Existing law prohibits a full-service restaurant, as specified, from providing single-use plastic straws, as defined, to consumers unless requested by the consumer, and places the duty to enforce this prohibition on specified state and local health and environmental health officers and their agents. Existing law specifies that the first and 2nd violations of these provisions result in a notice of violation, and any subsequent violation is an infraction punishable by a fine of $25 for each day the full-service restaurant is in violation, but not to exceed an annual total of $300. This bill would instead prohibit a food facility from providing any single-use foodware accessory or standard condiment, as defined, to a consumer unless requested by the consumer, as provided. The bill would prohibit those items from being bundled or packaged in a way that prohibits the consumer from taking only the item desired. The bill would authorize a food facility to ask a drive-through consumer, or a food facility located within a public airport to ask a walk-through consumer, if the consumer wants a single-use foodware accessory in specified circumstances. The bill would require a food facility using a third-party food delivery platform to list on its menu the availability of single-use foodware accessories and standard condiments and only provide those items when requested, as provided. The bill would exclude from these requirements correctional institutions, health care facilities, residential care facilities, and public and private school cafeterias. This bill would require a city, county, or city and county, on or before June 1, 2022, to authorize an enforcement agency to enforce these requirements. The bill would specify that the first and 2nd violations of these provisions result in a notice of violation, and any subsequent violation is an infraction punishable by a fine of $25 for each day in violation, but not to exceed an annual total of $300. By creating a new crime and imposing additional duties on local governing bodies, 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Sponsored bills
The California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act, which is administered by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, is established to promote beverage container recycling and provides for the payment, collection, and distribution of certain payments and fees based on minimum refund values established for beverage containers. The act requires a distributor of beverage containers to pay to the department the redemption payment for every beverage container sold or transferred to a dealer for deposit into the California Beverage Container Recycling Fund. The act defines "recycling" for its purposes as the reuse or refilling of empty beverage containers, or the process of sorting, cleansing, treating, and reconstituting empty postfilled beverage containers for the purpose of using the altered form. The act requires the department to certify processors and requires certified processors to comply with specified requirements for operation, including, among others, taking the actions necessary and approved by the department to cancel containers to render them unfit for redemption. A violation of the act is an infraction. This bill would authorize the department to authorize a processor to satisfy that cancellation requirement by washing a reusable beverage container or transferring a reusable beverage container for subsequent washing to a processor approved by the department. The bill would authorize the department to certify additional models of processors that are determined necessary to implement that provision and would require, by January 1, 2024, the Director of Resources Recycling and Recovery to adopt by regulation the requirements and standards for the certification and operation of those processors, as specified. By creating crimes relating to reusable beverage containers, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would define "reusable beverage container" for purposes of the act to mean a glass beverage container with a refund value established pursuant to the act and that is processed by a processor for subsequent washing for refill and sale by a beverage manufacturer. 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 Hospice Licensure Act of 1990 requires a person, political subdivision of the state, or other governmental agency to obtain a license from the State Department of Public Health to provide hospice services to an individual who is experiencing the last phase of life due to a terminal disease, as defined, and their family, except as provided. The act also provides for the renewal of a license. The act imposes criminal penalties on any person who violates any provision of the act or any rule or regulation promulgated under the act. This bill would impose, beginning on January 1, 2022, a moratorium on the department issuing a new license to provide hospice services, unless the department makes a written finding that an applicant for a new license, or with a license application pending on January 1, 2022, has shown a demonstrable need for hospice services in the area where the applicant proposes to operate based on the concentration of all existing hospice services in that area. The moratorium would end either 365 days from the date that the California State Auditor publishes a report on hospice licensure or when these provisions are repealed on January 1, 2027, whichever is soonest. The bill would prohibit these provisions from being deemed to modify the authority of the department to renew a license pursuant to the act.
