(1) Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district to allow pupils whom the district has determined would benefit from advanced scholastic or vocational work to attend community college as special part-time or full-time students, subject to recommendation by the school principal and parental permission. This bill would authorize the governing board of a school district to authorize a pupil, upon recommendation of the principal of the pupil's school of attendance, and with parental consent, to attend a community college during any session or term as a special part-time or full-time student and to undertake one or more STEM courses, as defined to mean courses in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics, offered at the community college if that pupil has exhausted all opportunities to enroll in an equivalent course at the high school of attendance, or at an adult education program, continuation school, regional occupational center or program, or any other program offered by that school district. The bill also would authorize the governing board of a community college district to enter into a formal partnership with a school district or school districts located within its immediate service area to allow secondary school pupils to attend a community college if those pupils have exhausted all opportunities to enroll in an equivalent STEM course at the high school of attendance, adult education program, continuation school, regional occupational center or program, or any other program offered by that school district. The bill would require the partnership agreement to outline the terms of the partnership, as specified. The bill would require a community college district and a school district, as a condition of, and before adopting, a partnership agreement, to present the adoption of the partnership agreement as an information item at regularly scheduled open meetings of their respective governing boards, and to take testimony from the public and approve or disapprove the proposed partnership agreement at subsequent regularly scheduled open public hearings of their respective governing boards. The bill would require, for each partnership entered into under the bill, the affected community college district and school district to file an annual report, containing specified data, with the Office of the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, which would transmit this annual report to the Legislature, the Director of Finance, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the governing boards of the participating school districts and community college districts, as specified. (2) Existing law requires the governing board of a community college district to assign a low enrollment priority to a pupil attending community college pursuant to a recommendation from his or her principal or school district or a petition from his or her parents, in order to ensure that these pupils, admitted as special part-time or full-time students, do not displace regularly admitted students. This bill would authorize the governing board of a community college district to assign an enrollment priority to pupils attending community college pursuant to a partnership agreement established under the bill. The bill would require community college districts, in assigning an enrollment priority under this provision, to ensure that these pupils do not displace regularly admitted community college students. The bill would prohibit a community college district from receiving an allowance or apportionment for an instructional activity for which a school district has been, or will be, paid. (3) This bill would also make various nonsubstantive changes, and delete obsolete provisions.
Sponsored bills
This measure would proclaim the month of January 2016 as Human Trafficking Awareness Month, encourage all Californians to become educated about human trafficking and work to eradicate these criminal practices within and beyond our borders, and encourage Members of the Legislature, as well as organizations, businesses, and individuals, to host or sponsor and attend community events in order to bring visibility and support to efforts made by nongovernmental organizations to recognize and combat human trafficking.
Existing law, the Sex Offender Registration Act, requires persons convicted of specified sex offenses to register with local authorities for life while residing, located, attending school, or working in California. Existing law, as adopted by the voters by the passage of Proposition 83 at the November 7, 2006, statewide general election, prohibits a person who is required to register as a sex offender from living in specified places, including within 2,000 feet of a school or park where children regularly gather. Existing law authorizes municipal jurisdictions to enact local ordinances that further restrict the residency of the registered sex offender. Existing law makes it a misdemeanor for a person who is on parole for specified sex offenses to enter any park where children regularly gather without express permission from the person's parole agent. This bill would state that a local agency is not preempted by state law from enacting and enforcing an ordinance that restricts a registered sex offender from residing or being present at certain locations within the local agency's jurisdiction. The bill would authorize a local agency to adopt ordinances, rules, or regulations that are more restrictive than state law relating to a registered sex offender's ability to reside or be present at certain locations within the local agency's jurisdiction.
