(1) The Guardianship-Conservatorship Law requires the court to appoint the public defender or private counsel to represent interests of a conservatee, proposed conservatee, or person alleged to lack legal capacity who is unable to retain legal counsel and requests the appointment of counsel to assist them in particular proceedings that include, among others, proceedings to establish a conservatorship or to remove the conservator, whether or not that person lacks or appears to lack legal capacity. The law also requires the court to appoint the public defender or private counsel in these proceedings to represent the interests of a conservatee or proposed conservatee who does not plan to retain legal counsel and has not requested the court to appoint legal counsel, if the court determines that the appointment would be helpful to the resolution of the matter or is necessary to protect the interests of the conservatee or proposed conservatee based on information contained in the court investigator's report or obtained from any other source, whether or not that person lacks or appears to lack legal capacity. This bill would instead require the court to appoint the public defender or private counsel if the conservatee or proposed conservatee has not retained legal counsel and does not plan to retain legal counsel. The bill would generally require the court to allow representation by an attorney for whom a conservatee, proposed conservatee, or person alleged to lack legal capacity expresses a preference, even if the attorney is not on the court's list of court appointed attorneys. The bill would require the court, in an appeal or writ proceeding, to appoint counsel to advocate for the rights, interests, and stated wishes of a conservatee who is not represented by legal counsel. The bill would specify that the role of legal counsel for a conservatee, proposed conservatee, or person alleged to lack legal capacity is that of a zealous advocate, observing specified legal requirements. Existing law authorizes the court to appoint private legal counsel for a ward, proposed ward, a conservatee, or a proposed conservatee in any other proceeding if the court determines the person is not otherwise represented by legal counsel and that the appointment would be helpful to the resolution of the matter or is necessary to protect the person's interest. This bill, instead, would authorize the court to appoint private legal counsel for a ward, proposed ward, a conservatee, a proposed conservatee, or a person alleged to lack legal capacity in any proceeding if the court determines the person is not otherwise represented by legal counsel. (2) Existing law regulates the terms and conditions of guardianships and conservatorships. Existing law authorizes a court to refer certain issues relating to a conservatorship to a court investigator and prescribes the duties of an investigator in this regard, which include determining if a proposed conservatee has not retained legal counsel or if a conservatee desires the court to appoint legal counsel. This bill would require the court investigator to determine whether a conservatee plans to retain legal counsel if they have not already done so.
Sponsored bills
Existing law, the California Tourism and Marketing Act, establishes a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation named the California Travel and Tourism Commission under the direction of a board of commissioners composed of 37 members, including the Director of the Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development. This bill, the California Tourism Recovery Act, would require the commission to, upon a determination by the State Department of Public Health that it is safe to resume travel in California, implement a strategic media and jobs recovery campaign known as the "Calling All Californians" program for the purpose of reversing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the travel and tourism industry in California, as specified. The bill would require the commission to report to the Legislature, on or before January 1, 2024, regarding the cost of the program and the impact of the program on the tourism industry in California. The bill would require, only upon appropriation by the Legislature, the Controller to transfer $45,000,000 to the commission for the purpose of implementing the "Calling All Californians" program.
Existing law authorizes the service of documents in a civil action by electronic means pursuant to rules adopted by the Judicial Council. Existing law authorizes a court to electronically serve any document issued by the court that is not required to be personally served on a party that has agreed or consented to accept electronic service, with the same legal effect as service by mail, except as specified. This bill would, on and after July 1, 2023, instead require the court to electronically serve those documents on a party that has agreed or consented to accept electronic service.
