Existing provisions of the California Constitution establish the University of California as a public trust under the administration of the Regents of the University of California. The California Constitution grants to the regents all the powers necessary or convenient for the effective administration of this public trust. Pursuant to the California Constitution, there are 7 ex officio members of the regents and 18 appointive members appointed by the Governor and approved by the Senate, a majority of the membership concurring. This measure would enact the University of California Equal Employment Opportunity Standards Act, which would, effective January 1, 2021, except as specified, require the regents to ensure that all contract workers, as defined, who are paid to perform support services for students, faculty, patients, or the general public at any campus, dining hall, medical center, clinic, research facility, laboratory, or other university location, are at all times subject to and afforded the same equal employment opportunity standards, as defined, as university employees performing similar services. The measure would authorize the regents, or any campus or other entity of the University of California, to contract for, or otherwise arrange to use, contract labor, as defined, to perform support services only under specified conditions, only if authorized to do so by statute, and only to the extent necessary to address one or more of prescribed needs. The measure would authorize the Legislature to enact statutes to further the purposes of, and to aid the enforcement of, this measure.
Sponsored bills
(1) The Planning and Zoning Law requires the legislative body of each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city that includes a housing element. Existing law requires that the housing element identify adequate sites for housing, including rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, and emergency shelters, and to make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of a community. Existing law also requires that the housing element include an analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels. This bill would revise the requirements of the housing element, as described above, in connection with identifying zones or zoning designations that allow residential use, including mixed use, where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit. If an emergency shelter zoning designation where residential use is a permitted use is unfeasible, the bill would permit a local government to designate zones for emergency shelters in a nonresidential zone if the local government demonstrates that the zone is connected to amenities and services, as specified, that serve homeless people. The bill would delete language regarding emergency shelter standards structured in relation to residential and commercial developments and instead require that emergency shelters only be subject to specified written, objective standards. If a local government has adopted written, objective standards pursuant to these provisions, the bill would require the local government to include an analysis of these standards in the above-described analysis of constraints included in the housing element. The bill would require that zones where emergency shelters are allowed include sites that meet at least one of certain prescribed standards. The bill would also require that the number of people experiencing homelessness that can be accommodated on each identified site under these provisions be demonstrated by calculating a minimum of 200 square feet per person. (2) The Planning and Zoning Law requires that the housing element include, among other things, an inventory of land suitable and available for residential development. If the 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 specified time periods. If the local government fails to adopt a housing element within 120 days of the applicable statutory deadline, existing law requires that the local government (A) complete this rezoning no later than 3 years and 120 days from the statutory deadline for the adoption of the housing element and (B) revise its housing element every 4 years until the local government has adopted at least 2 consecutive revisions by the statutory deadline. This bill, for the 6th and each subsequent revision of the housing element, would instead require that a local government that fails to adopt a housing element that the Department of Housing and Community Development has found to be in substantial compliance with state law within 120 days of the statutory deadline to complete this rezoning no later than one year from the statutory deadline for the adoption of the housing element. The bill would also specify that the above-described requirement for the local government to revise its housing element every 4 years applies until the due date for the 6th revision of the housing element and that adoption of a 6th revision housing element that is found to be in substantial compliance satisfies any obligation to adopt a 4-year housing element. The bill would make conforming changes by deleting provisions made obsolete by this bill. (3) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65583 of the Government Code proposed by AB 1561 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1561 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (4) By increasing the duties of local planning officials, 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.
