This measure would urge the United States Congress to act swiftly to reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) for at least 5 years, as specified.
The California Fair Employment and Housing Act prohibits discrimination in employment based upon specified personal characteristics, including the race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status of any person. Existing law creates the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement in the Department of Industrial Relations for the purpose of enforcing labor laws. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations relating to the right to privacy. The bill would amend provisions of labor law relating to the prohibition on an employer from taking any adverse action against an employee or their dependent or family member for their reproductive health decisions, including, but not limited to, the timing thereof, or the use of any drug, device, or medical service. The bill would also specify that any contract or agreement, express or implied, made by an employee to waive this benefit is null and void. The bill would require an employer that requires compliance with an employee handbook to include in the handbook notice of the employee rights and remedies under the provisions of this bill.
Existing law, the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) , enacted by the voters at the November 8, 2016, statewide general election, regulates the cultivation, distribution, and use of cannabis for nonmedical purposes by individuals 21 years of age and older. AUMA places specified requirements on cannabis products, including prohibiting cannabis products that are designed to be appealing to children or easily confused with commercially sold candy or foods that do not contain cannabis. This bill would amend the AUMA to prohibit a cannabis product from being made in the shape of a person, animal, insect, or fruit. AUMA authorizes the Legislature to amend, by a majority vote, certain provisions of the act to implement specified substantive provisions, provided that the amendments are consistent with and further the purposes and intent of the act. This bill would declare that its provisions implement specified substantive provisions of AUMA. The bill would also declare that its provisions further specified purposes and the intent of the act.
(1) Existing law, with specified exceptions, requires an agency that processes notices of parking violations and notices of delinquent parking violations to proceed under only one of 3 specified options in order to collect an unpaid parking penalty, including filing an itemization of unpaid parking penalties and service fees with the Department of Motor Vehicles for collection with the registration of the vehicle. This bill would instead authorize a processing agency to proceed under one of those 3 specified options. With regard to the option involving an itemization of penalties and fees, the bill would authorize a processing agency, commencing July 1, 2018, to file that itemization only after the issuing agency provides a payment plan option for indigent persons, as specified, the processing agency provides notice of the payment plan and the process related to indigency determination in a specified manner, and the registered owner or lessee fails to enroll in the payment plan within the time specified in the notice or is not eligible for the payment plan, as specified. The bill would authorize a person to demonstrate that he or she is indigent by providing specified information relating to, among other things, his or her income or receipt of benefits under certain social services programs. The bill would require the processing agency to rescind the filing of an itemization of unpaid parking penalties and service fees with the department for an indigent individual, for one time only, if the registered owner or lessee subsequently enrolls in a payment plan, as specified. The bill would make conforming changes to related provisions. This bill would require each California State University and community college district governing board, by August 1, 2018, to adopt a parking citation payment plan, with specified requirements, for individuals with multiple unpaid parking citations. The bill would require a California State University or community college district governing board that does not adopt a parking citation payment plan by the required date to implement specified payment plan provisions as described in the bill. (2) Existing law, with specified exceptions, requires the department to refuse to renew the registration of a vehicle if the registered owner or lessee has been mailed a notice of a delinquent parking violation relating to standing or parking, the processing agency has filed or electronically transmitted to the department an itemization of unpaid parking penalties, and the owner or lessee has not paid the parking penalties, unless he or she pays to the department, at the time of application for renewal, the full amount of all outstanding parking penalties and administrative fees, as shown by records of the department. This bill would add an exception to the requirement to refuse to renew the registration if the itemization of unpaid parking penalties has been rescinded. The bill would also require the department to allow a registered owner or lessee to file a certification that the vehicle will not be operated, moved, or left standing upon a highway if the registered owner or lessee currently owes parking penalties and administrative fees for that vehicle, regardless of whether or not that registered owner or lessee is currently on an active payment plan, as specified. (3) Existing law requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to refuse to issue or renew a driver's license if the applicant has been mailed a notice of his or her delinquent parking violation relating to standing or parking, the processing agency has filed or electronically transmitted to the department an itemization of unpaid parking penalties, including administrative fees, and the applicant has not paid the parking penalty and administrative fee, unless the applicant pays to the department, at the time of application, the full amount of all outstanding parking penalties and administrative fees, as shown by records of the department. This bill would repeal that provision and make a conforming change.
