cure or correct the alleged violation within 60 days of receipt of the notice, and would require the department, if it receives that statement, to make specified determinations and notify the local agency of those determinations within 30 days of receipt of the statement. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the County of Orange. 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, 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 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. The Planning and Zoning Law contains various provisions requiring a local government that receives an application for certain types of qualified housing developments to review the application under a streamlined, ministerial approval process depending on the type of housing development, as specified. Existing law, known as the Starter Home Revitalization Act of 2021, requires a city or county to approve an application for a small home lot housing development project, as defined, on a proposed site to be subdivided unless the city or county makes a finding related to the development's compliance with certain requirements or the development's specific, adverse public health or safety impact. This bill would require a local agency to ministerially consider, without discretionary review or a hearing, a parcel map or a tentative and final map for a housing development project that meets specified requirements. In this regard, the bill would require the proposed subdivision to result in 10 or fewer parcels and the housing development project to, among other things, consist of 10 or fewer residential units, meet certain minimum parcel size and density requirements, and be located on a lot zoned for multifamily residential development that is no larger than 5 acres and is substantially surrounded by qualified urban uses. The bill would exempt the housing development project from certain requirements relating to minimum parcel size and dimensions and the formation of a homeowners' association, except as specified. This bill also would require a local agency to ministerially consider, without discretionary review or a hearing, an application for a housing development project on a lot that is subdivided pursuant to the provisions of the bill described above. The bill would authorize a local agency to impose on the housing development objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, or objective design standards that are related to a housing development or to the design or improvement of a parcel, as specified. However, the bill would prohibit a local agency from imposing on the housing development certain standards, including those that physically preclude the development of a project built to specified densities, impose a requirement that applies to a project solely or partially on the basis that the subdivision or housing development receives approval pursuant to the bill's provision, or impose certain requirements related to parking, setbacks, or floor area ratios, as specified. This bill would impose streamlining requirements with regard to consideration of an application for a parcel map or a tentative and final map pursuant to the first set of provisions described above or an application for a housing development project pursuant to the 2nd set of provisions described above. Specifically, the bill would require a local agency to approve or deny a completed application submitted to a local agency pursuant to these provisions within 60 days from the date the local agency receives it. Under the bill, if the local agency does not approve or deny the application within 60 days, the application would be deemed approved. If the local agency denies the application, the bill would require the local agency, within 60 days of receipt of the application, to return in writing a full set of comments to the applicant with a list of items that are defective or deficient and a description of how the applicant can remedy the application. This bill would also require, except as specified, a local agency to issue a building permit for one or more residential units that are part of a housing development project consisting of 10 or fewer units on a lot proposed to be subdivided as part of a subdivision if the applicant meets certain requirements. In this regard, the bill would require the applicant to have received a tentative map approval or parcel map approval for the subdivision, to have submitted a building permit application that the local agency deemed complete pursuant to a provision governing local agency review of postentitlement phase permit applications. The bill would authorize a local agency to condition the issuance of the building permit on the applicant submitting a recorded covenant and agreement that conditions the issuance of the building permit on the recording of the final map, as specified. The Planning and Zoning Law provides for the creation of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units by local ordinance, or, if a local agency has not adopted an ordinance, by ministerial approval, in accordance with specified standards and conditions. Under this bill, a local agency would not be required to permit an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit on a parcel created through the exercise of the authority provided by the bill, as described above. The Subdivision Map Act requires a local agency to ministerially approve a parcel map for an urban lot split that meets certain requirements, as specified. The Planning and Zoning Law requires a proposed housing development containing no more than 2 residential units within a single-family residential zone to be considered ministerially, without discretionary review or hearing, if the proposed housing development meets certain requirements, as specified. Under this bill, the above-described existing law provisions would not apply to a site that is located within a single-family residential horsekeeping zone designated in a specified master plan if the applicable local government has an adopted housing element that is compliant with applicable law. Under the bill, a local agency would not be required to permit an urban lot split on a parcel created through the exercise of the authority provided by the bill, as described above. This bill would make the exemption for a site located within a single-family residential horsekeeping zone designated in a specified master plan operative on January 1, 2024, and would make all of the other above-described provisions operative on July 1, 2024. This bill would make related findings and declarations. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. Because this bill would impose new duties on local governments related to the review and approval of parcel maps, tentative and final maps, and housing development projects, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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. By establishing a streamlined, ministerial approval process for certain housing developments, this bill would expand the exemption for the ministerial approval of projects under CEQA. Under the bill, an ordinance adopted by a local agency to implement certain provisions of the bill would not be considered a project under CEQA. 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, the Planning and Zoning Law, authorizes a local agency, by ordinance or ministerial approval, to provide for the creation of accessory dwelling units in areas zoned for residential use, as specified. Existing law authorizes a local agency to impose standards on accessory dwelling units that include, but are not limited to, parking, height, setback, landscape, architectural review, and maximum size of a unit. This bill would require each local agency, by January 1, 2025, to develop a program for the preapproval of accessory dwelling unit plans, whereby the local agency accepts accessory dwelling unit plan submissions for preapproval and approves or denies the preapproval applications, as specified. The bill would authorize a local agency to charge a fee to an applicant for the preapproval of an accessory dwelling unit plan, as specified. The bill would require the local agency to post preapproved accessory dwelling unit plans and the contact information of the applicant on the local agency's internet website. The bill would require a local agency to either approve or deny an application for a detached accessory dwelling unit within 30 days that utilizes either an accessory dwelling unit plan preapproved by the local agency within the current triennial California Building Standards Code rulemaking cycle or a plan that is identical to a plan used in an application for a detached accessory dwelling unit approved by the local agency within the current triennial California Building Standards Code rulemaking cycle. By imposing new duties on local agencies, the bill would create a state-mandated local program. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. 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 federal law prescribes a volume ceiling on the aggregate amount of private activity bonds that may be issued in a state. Existing law creates the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee (CDLAC) for the purpose of administering the volume limit for the state on private activity bonds through an allocation system. Existing law authorizes CDLAC to adopt, amend, or repeal rules and regulations as emergency regulations in accordance with the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. This bill, instead, would authorize CDLAC to adopt, amend, or repeal rules and regulations without complying with the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act, except as specified. The bill would make rules and regulations adopted, amended, or repealed by CDLAC effective immediately upon adoption. The bill would provide that these provisions would remain operative only until January 1, 2029, and as of that date would revert to existing law. (2) Existing law establishes a low-income housing tax credit program pursuant to which the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) provides procedures and requirements for the allocation, in modified conformity with federal law, of state insurance, personal income, and corporation tax credit amounts to qualified low-income housing projects that have been allocated, or qualify for, a federal low-income housing tax credit, and farmworker housing. Existing law limits the total annual amount of the state low-income housing credit for which a federal low-income housing credit is required to the sum of $70,000,000, as increased by any percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for the preceding calendar year, any unused credit for the preceding calendar years, and the amount of housing credit ceiling returned in the calendar year. Existing law provides for an additional allocation of $500,000,000 in low-income housing tax credits for the 2020 calendar year and up to $500,000,000 for the 2021 calendar year and thereafter. Existing law provides that the additional amount for the 2021 calendar year and thereafter is available only if the Budget Act or related legislation specifies an amount available for allocation. Existing law authorizes CTCAC to allocate up to $200,000,000 of this amount for housing financed by the California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) under its Mixed-Income Program. Existing law makes a housing sponsor receiving a nonfederally subsidized allocation ineligible for receipt of this increased housing credit allocation. This bill would, for any calendar year in which CDLAC has declared a competition for the award of tax-exempt bond authority for qualified residential rental projects, authorize CTCAC to allocate some or all of the additional credit amount, other than credits allocated for housing financed by CalHFA under these provisions, to nonfederally subsidized buildings and require CTCAC to allocate the remainder for new buildings, as defined by specified federal law, that are federally subsidized and can begin construction within a reasonable time as determined by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee. For any calendar year in which CDLAC has not declared a competition for the award of tax-exempt bond authority for qualified residential rental projects, the bill would require a project receiving an award of credits from the additional credit allocation to begin construction within a reasonable time as determined by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee. The bill would, if there are credits still available after the final allocation round in a calendar year, allow the CTCAC to allocate some or all of the remaining credits for nonfederally subsidized buildings, as specified. (3) For purposes of determining the amount of low-income housing tax credit allocated under the above-described provisions, existing law defines various terms, including the term "applicable percentage." In the case of any qualified low-income building that receives an allocation of the $70,000,000 credit amount available under existing law and meets specified additional criteria, existing