(1) The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, administered by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, generally regulates the disposal, management, and recycling of solid waste, including, among other solid waste, single-use plastic straws. The Sustainable Packaging for the State of California Act of 2018 prohibits a food service facility located in a state-owned facility, operating on or acting as a concessionaire on state property, or under contract to provide food service to a state agency from dispensing prepared food using a type of food service packaging unless the type of food service packaging is on a list that the department publishes and maintains on its internet website that contains types of approved food service packaging that are reusable, recyclable, or compostable. Existing law makes a legislative declaration that it is the policy goal of the state that not less than 75% of solid waste generated be source reduced, recycled, or composted by 2020. This bill would enact the California Circular Economy and Plastic Pollution Reduction Act, which would impose a comprehensive regulatory scheme on producers, retailers, and wholesalers of single-use packaging, as defined, and priority single-use products, as defined, made partially or entirely of plastic, to be administered by the department. As part of that regulatory scheme, the bill would require producers, as defined, (A) to source reduce, to the maximum extent feasible, single-use packaging and priority single-use products, and (B) to ensure that all single-use packaging and priority single-use products that are manufactured on or after January 1, 2032, and that are offered for sale, sold, distributed, or imported in or into the state are recyclable or compostable. The bill would require the department to achieve and maintain, by January 1, 2032, a statewide 75% reduction of the waste generated from single-use packaging and priority single-use products offered for sale, sold, distributed, or imported in or into the state through source reduction, recycling, or composting. The bill would require the department, by January 1, 2025, to adopt regulations to implement the act and, before adopting the regulations, to conduct extensive outreach, as prescribed, and to identify and evaluate specified provisions for potential inclusion in the regulations. The bill would require the department to establish a Circular Economy and Waste Pollution Reduction Panel for the purpose of identifying barriers and solutions to creating a circular economy consistent with the act. The regulatory scheme would include, among other requirements, registration, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements. The bill would require reports and data provided to the department pursuant to the act to be accurate and attested to under penalty of perjury, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program by expanding the crime of perjury. The bill would prohibit a retailer or wholesaler, as defined, from offering for sale or selling single-use packaging, products packaged in single-use packaging, or priority single-use products if the producer of the single-use packaging or priority single-use product is listed as noncompliant for that packaging or product category on the department's internet website on a list that the bill would require the department to post, as specified. The bill would prohibit certain online marketplaces, upon notification from the department, from allowing on the online marketplaces the offering for sale, sale, or distribution into the state of single-use packaging, a product packaged in single-use packaging, or a priority single-use product if the product or packaging is identified as noncompliant with the act in the notice provided by the department. The bill would require the department to develop criteria to determine whether the packaging or priority single-use products are reusable, recyclable, or compostable. The bill would authorize local governments, solid waste facilities, recycling facilities, and composting facilities to provide information requested by the department for purposes of developing that criteria. The bill would require single-use packaging and priority single-use products offered for sale, sold, distributed, or imported in or into the state by a producer to meet specified recycling rates that are based on date of manufacture and that increase over a prescribed timeframe, and would authorize the department to impose a higher or lower recycling rate for packaging or product categories, as specified. The bill would require the department to establish and post on its internet website a list of packaging and product categories, and current recycling rates being achieved in the state for those packaging and product categories, as specified. The bill would require the department to adopt regulations containing specified provisions authorizing the establishment of a stewardship program. The bill would authorize producers to collectively form one or more stewardship organizations that adopt a stewardship plan as an alternative to individually complying with the above-referenced comprehensive regulatory scheme. The bill would require the department to establish, and a producer to remit to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, the California circular economy regulatory fee. The bill would require the department to set the amount of the regulatory fee at no more than is necessary to cover the reasonable regulatory costs of the above-referenced comprehensive regulatory scheme and stewardship program, and would authorize a stewardship organization to pay the regulatory fee on behalf of its member producers, as specified. The bill would require the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration to collect the regulatory fee in accordance with the Fee Collection Procedures Law, as prescribed. The bill would require the regulatory fees to be deposited into the California Circular Economy Fund, which the bill would create. The bill would provide that moneys in the fund shall be available