(1) Existing law, the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, prohibits the manufacture, sale, delivery, holding, or offer for sale of adulterated foods, beverages, or cosmetics. Existing law prescribes when a food or beverage is adulterated, including if it bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious substance that may render it injurious to the health of a person or other animal that may consume it. Existing law prescribes when a cosmetic is adulterated, including when it bears or contains a poisonous or deleterious substance that may render it injurious to users under the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling or advertisement of the cosmetic, under customary or usual conditions. The Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, among other things, regulates the labeling of food, beverages, and cosmetics and makes it a crime to distribute in commerce any food, drug, device, or cosmetic if its packaging or labeling does not conform to these provisions. Existing law also makes it unlawful for a person to disseminate any false advertisement of any food, drug, device, or cosmetic. Violation of the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law is a misdemeanor. Existing law requires a person who manufactures pet food in California to obtain a license from the State Department of Public Health. Existing law also prohibits the manufacture, sale, or delivery of a pet food ingredient or processed pet food that is adulterated and defines "adulterated" for this purpose. This bill would require a manufacturer of dietary supplements and food that includes industrial hemp to be able to demonstrate that all parts of the plant used come from a state or country that has an established and approved industrial hemp program, as defined, that inspects or regulates hemp under a food safety program or equivalent criteria to ensure safety for human or animal consumption and that the industrial hemp cultivator or grower is in good standing and compliance with the governing laws of the state or country of origin. This bill would state that a dietary supplement, food, beverage, cosmetic, or pet food is not adulterated by the inclusion of industrial hemp or cannabinoids, extracts, or derivatives from industrial hemp if those substances meet specified requirements, and would prohibit restrictions on the sale of dietary supplements, food, beverages, cosmetics, or pet food that include industrial hemp or cannabinoids, extracts, or derivatives from industrial hemp based solely on the inclusion of those substances. The bill would also prohibit a manufacturer, distributor, or seller of an industrial hemp product from including on the label, or publishing or disseminating in advertising or marketing, a health-related statement, as defined, that is untrue in any particular manner as to the effects on health of consuming products containing industrial hemp or cannabinoids, extracts, or derivatives from industrial hemp. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would create an authorization process for hemp manufacturers who produce specified products that include industrial hemp or who produce raw hemp extract, as defined, including requirements for testing and labeling on products. The bill would authorize the department to collect specified fees, which would be used, upon appropriation, to implement the program. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would also impose a $250 fee on each manufacturer who produces industrial hemp products or raw hemp extract, to be used, upon appropriation, to fund an Industrial Hemp Research Program at the University of California. The bill would require the Department of Food and Agriculture and the State Department of Public Health, in consultation with the Bureau of Cannabis Control, if necessary, to develop a process to share license, registration, cultivar, and enforcement information to facilitate compliance and enforcement against unlicensed industrial hemp manufacturers or the sale of industrial hemp that does not meet specified requirements. The bill would make communications shared between these agencies and local law enforcement for this purpose exempt from the California Public Records Act. 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. Existing law provides that, except as otherwise provided by statute, all relevant evidence is admissible. The California Constitution provides for the Right to Truth-in-Evidence, which requires a 23 vote of the Legislature to exclude any relevant evidence from any criminal proceeding, as specified. This bill would make communications shared between agencies pursuant to the above provisions official information, which may be privileged and made inadmissible in an action or proceeding, thereby requiring a 23 vote. (2) Existing law, the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) , added by Proposition 64 at the November 8, 2016, statewide general election, regulates the cultivation, distribution, transport, storage, manufacturing, testing, processing, sale, and use of marijuana for nonmedical purposes by people 21 years of age and older. The existing Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA) , among other things, consolidates the licensure and regulation of commercial medicinal and adult-use cannabis activities. Existing law, for purposes of commercial cannabis regulation, defines "cannabis" as derivatives of the cannabis plant, not including industrial hemp. Existing law defines industrial hemp, for this purpose, as cannabis plants having no more than 0.3% tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) contained in the dried flowering tops, whether growing or not; the seeds of the plant; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds, or resin produced therefrom. Industrial hemp is exempt from the provisions of MAUCRSA. AUMA authorizes the Legislature to amend the act to further the purposes and intent of the act with a 23 vote of the membership of both houses of the Legislature, except as provided. This bill would amend AUMA by changing the definition of "industrial hemp" to include cannabis plants and any part of that plant, including the seeds of the plant and all derivatives, extracts, the resin extracted from any part of the plant, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of no more than 0.3% on a dry weight basis. (3) 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. (4) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
The Planning and Zoning Law requires each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for its physical development, and the development of certain lands outside its boundaries, that includes, among other mandatory elements, a housing element. Existing law requires that the housing element include, among other things, an inventory of land suitable and available for residential development that identifies sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period and that are sufficient to provide for the jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need for all income levels, as specified. This bill would authorize a city or county to satisfy part of its requirement to identify zones suitable for residential development by adopting and implementing a multijurisdictional regional agreement. The bill would require the multijurisdictional regional agreement to clearly establish the jurisdiction that is contributing suitable land for residential development and the jurisdiction or jurisdictions that are contributing funding for that development. The bill would require that a multijurisdictional regional agreement be between 2 or more cities or counties that are located within the same county or within adjacent counties. This bill would require a jurisdiction that is a party to a multijurisdictional regional agreement under these provisions to provide specified information in its housing element, including how the multijurisdictional regional agreement will satisfy the jurisdiction's housing need for a designated income level. The bill would prohibit the jurisdictions that are a party to a multijurisdictional regional agreement from claiming an aggregate capacity in an amount greater than the actual capacity created by the housing development subject to the agreement. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2030. 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.