The California Constitution generally limits ad valorem taxes on real property to 1% of the full cash value of that property, defined as the county assessor's valuation of real property as shown on the 1975–76 tax bill and, thereafter, the appraised value of the property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership occurs after the 1975 assessment, subject to an annual inflation adjustment not to exceed 2%. Existing property tax law provides that the purchase or transfer of the principal residence, and the first $1,000,000 of other real property, of a transferor in the case of a transfer between parents and their children, or between grandparents and their grandchildren if all the parents of those grandchildren are deceased, is not a "purchase" or "change in ownership" for purposes of determining the "full cash value" of property for taxation. Existing provisions of the California Constitution, adopted as Proposition 19 by the voters at the November 3, 2020, general election, beginning on and after February 16, 2021, exclude from the terms "purchase" and "change in ownership" for purposes of determining the "full cash value" of property the purchase or transfer of a family home or family farm, as those terms are defined, of the transferor in the case of a transfer between parents and their children, or between grandparents and their grandchildren if all the parents of those grandchildren are deceased, as specified. In the case of a transfer of a family home, existing law requires that the property continue as the family home of the transferee. Existing law authorizes, if certain conditions are fulfilled, the new taxable value, defined as the base year value determined as provided above plus any inflation adjustment, of the purchased or transferred family home or family farm to be the sum of (1) the taxable value of the property, subject to adjustment, as determined as of the date immediately prior to the transfer or purchase, and (2) a portion, if any, of the assessed value of the property, as specified. In the case of property tax benefits provided to a family home under these provisions, existing law requires the transferee to claim the homeowner's or disabled veteran's exemption within one year of the transfer. This bill would implement these newly adopted constitutional provisions, as provided. The bill would require that the principal residence transferred be the principal residence of the transferor, and that it become the principal residence of the transferee within one year of the transfer. The bill would require, in order to claim the exclusion, that a claim be filed with the assessor. Because the bill would require county assessors to provide new services in relation to family farms, it would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the State Board of Equalization to prescribe a form for claiming eligibility for the exclusion to be filed as provided. The bill would require the State Board of Equalization to adopt emergency regulations in order to implement these provisions, as provided. The bill would also provide that a claim filed under this section is not a public document and is not subject to public inspection, except to specified parties. Existing property tax law authorizes, pursuant to constitutional authorization, a person over 55 years of age, or any severely and permanently disabled person, who resides in property eligible for the homeowners' exemption to transfer the base year value of the property to a replacement dwelling, subject to certain conditions and limitations. Existing provisions of the California Constitution, adopted as Proposition 19, beginning on and after April 1, 2021, instead authorizes an owner who is over 55 years of age, severely disabled, or a victim of a wildfire or natural disaster to transfer the taxable value, defined as the base year value determined as provided above plus any inflation adjustment, of a primary residence eligible for either the homeowner's exemption or the disabled veteran's exemption to a replacement primary residence located anywhere in this state, regardless of the value of the replacement primary residence, that is purchased or newly constructed as that person's principal residence within 2 years of the sale of the original primary residence. Under the California Constitution, a person who is 55 years of age or severely disabled may transfer the taxable value of their primary residence up to 3 times. The California Constitution requires that a person seeking to transfer the taxable value of a primary residence under these provisions file an application, containing specified information, with the assessor of the county in which the replacement primary residence is located. This bill, in accordance with the above-described constitutional provisions, on and after April 1, 2021, would authorize any person who is over 55 years of age, any severely and permanently disabled person, or a victim of wildfire or natural disaster who resides in property that is eligible for the homeowner's exemption or the disabled veteran's exemption to transfer the taxable value of that property to a replacement dwelling that is purchased or newly constructed as a principal residence within 2 years of the sale of the original property, as provided. The bill would require that any claim be filed within 3 years of the date that the replacement dwelling was purchased or the new construction of the replacement dwelling was completed. The bill would limit a person to 3 transfers of taxable value under these provisions, except with respect to claims filed by victims of wildfire or natural disaster, and would require each county assessor to report quarterly to the State Board of Equalization specified information regarding all approved claims. By adding to the duties of local tax officials with respect to the transfer of the taxable value of real property, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the State Board of Equalization to adopt emergency regulations in order to implement these provisions, as provided. The bill would also provide that a claim filed under this section is not a public document and is not subject to public inspection, except to specified parties. 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 the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