upon appropriation by the Legislature to the department to fund the regulatory activities of the act and to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration for expenses incurred in the collection of the regulatory fee. The bill would require the department to report to the Legislature every 2 years its progress in implementing the act. The bill would provide for exceptions to, and enforcement of, the act, including authorizing the department to impose an administrative civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $50,000 per day per violation, except as specified, on an entity that is not in compliance with the act's requirements. The bill would require the department to deposit collected penalties into the Circular Economy Penalty Account, which the bill would create. The bill would provide that moneys in the account shall be available upon appropriation by the Legislature for purposes that further the act. (2) The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 requires each city and county, and each regional agency formed pursuant to the act, to develop a source reduction and recycling element of an integrated waste management plan to divert 50% of all solid waste, through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities. This bill would prohibit a city, county, city and county, or other local public agency from requiring a grocery store, as defined, to use a certain type of food packaging for any food sold in the grocery store unless the majority of residential households within the jurisdiction of the local agency have access to a curbside program, as defined, that accepts the material from which that food packaging is made. The bill would also prohibit those local agencies from requiring a grocery store to use a food packaging container that does not meet specified criteria. The bill would repeal these provisions as of January 1, 2032. (3) The Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, administered by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, regulates the granting of licenses for the manufacture, distribution, and sale of alcoholic beverages within the state. The act requires an out-of-state vendor shipping beer into the state to hold a certificate of compliance granted by the department, as prescribed. The act authorizes the department to suspend or revoke the certificate of compliance, as specified, if an out-of-state vendor, after obtaining the certificate, fails to submit a certain monthly report or fails to comply with a particular provision of the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act. This bill would authorize the department to suspend or revoke the certificate of compliance of an out-of-state vendor that fails to comply with the California Circular Economy and Plastic Pollution Reduction Act. (4) 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. (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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
The California Constitution establishes the Public Utilities Commission and authorizes the commission to exercise ratemaking and rulemaking authority over all public utilities, as defined, subject to control by the Legislature. The Public Utilities Act authorizes the commission to supervise and regulate every public utility, including electrical corporations, and to do all things that are necessary and convenient in the exercise of that power and jurisdiction. Existing law authorizes the commission to fix the rates and charges for every public utility and requires that those rates and charges be just and reasonable. Existing law authorizes the commission, in a proceeding on an application by an electrical corporation to recover costs and expenses arising from a catastrophic wildfire occurring on or after January 1, 2019, to allow cost recovery if the costs and expenses are just and reasonable, after consideration of the conduct of the utility, including consideration of specified factors. Existing law establishes the Wildfire Fund to pay eligible claims arising from a covered wildfire, as provided. Existing law requires the commission to initiate a rulemaking proceeding to consider using its existing authority to require certain electrical corporations to collect a nonbypassable charge from its ratepayers to support the Wildfire Fund, and requires the commission to direct those electrical corporations to collect that charge if the commission determines that the imposition of the charge is just and reasonable and that it is an appropriate exercise of its authority, as specified. This bill would enact the Wildfire Prevention and Community Resilience Act of 2020 and would require the Natural Resources Agency, in consultation with the commission, to adopt an interim expenditure plan and an expenditure plan that are focused on reducing wildfire risk on the ground and in communities through activities such as defensible space implementation, home hardening, improved public safety, including expenditures to add trained emergency medical technicians to the workforce, and other authorized activities, as well as to prepare residents for wildfires through public education and outreach, as provided. The bill would establish the Wildfire Prevention and Community Resilience Fund and, upon appropriation by the Legislature, would require moneys in the fund be used for the implementation of those plans. The bill would require the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency, upon the adoption of the interim plan, to notify the State Controller of the adoption. The bill would require, within 30 days of the notification, the transfer of $500,000,000 from the Surplus Money Investment Fund to the Wildfire Prevention and Community Resilience Fund, and would appropriate the money to the Natural Resources Agency for the implementation of the interim expenditure plan. The bill would provide for the repayment of the moneys transferred from the Wildfire Prevention and Community Resilience Fund to the Surplus Money Investment Fund, as provided. The bill would require the commission to require large