Existing law, with certain exceptions, requires every public and private school, as provided, to have restroom facilities that are open as prescribed during school hours, and at all times to keep every restroom maintained and cleaned regularly, fully operational, and stocked with soap and paper supplies. This bill would require a public school maintaining any combination of classes from grade 6 to grade 12, inclusive, that meets a 40% pupil poverty threshold specified in federal law to stock 50% of the school's restrooms with feminine hygiene products, as defined. The bill would prohibit a public school from charging for any menstrual products, including feminine hygiene products, provided to pupils. By imposing additional duties on public schools, 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 imposes on a person convicted of a violation of, or of conspiracy to violate, specified crimes relating to controlled substances a sentence enhancement to include a full, separate, and consecutive 3-year term for each prior conviction of, or for each prior conviction of conspiracy to violate, specified controlled substances crimes, including possession for sale and purchase for sale of opiates, opium derivatives, and hallucinogenic substances. This bill would instead limit the above sentence enhancement to only be based on each prior conviction of, or on each prior conviction of conspiracy to violate, the crime of using a minor in the commission of offenses involving specified controlled substances.
(1) Existing law provides that the board of supervisors of any county may authorize the correctional administrator to offer a program under which inmates committed to a county jail or other county correctional facility or granted probation, or inmates participating in a work furlough program, may voluntarily participate or involuntarily be placed in a home detention program during their sentence in lieu of confinement in a county jail or other county correctional facility or program. Existing law authorizes the board of supervisors to prescribe a program administrative fee and an application fee for this program. This bill would make those fees payable only by adult participants of that home detention program who are over 21 years of age and under the jurisdiction of the criminal court. (2) Existing law provides that upon conviction of certain offenses involving controlled substances, or upon a finding that a minor is subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court by reason of committing one of those certain offenses, the court, when recommended by the probation officer, shall require, as a condition of probation, that the defendant or the minor not use or be under the influence of any controlled substance and submit to drug and substance abuse testing as directed by the probation officer, unless the court makes a finding that this condition would not serve the interests of justice. Existing law requires the court to order the defendant or the minor to pay a reasonable fee, not to exceed the actual cost of the testing, if the defendant or the minor is required to submit to testing and has the financial ability to pay all or part of those costs. This bill would instead require the court to order a defendant to pay that reasonable fee only if the defendant is an adult who is over 21 years of age and under the jurisdiction of the criminal court. The bill would also delete the provision requiring the court to charge the minor that reasonable fee. (3) Existing law requires specified orders providing for the care and custody of a ward, dependent child, or other minor person, as specified, to direct that the whole expense of support and maintenance of the minor, up to the amount of $20 per month, be paid from the county treasury. Existing law authorizes the board of supervisors of each county to establish a maximum amount that the court may order the county to pay for that support and maintenance and authorizes the court to direct that an amount up to that maximum amount be paid. This bill, for purposes of a ward, a minor person concerning whom a petition has been filed to declare the person a ward of the juvenile court, or a minor who is the subject of a certain program of supervision undertaken by the probation department and who is temporarily placed out of his or her home, as specified, would delete the $20 maximum on support and maintenance payments and delete the authorization of the county board of supervisors to establish a maximum amount that the court may order the county to pay. (4) Existing law generally imposes liability on a parent, spouse, or other person liable for the support of a ward, dependent child, or other minor person, as applicable, for certain costs, including the reasonable costs of transporting the minor to a juvenile facility and for the costs of the minor's food, shelter, and care at the juvenile facility when the minor has been held in temporary custody, as specified, and certain other circumstances are applicable; the reasonable costs of supporting the minor when he or she is placed, detained in, or committed to, any institution or other place pursuant to specified provisions of law or pursuant to an order of the juvenile court; the cost of an alcohol or drug education program as designated by the court; the cost, to the county