Asm. David Alvarez

Existing law establishes the Office of Vital Records within the State Department of Public Health. Existing law prescribes the duties of the State Registrar of Vital Statistics (State Registrar) and local registrars of births and deaths with respect to the registration of certificates of live birth, fetal death, or death, and marriage licenses. Existing law prescribes the information to be listed on a certificate of live birth. Existing law requires the State Registrar, upon request and payment of a fee, as specified, to provide an applicant a decorative heirloom certificate of any birth registered to that official, containing only identification information and the seal of the State of California and a facsimile of the State Registrar's signature. This bill would require the State Registrar to, upon request and payment of a fee, provide an applicant a decorative Asian Zodiac heirloom certificate, as specified. The bill would require the decorative Asian Zodiac heirloom certificate to be of a distinctive design as determined by the department to include Asian Zodiac artwork by local artists, the seal of the State of California, and a facsimile of the State Registrar's signature. The bill would require the certificate to contain only identification information, as determined by the State Registrar. The bill would require the department to set the fee for the decorative Asian Zodiac heirloom certificate to capture the reasonable costs of developing, preparing, and providing the decorative Asian Zodiac heirloom certificate. The bill would require the moneys collected by the State Registrar to be deposited with the Treasurer for credit to the Health Statistics Special Fund. The bill would specify that, upon appropriation, the moneys in the fund may be used by the department for the administrative costs of developing, preparing, and providing the decorative Asian Zodiac heirloom certificate, including payment of local artists.

Existing law provides for the licensure and regulation by the State Department of Public Health of health facilities, as defined. Existing law requires a health facility to allow a patient's domestic partner, the children of the patient's domestic partner, and the domestic partner of the patient's parent or child to visit unless no visitors are allowed, the facility reasonably determines that the presence of a particular visitor would endanger the health or safety of a patient, member of the health facility staff, or other visitor to the health facility, or would significantly disrupt the operations of a facility, or the patient has indicated to the health facility staff that the patient does not want this person to visit. A violation of this provision is a misdemeanor. This bill, Dianne's Law, would require a health facility to allow specified persons to visit, including the patient's children and grandparents. The bill would require the health facility to develop alternate visitation protocols, if circumstances require the health facility to restrict visitor access to the facility due to health or safety concerns, that allow visitation to the greatest extent possible while maintaining patient, visitor, and staff health and safety. Notwithstanding the requirement mentioned above, the bill would prohibit a health facility from prohibiting in-person visitation in end-of-life situations unless the patient has indicated to the health facility staff that the patient does not want this person to visit, as specified, and would authorize a health facility to require visitors to adhere to personal protective equipment and testing protocols not greater than those required of facility staff for the duration of their visit. The bill would also require the facility to provide personal protective equipment and testing resources to each visitor for a patient in an end-of-life situation, to the extent that those resources have been made readily available to the facility by state or local entities for that purpose. By expanding an existing crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law requires the State Board of Education to adopt at least 5 basic instructional materials in specified subject areas, including, among others, social science, for use in kindergarten and grades 1 to 8, inclusive, as specified. Existing law establishes the Instructional Quality Commission, as specified, and requires the commission to, among other things, develop criteria for evaluating instructional materials. This bill would require the commission, when the state board adopts new instructional materials for history-social science on or after January 1, 2025, to consider providing for inclusion, in its evaluation criteria, content on the case of Mendez v. Westminster School District of Orange County. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 51226.3 of the Education Code proposed by AB 1821 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1821 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.

Existing law, commonly referred to as the Density Bonus Law, requires a city, county, or city and county to provide a developer that proposes a housing development within the city or county with a density bonus, waivers or reductions of development standards and parking ratios, and other incentives or concessions, as specified, if the developer agrees to construct certain types of housing, including a housing development in which 100% of the units are for lower income households, except that up to 20% of the units in the development may be for moderate-income households, as specified. This bill would prohibit a city, county, or city and county from charging a monitoring fee, as defined, on those types of housing developments if certain conditions are met, except as specified. The bill would provide that, beginning on January 1, 2025, any housing development that is currently placed in service, is subject to a monitoring fee, and meets those conditions shall no longer be subject to that fee. By imposing new duties on local governments, 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, 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.