law defines "applicable percentage" to mean 30% for each of the first 3 years and 5% for the 4th year. This bill would revise the above-described definition of "applicable percentage" to delete the limitation that the qualified low-income building receive an allocation of the $70,000,000 credit amount available under existing law, thereby applying this definition to any qualified low-income building that meets the above-described criteria. (4) Existing law requires CTCAC to certify to a housing sponsor the amount of credit allocated to the housing sponsor, and requires the taxpayer to attach a copy of this certification to any return claiming the credit. This bill would allow a taxpayer to claim the credit commencing in the year the building is placed in service and the federal credit period commences notwithstanding that CTCAC has not certified the amount of the tax credit. The bill would prohibit the taxpayer from claiming an amount of credit that exceeds the lesser of the applicable percentage multiplied by the qualified basis of the building set forth in the preliminary reservation or the amount of credit for which the project is eligible as certified in the "taxpayer certification," which the bill would define for these purposes as the certification by the certified public accountant of the taxpayer who originally received the preliminary reservation of credits. The bill would authorize CTCAC to review taxpayer certifications, as specified. In the event CTCAC issues a certification that is inconsistent with the taxpayer certification, the bill would require the taxpayer to amend any previously filed tax returns as needed to reflect the credit amount certified by CTCAC. The bill would apply these provisions for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2023. This bill would make technical and conforming changes to the low-income housing tax credit program. (5) 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. (6) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Sections 12206, 17058, and 23610.5 of the Revenue and Taxation Code proposed by AB 1439 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1439 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.

Existing law, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to refuse to grant a request by any employee to take up to 5 days of bereavement leave upon the death of a family member. This bill would additionally make it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to refuse to grant a request by an eligible employee to take up to 5 days of reproductive loss leave following a reproductive loss event, as defined. The bill would require that leave be taken within 3 months of the event, except as described, and pursuant to any existing leave policy of the employer. The bill would provide that if an employee experiences more than one reproductive loss event within a 12-month period, the employer is not obligated to grant a total amount of reproductive loss leave time in excess of 20 days within a 12-month period. Under the bill, in the absence of an existing policy, the reproductive loss leave may be unpaid. However, the bill would authorize an employee to use certain other leave balances otherwise available to the employee, including accrued and available paid sick leave. The bill would make leave under these provisions a separate and distinct right from any right under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. The bill would make it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to retaliate against an individual, as described, because of the individual's exercise of the right to reproductive loss leave or the individual's giving of information or testimony as to reproductive loss leave, as described. The bill would require the employer to maintain employee confidentiality relating to reproductive loss leave, as specified. 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.

Existing law, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, provides for the involuntary commitment and treatment of a person who is a danger to themselves or others or who is gravely disabled. Existing law, for purposes of involuntary commitment, defines "gravely disabled" as either a condition in which a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is unable to provide for their basic personal needs for food, clothing, or shelter or has been found mentally incompetent, as specified. This bill expands the definition of "gravely disabled" to also include a condition in which a person, as a result of a severe substance use disorder, or a co-occurring mental health disorder and a severe substance use disorder, is, in addition to the basic personal needs described above, unable to provide for their personal safety or necessary medical care, as defined. The bill would also expand the definition of "gravely disabled," as it applies to specified sections, to include, in addition to the basic needs described above, the inability for a person to provide for their personal safety or necessary medical care as a result of chronic alcoholism. The bill would authorize counties to defer implementation of these provisions to January 1, 2026, as specified. The bill would make conforming changes. To the extent that this change increases the level of service required of county mental health departments, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law also authorizes the appointment of a conservator, in the County of Los Angeles, the County of San Diego, or the City and County of San Francisco, for a person who is incapable of caring for the person's own health and well-being due to a serious mental illness and substance use disorder. Existing law establishes the hearsay rule, under which evidence of a statement is generally inadmissible if it was made other than by a witness while testifying at a hearing and is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated. Existing law sets forth exceptions to the hearsay rule to permit the admission of specified kinds of evidence. Under this bill, for purposes of an opinion offered by an expert witness in any proceeding relating to the appointment or reappointment of a conservator pursuant to the above-described provisions, the statements of specified health practitioners or a licensed clinical social worker included in the medical record would not be made inadmissible by the hearsay rule under specified conditions. The bill would authorize the court to grant a reasonable continuance if an expert witness in a proceeding relied on the medical record and the medical record has not been provided to the parties or their counsel. Existing law requires the State Department of Health Care Services to collect data quarterly and publish, on or before May 1 of each year, a specified report that includes, among other things, the number of persons for whom temporary conservatorship are established in each county and an analysis and evaluation of the efficacy of mental health assessments, detentions, treatments, and supportive services provided, as specified. This bill would, beginning with the report due May 1, 2024, require the report to also include the number of persons admitted or detained, as specified, for conditions that include, among others, grave disability due to a mental health disorder, severe substance use disorder, or both a mental health disorder and a severe substance use disorder. 