Sen. Anthony Portantino

Existing law generally requires a county from which a person is committed to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice, to pay to the state an annual rate of $24,000 while the person remains under the direct supervision of the division or remains cared for and supported at the expense of the division. This bill would increase that annual rate to $125,000 if the offense on which the commitment is based, had it been filed in a court of criminal jurisdiction at the time of adjudication, had a maximum aggregate sentence of fewer than 7 years or if the offense on which the commitment is based occurred when the person was 15 years of age or younger.

Existing law, the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act, requires the State Department of Developmental Services to contract with regional centers to provide services and supports to individuals with developmental disabilities and their families. Existing law defines developmental disability for these purposes to include, among other things, autism. Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care and makes a willful violation of the act a crime. Existing law also provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Department of Insurance. Existing law requires a health care service plan contract or a health insurance policy to provide coverage for behavioral health treatment for pervasive developmental disorder or autism, and defines "behavioral health treatment" to mean specified services and treatment programs, including treatment provided pursuant to a treatment plan that is prescribed by a qualified autism service provider and administered either by a qualified autism service provider or by a qualified autism service professional or qualified autism service paraprofessional who is supervised as specified. Existing law defines a "qualified autism service provider" to refer to a person who is certified or licensed and a "qualified autism service professional" to refer to a person who meets specified educational, training, and other requirements and is supervised and employed by a qualified autism service provider. Existing law defines a "qualified autism service paraprofessional" to mean an unlicensed and uncertified individual who meets specified educational, training, and other criteria, is supervised by a qualified autism service provider or a qualified autism service professional, and is employed by the qualified autism service provider. Existing law also requires a qualified autism service provider to design, in connection with the treatment plan, an intervention plan that describes, among other information, the parent participation needed to achieve the plan's goals and objectives, as specified. Under existing law, these coverage requirements provide an exception for specialized health care service plans or health insurance policies that do not cover mental health or behavioral health services, accident only, specified disease, hospital indemnity, or Medicare supplement health insurance policies, and health care service plans and health insurance policies in the Medi-Cal program. Existing federal law, the federal Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (MHPAEA) , requires group health plans and health insurance issuers that provide both medical and surgical benefits and mental health or substance use disorder benefits to ensure that financial requirements and treatment limitations applicable to mental health or substance use disorder benefits are no more restrictive than the predominant requirements or limitations applied to substantially all medical and surgical benefits. Existing state law subjects nongrandfathered individual and small group health care service plan contracts and health insurance policies that provide coverage for essential health benefits to those provisions of the MHPAEA. This bill would revise the definition of behavioral health treatment to require the services and treatment programs provided to be based on behavioral, developmental, relationship-based, or other evidence-based models. The bill would remove the exception for health care service plans and health insurance policies in the Medi-Cal program, consistent with the MHPAEA. This bill also would expand the definition of a "qualified autism service professional" to include behavioral service providers who meet specified educational and professional or work experience qualifications. The bill would revise the definition of a "qualified autism service paraprofessional" by deleting the reference to an unlicensed and uncertified individual and by requiring the individual to comply with revised educational and training, or professional, requirements. The bill would also revise the definitions of both a qualified autism service professional and a qualified autism service paraprofessional to include the requirement that these individuals complete a background check. This bill would require the intervention plan designed by the qualified autism service provider to include parent or caregiver participation, when clinically appropriate, that is individualized to the patient and takes into account the ability of the parent or caregiver to participate in therapy sessions and other recommended activities, as specified. The bill would specify that the lack of parent or caregiver participation shall not be used to deny or reduce medically necessary services and that the setting, location, or time of treatment not be used as the only reason to deny medically necessary services. Because a willful violation of the bill's provisions by a health care service plan would be a crime, 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.