electrical corporations, as defined, to collect, on and after a specified time, a nonbypassable charge from their ratepayers, as provided, to finance the bonds issued for the support of the Wildfire Prevention and Community Resilience Fund, as described below. Existing law, until January 1, 2003, authorizes the Department of Water Resources to enter into contracts for the purchase of electric power. Existing law authorizes the department to sell power to retail end use customers and local publicly owned electric utilities under certain circumstances. Existing law authorizes the department to issue revenue bonds and entitles the department to recover, as a revenue requirement, amounts necessary to enable it to finance the bonds and purchase electric power pursuant to these provisions. Existing law authorizes the department to issue Wildfire Fund bonds on and after either the date on which the department legally defeases all of its remaining bonds under the provisions described above or the date on which it pays those obligations in full at maturity, whichever is earlier, to support the Wildfire Fund. Existing law entitles the department to recover, as a revenue requirement, amounts necessary to enable it to finance the bonds in support of the Wildfire Fund. Existing law requires those bond proceeds and revenues received by the department to be deposited in the Department of Water Resources Charge Fund. Existing law continuously appropriates the moneys in the Department of Water Resources Charge Fund to the department for specified purposes, including transfers to the Wildfire Fund and repayment of the bonds issued in support of the Wildfire Fund. This bill would authorize the department to issue bonds, in an aggregate amount of up to $3,000,000,000, the repayment of which, including interest, commences on the date on which the department has paid in full, at maturity, or legally defeases any outstanding bonds issued for the support of the Wildfire Fund or on January 1, 2036, whichever is later, to support the Wildfire Prevention and Community Resilience Fund. The bill would entitle the department to recover, as a revenue requirement, amounts necessary to enable it to finance the bonds in support of the Wildfire Prevention and Community Resilience Fund. The bill would require those bond proceeds and revenues received by the department to be deposited in the Department of Water Resources Charge Fund. The bill would continuously appropriate the moneys in the Department of Water Resources Charge Fund to the department for specified purposes, including transfers to the Wildfire Prevention and Community Resilience Fund and repayment of the bonds issued for the support of the Wildfire Prevention and Community Resilience Fund. Under existing law, a violation of the Public Utilities Act or any order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the commission is a crime. Because certain of the above provisions would be codified in the act and would require action by the commission, a violation of which would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 3289 of the Public Utilities Code proposed by SB 350 to be operative only if this bill and SB 350 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. 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 declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
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 (EIR) 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 authorizes the preparation of a master EIR and authorizes the use of the master EIR to limit the environmental review of subsequent projects that are described in the master EIR, as specified. This bill would require a lead agency to prepare a master EIR for a general plan, plan amendment, plan element, or specified plan for housing projects where the state has provided funding for the preparation of the master EIR. The Jobs and Economic Improvement Through Environmental Leadership Act of 2011 (leadership act) authorizes the Governor, until January 1, 2020, to certify projects that meet certain requirements, including a requirement that the project applicant agrees to pay the costs of the court of appeal in hearing and deciding a case challenging a lead agency's action on a certified project and certain labor-related requirements, for streamlining benefits provided by the leadership act related to compliance with CEQA and streamlining of judicial review of action taken by a public agency to require a judicial action to be resolved within 270 days of the filing of the certified record of proceedings with the court. The leadership act provides that if a lead agency fails to approve a project certified by the Governor before January 1, 2021, the certification expires and is no longer valid. The leadership act requires a lead agency to prepare the record of proceedings for the certified project concurrent with the preparation of the EIR. The leadership act is repealed by its own terms on January 1, 2021. This bill would extend the authority of the Governor to certify a project to January 1, 2024. The bill would authorize the Office of Planning and Research to charge a fee on an applicant seeking certification for costs incurred by the Governor's office in the implementation of the leadership act. The bill would additionally include housing development projects, as defined, meeting certain conditions as projects eligible for certification. The bill would, except for those housing development projects, require the quantification and mitigation of the impacts of a project from the emissions of greenhouse gases, as provided. The bill would provide for the certification by the Governor of a project alternative described in an EIR for a certified project, as provided. The bill would additionally require the project applicant, as a condition of certification, to agree to pay for the costs of the trial court in hearing and deciding the case. The bill would revise and recast the labor-related requirements for projects undertaken by public agencies and for projects undertaken by private entities. The bill would