Existing law requires certain transportation planning agencies to prepare and adopt a regional transportation plan directed at achieving a coordinated and balanced regional transportation system. Certain of these agencies are designated under federal law as metropolitan planning organizations. Existing law requires that each regional transportation plan include a sustainable communities strategy developed to achieve greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for the automobile and light truck sector for 2020 and 2035 established by the State Air Resources Board. This bill would require that the sustainable communities strategy be developed to additionally achieve greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for the automobile and light truck sector for 2045 and 2050 and vehicle miles traveled reduction targets for 2035, 2045, and 2050 established by the board. The bill would make various conforming changes to integrate those additional targets into regional transportation plans. Existing law requires each metropolitan planning organization to adopt a public participation plan for development of the sustainable communities strategy, and to submit to the state board a description of the technical methodology it intends to use to estimate the greenhouse gas emissions from its sustainable communities strategy. Existing law encourages the metropolitan planning organization to work with the state board until the state board concludes that the technical methodology operates accurately. This bill would require, rather than encourage, the metropolitan planning organization to work with the state board for that purpose. The bill would require the metropolitan planning organization to, at least 90 days before adopting a sustainable communities strategy, submit to the state board for review a draft sustainable communities strategy, and to respond to any comments on the draft it receives from the state board. Existing law requires the metropolitan planning organization to submit its adopted sustainable communities strategy to the state board for review. This bill would require that the sustainable communities strategy be submitted within 60 days of adoption. The bill would require the state board to reject the metropolitan planning organization's determination that the strategy submitted would achieve the greenhouse gas emission vehicle miles traveled reduction targets if it determines that certain criteria are met. This bill would require each city, county, or city and county to biennially report to its metropolitan planning organization the number of housing and jobs, and transit supportive infrastructure, existing and planned, that demonstrates implementation of strategies included in the applicable sustainable communities strategy, as specified. By imposing new requirements on local agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law requires the Director of Forestry and Fire Protection to identify areas of the state as very high fire hazard severity zones based on specified criteria. Existing law requires a local agency to designate, by ordinance, very high hazard severity zones in its jurisdiction within 120 days of receiving recommendations from the director. Existing law authorizes a local agency to include areas within its jurisdiction not identified as very high fire hazard severity zones by the director as very high fire hazard severity zones following a specified finding supported by substantial evidence. Existing law requires the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection to determine, based on specified criteria, whether an area of the state is one for which the financial responsibility of preventing and suppressing fires is primarily the responsibility of the state. Existing law refers to these areas as "state responsibility areas." This bill would, in furtherance of specified state housing production, sustainability communities strategies, greenhouse gas reduction, and wildfire mitigation goals, prohibit the creation or approval of a new development, as defined, in a very high fire hazard severity zone or a state responsibility area unless there is substantial evidence that the local agency has adopted a comprehensive, necessary, and appropriate wildfire prevention and community hardening strategy to mitigate significant risks of loss, injury, or death, as specified. By imposing new duties on local governments with respect to the approval of new developments in very high fire hazard severity zones and state responsibility areas, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law, known as the Density Bonus Law, requires a city or county to provide a developer that proposes a housing development in the city or county with a density bonus and other incentives or concessions for the production of lower income housing units, or for the donation of land within the development, if the developer agrees to, among other things, construct a specified percentage of units for very low income, low-income, or moderate-income households or qualifying residents. This bill would provide a qualifying developer a supplemental height bonus and a supplemental density bonus, as specified, if the development is located on a site that meets certain criteria, including, among others, not being located in a moderate, high, or very high fire hazard severity zone, as specified. By imposing additional requirements on local governments with respect to supplemental height and density bonuses, this 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 Second Neighborhood Infill Finance and Transit Improvements Act, or NIFTI-2, authorizes a city or county to adopt a resolution to allocate its tax revenues to an enhanced infrastructure financing district, including revenues derived from local sales and use taxes imposed pursuant to the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law or transactions and use taxes imposed in accordance with the Transactions and Use Tax Law, if certain conditions are or will be met. Among those conditions, existing law includes requirements that the area financed with those funds is within 12 mile of a major transit stop, as specified, and that the boundaries of the enhanced infrastructure financing