(1) The federal Clean Air Act regulates the discharge of air pollutants into the atmosphere. The federal Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of pollutants into water. The federal Safe Drinking Water Act establishes drinking water standards for drinking water systems. The federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 generally prohibits activities affecting threatened and endangered species listed pursuant to that act unless authorized by a permit from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service, as appropriate. Existing state law regulates the discharge of air pollutants into the atmosphere. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act regulates the discharge of pollutants into the waters of the state. The California Safe Drinking Water Act establishes standards for drinking water and regulates drinking water systems. The California Endangered Species Act requires the Fish and Game Commission to establish a list of endangered species and a list of threatened species, and generally prohibits the taking of those species. This bill would, until January 20, 2025, require specified agencies to take prescribed actions regarding certain federal requirements and standards pertaining to air, water, and protected species, as specified. By imposing new duties on local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would revise the enforcement provisions of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, as provided. (2) Existing law provides for the enforcement of laws regulating the discharge of pollutants into the atmosphere and waters of the state. Existing law provides for the enforcement of drinking water standards. Existing law provides for the enforcement of the California Endangered Species Act. This bill would, until January 20, 2025, authorize a person acting in the public interest to bring an action to enforce certain standards if specified conditions are satisfied. (3) Existing federal law, including the federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, and the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, generally establishes standards for workers' health and safety. Existing state law, including the California Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973, generally establishes standards for workers' health and safety. This bill would, until January 20, 2025, require specified agencies to take prescribed actions regarding certain requirements and standards pertaining to workers' health and safety. (4) Existing law makes it unlawful to take a bird, mammal, fish, reptile, or amphibian, except as authorized by law. This bill would make it unlawful for a person in California to transport, sell, offer for sale, possess with the intent to sell, receive, acquire, or purchase any fish, wildlife, or plant that was taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law, treaty, regulation, policy, or finding of the United States with regard to national or international trade of fish, wildlife, or plants in effect on January 19, 2017. The bill would make these provisions inoperative on January 20, 2025, and would repeal them on January 1, 2026. Under existing law, a violation of the Fish and Game Code is a crime. Because the above provision would be part of the Fish and Game Code, a violation of which would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (5) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that 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.

Existing property tax law requires the county auditor, in each fiscal year, to allocate property tax revenue to local jurisdictions in accordance with specified formulas and procedures, subject to certain modifications. Existing law requires an annual reallocation of property tax revenue from local agencies in each county to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) in that county for allocation to specified educational entities. Existing law authorizes certain local agencies to form an enhanced infrastructure financing district, affordable housing authority, transit village development district, or community revitalization and investment authority for purposes of, among other things, infrastructure, affordable housing, and economic revitalization. This bill would establish in state government the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program, which would be administered by the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Committee. The bill would authorize a city, county, city and county, joint powers agency, enhanced infrastructure financing district, affordable housing authority, community revitalization and investment authority, transit village development district, or a combination of those entities, to apply to the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Committee to participate in the program and would authorize the committee to approve or deny plans for projects meeting specific criteria. The bill would also authorize certain local agencies to establish an affordable housing and community development investment agency and authorize an agency to apply for funding under the program and issue bonds, as provided, to carry out a project under the program. The bill would require the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Committee to adopt guidelines for plans. Subject to the Legislature enacting a budget bill for the applicable fiscal year that specifies the amount for the committee to allocate pursuant to the program, the bill would require the committee to approve no more than $200,000,000 per year from July 1, 2021, to June 30, 2026, and $250,000,000 per year from July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2030, in transfers from a county's ERAF for applicants for plans approved pursuant to this program. This bill would provide that eligible projects include, among other things, the predevelopment, development, acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of workforce and affordable housing, certain transit-oriented development, and projects promoting strong neighborhoods. The bill would require the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Committee, upon approval of a plan and subject to specified conditions, to issue an order directing the county auditor to transfer an amount of ad valorem property tax revenue that is equal to the affordable housing and community development investment amount approved by the committee, except as provided, from the county's ERAF. The bill would require the county auditor to either deposit that amount into the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Fund, which this bill would create in the treasury of each county, or, if the applicant is a specified type of authority or special district to transfer to the city or county that created the authority or district an amount of property tax revenue equal to the amount approved by the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Committee