instead specify that the time period for the final resolution of any judicial action is 270 business days after the filing of the record of proceedings with the court. The bill would provide that the certification expires and is no longer valid if the lead agency fails to approve a certified project before January 1, 2025. The bill would instead repeal the leadership act on January 1, 2025. Because the bill would extend the obligation of the lead agency to prepare concurrently the record of proceedings, 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 various requirements to be satisfied before the exercise of a power of sale under a mortgage or deed of trust. Existing law requires that a notice of default and a notice of sale be recorded and that specified periods of time elapse between the recording and the sale. Existing law establishes certain requirements in connection with foreclosures on mortgages and deeds of trust, including restrictions on the actions mortgage servicers may take while a borrower is attempting to secure a loan modification or has submitted a loan modification application. Existing law applies certain of those requirements only to a first lien mortgage or deed of trust that is secured by owner-occupied residential real property containing no more than four dwelling units. This bill, the Tenant, Homeowner, and Small Landlord Relief and Stabilization Act of 2020, would, among other things, until January 1, 2023, additionally apply those protections to a first lien mortgage or deed of trust that is secured by residential real property that is occupied by a tenant, contains no more than four dwelling units, and meets certain criteria, including that a tenant occupying the property is unable to pay rent due to a reduction in income resulting from the novel coronavirus. The bill would also enact the COVID-19 Small Landlord and Homeowner Relief Act of 2020 (Homeowner Act) , which would require a mortgage servicer, as defined, to provide a specified written notice to a borrower, as defined, if the mortgage servicer denies forbearance during the effective time period, as defined, that states the reasons for that denial if the borrower was both current on payments as of February 1, 2020, and is experiencing a financial hardship that prevents the borrower from making timely payments on the mortgage obligation due, directly or indirectly, to the COVID-19 emergency. The Homeowner Act would also require a mortgage servicer to comply with applicable federal guidance regarding borrower options following a COVID-19 related forbearance. Existing law provides that a tenant is guilty of unlawful detainer if the tenant continues to possess the property without permission of the landlord after the tenant defaults on rent or fails to perform a condition or covenant of the lease under which the property is held, among other reasons. Existing law requires a tenant be served a 3 days' notice in writing to cure a default or perform a condition of the lease, or return possession of the property to the landlord, as specified. Existing law, the Mobilehome Residency Law, prohibits a tenancy from being terminated unless specified conditions are met, including that the tenant fails to pay rent, utility charges, or reasonable incidental service charges, and 3 days' notice in writing is provided to the tenant, as specified. This bill would, until February 1, 2025, enact the COVID-19 Tenant Relief Act of 2020 (Tenant Act) . The Tenant Act would require that any 3 days' notice that demands payment of COVID-19 rental debt that is served on a tenant during the covered time period meet specified criteria, including that the notice include an unsigned copy of a declaration of COVID-19-related financial distress and that the notice advise the tenant that the tenant will not be evicted for failure to comply with the notice if the tenant delivers a signed declaration of COVID-19-related financial distress to the landlord, as specified. The Tenant Act would define "covered time period" for purposes of these provisions to mean the time between March 1, 2020, and January 31, 2021. The Tenant Act would deem a 3 days' notice that fails to comply with this criteria void and insufficient to support a judgment for unlawful detainer or to terminate a tenancy under the Mobilehome Residency Law. The Tenant Act would prohibit a tenant that delivers a declaration, under penalty of perjury, of COVID-19-related financial distress pursuant to these provisions from being deemed in default with regard to the COVID-19 rental debt, as specified. By expanding the crime of perjury, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. The Tenant Act would prohibit a court from finding a tenant guilty of an unlawful detainer before February 1, 2021, subject to certain exceptions, including if the tenant was guilty of the unlawful detainer before March 1, 2020. The bill would prohibit, before October 5, 2020, a court from taking specified actions with respect to unlawful detainer actions, including issuing a summons on a complaint for unlawful detainer in any action that seeks possession of residential real property and that is based, in whole or in part, on nonpayment of rent or other charges. The Tenant Act would also authorize a landlord to require a high-income tenant, as defined, to additionally submit documentation supporting the claim that the tenant has suffered COVID-19-related financial distress if the landlord has proof of income showing the tenant is a high-income tenant. The Tenant Act would preempt an ordinance, resolution, regulation, or administrative action adopted by a city, county, or city and county in response to the COVID-19 pandemic to protect tenants from eviction based on nonpayment of rental payments, as specified. The bill would require the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency to, in consultation with the Department of Finance, engage with residential tenants, landlords, property owners, deed-restricted affordable housing providers, and financial sector stakeholders about strategies and approaches to direct potential