Existing law establishes the Student Aid Commission as the state agency primarily responsible for the administration and coordination of student financial aid programs at California postsecondary educational institutions. Existing federal law establishes the Chafee Educational and Training Vouchers Program for purposes of providing financial aid to current and former foster youth who are attending qualifying postsecondary educational institutions. Existing law provides that the Student Aid Commission, through an interagency agreement with the State Department of Social Services, currently operates the program in California. Existing law authorizes the commission or the department, for the fiscal years 2018–19 to 2020–21, inclusive, to expend up to $80,000, of any moneys appropriated by the Legislature to expand the Chafee Educational and Training Vouchers Program age eligibility of former foster youth up to 26 years of age, for outreach to newly eligible former foster youth who are at least 23 years of age, but are not yet 26 years of age. Commencing with the 2021–22 award year, this bill would authorize the commission to make initial award offers of up to 200% of total state and federal program funding available for all awards, with the number of initial award offers and the amount of the award to be determined based on the historical rate of award acceptance. The bill would require the commission to make award offers contingent upon available funding. The bill would authorize the commission to adjust or withdraw offers to ensure that awards do not exceed available program funding. The bill would also require the commission to advise award offer recipients that offers may be withdrawn or adjusted before payment and that awards are payable to eligible students only if funding is available. This bill would impose certain requirements on a student who fails to demonstrate satisfactory academic progress, as defined by the institution where the student is enrolled, to maintain Chafee grant eligibility, and would take away Chafee grant eligibility from a student who fails to demonstrate satisfactory academic progress, as specified. The bill would require that institutions provide an appeal process in writing and reinstate the student's Chafee grant when certain conditions are met. The bill would also provide that a student who loses Chafee eligibility and subsequently is not enrolled for one or more terms shall regain eligibility upon reenrollment. The bill would require the California Community Colleges and the California State University, and would request the University of California, to provide all Chafee grant recipients, upon release of the first payment, with information regarding available support services on campus and the process for completing an educational plan and, in that notification, to strongly encourage Chafee grant recipients to avail themselves of those services if they have not already done so. To the extent that the bill would impose new duties on community college districts, it would constitute a state-mandated local program. This bill would limit the duration of receipt of a Chafee award to 5 years, which would not be required to be consecutive. The bill would prohibit an institution from requiring any other eligibility criteria for a Chafee grant than those described in this bill and in specified 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.
Sponsored bills
Existing law authorizes or requires the court to suspend or delay the driving privilege, or to order the Department of Motor Vehicles to suspend or delay the driving privilege, of a person who is convicted of any of certain offenses, including, among others, offenses relating to vandalism, controlled substance or alcohol use, possession, or related conduct, or firearm use. Existing law authorizes the court to suspend the driving privilege of a person, for not more than 30 days, upon conviction of soliciting or engaging in prostitution or specified lewd or dissolute conduct, if the violation was committed within 1,000 feet of a private residence and with the use of a vehicle. Existing law authorizes the court, as an alternative, to order a person's driving privilege restricted, for not more than 6 months, to necessary travel to and from the person's place of employment or education. This bill would repeal the court's authority to suspend or delay the driving privilege, or to order the department to suspend or delay the driving privilege, of a person based on a conviction of one of the above-specified offenses. The bill would make other conforming changes. The bill would state that its provisions are not intended to affect any order issued by the court before January 1, 2020, to suspend, delay, or otherwise restrict the driving privilege of a person, or any action taken by the department, whether before, on, or after January 1, 2020, pursuant to an order issued by the court before January 1, 2020, to suspend, delay, or otherwise restrict the driving privilege of a person. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 647 of the Penal Code proposed by AB 1129, to be operative only if this bill and AB 1129 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Existing law establishes a pilot program to allow the Counties of Alameda, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Mateo, Solano, and Yuba to select a bidder on the basis of best value, as defined, for construction projects in excess of $1,000,000. Existing law also authorizes these counties to use a best value construction contracting method to award individual annual contracts, not to exceed $3,000,000, for repair, remodeling, or other repetitive work to be done according to unit prices, as specified. Existing law establishes procedures and criteria for the selection of a best value contractor and requires that bidders verify specified information under oath. Existing law requires the board of supervisors of a participating county to submit a report that contains specified information about the projects awarded using the best value procedures described above to the appropriate policy committees of the Legislature and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee before January 1, 2020. Existing law repeals the pilot program provisions on January 1, 2020. This bill would authorize the County of Santa Clara and the County of Monterey to utilize this pilot program and would extend the operation of those provisions until January 1, 2025. The bill, instead, would require the board of supervisors of a participating county to submit the report described above to the appropriate policy committees of the Legislature and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee before March 1, 2024. By expanding the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Counties of Alameda, Los Angeles, Monterey, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Yuba. 