Existing law, until July 1, 2018, establishes the Doctor of Nursing Practice Degree Pilot Program, under which the California State University is authorized to establish a Doctor of Nursing Practice degree pilot program at 3 campuses to award Doctor of Nursing Practice degrees, subject to specified program and enrollment requirements. This bill would repeal those provisions and would authorize the California State University to establish Doctor of Nursing Practice degree programs that offer Doctor of Nursing Practice degrees, subject to specified program and enrollment requirements. The bill would require the California State University to provide initial funding from within existing budgets, as specified, and would express the Legislature's intent that the California State University seek private donations or other nonstate funds to fund startup costs for the programs.
Sponsored bills
Existing law requires a school district or county superintendent of schools maintaining a kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive, to provide a needy pupil, as defined, one nutritionally adequate free or reduced-price meal during each schoolday, and authorizes the school district or county superintendent of schools to use funds available from any federal or state program to comply with that requirement, as provided. Existing law requires the governing board of a school district and the county superintendent of schools to make paper applications and electronic applications for free or reduced-price meals available to pupils, as provided, and requires the applications to meet certain specifications and include certain information. This bill would, on or before September 1, 2018, require a school district or county superintendent of schools that has a very high poverty school, as defined, in its jurisdiction to apply to operate a federal universal meal service provision pursuant to specified federal law, and to begin providing breakfast and lunch free of charge through the universal meal service to all pupils at the very high poverty school upon state approval to operate that service. The bill would authorize a school district or county superintendent of schools to stop providing the universal free meal service at a school if the school ceases to be a very high poverty school. The bill would provide that certain charter schools are considered very high poverty schools for purposes of these provisions and would provide that those charter schools are required to comply with the requirements imposed on and are authorized to exercise the authority granted to school districts and county superintendents of schools pursuant to these provisions. Because the bill would impose additional duties on school districts, county superintendents of schools, and charter schools, it would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would exempt a school district, county superintendent of schools, or charter school from these provisions if the governing board of the school district or county office of education, or the governing body of the charter school, adopts a resolution stating that it is unable to comply with, and demonstrating the reasons why it is unable to comply with, the requirements of these provisions due to fiscal hardship. Existing law requires the State Department of Education, in consultation with the State Department of Health Care Services, to develop and implement a process to use participation data from the Medi-Cal program to verify income to directly certify children whose families meet the applicable income criteria into the school meal program. This bill would require the State Department of Education to share that participation data with local educational agencies. The bill would impose specified requirements on the State Department of Education and local educational agencies relating to the privacy and confidentiality of that participation data. The bill would require a local educational agency participating in a federal school meal program to use that participation data, commencing with the participation data of pupils in the 2017–18 school year, to directly certify pupils eligible for free and reduced-price school meals, to the extent permitted under federal law. Because the bill would impose additional duties on these local educational agencies, it would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize a school district or county superintendent of schools to determine a pupil's eligibility for free and reduced-price school meals based on data including the direct certification match and alternative measures of poverty pursuant to specified state and federal law. 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) Existing law establishes the Student Aid Commission as the primary state agency for the administration of state-authorized student financial aid programs available to students attending all segments of postsecondary education. Under existing law, the commission, among other things, administers the Cal Grant Program, the Student Opportunity and Access Program, the Assumption Program of Loans for Education, the Graduate Assumption Program of Loans for Education, the Public Interest Attorney Loan Repayment Program, and the California State Work-Study Program. The commission also oversees the state's participation in the Federal Family Education Loan Program. Existing law authorizes the commission to enter into an agreement with a public agency of a state other than California, or a private entity related to an agency of another state, to assist the other agency or entity in implementing financial aid programs, including assistance with processing grants, fellowships, and loans through the use of automated information systems. This bill would require the Student Aid Commission to work cooperatively with the State Department of Social Services to develop an automated system to verify a student's status as a foster youth to aid in the processing of applications for federal financial aid. (2) Existing law, the Cooperating Agencies Foster Youth Educational Support Program, authorizes the Office of the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges to enter into agreements with up to 10 community college districts to provide additional funds for services in support of postsecondary education for foster youth. Existing law provides that these services include, when appropriate, but are not necessarily limited to, outreach and recruitment, service coordination, counseling, book and supply grants, tutoring, independent living and financial literacy skills support, frequent in-person contact, career guidance, transfer counseling, child care and transportation assistance, and referrals to health services, mental health services, housing assistance, and other related services. Existing law requires, if more than 10 community college districts apply for funding, the board of governors