future federal stimulus funding to most effectively and efficiently provide relief to distressed tenants, landlords, and property owners, as specified. Existing law prohibits a landlord from taking specified actions with intent to terminate the occupancy under any lease or other tenancy or estate at will, however created, of property used by a tenant as the tenant's residence. Existing law makes a violator of those provisions subject to certain damages in a civil action. This bill would, until February 1, 2021, make a violator of those provisions whose tenant has provided to that violator the declaration of COVID-19-related financial distress described above liable for damages in an amount between $1,000 and $2,500. Existing law, The Small Claims Act, grants jurisdiction to a small claims court in cases where the amount demanded does not exceed $5,000, as specified, and prohibits a person from filing more than 2 small claims actions in which the amount demanded exceeds $2,500 anywhere in the state in any calendar year. This bill would instead, until February 1, 2025, provide that a small claims court has jurisdiction in any action for recovery of COVID-19 rental debt, as defined, regardless of the amount demanded and would provide that a claim for recovery of a COVID-19 rental debt is exempt from the prohibition on filing more than 2 small claims actions described above. Existing law, the Tenant Protection Act of 2019, prohibits, with certain exceptions, an owner of residential real property from increasing the gross rental rate for a dwelling or unit more than 5% plus the "percentage change in the cost of living," as defined, or 10%, whichever is lower, of the lowest gross rental rate charged for the immediately preceding 12 months, subject to specified conditions. The act exempts certain types of residential real properties, including dormitories constructed and maintained in connection with any higher education institution within the state for use and occupancy by students in attendance at the institution and housing that has been issued a certificate of occupancy within the previous 15 years. This bill would revise and recast those exemptions to exempt dormitories owned and operated by an institution of higher education or a kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, school. The bill would also make clarifying changes to the definition of "percentage change in the cost of living." This bill would also make clarifying and conforming changes. 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. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
The Planning and Zoning Law provides for the creation of 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. This bill, among other things, would require a proposed housing development containing 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, including, but not limited to, that the proposed housing development would not require demolition or alteration of housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income, that the proposed housing development does not allow for the demolition of more than 25% of the existing exterior structural walls, except as provided, and that the development is not located within a historic district, is not included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, or is not within a site that is legally designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district. The bill would set forth what a local agency can and cannot require in approving the construction of 2 residential units, including, but not limited to, authorizing a city or county to impose objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design standards, as defined, unless those standards would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of up to 2 units, prohibiting the imposition of setback requirements under certain circumstances, and setting maximum setback requirements under all other circumstances. 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 of those maps. Under the Subdivision Map Act, an approved or conditionally approved tentative map expires 24 months after its approval or conditional approval or after any additional period of time as prescribed by local ordinance, not to exceed an additional 12 months, except as provided. This bill, among other things, would require a city or county to ministerially approve a parcel map or tentative and final map for an urban lot split that meets certain requirements, including, but not limited to, that the urban lot split would not require the demolition or alteration of housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income, that the parcel is located within a residential zone, and that the parcel is not located within a historic district, is not included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, or is not within a site that is legally designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district. The bill would set forth what a local agency can and cannot require in approving an urban lot split, including, but not limited to, authorizing a city or county to impose objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design standards, as defined, unless those standards would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of 2 units on either of the resulting parcels, prohibiting the imposition of setback requirements under certain circumstances, and setting maximum setback requirements under all other circumstances. The bill would also extend the limit on the additional period that may be provided by ordinance, as described above, from 12 months to 24 months and would make other conforming or nonsubstantive changes. 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. CEQA does not apply to the approval of ministerial projects. This bill, by establishing the ministerial review processes described above, would thereby exempt the approval of projects subject to those processes from CEQA. By increasing the duties of local agencies with respect to land use regulations, the bill would impose 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.