Existing law requires the Director of Parks and Recreation, upon the adoption of a specified resolution by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles, to grant to the County of Los Angeles, in trust for the people of California, all of the rights, title, and interest of the State of California in specified state beach property, including a portion of Manhattan State Beach. Existing law requires the grant to be made upon the express condition that the County of Los Angeles use, operate, and maintain the granted lands and improvements only for public recreation and beach purposes in perpetuity. Existing law subjects the transfer of those rights, title, and interest in the granted lands to specified restrictions, including prohibitions on new or expanded commercial development on those granted lands and on the sale, transfer, or encumbrance of those granted lands. This bill would exclude specified property located in Manhattan State Beach, commonly known as Bruce's Beach, from the requirement that the property be used only for public recreation and beach purposes in perpetuity and from those specified restrictions. The bill would authorize the property to be sold, transferred, or encumbered upon terms and conditions determined by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles to be in the best interest of the county and the general public. The bill would require the Director of Parks and Recreation, on or before December 31, 2021, to execute an amendment to a specified deed that incorporates the exclusion of that property from that requirement and those restrictions. Under the California Constitution, all property is taxable and must be assessed at the same percentage of fair market value, unless otherwise provided in the California Constitution or federal law. The California Constitution limits the maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property to 1% of its full cash value and defines "full cash value" for these purposes. Existing property tax law, in accordance with these provisions, defines "full cash value" of real property to mean the fair market value of the property as of the 1975 lien date or, for property which is purchased, is newly constructed, or changes ownership after the 1975 lien date, the date on which the purchase or change in ownership occurs, or the date on which new construction is completed, and if uncompleted, on the lien date. Under existing property tax law, the purchase price, as defined, of real property is rebuttably presumed to be the "full cash value" or "fair market value" if the terms of the transaction were negotiated at arms length between a knowledgeable transferor and transferee neither of which could take advantage of the exigencies of the other. This bill, for purposes of determining the full cash value of Bruce's Beach upon its sale, transfer, or encumbrance as authorized by the bill's provisions, would require that the fair market value of that land be its full cash value as of the 1975 lien date, adjusted by an inflation factor determined as provided. The Personal Income Tax Law and the Corporation Tax Law, in modified conformity with federal law, generally define "gross income" as income from whatever source derived, except as specifically excluded, and provides various exclusions from gross income for purposes of computing tax liability. This bill, subject to certain limitations, would provide that, under both the Personal Income Tax Law and the Corporation Tax Law, a recipient's gross income does not include any sale, transfer, or encumbrance of Bruce's Beach, or income directly derived from that sale, transfer, or encumbrance, in accordance with the procedures described above for the taxable year in which the land is sold, transferred, or encumbered. Existing law, the Documentary Transfer Tax Act, authorizes the board of supervisors of any county or city and county, and the legislative body of any city within the county, to impose by ordinance a tax, at a specified rate, on each deed, instrument, or writing by which any lands, tenements, or other realty sold within the county is granted, assigned, transferred, or otherwise conveyed to, or vested in, the purchaser or any other person, if the consideration or value of the interest or property conveyed or vested exceeds $100. Existing law provides various exemptions from a tax imposed by a county, city and county, or city under these provisions. This bill would exempt any sale, transfer, or encumbrance of the portion of Bruce's Beach in accordance with the procedures described above from a documentary transfer tax imposed pursuant to the Documentary Transfer Tax Act. This bill would state that its provisions are severable. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for Bruce's Beach. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law, the Guardianship-Conservatorship Law generally establishes the standards and procedures for the appointment and termination of an appointment for a guardian or conservator of a person, an estate, or both. Existing law, the Professional Fiduciaries Act, establishes the Professional Fiduciaries Bureau within the Department of Consumer Affairs, and requires the bureau to license and regulate professional fiduciaries. The act defines a "professional fiduciary" as, among other things, a person who acts as a guardian or conservator of the person, the estate, or the person and estate, for 2 or more individuals at the same time who are not related to the professional fiduciary or to each other. Existing law requires the court to be guided by what appears to be the best interests of the proposed conservatee in selecting a conservator, and sets forth an order of preference for appointment if there are multiple persons equally qualified to be the conservator. This bill would require a professional fiduciary with an internet website to post a schedule of the range of fees on their internet website and would require a professional fiduciary without an internet website to provide that schedule, as specified. The bill would require the bureau to impose specified sanctions on a professional fiduciary's license upon a finding of a violation of applicable statutes or regulations, a breach of fiduciary duty where there is a finding of serious financial or physical harm or mental suffering, or that the professional fiduciary has engaged in defined acts of abuse, as specified. If the court finds that a conservator who is a professional fiduciary has abused a conservatee, the bill would make the conservator liable for a civil penalty of up to $10,000 for each separate act of abuse, payable to the estate of the conservatee. The bill would make a conservator who is not a professional fiduciary who abuses a conservatee liable for civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each separate act of abuse, payable to the estate of the conservatee. This bill would require the bureau to investigate specified allegations and would authorize the bureau to impose upon a professional fiduciary, as a sanction for violation of their duties, a restitution order, as specified. The bill would require the bureau to revoke a professional fiduciary's license if the person knowingly, intentionally, or willfully violated a legal duty or breached a fiduciary duty to a client or if the person caused serious physical or financial harm or mental suffering to a client through gross negligence or gross incompetence. Existing law conditioned upon an appropriation by the Legislature a requirement that a court investigator undertake specified actions regarding a proposed conservatee, including interviewing the proposed conservatee. Existing law authorizes specified persons to petition the court to take specified actions regarding a conservatorship. This bill would, also contingent upon an appropriation, revise the information that a court investigator is required to gather and review and the determinations the investigator is required to make. The bill would authorize an interested person, as defined, with personal knowledge of a conservatee to petition the court to investigate an allegation of physical abuse or financial abuse of a conservatee by a conservator, and would require the court to investigate those allegations that establish a prima facie case of abuse. Existing 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, unless the counsel cannot provide zealous advocacy or has a conflict of interest. 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, independent advocate, observing specified legal requirements. Existing law prescribes the process for petitioning to terminate a conservatorship or limited conservatorship or to appoint a new conservator. Existing law specifies a process for hearings on the termination or revision of conservatorships and the review of conservatorships. This bill would, contingent upon an appropriation by the Legislature in many cases, make various changes to those processes. The bill would require that the court, at specified hearings, consider terminating the conservatorship and would authorize the court in specified circumstances to modify the conservatorship so that the conservatorship is the least restrictive alternative needed for the protection of the conservatee. Existing law prohibits a guardian or trustee who is not a trust company from hiring or referring business to an entity in which the guardian or trustee has a financial interest, except upon authorization of the court. Existing law prohibits compensating a guardian or trustee from the estate for the costs or fees they incurred in unsuccessfully opposing a petition or other action made by or on behalf of a ward or conservatee, unless the court determines the opposition was made in good faith, based on the best interests of the ward or conservatee. If the court removes the guardian or conservatee for cause, existing law requires the court to award the petitioner for that removal the costs of the petition and other expenses and costs of litigation, unless the court determines the guardian or conservator acted in good faith, based on the best interests of the ward or conservatee. This bill would prohibit a guardian or trustee who is not a trust company, or an employee of such a guardian or conservator, to hire or refer business to an entity in which they have a financial interest. The bill would prohibit a guardian or conservator from being compensated from the estate for any costs or fees that they incurred in unsuccessfully defending their fee request petition, opposing a petition, or any other unsuccessful request or action made by, or on behalf of, the ward or conservatee. The bill would authorize the court to reduce the compensation requested in the petition if the court determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defense was made in good faith, was based on the best interest of the ward or conservatee, and did not harm the ward or conservatee. The bill would require the court to award the costs of the petition and other expenses and costs of litigation to a successful petitioner if a guardian or conservatee is removed for cause. The bill would require the Judicial Council to report to the Legislature, on or before January 1, 2024, regarding specified findings and recommendations on court effectiveness in conservatorship cases.