to give priority to those districts with the higher number of eligible students. Existing law provides that the program is operative in a fiscal year only if funds have been appropriated for purposes of the program for that fiscal year. Existing law requires the board of governors to submit a biennial report, commencing March 31, 2018, and every 2 years thereafter, providing proscribed information, including recommendations on whether and how the program can be expanded to all community college districts and campuses. This bill would expand that authorization from up to 10 community college districts to up to 20 community college districts, and would make conforming changes to other provisions of the program. The bill would expand the services required to be provided under this program to include both (A) consultation and eligibility verification and (B) consultation and referrals for students deemed ineligible. The bill would delay the commencement date of the board of governors' biennial report to March 31, 2020. (3) Existing law requires a county social worker to create a case plan for a foster youth within a specified timeframe after the child is introduced into the foster care system. Existing law requires the case plan to be developed considering the recommendations of the child and family team according to specified requirements, including, among others, a requirement that the child be involved in developing the case plan as age and developmentally appropriate. This bill would require the case plan, for a child who is 16 years of age or older and for a nonminor dependent, to identify the person or persons who are responsible for assisting the child or nonminor dependent with applications for postsecondary education and related financial aid, except as provided. By expanding the duties of counties relating to the development of a case plan for a foster youth, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (4) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 16501.1 of the Welfare and Institutions Code proposed by AB 404 and AB 1006 to be operative only if this bill and either or both of those bills are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (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.
(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 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.
(1) Existing law, the Political Reform Act of 1974, provides for the comprehensive regulation of campaign financing and activities. The act requires a committee that supports or opposes ballot measures to name and identify itself using a name or phrase that clearly identifies the economic or other special interests of its major donors of $50,000 or more. The act also requires that the identity of a common employer shared by major donors be disclosed. This bill would repeal these provisions. (2) The act defines "expenditure" as a payment, a forgiveness of a loan, a payment of a loan by a 3rd party, or an enforceable promise to make a payment, unless it is clear from the surrounding circumstances that it is not made for political purposes. This bill, which would be known as the California Disclose Act, would describe circumstances in which a payment would be made for political purposes within the meaning of the definition of "expenditure." (3) The act prohibits a candidate or committee from sending a mass mailing unless the name, street address, and city of the candidate or committee are shown on the outside of each piece of mail in the mass mailing, as specified. This bill would additionally require the name of such an entity to be disclosed in a mass electronic mailing, as defined, that the entity sends. The bill would provide that these disclosure requirements do not apply if the mass mailing or mass electronic mailing is paid for by an independent expenditure. (4) The act prohibits a candidate, committee, or slate mailer organization from expending campaign funds to pay for specified telephone calls that advocate support of, or opposition to, a candidate, ballot measure, or both, unless the name of the organization that authorized or paid for the call is disclosed to the recipient of the call during the course of each call. This bill would instead apply these requirements to a candidate, a candidate controlled committee established for an elective office for the controlling candidate, a political party committee, and a slate mailer organization that expends campaign funds to pay for such telephone calls. The bill would provide that these disclosure requirements do not apply if the telephone call is paid for by an independent expenditure. (5) The act also requires advertisements, as defined, to include prescribed disclosure statements, including, among others, a requirement that the disclosure statements include the names of the persons who made the 2 highest cumulative contributions, as defined, to the committee paying for the advertisement. This bill would repeal and recast provisions of the act relating to advertisement disclosure statements. The bill would revise the definition of "advertisement" to exclude a number of communications, including communications that involve wearing apparel, sky writing, and certain electronic media communications, as specified. The bill would also replace existing advertisement disclosure statements with newly prescribed disclosure statements that identify the name of the committee paying for the advertisement and the top contributors to that committee. The bill would define "top contributors" for purposes of these provisions as the persons from whom the committee paying for the advertisement received its 3 highest cumulative contributions, as specified. The bill would exempt certain committees, including committees that make independent expenditures totaling $1,000 or more in a calendar year, from the requirement to disclose the top contributors in advertisement disclosure statements. The bill would also prescribe location and format criteria for the disclosure statements that are specific to radio and telephone, television and video, print, and electronic media advertisements. (6) The act imposes, in addition to other penalties, a fine of up to triple the amount of the cost of an advertisement on a person who violates the disclosure requirements for advertisements. This bill would revise the scope of violations subject to that fine by specifying that it applies to certain disclosure requirements and intentional violations. (7) The act prohibits a person from making a contribution as an intermediary on behalf of another person without disclosing to the recipient of the contribution specified information about both the intermediary and the source of the contribution. The act also prohibits a person from making a contribution to a committee on the condition or with the agreement that it will be contributed to a particular candidate unless the contribution is disclosed in compliance with those requirements for contributions made by an intermediary. This bill would prohibit a person from making a contribution to a committee or candidate that is earmarked unless the contribution is disclosed in compliance with the requirements for contributions made by an intermediary. The bill would also describe circumstances in which a contribution is deemed to be earmarked. The bill would impose additional disclosure requirements in connection with earmarked contributions from one committee to another. (8) Because a violation of the act is punishable as a misdemeanor, 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. (9) The Political Reform Act of 1974, an initiative measure, provides that the Legislature may amend the act to further the act's purposes upon a 23 vote of each house of the Legislature and compliance with specified procedural requirements. This bill would declare that it furthers the purposes of the act. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law requires a person who is acting as an agent for a transferor of real property that is located within either a special flood hazard or an area of potential flooding, determined as provided, or the transferor if he or she is acting without an agent, to disclose to any prospective transferee the fact that the property located in a special flood hazard or an area of potential flooding if certain criteria are met. This bill would require, for every lease or rental agreement for residential property entered into on or after July 1, 2018, the owner or person offering the property for rent to disclose to the tenant specified information pertaining to the risk of flooding. The bill would make findings and declarations in this regard.
Existing law provides that when there is reason to believe that a person arrested for a violation of specified controlled substance provisions may not be a citizen of the United States, the arresting agency shall notify the appropriate agency of the United States having charge of deportation matters. This bill would repeal those provisions. Existing law provides that whenever an individual who is a victim of or witness to a hate crime, or who otherwise can give evidence in a hate crime investigation, is not charged with or convicted of committing any crime under state law, a peace officer may not detain the individual exclusively for any actual or suspected immigration violation or report or turn the individual over to federal immigration authorities. This bill would, among other things and subject to exceptions, prohibit state and local law enforcement agencies, including school police and security departments, from using money or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes, as specified, and would, subject to exceptions, proscribe other activities or conduct in connection with immigration enforcement by law enforcement agencies. The bill would apply those provisions to the circumstances in which a law enforcement official has discretion to cooperate with immigration authorities. The bill would require, by October 1, 2018, the Attorney General, in consultation with the appropriate stakeholders, to publish model policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible for use by public schools, public libraries, health facilities operated by the state or a political subdivision of the state, and courthouses, among others. The bill would require, among others, all public schools, health facilities operated by the state or a political subdivision of the state, and courthouses to implement the model policy, or an equivalent policy. The bill would state that, among others, all other organizations and entities that provide services related to physical or mental health and wellness, education, or access to justice, including the University of California, are encouraged to adopt the model policy. The bill would require that a law enforcement agency that chooses to participate in a joint law enforcement task force, as defined, submit a report annually pertaining to task force operations to the Department of Justice, as specified. The bill would require the Attorney General, by March 1, 2019, and annually thereafter, to report on the types and frequency of joint law enforcement task forces, and other information, as specified, and to post those reports on the Attorney General's Internet Web site. The bill would require law enforcement agencies to report to the department annually regarding transfers of persons to immigration authorities. The bill would require the Attorney General to publish guidance, audit criteria, and training recommendations regarding state and local law enforcement databases, for purposes of limiting the availability of information for immigration enforcement, as specified. The bill would require the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to provide a specified written consent form in advance of any interview between a person in department custody and the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement regarding civil immigration violations. This bill would state findings and declarations of the Legislature relating to these provisions. By imposing additional duties on public schools and local law enforcement agencies, 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 Housing Accountability Act, among other things, prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning approval in a manner than renders infeasible, a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households or an emergency shelter unless the local agency makes specified written findings based upon substantial evidence in the record. This bill would require the findings of the local agency to instead be based on a preponderance of the evidence in the record. (2) The act authorizes a local agency to disapprove or condition approval of a housing development or emergency shelter, as described above, if, among other reasons, the housing development project or emergency shelter is inconsistent with both the jurisdiction's zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as specified in any element of the general plan as it existed on the date the application was deemed complete, and the jurisdiction has adopted a revised housing element in accordance with specified law. This bill would specify that a change to the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation subsequent to the date the application was deemed complete does not constitute a valid basis to disapprove or condition approval of the housing development project or emergency shelter. (3) The act defines various terms for purposes of its provisions, including the term "housing development project," which is defined as a project consisting either of residential units only, mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential units, or transitional housing or supportive