district are coterminous with the city or county that established the district. Existing law also requires the infrastructure financing plan to require specified minimum percentages of the funds to be used to develop affordable housing, as specified, and to give first priority to income-qualified households displaced from the district, as specified, and secondary priority to households with a member or members employed within 2 miles of the district. Existing law authorizes the remaining funds to be used for certain affordable housing, mixed-use, transit, or greenhouse gas emission reduction related projects or programs. This bill would revise NIFTI-2 to, among other things, remove the requirements that the area financed be within 12 mile of a major transit stop and that the boundaries of the district be coterminous with the city or county. The bill would require specified minimum percentages of the funds be used for homelessness prevention programs or development of affordable housing that is within 12 mile of a major transit stop, as specified. The bill would revise the description of tax revenue that may be allocated to a district. The bill would require first priority for the housing be given to households who were displaced from the district within the past 10 years, and secondary priority for households with a member or members who are employed within 2 miles of the housing or who live within the district and are children, elderly, or disabled. The bill would require first priority for the homelessness prevention programs to be given to households living within the district with a member or members who are employed within the district or who are children, elderly, or disabled, and secondary priority for households not living within the district with a member or members who are employed within the district or who are children, elderly, or disabled. The bill would authorize the remaining funds to be used for certain transit related projects in specified areas within a 12 mile of a major transit stop. The bill would also authorize the remaining funds to be used for certain homelessness prevention, affordable housing, enhanced transit ridership, or greenhouse gas emission reduction projects or programs throughout the district. The bill would prohibit a project receiving financing from an enhanced infrastructure financing district unless various requirements regarding the use of a skilled and trained workforce, as defined, on the project are satisfied. The bill would prescribe enforcement procedures and penalties in this regard. By requiring that a developer certify specified information with respect to these requirements, this bill would expand the crime of perjury. This bill would prohibit a city or county that allocates tax revenues to a district pursuant to NIFTI-2 from approving a development project within the district that will require the demolition of housing or certain classes of housing units unless the project will create at least as many units or comply with specified requirements, including the provision of relocation assistance and a right of first refusal in the new housing to displaced occupants, as provided. The bill would provide that these provisions do not supersede any provision of a locally adopted ordinance that places greater restrictions on the demolition of residential dwelling units or the subdivision of residential rental units or that requires greater relocation assistance to displaced households. This bill would authorize a district to receive funds, real property, or other in-kind resources from private persons, the state, or the federal government. The bill would also authorize a district to receive real property or other in-kind resources from the city or county. Existing law establishes the Department of Housing and Community Development and prescribes its powers and duties. Existing law establishes in state government the Strategic Growth Council and requires the council to, among other duties, manage and award grants and loans to support the planning and development of sustainable communities. This bill would require the Department of Housing and Community Development, upon appropriation, to disburse each year matching funds to a district formed by a city and county, or jointly formed by a city and a county, based on the funds and other resources contributed by those local governments, as specified. The bill would require the department to administer this matching fund program in consultation with the Strategic Growth Council and the Homeless Coordinating and Financing Council. The bill would prescribe requirements for applications for state matching funds and their use and would authorize the council to establish other requirements in this regard. The bill would also prescribe requirements for the department in approving these applications, including that it approve all plans for qualifying homelessness prevention programs and affordable housing requirements. The bill would require districts that receive funds to provide reports to the department and, under certain circumstances, to develop a corrective action plan based on council recommendations. The bill would require the department to issue findings if a district fails to provide or comply with a corrective action plan and to stop providing funds, and prohibit application for additional funds, if the district has not satisfied funding requirements. The bill would condition a district's receipt of any matching funds on compliance with specified requirements by the constituent entities of the district. Existing law exempts the adoption of an enhanced infrastructure financing plan that allocates tax revenues pursuant to NIFTI-2 from certain provisions generally applicable to enhanced infrastructure financing districts, and instead requires the district to follow specific notice, protest, and election proceedings for the adoption, review, and amendment of the enhanced infrastructure financing plan. With regard to the review and amendment of the plan, existing law requires the public finance authority to adopt annually, after holding a public hearing, a report containing, among other information, a description of the projects undertaken in the fiscal year and a chart