(1) 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, commonly referred to as the Housing Element Law, prescribes requirements for a city's or county's preparation of, and compliance with, its housing element, and requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to review and determine whether the housing element substantially complies with the Housing Element Law, as specified. Existing law requires the housing element to include an inventory of land suitable and available for residential development. If that inventory of sites does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for groups of all household income levels, as provided, existing law requires that the local government rezone sites within 3 years after the date the housing element is adopted or within one year if the local government fails to adopt a housing element that the department finds to be in substantial compliance with the Housing Element Law within 120 days of the statutory deadline to adopt the housing element. This bill, for the 7th and each subsequent revision of the housing element, would require a local government to complete the rezoning of sites within one year of the statutory deadline for the adoption of the housing element or 3 years and 90 days of the statutory deadline if the local government satisfies certain requirements, including submitting a draft element or draft amendment to the department for review within specified timeframes and adopting a draft element or draft amendment that the department finds to be in substantial compliance with the Housing Element Law, as specified. (2) Existing law requires a planning agency to submit a draft element revision or draft amendment to the department for review at least 90 days prior to adoption and requires the department, in written findings, to determine whether the draft element or amendment substantially complies with the Housing Element Law. Existing law, if the department finds that the draft element or amendment does not substantially comply with the Housing Element Law, requires the legislative body to either change the draft element or draft amendment to substantially comply with the Housing Element Law or adopt the draft element or draft amendment without changes and make specified findings that explain the reasons the legislative body believes the draft element or amendment substantially complies with the Housing Element Law despite the findings of the department. Existing law requires a planning agency, promptly following the adoption of its element or amendment, to submit a copy to the department and requires the department to review the adopted housing element or amendment and report its findings to the planning agency within 60 days. This bill would require a planning agency to submit the above-described findings explaining the reasons that the legislative body believes its draft element or amendment substantially complies with the Housing Element Law to the department. The bill would additionally specify that the duty to submit the findings or a copy of the adopted element or amendment to the department does not excuse a legislative body from taking required actions in response to the department finding that the draft element or amendment does not substantially comply with the Housing Element Law and provide that this is declaratory of existing law. The bill would require the department to review the finding in its review of an adopted housing element or amendment. Because the bill would require planning agencies to submit specified findings to the department with an adopted housing element or amendment, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) Existing law requires the department to review any action or failure to act by a city, county, or city and county that it determines is inconsistent with an adopted housing element and requires the department to provide a reasonable time no longer than 30 days for the city, county, or city and county to respond. Existing law creates a rebuttable presumption in any action filed on or after January 1, 1991, taken to challenge the validity of a housing element of the validity of the element or amendment if the department has found that the element or amendment substantially complies with the requirements of the Housing Element Law. This bill would create a rebuttable presumption of invalidity in any legal action challenging an action or failure to act by a city, county, or city and county if the department finds that the city, county, or city and county's action or failure to act does not substantially comply with its adopted housing element or specified obligations under the Housing Element Law. This bill would also create a rebuttable presumption of invalidity in any action taken to challenge the validity of a housing element or amendment if the department has found that element or amendment does not substantially comply with the requirements of the Housing Element Law. (4) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65583 of the Government Code proposed by AB 2667 and AB 3093 to be operative only if this bill and either or both of those bills are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (5) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65583.2 of the Government Code proposed by AB 3093 to be operative only if this bill and AB 3093 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (6) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65585 of the Government Code proposed by AB 2667 to be operative only if this bill and AB 2667 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (7) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65588 of the Government Code proposed by AB 2597 to be operative only if this bill and AB 2597 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (8) 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) 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, commonly referred to as the Housing Element Law, prescribes requirements for a city's or county's preparation of, and compliance with, its housing element, and requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to review and determine whether the housing element substantially complies with the Housing Element Law, as specified. If the department finds that a draft housing element or amendment does not substantially comply with the Housing Element Law, existing law requires the legislative body of the city or county to either (A) change the draft element or amendment to substantially comply with the Housing Element Law or (B) adopt the draft housing element or amendment without changes and make specified findings as to why the draft element or amendment substantially complies with the Housing Element Law despite the findings of the department. This bill would provide that a housing element or amendment is considered substantially compliant with the Housing Element Law when the local agency has adopted a housing element or amendment, the department or a court of competent jurisdiction determines the adopted housing element or amendment to be in substantial compliance with the Housing Element Law, and the department's compliance findings have not been superseded by subsequent contrary findings by the department or by a decision of a court of competent jurisdiction or the court's decision has not been overturned or superseded by a subsequent court decision or by statute. The bill would provide that these provisions are declaratory of existing law and do not alter the interpretation of the terms "substantially complies" or "substantial compliance" as set forth in Section 44 of Chapter 1009 of the Statutes of 1984. (2) Existing law, the Housing Accountability Act, among other things, prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning approval in a manner that renders infeasible, a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households unless the local agency makes written findings as to one of certain sets of conditions, as specified. One set of conditions is that (A) the jurisdiction has adopted a housing element that is in substantial compliance with the Housing Element Law, and (B) the jurisdiction has met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need allocation for the planning period for the income category proposed for the housing development project. Existing law subjects a housing development project only to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when a preliminary application was submitted, except as specified. This bill would require a housing element or amendment to be considered in substantial compliance with the Housing Element Law only if the element or amendment was determined to be in substantial compliance when a preliminary application or complete application was submitted, as specified. The bill would provide that this provision is declaratory of existing law.

This measure would, among other things, urge the United States Congress and President Joseph R. Biden to fully fund the United States Environmental Protection Agency's Comprehensive Infrastructure Solution for the Tijuana River due to the ongoing impacts to public health, the environment, and the local economy caused by cross-border pollution and would urge President Joseph R. Biden to declare a national emergency due to those ongoing impacts.