Existing law requires county elections officials to mail a ballot to every registered voter for all elections proclaimed or conducted prior to January 1, 2022. Existing law requires county elections officials to use a specified Secretary of State vote by mail tracking system or a system that meets the same specifications. This bill would extend the requirements to mail a ballot to every registered voter to all elections and apply them to all local elections officials. This bill would require a vote by mail tracking system to be accessible to voters with disabilities. The bill would also make various conforming and technical changes. Existing law requires county elections officials to permit voters with a disability, and military or overseas voters, to cast a ballot using a certified remote accessible vote by mail system, and required county elections officials to permit any voter to cast a ballot using a certified remote accessible vote by mail system for the November 3, 2020, statewide general election. This bill would require county elections officials to permit any voter to cast a ballot using a certified remote accessible vote by mail system for any election. Under existing law, a vote by mail ballot is timely cast if it is voted on or before election day and, if returned by mail, received by the voter's elections official via the United States Postal Service, or a bona fide private mail delivery company, no later than 3 days after election day. This bill would provide instead that a vote by mail ballot is timely cast if it is voted on or before election day and, if returned by mail, received no later than 7 days after election day. This bill would authorize an elections official to consider any information from the United States Postal Service or a bona fide private mail delivery company that indicates the date on which the ballot was mailed, in order to determine whether a vote by mail ballot was timely cast. Existing law authorizes a jurisdiction in which vote by mail ballots are cast to begin processing vote by mail ballot return envelopes 29 days before the election. Existing law authorizes a jurisdiction having the necessary computer capability to start processing vote by mail ballots on the 15th business day before the election, except, for the statewide general election held on November 3, 2020, these jurisdictions were authorized to start processing the ballots on the 29th day before the election. Existing law authorizes all other jurisdictions to start processing vote by mail ballots at 5 p.m. on the day before the election. Existing law authorizes a county elections official to establish vote by mail ballot drop-off locations, as defined. Existing law authorizes a county to conduct any election as an all-mailed ballot election under certain specified conditions. This bill would require any county that does not conduct an all-mailed ballot election to provide at least two vote by mail ballot drop-off locations within the jurisdiction where the election is held, or at least one vote by mail ballot drop-off location for every 30,000 registered voters within the jurisdiction where the election is held, whichever results in more vote by mail ballot drop-off locations. In a jurisdiction with fewer than 30,000 registered voters, the bill would require at least one vote by mail ballot drop-off location, and would require the elections official to make a reasonable effort to provide a ballot drop-off location in the jurisdiction where the election is held. This bill would require the operation of vote by mail ballot drop-off locations to meet certain specified criteria. This bill would authorize a jurisdiction having the necessary computer capability to start processing vote by mail ballots the 29th day before any election. By requiring local elections officials to mail a ballot to every registered voter, and to take other actions, 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.
Existing law provides for various memorials and monuments on the grounds of the State Capitol. Existing law requires the Department of Finance, subject to the approval of the Capitol Building and Planning Commission, to acquire and do all acts necessary to erect and maintain a monument to Father Junípero Serra on the grounds of the State Capitol. Existing law requires the Department of General Services to maintain state buildings and grounds. This bill would delete the requirement relating to the monument to Father Junípero Serra. The bill would authorize tribal nations in the Sacramento, California, region, in consultation with the Department of General Services, to plan, construct, and maintain a monument to the California Native people of the Sacramento, California, region on the grounds of the State Capitol. The bill would require the tribal nations to submit the plan for the monument to the Joint Rules Committee for its review and approval. The bill would prohibit the tribal nations from beginning construction of the monument until the Joint Rules Committee approves and adopts the plan and the Joint Rules Committee and the Department of Finance determine that sufficient private funding is available to construct and maintain the monument. The bill would require the planning, construction, and maintenance of the monument to be funded exclusively through private funding from the tribal nations in the Sacramento, California, region.
Existing law, the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, which is administered by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, regulates the application, issuance, and suspension of alcoholic beverage licenses. Existing law authorizes licensed winegrowers and brandy manufacturers to exercise their license privileges away from their licensed premises at, or from, branch offices or warehouses or United States bonded wine cellars located away from the place of production or manufacture, subject to specified exceptions. One of the exceptions to this authorization is the sale or delivery of wine to consumers in containers supplied, furnished, or sold by the consumer. This bill would delete the exception to the authorization applicable to winemakers, as described above, and would thus allow them to sell and deliver wine to consumers in containers supplied, furnished, or sold by the consumer away from their licensed premises.
This measure would urge the President of the United States to protect student loan borrowers by taking executive action to cancel up to $50,000 of student loan debt per borrower.