for that authority or district. The bill would require the city or county that created the district to, upon receipt, transfer those funds to the authority or district in an amount equal to the affordable housing and community development investment amount for that authority or district. By imposing additional duties on local officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize applicants to use approved amounts to incur debt or issue bonds or other financing to support an approved project. The bill also would require each applicant that has received funding to submit annual reports, as specified, and would require the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Committee to provide a report to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, if it approves funding under the program, that includes certain project information. Section 8 of Article XVI of the California Constitution sets forth a formula for computing the minimum amount of revenues that the state is required to appropriate for the support of school districts and community college districts for each fiscal year. This bill would require the Director of Finance to adjust the percentage of General Fund revenues appropriated for school districts and community college districts for these purposes in a manner that ensures that the transfers from a county's ERAF pursuant to the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program have no net fiscal impact upon the total amount of the General Fund revenue and local property tax revenue allocated to school districts and community college districts pursuant to Section 8 of Article XVI of the California Constitution, as specified. 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 governing board of each school district to fix the length of the schoolday for the several grades and classes of the schools maintained by the school district in accordance with specified provisions of law. This bill would require the schoolday for middle schools and high schools, including those operated as charter schools, to begin no earlier than 8:00 a.m. and 8:30 a.m., respectively, by July 1, 2022, or the date on which a school district's or charter school's respective collective bargaining agreement that is operative on January 1, 2020, expires, whichever is later, except for rural school districts. To the extent the bill imposes new duties on school districts and charter schools, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would encourage the State Department of Education to post specified information on its internet website, including research on the impact of sleep deprivation on adolescents and the benefits of a later school start time, and to advise school districts and charter schools of this posting. 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 school districts and county offices of education to be responsible for the overall development of a comprehensive school safety plan for each of its schools operating a kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive. Existing law requires, except as provided for a small school district, the schoolsite council of a school to write and develop the comprehensive school safety plan relevant to the needs and resources of that particular school. Existing law requires the comprehensive school safety plan to include certain things, including the development of certain school safety policies and procedures, including procedures for conducting tactical responses to criminal incidents. This bill would require the State Department of Education to collect, and local educational agencies to provide, data pertaining to lockdown or multioption response drills conducted at schoolsites within school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools, as provided. To the extent the bill would impose additional duties on a local educational agency, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the department to conduct, or contract to conduct, a study that identifies, among other things, best practices for age-appropriate drills. The bill would require the data and the study to be submitted to the Governor and relevant policy committees of the Legislature on or before November 1, 2021, as provided. 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 delegates to the Fish and Game Commission the power to regulate the taking or possession of birds, mammals, fish, amphibians, and reptiles, except as provided. Under existing law, a mammal occurring naturally in California that is not a game mammal, fully protected mammal, or fur-bearing mammal is a nongame mammal and may not be taken or possessed except as provided in the Fish and Game Code or in accordance with regulations adopted by the commission. Under existing law, bobcats are not designated as a game mammal, fully protected mammal, or fur-bearing mammal. Existing law prohibits, or authorizes the commission to prohibit, the trapping of bobcats under certain circumstances, as specified. Existing law authorizes any owner or tenant of land or property that is being damaged or destroyed, or is in danger of being damaged or destroyed, by specified animals, not including bobcats, to apply to the Department of Fish and Wildlife for a depredation permit to kill the animals. Existing law requires the department, upon satisfactory evidence of the damage or destruction, actual or immediately threatened, to issue a revocable depredation permit for the taking and disposition of the animals under regulations adopted by the commission. Existing law authorizes nongame mammals, among other specified species, that are found to be injuring growing crops or other property to be taken at any time or in any manner by specified persons in accordance with the Fish and Game Code and regulations adopted pursuant to that code. Existing law authorizes the department to enter into cooperative agreements with any state or federal agency for the purpose of controlling harmful nongame mammals. Existing law also authorizes the department to enter into cooperative contracts with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service for the control of nongame mammals. Under existing law, a violation of the Fish and Game Code is a crime. This bill would make it unlawful to hunt, trap, or otherwise take a bobcat, except under specified circumstances, including under a depredation permit. The bill, upon appropriation of funds by the Legislature for this purpose, commencing January 1, 2025, would authorize the commission to open a bobcat hunting season in any area determined by the commission to require a hunt, as specified. The bill would prohibit the take of bobcats under the above-described authorizations for the take of nongame mammals. The bill would require the department, before opening a bobcat season and in consultation with specified entities, to develop, upon appropriation by the Legislature, a bobcat management plan to inform and coordinate management decisions regarding bobcat populations, as specified. The bill would require the department to submit the bobcat management plan to the commission and the Legislature. Because a violation of these provisions would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would provide that its provisions are severable. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