Existing law, the Stop Tobacco Access to Kids Enforcement (STAKE) Act, prohibits a person from selling or otherwise furnishing tobacco products, as defined, to a person under 21 years of age. Existing law also prohibits the use of tobacco products in county offices of education, on charter school or school district property, or near a playground or youth sports event, as specified. This bill would prohibit a tobacco retailer, or any of the tobacco retailer's agents or employees, from selling, offering for sale, or possessing with the intent to sell or offer for sale, a flavored tobacco product or a tobacco product flavor enhancer, as those terms are defined, except as specified. The bill would make a violation of this prohibition an infraction punishable by a fine of $250 for each violation. The bill would state the intent of the Legislature that these provisions do not preempt or prohibit the adoption and implementation of local ordinances that impose greater restrictions on the access to tobacco products than the restrictions imposed by the bill, as specified. The bill would state that its provisions are severable. By creating a new 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.
(1) Under existing law, the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, if a person or persons, whether or not acting under color of law, interferes or attempts to interfere, by threats, intimidation, or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by any individual or individuals of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state, the Attorney General, or any district attorney or city attorney, is authorized to bring a civil action for injunctive and other appropriate equitable relief in the name of the people of the State of California, in order to protect the exercise or enjoyment of the right or rights secured. Existing law also authorizes an action brought by the Attorney General, or any district attorney or city attorney, to seek a civil penalty of $25,000. This bill would provide that a threat, intimidation, or coercion under the act may be inherent in any interference with a civil right and would describe intentional acts for these purposes as an act in which the person acted with general intent or a conscious objective to engage in particular conduct. The bill would, with a specified exception, eliminate certain immunity provisions for peace officers or public entities employing peace officers sued under the act. The bill would also authorize specified persons to bring an action under the act for the death of a person. (2) Existing laws defines persons who are peace officers and the entities authorized to appoint them. Existing law requires certain minimum training requirements for peace officers including the completion of a basic training course, as specified. Existing law prescribes certain minimum standards for a person to be appointed as a peace officer, including moral character and physical and mental condition, and certain disqualifying factors for a person to be employed as a peace officer, including a felony conviction. This bill would disqualify a person from being employed as a peace officer if that person has been convicted of, or has been adjudicated in an administrative, military, or civil judicial process as having committed, a violation of certain specified crimes against public justice, including the falsification of records, bribery, or perjury. The bill would also disqualify any person who has been certified as a peace officer by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training and has surrendered that certification or had that certification revoked by the commission, or has been denied certification. The bill would require a law enforcement agency employing certain peace officers to employ only individuals with a current, valid certification or pending certification. (3) Existing law establishes the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to set minimum standards for the recruitment and training of peace officers and to develop training courses and curriculum. Existing law authorizes the commission to establish a professional certificate program that awards basic, intermediate, advanced, supervisory, management, and executive certificates on the basis of a combination of training, education, experience, and other prerequisites, for the purpose of fostering the professionalization, education, and experience necessary to adequately accomplish the general police service duties performed by peace officers. Existing law authorizes the commission to cancel a certificate that was awarded in error or obtained through misrepresentation or fraud, but otherwise prohibits the commission from canceling a certificate that has properly been issued. This bill would grant the commission the power to investigate and determine the fitness of any person to serve as a peace officer in the state. The bill would direct the commission to issue or deny certification, which includes a basic certificate or proof of eligibility, to a peace officer in accordance with specified criteria. The bill would require the commission to issue a proof of eligibility or basic certificate, as specified, to certain persons employed as a peace officer on January 1, 2021, who do not otherwise possess a certificate. The bill would require a proof of eligibility or basic certificate to be renewed at least every 2 years and would require the commission to assess a fee, in an amount determined by the commission, for the application and renewal of the certificate or proof of eligibility, as well as an annual certification fee. The bill would require the fees to be deposited into the Peace Officer Certification Fund, created by the bill, and would continuously appropriate those funds to the commission for the administration of the certification program, as specified, thereby making an appropriation. The bill would declare certificates or proof of eligibility awarded by the commission to be property of the commission and would authorize the commission to revoke a proof of eligibility or certificate on specified grounds, including the use of excessive force, sexual assault, making a false arrest, or participating in a law enforcement gang, as defined. The bill would create the Peace Officer Standards Accountability Division within the commission to investigate and prosecute proceedings to take action against a peace officer's certification. The bill would require the division to review and investigate grounds for decertification