The California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report, or 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. Existing law establishes regulations related to numerous environmental issues. This bill would enact the Sustainable Environmental Protection Act and would specify the environmental review required pursuant to CEQA for projects related to specified environmental topical areas. For a judicial action or proceeding filed challenging an action taken by a lead agency on the ground of noncompliance with CEQA, the bill would prohibit a cause of action that (1) relates any topical area or criteria for which compliance obligations are identified or (2) challenges the environmental document if: (A) the environmental document discloses compliance with applicable environmental law, (B) the project conforms with the use designation, density, or building intensity in an applicable plan, as defined, and (C) the project approval incorporates applicable mitigation requirements into the environmental document. The bill would provide that the Sustainable Environmental Protection Act only applies if the lead agency or project applicant has agreed to provide to the public in a readily accessible electronic format an annual compliance report prepared pursuant to the mitigation monitoring and reporting program. Because this bill would impose additional duties on local agencies, 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law creates the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District and establishes provisions regulating the collective bargaining of the employees and the board of directors of that district. Existing law prescribes procedures specifically relating to the collective bargaining of transit districts, and authorizes the Governor, when it appears a strike will significantly disrupt transportation services and endanger public health, safety, and welfare, to appoint a board to investigate issues in connection with these labor negotiations and make a report. Existing law prohibits a strike during the period of investigation and permits the Governor, upon receiving a report from a board of investigation, to request the Attorney General to petition a court to enjoin the strike, as specified. This bill would prohibit employees of the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District from engaging in a strike or work stoppage if the transit district board maintains the compensation and benefit provisions of an expired contract and an employee or employee organization has agreed to a provision prohibiting strikes in the expired or previous written labor contract. The bill would provide that an employee whom the transit district employer finds willfully engaged in a strike or work stoppage in violation of these provisions is subject to dismissal if that finding is sustained upon conclusion of the appropriate proceedings necessary for the imposition of a disciplinary action.
Existing law, as amended by the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, a measure approved by the voters at the November 4, 2014, statewide general election, generally provides that the possession of Ketamine, gamma hydroxybutyric acid (GHB) , or flunitrazepam is a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year. This bill would make it a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months or 2 or 3 years, to possess Ketamine, GHB, or flunitrazepam with the intent to commit sexual assault. By creating a new crime, 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.
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 authorizes the State Air Resources Board to adopt greenhouse gas emissions limits and emission reduction measures by regulation to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in furtherance of achieving the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit. The act authorizes the board, in the regulations adopted, to include the use of market-based compliance mechanisms. This bill would prohibit the board, on and after January 1, 2016, from adopting or amending regulations pursuant to the act. The bill would authorize the board to submit to the Legislature recommendations on how to achieve the goals of the act.
Existing law, with certain exceptions, establishes 8 hours as a day's work and a 40-hour workweek, and requires payment of prescribed overtime compensation for additional hours worked. Existing law authorizes the adoption by 23 of employees in a work unit of alternative workweek schedules providing for workdays no longer than 10 hours within a 40-hour workweek. This bill would permit an individual nonexempt employee to request an employee-selected flexible work schedule providing for workdays up to 10 hours per day within a 40-hour workweek, and would allow an employer to implement this schedule without the obligation to pay overtime compensation for those additional hours in a workday, except as specified. The bill would require that the flexible work schedule contain specified information and the employer's and the employee's original signature. The bill would also require the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement in the Department of Industrial Relations to enforce this provision and adopt regulations.
The Personal Income Tax Law and the Corporation Tax Law allow various credits against the taxes imposed by those laws. This bill, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2017, and before January 1, 2022, would allow a tax credit under both laws in an amount equal to 30% of the qualified costs paid or incurred by a qualified taxpayer for any seismic retrofit construction on a qualified building, as provided. The bill would require a taxpayer, in order to be eligible for the credit, to obtain 2 certifications from the appropriate jurisdiction with authority for building code enforcement of the area in which the building is located: one prior to seismic retrofit construction that certifies that the building is an at-risk property, and a second subsequent to construction that certifies that the completed construction is seismic retrofit construction, as defined, and specifies a dollar amount of qualified costs. The bill would further require the taxpayer to provide the second certification to and apply for allocation of the credit with the Franchise Tax Board, and would require the board to allocate credits on a first-come-first-served basis. The bill would provide that the credit would have an aggregate cap under both laws of $12,000,000 for each calendar year, as provided. Existing law requires a bill that would authorize a new credit against the tax imposed by the Personal Income Tax Law or the Corporation Tax Law to contain specific goals, purposes, and objectives that the new credit will achieve and detailed performance indicators and data collection requirements for determining whether the new credit achieves these goals, purposes, and objectives. This bill would make findings specifying the goals, purposes, and objectives of the above-described tax credits and detailing the performance indicators and data collection requirements for determining whether the credits meet these goals, purposes, and objectives. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.