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 Financial Institutions Law, regulates the activities of various financial entities, including commercial banks, industrial banks, trust companies, credit unions, and savings associations. The Banking Law defines and regulates state banks and commits the enforcement of banking laws to the Commissioner of Business Oversight. Existing law prohibits a county from giving or loaning its credit to, or in aid of, any person or corporation. Existing law requires a local agency, as defined, to deposit all money belonging to, or in the custody of, that local agency into specified state or national banks, as defined. Existing law regulates the investment of public funds by local agencies. Existing law, the Nonprofit Corporation Law, regulates the formation and conduct of a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation and a nonprofit public benefit corporation. This bill would define the term "bank" for purposes of the Financial Institutions Law and the Banking Law to include a public bank. The bill would define the term "public bank" to mean a corporation, organized as either a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation or a nonprofit public benefit corporation for the purpose of engaging in the commercial banking business or industrial banking business, that is wholly owned by a local agency, as specified, local agencies, or a joint powers authority. The bill would require a public bank to obtain a certificate of authorization to transact business as a bank from the commissioner and to obtain and maintain insurance, subject to specified requirements. The bill would prohibit the commissioner from issuing more than 2 public bank licenses, as defined, in a calendar year and would prohibit the commissioner from authorizing more than 10 public banks at one time. The bill would require a public bank to include a specified purpose statement in its articles of incorporation and make conforming changes. The bill would require a local agency to conduct and approve, as specified, a study of the viability of a public bank containing specified elements before submitting an application to the commissioner to organize and establish a public bank and would require the local agency to include a copy of that study in the application submitted to the commissioner. The bill would require a local agency that is not a charter city to obtain voter approval of a motion to submit an application to the commissioner, as specified. The bill would authorize a county to lend its available funds to a public bank. The bill also would authorize a local agency to deposit funds in a public bank, and to invest in a public bank, subject to certain requirements. The bill would authorize a public bank to make distributions to its members. The bill would require, as specified, a public bank to conduct retail activities in partnership with local financial institutions and would prohibit a public bank from competing with local financial institutions. The Corporation Tax Law imposes a franchise tax on financial corporations, but provides that the tax is in lieu of all other state and local taxes and licenses, with certain exceptions. That law also exempts specified classes of entities from the franchise and income taxes imposed by that law, including state-chartered credit unions. This bill would additionally exempt from those franchise and income taxes any public bank. This bill would also exempt a public bank from all other state and local taxes and licenses, with certain exceptions. Existing law, the Ralph M. Brown Act, requires that all meetings of the legislative body, as defined, of a local agency be open and public and all persons be permitted to attend unless a closed session is authorized. This bill would authorize the governing board of a public bank or a committee of that governing board to meet in a closed session to consider and take action on matters pertaining to a loan or investment decision, a decision of the internal audit committee, the compliance committee, or the governance committee, and a meeting with a state or federal regulator. The bill would authorize a public bank to make all information received by a shareholder, member, or owner of a public bank confidential, as specified. Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires that public records, as defined, be available to the public for inspection and made promptly available to any person. This bill would exempt specified information and records of a public bank, and related decisions of the directors, officers, and managers of the public bank, from the disclosure requirements of the act, including, among others, records related to alternative investments of the bank, as specified, meeting materials of any closed session, a record containing information regarding a portfolio position in which the public bank invests, information related to a specific account in the bank, and specified correspondence related to meetings with, or a memorandum or letter received from, state and federal banking regulators. 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. The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.
Existing law creates the Santa Clara Valley Open-Space Authority, and prescribes the jurisdiction and functions and duties of the authority. Existing law authorizes the authority, among other things, to acquire, hold, and dispose of real and personal property, within the authority's jurisdiction, necessary to the full exercise of its powers. This bill would authorize the authority to establish and administer the Coyote Valley Conservation Program to address resource and recreational goals of the Coyote Valley, as defined. The bill would authorize the authority to collaborate with state, regional, and local partners to help achieve specified goals of the program. The bill would authorize the authority to, among other things, acquire and dispose of interests and options in real property. The bill would require a proponent or party to a certain proposed development project within Coyote Valley to provide notice to the authority of the proposed project, and would authorize the authority to provide analysis of the environmental values and potential impacts of the proposed project. The bill would require Coyote Valley to be acknowledged as an area of statewide significance in local planning documents developed or updated on or after January 1, 2020, affecting land use within Coyote Valley. To the extent that this bill would impose new duties on local entities, it 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.
This measure would condemn regulations recently adopted by the Department of Homeland Security to prescribe how a determination of inadmissibility for a person who is not a citizen or national is made based on the likelihood that the person will become a public charge. This measure would also urge the federal government to repeal the new regulations.