and make findings as to whether grounds for action against an officer's certification exist. The bill would require the division to notify the officer subject to decertification of their findings and allow the officer to request review. The bill would also create the Peace Officer Standards Accountability Advisory Board with 9 members to be appointed as specified. The bill would require the board to hold public meetings to review the findings after investigation made by the division and to make a recommendation to the commission. The bill would require the commission to adopt the recommendation of the board if supported by clear and convincing evidence and, if action is to be taken against an officer's certification, return the determination to the division to commence formal proceedings consistent with the Administrative Procedures Act. The bill would require the commission to notify the employing agency and the district attorney of the county in which the officer is employed of this determination, as specified. The bill would make all records related to the revocation of a peace officer's certification public and would require that records of an investigation be retained for 30 years. The bill would require an agency employing peace officers to report to the commission the employment, appointment, or separation from employment of a peace officer, any complaint, charge, allegation, or investigation into the conduct of a peace officer that could render the officer subject to revocation, findings by civil oversight entities, and civil judgements that could affect the officer's certification. In case of a separation from employment or appointment, the bill would require each agency to execute an affidavit-of-separation form adopted by the commission describing the reason for separation. The bill would require the affidavit to be signed under penalty of perjury. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the board to report annually on the activities of the division, board, and commission, relating to the certification program, including the number of applications for certification, the events reported, the number of investigations conducted, and the number of certificates surrendered or revoked. By imposing new requirements on local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 832.7 of the Penal Code proposed by SB 776 to be operative only if this bill and SB 776 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. 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.
Existing law provides for the compensation of victims and derivative victims of specified types of crimes by the California Victim Compensation Board from the Restitution Fund, a continuously appropriated fund, for specified losses suffered as a result of those crimes. Existing law defines various terms for purposes of these provisions, including "crime," which includes any public offense wherever it may take place that would constitute a misdemeanor or felony. This bill would revise the definition of "crime" to include any public offense described above regardless of whether any suspect is arrested for or charged with the commission of the crime. The bill would also include in the definition of "crime" the use of force by a peace officer that is beyond what is reasonable under the totality of the circumstances, and that causes the victim injury or death, regardless of whether the peace officer is arrested for or charged with the commission of a crime or a public offense. By expanding the types of crime for which compensation can be paid from a continuously appropriated fund, the bill would make an appropriation. Existing law specifies that a person is not eligible for compensation under specified conditions, including, among other things, if the board determines that denial of the claim for compensation is appropriate because of the nature of the victim's involvement in the events leading to the crime, or the involvement of the person whose injury or death gives rise to the application. If the victim is determined to have been involved in the events leading to the qualifying crime, existing law specifies the factors that the board may consider to mitigate that involvement including, among other things, that the victim's injuries were significantly more serious than reasonably could have been expected based on the victim's level of involvement, or that a third party interfered in a manner that was not reasonably foreseeable by the victim. This bill would recast the factors that may be considered in determining whether the victim was involved in the events leading to the qualifying crime. The bill would, notwithstanding those provisions, prohibit the board from denying an application based upon the victim's involvement in the crime if the claim is for injury or death that happened as a result of the use of excessive force by a peace officer. Existing law requires the board to deny an application if it finds that the victim failed to cooperate reasonably with a law enforcement agency in the apprehension and conviction of a criminal committing the crime. This bill would prohibit the board from determining that a victim failed to cooperate with law enforcement based upon their conduct with law enforcement at the scene of the crime or on a hospital following the crime, and specify that lack of cooperation shall not be found solely because a victim delayed in reporting the qualifying crime. The bill would, notwithstanding those provisions, prohibit the board from denying an application based solely upon the victim's failure to cooperate if the claim is for injury or death that happened as a result of the use of excessive force by a peace officer. The bill would prohibit the board from denying an application for a claim based on injuries or death as a result of the use of excessive force by a peace officer based solely on a police report, or the lack thereof, or based upon whether the peace officer was arrested or charged with a crime. The bill would, absent a police report, authorize these claims to be supported by other evidence. The bill would also prohibit the board from denying an application, in whole or in part, based solely upon the contents of a police report, or because a police report was not made by the victim, or based upon whether any suspect was arrested or charged with the qualifying crime. The bill would require the board to consider other evidence to establish that a qualifying crime occurred. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.