housing. For a mixed-use development for these purposes, the act requires that nonresidential uses be limited to neighborhood commercial uses, as defined, and to the first floor of buildings that are 2 or more stories. This bill would instead require, with respect to mixed-use developments, that 23 of the square footage be designated for residential use. (4) If a local agency proposes to disapprove a housing development project that complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, or to approve it on the condition that it be developed at a lower density, the act requires that the local agency base its decision upon written findings supported by substantial evidence on the record that specified conditions exist. This bill would specify that a housing development project or emergency shelter is deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision for purposes of the above-described provisions if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project or emergency shelter is consistent, compliant, or in conformity. The bill, if the local agency considers the housing development project to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, would require the local agency to provide the applicant with written documentation identifying the provision or provisions, and an explanation of the reason or reasons it considers the housing development to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity within specified time periods. If the local agency fails to provide this documentation, the bill would provide that the housing development project would be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision. By requiring local agencies to provide documentation related to disapprovals of housing development projects, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (5) The act authorizes the project applicant, a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the development or emergency shelter, or a housing organization, as defined, to bring an action to enforce its provisions. This bill would entitle a housing organization to reasonable attorney's fees and costs if it is the prevailing party in an action to enforce the act. (6) If a court finds that the local agency disapproved, or conditioned approval in a manner that renders infeasible the project or emergency shelter or housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households without making the required findings or without making sufficient findings, the act requires the court to issue an order or judgment compelling compliance with its provisions within 60 days, including an order that the local agency take action on the development project or emergency shelter and awarding attorney's fees and costs. This bill would additionally require the court to issue an order compelling compliance with the act, as described above, if it finds that either the local agency, in violation of a specified provision of the act, disapproved or conditioned approval of a housing development project in a manner rendering it infeasible for the development of an emergency shelter or certain housing without making the required findings or without making findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence, or, the local agency, in violation of another specified provision of the act, disapproved a housing development project complying with specified standards and criteria or imposed a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, without making the required findings or without making findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The bill would authorize the court to issue an order or judgment directing the local agency to approve the housing development project or emergency shelter if the court finds that the local agency acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development project or emergency shelter in violation of the act. (7) The act authorizes the court to impose fines if it finds that a local agency acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development or emergency shelter and failed to carry out the court's order or judgment compelling compliance within 60 days of the court's judgment. The act requires that the fines be deposited into a housing trust fund and committed for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households. This bill, upon a determination that the local agency has failed to comply with the order or judgment compelling compliance with these provisions within 60 days, would instead require the court to impose fines, as described above, in every instance in which the court determines that the local agency disapproved, or conditioned approval in a manner that renders infeasible, the housing development project or emergency shelter without making the required findings or without making sufficient findings. The bill would require that the fine be in a minimum amount of $10,000 per housing unit in the housing development project on the date the application was deemed complete. In determining the amount of fine to impose, the bill would require the court to consider the local agency's progress in attaining its target allocation of the regional housing need and any prior violations of the act. The bill would authorize the local agency to instead deposit the fine into a specified state fund, and would also provide that any funds in a local housing trust fund not expended after 5 years would revert to the state and be deposited in that fund, to be used, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households. If the local agency has acted in bad faith and failed to carry out the court's order, as described above, the bill would require the court to multiply the fine by a factor of 5. This bill would also require that a petition to enforce the act be filed and served no later than 90 days from the later of (a) the effective date of a decision of the local agency imposing conditions on, disapproving, or taking any other final action on a housing development project or (b) the expiration of certain time periods specified in the Permit Streamlining Act. (8) In order to obtain appellate review of a trial court's order, the act requires a party to file a petition within 20 days after service upon it of a written notice of the entry of the order, or within such further time not exceeding an additional 20 days as the trial court may for good cause allow. This bill would allow a party to instead appeal a trial court's order or judgment to the court of appeal pursuant to specified law. (9) This bill would make various technical and conforming changes to the Housing Accountability Act. (10) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65589.5 of the Government Code proposed by AB 1515 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1515 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (11) 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.