Existing law authorizes the governing body of a political subdivision, as those terms are defined, to declare a shelter crisis if the governing body makes a specified finding. Upon declaration of a shelter crisis, existing law, among other things, suspends certain state and local laws, regulations, and ordinances to the extent that strict compliance would prevent, hinder, or delay the mitigation of the effects of the shelter crisis. Existing law, upon a declaration of a shelter crisis by the City of Berkeley, Emeryville, Los Angeles, Oakland, or San Diego, the County of Santa Clara, or the City and County of San Francisco, specifies additional provisions applicable to a shelter crisis declared by one of those jurisdictions. Among other things, existing law authorizes the city, county, or city and county that declares a shelter crisis pursuant to these provisions, in lieu of compliance with local building approval procedures or state housing, health, habitability, planning and zoning, or safety standards, procedures, and laws, to adopt by ordinance reasonable local standards and procedures for the design, site development, and operation of homeless shelters and the structures and facilities in the homeless shelters, to the extent that it is determined at the time of adoption that strict compliance with state and local standards or laws in existence at the time of that adoption would in any way prevent, hinder, or delay the mitigation of the effects of the shelter crisis. Existing law requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to review and approve the city's, county's, or city and county's draft ordinance to ensure it addresses minimum health and safety standards. Existing law requires the department to provide its findings to the Senate Committee on Housing and the Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development within 30 calendar days of receiving the draft ordinance. This bill would extend the time within which the department is required to provide its findings to those legislative committees to 90 calendar days of receiving the draft ordinance. Existing law exempts from the California Environmental Quality Act specified actions by a state agency or a city, county, or city and county relating to land owned by a local government to be used for, or to provide financial assistance to, a homeless shelter constructed pursuant to the above-described provisions. Existing law requires a city, county, or city and county that declares a shelter crisis pursuant to these provisions to develop a plan to address the shelter crisis on or before July 1, 2019, and to annually report to specified committees of the Legislature on or before January 1, 2019, and annually thereafter until January 1, 2021. Existing law repeals these additional provisions as of January 1, 2021. This bill would apply the above-described additional provisions to a shelter crisis declared by the County of Alameda, the County of Orange, any city located within the County of Alameda, any city located within the County of Orange, and the City of San Jose, and extend the above-described repeal date to January 1, 2023. By expanding the scope of these provisions to apply within the County of Alameda, the County of Orange, and the City of San Jose, the bill would expand the above-described exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act. The bill, with respect to a shelter crisis declared by the County of Alameda, the County of Orange, a city located within the County of Alameda, a city located within the County of Orange, or the City of San Jose, would require the county or city, as applicable, to develop the above-described shelter plan on or before July 1, 2020, to include in the shelter plan a plan to transition residents from homeless shelters to permanent housing, and to provide the first above-described annual report on or before January 1 of the year following the declaration of a shelter crisis. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the County of Alameda, the County of Orange, and the City of San Jose. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
This measure would call upon all Californians to embrace the individual and social benefits of family and community acceptance, upon religious leaders to counsel on LGBTQ matters from a place of love, compassion, and knowledge of the psychological and other harms of conversion therapy, and upon the people of California and the institutions of California with great moral influence to model equitable treatment of all people of the state.
Existing law vests the Department of Transportation with full possession and control of the state highway system, including associated property. Existing law authorizes the department to lease certain property, including the area above or below a state highway, and certain property held for future highway purposes, to public agencies under specified terms and conditions. Existing law also authorizes the department to lease airspace under a freeway, or real property acquired for highway purposes, located in various cities and counties, that is not excess property, to specified entities for certain purposes, including for purposes of an emergency shelter or feeding program, subject to certain conditions. This bill would authorize the department to offer for lease to a city, county, political subdivision of a city or county, or state agency airspace and real property acquired for highway purposes that meets certain requirements for purposes of a temporary emergency shelter or feeding program. The bill would require the entity that enters into the lease to pay certain costs to the department including $1 per month for the lease and an annual administrative fee of up to $5,000, or no more than the department's cost of administering the lease, not to exceed $15,000. The bill would authorize the lease to be terminated without penalty if the department determines the airspace or real property is needed for departmental purposes, as specified. The bill would require the lease to contain other specified terms and conditions. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2029.
Existing law, the California Community Care Facilities Act, provides for the licensing and regulation of runaway and homeless youth shelters by the State Department of Social Services. Existing law requires these shelters to offer short-term, 24-hour, nonmedical care and supervision and personal services to homeless youth and runaway youth, as those terms are defined, who voluntarily enter the shelter. Existing law defines "short-term" to mean no more than 21 consecutive days. This bill would rename these facilities "youth homelessness prevention centers," and would expand the categories of youth for which the center is required to provide services to also include youth at risk of homelessness and youth exhibiting status offender behavior, as those terms are defined by the bill. The bill would expand the definition of "short-term" to mean no more than 90 consecutive days, and would make technical, conforming changes to related provisions.