(1) The San Diego Unified Port District Act authorizes the establishment of the San Diego Unified Port District for the acquisition, construction, maintenance, operation, development, and regulation of harbor works and improvements for the harbor of San Diego and for the promotion of commerce, navigation, fisheries, and recreation. The act establishes the board of commissioners of the port district and vests it with specified authority and responsibilities regarding the management of the district. This bill would require the board to adopt a code of ethics for the board, commissioners, and unrepresented district employees and to accept and respond to certain ethics complaints, as specified. The bill would require the board to appoint a board of ethics to provide independent ethics advice to the board, as specified. The bill would require an ethics complaint to be substantiated with a formal written complaint in a form consistent with a form provided on the district's internet website and with a sworn affidavit under the penalty of perjury. By expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the board to submit certain ethics complaints to the board of ethics, as specified. The bill would require the board of ethics, upon the conclusion of an investigation into the conduct of a commissioner, to provide all findings from the investigation to the State Lands Commission and to the city that appointed the commissioner that was subject to the investigation. This bill would prohibit a commissioner from, for a period of one year after leaving office, taking certain actions for the purpose of influencing an action of the board or the district, as specified. The bill would require the district to establish a registry for lobbyists, as specified. The bill would authorize the district to collect a registration fee in an amount not to exceed the reasonable cost of implementing the registry, as specified. (2) The act requires the City of San Diego to appoint 3 commissioners and other specified cities to appoint one commissioner each to the board of commissioners. The act specifies a commissioner's term is for 4 years, as specified. This bill would authorize a commissioner to continue to serve beyond an expired term for 6 months until a replacement is appointed. The bill would require the City of San Diego to, at the beginning of its commissioner appointment process, to make specified outreach efforts. (3) The act requires the board of commissioners to annually elect from its members a chairperson, a vice chairperson, and a secretary. The act requires the board of commissioners to make rules and regulations for its own government and procedure. Existing law, the Ralph M. Brown Act, requires each legislative body of a local agency to provide notice of the time and place for its regular meetings and also requires that all meetings of a legislative body be open and public, and that all persons be permitted to attend unless a closed session is authorized. The California Public Records Act requires state and local agencies to make their records available for public inspection, unless an exemption from disclosure applies. Existing law requires the board of commissioners to comply with those acts, except as specified. This bill would prohibit a commissioner from serving as chairperson unless the commissioner has served on the board for at least one year. The bill would authorize the board to censure or remove a commissioner from a committee after appropriate notice and if specified criteria are met. (4) The act prohibits a commissioner from receiving a salary from the district and requires a commissioner to be reimbursed for necessary traveling and other expenses incurred while engaged in the performance of the commissioner's duties. (5) The act requires certain moneys received or collected by the board or paid to the district to be credited to the San Diego Unified Port District Revenue Fund, as specified. The act authorizes moneys in the fund to be used for, among other things, the acquisition, construction, completion, and maintenance of harbor and port improvements, works, utilities, appliances, facilities, and vessels. This bill would authorize moneys in the fund to also be used for electrification projects, human-operated zero-emission cargo handling equipment, and infrastructure to support human-operated zero-emission cargo handling equipment associated with the district's marine terminals. (6) This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the San Diego Unified Port District. (7) 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

The California FAIR Plan Association is a joint reinsurance association in which all insurers licensed to write basic property insurance participate in administering a program for the equitable apportionment of basic property insurance for persons who are unable to obtain that coverage through normal channels. Existing law requires the association's plan of operation and any amendment to the plan to be approved by the Insurance Commissioner. Existing law establishes the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank and authorizes it to issue bonds to provide funds for the payment of costs of a project for a participating party or upon request by a state entity. This bill would authorize the association, if granted prior approval from the commissioner, to request the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank to issue bonds, and would authorize the bank to issue those bonds to finance the costs of claims, to increase liquidity and claims-paying capacity of the association, and to refund bonds previously issued for that purpose. The bill would specify that the association is a participating party and that financing all or any portion of the costs of claims or to increase liquidity and the claims-paying capacity of the association is a project for bond purposes. The bill would authorize the bank to loan the proceeds of issued bonds to the association, and would authorize the association to enter into a loan agreement with the bank and to enter into a line of credit agreement with an institutional lender or broker-dealer. This bill would require the association, if the above-described bonds, loan agreements, or lines of credit received the prior approval of the commissioner, to assess members in the amounts and at the times necessary to timely pay in full all obligations of the association with respect to those bonds, loan agreements, or lines of credit and related agreements, as specified. Existing law establishes the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank Fund, a continuously appropriated fund, for the purpose of implementing the objectives of the bank. To the extent that the bill would result in additional revenues being deposited into the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank Fund, the bill would make an appropriation. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

This measure would urge the Congress of the United States to repeal the state and local tax deduction limitation so that residents of California and married taxpayers are no longer penalized by the federal tax code.