comparing the actual revenues and expenses of the authority to the budgeted revenues and expenses. Existing law requires the authority every 10 years at that public hearing to conduct a protest proceeding to consider whether the landowners and residents within the district wish to present oral or written protests against the enhanced infrastructure financing district, as specified. This bill, instead, would require the authority every 15 years at that public hearing to consider whether the landowners and residents within the district wish to propose amendments to the plan, and would authorize the authority to consider and adopt amendments to the plan at the conclusion of the hearing. After considering any amendments, the bill would require the authority to conduct a protest proceeding to consider whether the landowners or residents within the district wish to present oral or written protests against the enhanced infrastructure financing district undertaking new projects under the plan, as specified. The bill would make other related changes. 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 authorizes the legislative body of a city or a county to designate a proposed enhanced infrastructure financing district, with a governing body referred to as the public financing authority, to finance public capital facilities and specified other projects that provide significant benefits to the district or surrounding community. Existing law requires the public financing authority to prepare and adopt an infrastructure financing plan and a resolution to form the district, as provided. Existing law authorizes a district to finance a mixed-income housing development if the district is only financing units restricted to occupancy by persons of very low, low, or moderate incomes or onsite facilities for childcare, after school care, and social services for tenants of the restricted units. This bill would authorize a district to also finance units in a mixed-income housing development that are allocated to the jurisdictions in the district pursuant to regional housing needs allocations determined in accordance with housing element laws. This bill would authorize, upon fulfilling certain requirements, a district to acquire, as defined, any restrictive covenant or easement of underutilized or deteriorated retail property identified in an infrastructure financing plan that is preventing the use of the property in a manner that advances public use, as described by the bill. The bill would authorize the authority to acquire the real property and any interest in the property by eminent domain, so long as the activities that would produce the benefit are defined as a public use for eminent domain purposes. The bill would make the acquired restrictive covenants and easements void and unenforceable upon acquisition, and would require the authority to provide specified notice to holders of interests that would be made void and unenforceable. The bill would require the authority to conduct an appraisal process to determine the fair market value of the prospective real property and covenants and restrictions, and to establish and identify through an independent community benefits analysis the value of the private and public contributions, to be considered at a specified infrastructure finance hearing. The bill would authorize the district to finance costs related to those powers. The bill would make related findings and declarations.
Existing law, the Public Employees' Retirement Law (PERL) , creates the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) , which provides defined benefits to its members based on age at retirement, service credit, and final compensation. PERL vests the Board of Administration of PERS with management and control of the system. Existing law, the Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA) , which is administered by the Board of Administration of PERS, governs the funding and provision of postemployment health care benefits for eligible retired public employees and their families. PEMHCA authorizes an employee or annuitant, as those terms are defined, of the state to enroll in a health benefit plan approved or maintained by the Board of Administration of PERS. The act generally requires the state and each employee or annuitant to contribute a portion of the cost of providing the benefit coverage afforded under the approved health benefit plan in which the employee or annuitant is enrolled. PEMHCA also prohibits, among other things, employees, annuitants, and family members who become eligible to enroll on or after January 1, 1985, in Part A and Part B of Medicare from being enrolled in a basic health benefit plan. PEMHCA, however, permits the employee, annuitant, or family member to enroll in a Medicare health benefit plan if they are enrolled in Part A and Part B of Medicare. PEMHCA establishes the Public Employees' Contingency Reserve Fund for the purpose of funding health benefits and funding administrative expenses. This fund is continuously appropriated, except with respect to administrative purposes, as specified. PEMHCA also establishes the Annuitants' Health Care Coverage Fund, which is continuously appropriated, for the purpose of prefunding health care coverage for annuitants, including administrative costs. This bill would preclude a person who has retired under PERS and who obtains work with a subsequent employer from receiving any health benefits offered under PEMHCA if the person's subsequent employer offers health care coverage that provides reasonably comparable benefits. The bill would grant the person reinstatement rights upon termination of employment with the subsequent employer. The bill would authorize the board to request information regarding employment and health care coverage offered by a person's subsequent employer. The bill would also prohibit, except as provided and by January 1, 2023, persons who have retired under a public retirement system, as defined, annuitants of a public retirement system, and their beneficiaries who become eligible to enroll on or after January 1, 1985, in Part A and Part B of Medicare from being enrolled in a basic health benefit plan, as defined, offered by the public retirement system.