or the court, of the legal services rendered to the minor by an attorney pursuant to an order of the juvenile court; the cost of probation supervision, home supervision, or electronic surveillance of the minor, pursuant to the order of the juvenile court; the cost of a service program administered by an agency upon delivery or referral of the minor by an officer; the cost of specified services rendered to the minor in lieu of a petition being filed to adjudge the minor a ward of the juvenile court; and other related costs. Existing law authorizes the probation department and the child welfare services department in a county to create a jointly written protocol, as specified, to allow the 2 departments to jointly assess and produce a recommendation that the child be designated as a dual status child, allowing the child to be simultaneously a dependent child and a ward of the court. This bill, for purposes of a minor who is adjudged a ward of the juvenile court, who is placed on probation without being adjudged a ward, who is the subject of a petition that has been filed to adjudge the minor a ward, or who is the subject of a certain program of supervision undertaken by the probation department, as applicable, would repeal the above-described provisions imposing liability for the specified costs and would make other conforming changes. The bill would specify that those provisions apply to a minor who is designated as a dual status child, for purposes of the dependency jurisdiction only and not for purposes of the delinquency jurisdiction. (5) Existing law makes it a misdemeanor for a minor who, while under the supervision of a probation officer, removes his or her electronic monitor without authority and who, for more than 48 hours, violates the terms and conditions of his or her probation relating to the proper use of the electronic monitor. Existing law provides, if an electronic monitor is damaged or discarded while in the possession of the minor, that restitution for the cost of replacing the unit may be ordered as part of the punishment. Existing law requires that this liability be limited by the financial ability of the person or persons ordered to pay the restitution and requires that the person or persons, upon request, be entitled to an evaluation and determination of ability to pay under specified provisions. This bill would remove the requirement that a request be made in order for the person or persons to be entitled to the evaluation and determination described above. (6) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 903.45 of the Welfare and Institutions Code proposed by AB 976 to be operative only if this bill and AB 976 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Existing law authorizes cities and counties, subject to certain limitations and approval requirements, to levy a transactions and use tax for general or specific purposes, in accordance with the procedures and requirements set forth in the Transactions and Use Tax Law, including a requirement that the combined rate of all taxes that may be imposed in accordance with that law in the county not exceed 2%. This bill would authorize the Counties of Alameda and Santa Clara to impose a transactions and use tax for general or specific purposes at a rate of no more than 0.5% or 0.625%, respectively, and the City of Santa Fe Springs to impose a transactions and use tax for general or specific purposes at a rate of no more than 1% that, in combination with other transactions and use taxes, would exceed the above-described combined rate limit of 2%, if either county or the city adopts an ordinance proposing the tax and the ordinance proposing the tax is approved by the voters, subject to applicable voter approval requirements, as specified. The bill would repeal this authorization on December 31, 2022, for either county or the city if an ordinance proposing the tax has not been approved by that date in that county or city. The bill would also make a technical conforming correction. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Counties of Alameda and Santa Clara and the City of Santa Fe Springs.
Existing law authorizes various local governmental entities, subject to certain limitations and approval requirements, to levy transactions and use taxes for general purposes in accordance with the procedures and requirements set forth in the Transactions and Use Tax Law, including a requirement that the combined rate of all taxes that may be imposed in accordance with that law in the county not exceed 2%. This bill would authorize the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, by a resolution approved by 23 of the board and with the approval of specified entities, to levy a tax pursuant to the Transactions and Use Tax Law at a rate not to exceed 0.125%, with net revenues from the tax to be used by the board for operating and capital purposes of the Caltrain rail service, subject to 23 voter approval of a regional measure submitted by the board to voters of the Counties of San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara. The bill would authorize the board to exceed the 2% limit described above to impose the retail transactions and use tax. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Counties of San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara.