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 establishes the California State University, under the administration of the Trustees of the California State University, and the University of California, under the administration of the Regents of the University of California, as 2 of the segments of public postsecondary education in this state. Existing law provides for the missions and functions of these segments, and states that the University of California has the sole authority in public higher education to award doctoral degrees in all fields of learning, except that it may agree with the California State University to award joint doctoral degrees in selected fields. However, existing law authorizes the California State University to offer doctoral programs in education, audiology, physical therapy, occupational therapy, and public health without that agreement. This bill would authorize the California State University to award professional or applied doctoral degrees statewide that do not duplicate University of California doctoral degrees and satisfy certain requirements. The bill would require a California State University campus seeking authorization to offer a professional or applied doctoral degree program pursuant to the bill to submit specified information on the proposed doctoral degree for review by the office of the Chancellor of the California State University, and approval by the trustees, as provided. The bill would authorize professional or applied doctoral degree programs that are approved for implementation by the trustees pursuant to the bill to be implemented at any California State University campus, but would limit the number of doctoral degree programs that may be offered at a California State University campus. The bill would prohibit the trustees from approving more than 10 new doctoral degree disciplines pursuant to the bill per academic year. The bill would require the Legislative Analyst's Office to conduct a systemwide evaluation of doctoral degree programs established pursuant to the bill and report the results of the evaluation to the Legislature and the Governor on or before December 31, 2028.

Existing law generally provides for the compensation of victims and derivative victims of specified types of crimes by the California Victim Compensation Board from the Restitution Fund, which is continuously appropriated to the board. Existing law authorizes the board to grant for pecuniary loss, when the board determines that it will best aid the person seeking compensation, as specified. Existing law authorizes the board to reimburse the amount of outpatient psychiatric, psychological, or other mental health counseling-related expenses incurred by the victim or derivative victim, including peer counseling services provided by a rape crisis center and family psychiatric, psychological, or mental health counseling for the successful treatment of the victim provided to family members of the victim in the presence of the victim, subject to specified criteria. This bill would also authorize the board to reimburse the expense of counseling services provided by a Certified Child Life Specialist, certified by the Association of Child Life Professionals, who provides counseling under the supervision of a licensed provider, subject to the board's approval, as specified. By expanding the authorizations for use of moneys in the Restitution Fund, a continuously appropriated fund, this bill would make an appropriation.

Existing law governs the determination of child custody and visitation in contested proceedings. Existing law requires the court, for purposes of deciding custody or visitation, to determine the best interests of the child based on certain factors, including the health, safety, and welfare of the child, and the nature and amount of contact with both parents, except as specified. Existing law also requires the court to determine, under designated circumstances, whether to require that visitation to be supervised, suspended, limited, or denied. Under existing law, if the court finds that a party is staying in a domestic violence shelter or other confidential location, the court is required to design a visitation order to prevent disclosure of the location of the shelter or other confidential location. This bill, among other things, would require the court, in determining whether to require the above-described limitations on visitation, to consider virtual visitation, as defined. The bill would require a court, if it finds that a party is staying at one of the above-described locations due to domestic violence or fear of domestic violence from the other parent, to order in-person visitation only if the court finds that in-person visitation is in the best interest of the child and taking into consideration, among other things, the potential for disclosure of the confidential location. Existing law requires the Judicial Council to develop standards for supervised visitation providers in accordance with specified guidelines. When developing standards, existing law requires the Judicial Council to consider, among other things, the provider's qualifications, experience, and education. Under existing law, the term "provider" includes any individual who functions as a visitation monitor, as well as supervised visitation centers. This bill would authorize superior court locations to serve as supervised visitation and exchange locations, and would also authorize the court to designate employees and contractors to provide supervised visitation and exchange services or assistance with those services. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 3011 of the Family Code proposed by AB 957 to be operative only if this bill and AB 957 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.