(1) Existing law creates the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) as a regional agency in the 9-county San Francisco Bay area with comprehensive regional transportation planning and other related responsibilities. Existing law creates the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) as a separate entity governed by the same governing board as MTC and makes BATA responsible for the programming, administration, and allocation of toll revenues from the state-owned toll bridges in the San Francisco Bay area. Existing law authorizes BATA to increase the toll rates for certain purposes, including to meet its bond obligations, provide funding for certain costs associated with the bay area state-owned toll bridges, including for the seismic retrofit of those bridges, and provide funding to meet the requirements of certain voter-approved regional measures. Existing law provided for submission of 2 regional measures to the voters of 7 bay area counties in 1988 and 2004 relative to specified increases in bridge auto tolls on the bay area state-owned toll bridges, subject to approval by a majority of the voters. This bill would require the City and County of San Francisco and the other 8 counties in the San Francisco Bay area to conduct a special election, to be known as Regional Measure 3, on a proposed increase in the amount of the toll rate charged on the state-owned toll bridges in that area to be used for specified projects and programs. The bill would require BATA to select the amount of the proposed increase, not to exceed $3, to be placed on the ballot for voter approval. If approved by the voters, the bill would authorize BATA, beginning 6 months after the election approving the toll increase, to phase in the toll increase over a period of time and to adjust the toll increase for inflation after the toll increase is phased in completely. The bill would specify that, except for the inflation adjustment, providing funding to meet the requirements of voter approved regional measures, and as otherwise specified in statute, the toll increase adopted pursuant to the results of this election may not be changed without the statutory authorization of the Legislature. By requiring this election, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require BATA to reimburse from toll revenues, as specified, the counties and the City and County of San Francisco for the cost of submitting the measure to the voters. This bill would require BATA to establish an independent oversight committee within 6 months of the effective date of the Regional Measure 3 toll increase with a specified membership, to ensure the toll revenues generated by the toll increase are expended consistent with a specified expenditure plan. The bill would require BATA to submit an annual report to the Legislature on the status of the projects and programs funded by the toll increase. (2) Existing law authorizes BATA to vary the toll structure on each of the bay area state-owned toll bridges and to provide discounts for vehicles classified by BATA as high-occupancy vehicles. This bill would additionally authorize BATA to provide discounts for vehicles that pay for tolls electronically or through other non-cash methods and to charge differential rates based on the chosen method. This bill, with respect to the Regional Measure 3 toll increase, would require BATA to provide a 50% discount on the amount of that toll increase on the 2nd bridge crossing for those commuters using a two-axle vehicle, who pay tolls electronically or through other noncash methods and who cross 2 bridges during commute hours, as specified. Existing law, if BATA establishes high-occupancy vehicle lane fee discounts or access for vehicles classified by BATA as high-occupancy vehicles for any bridge, requires BATA to collaborate with the Department of Transportation to reach agreement on how the occupancy requirements shall apply on each segment of highway that connects with that bridge. This bill would instead require BATA to establish those occupancy requirements in consultation with the department. (3) Existing law establishes the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) , governed by a board of directors, with specified powers and duties relative to the construction and operation of a rapid transit system. This bill would create the Independent Office of the BART Inspector General within BART. The bill would provide for the board of directors to nominate 3 persons to the Governor and for the Governor to appoint one of those nominees to serve as the Inspector General for a 4-year term. The bill would require the Inspector General to be removed from office by the board of directors, subject to the approval of the Governor, under certain circumstances. The bill would specify the duties and responsibilities of the Inspector General and would require the Inspector General to submit an annual report to the board of directors and the Legislature. The bill would provide for the office to receive $1,000,000 from an allocation of bridge toll revenue from BATA and, in the second and subsequent years of operation of the office, would authorize BATA to increase that amount, as specified. The bill would make these provisions operative upon an affirmative vote to increase tolls on the bay area state-owned toll bridges pursuant to Regional Measure 3 or related provisions. (4) Existing law authorizes the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to conduct, administer, and operate a value pricing high-occupancy toll (HOT) lane program on 2 corridors included in the high-occupancy vehicle lane system in Santa Clara County. Existing law authorizes a HOT lane established as part of this program on State Highway Route 101 to extend into the County of San Mateo as far as the high-occupancy lane in the County of San Mateo existed as of January 1, 2011, subject to agreement of the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. This bill would delete the authorization for a HOT lane to extend into the specified portion of San Mateo County as part of a value pricing program established on 2 corridors in Santa Clara County. The bill would instead authorize VTA to specifically conduct, administer, and operate a value pricing high-occupancy toll lane program on State Highway Route 101 in San Mateo County in coordination with the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority, as prescribed. (5) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