(1) Proposition 6, an initiative measure approved by the electors at the November 3, 1998, general election, enacted the Prohibition of Horse Slaughter and Sale of Horsemeat for Human Consumption Act of 1998. The act makes it unlawful, and punishable as a felony, for any person to possess, to import into or export from the state, or to sell, buy, give away, hold, or accept any horse with the intent of killing, or having another kill, that horse, if that person knows or should have known that any part of that horse will be used for human consumption. The act also makes it unlawful to offer horsemeat for sale for human consumption. The Equine Protection Act of 1991 creates a program of equine protection and identification in the Department of Food and Agriculture. The act prohibits any person from purchasing, consigning, selling, or accepting the donation of an animal, defined as a horse, pony, mule, or burro, that is destined for slaughter unless a written bill of sale or any written instrument containing specified information is provided, as prescribed. The act makes it a misdemeanor if any person does not keep the necessary written records with respect to these transactions and other transactions subject to the act, refuses to show the records to a peace officer or to allow copies to be made of the record, or destroys the record within a specified period of time. This bill would instead require a written bill of sale or written instrument to be provided when any person purchases, consigns, sells, or accepts the donation of an animal, as defined in the act, at a public or private auction, as prescribed. The bill would require a person who purchases an animal in these circumstances to sign a sworn statement, under penalty of perjury, acknowledging and agreeing to comply with Proposition 6. The bill would require, before any animal could be sold at an auction, the operator of the auction yard to determine whether the animal has an implanted microchip or has been tattooed or branded with an identifying mark. If the animal has an implanted microchip, a tattoo, or a brand, the bill would require the operator of the auction yard to post, on its internet website and through any active social media in which the operator of the auction yard participates, all identifying information, as provided, for at least 24 hours. The bill would also require, for a minimum of one year following the date of sale of each animal sold at auction, the operator of the auction yard to maintain specified records that document compliance with the above provisions. The bill would require the operator of the auction yard to provide access to these records upon the request of the Department of Food and Agriculture, a law enforcement officer, an animal control agency, or a humane officer, as provided. Because a violation of these provisions would be a crime, and by expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require, in addition to any other penalties available under law, a person who violates these provisions to be subject to a civil penalty of $1,000 for the first offense and $2,000 for the 2nd and each subsequent offense. (2) Existing law requires that, at any public auction or sale where equines are sold, a specified notice be posted conspicuously or inserted into the consignment agreement, as specified, by the management of the auction or sale warning buyers and sellers that horses sold there may be purchased for slaughter and that, as a possible safeguard, the seller can set the minimum bid above current slaughter prices. Existing law requires the management of the auction or sale to post current slaughter prices or to make them available to sellers upon request. This bill would instead require that notice or agreement to warn buyers that the sale of horses in California for slaughter for human consumption is a felony and would make a conforming change. (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.

(1) Existing law establishes priorities and procedures that any state agency disposing of surplus residential property is required to follow. Under existing law, specified single-family residences must first be offered to their former owners or present occupants, as specified. Existing law also gives tenants in good standing of nonresidential properties priority to purchase, at fair market value, the property they rent, lease, or otherwise legally occupy. This bill would require a state agency to give priority to a tenant in good standing of a nonresidential property to purchase, at the lesser of fair market value or value in use, as defined, if the tenant is a city or a nonprofit organization, as specified. The bill would prohibit the Department of Transportation from selling a nonresidential property to a tenant described above at a value below the minimum sales price, as defined in the department's Affordable Sales Program as of July 1, 2019. The bill would require the selling agency, if a nonresidential property is offered at a price that is less than fair market value, to impose appropriate terms, conditions, and restrictions. (2) Existing law provides, notwithstanding any other law, for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, that the preliminary project alternative referred to as Alternative F-6 in the December 2012 Alternative Analysis Report of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority is no longer deemed to be a feasible alternative for consideration in any state environmental review process for the Interstate 710 North Gap Closure project. This bill would revise this provision to instead provide that the preliminary project alternatives referred to as Alternative F-5, F-6, and F-7 in the December 2012 Alternative Analysis Report of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and any other freeway or tunnel alternatives to close the Interstate 710 North Gap are no longer deemed to be feasible alternatives for consideration in any environmental review process for the Interstate 710 North Gap Closure project. (3) Existing law prohibits the Department of Transportation, until January 1, 2020, from increasing the rent of tenants who reside in surplus residential property located within the State Route 710 corridor in the County of Los Angeles and who participate in the Affordable Rent Program administered by the department. This bill would make this prohibition permanent and would also provide that signatories of active rental agreements for residential property entered into with the department as of July 1, 2019, and continuously residing at the property since that date, may be eligible to participate in the department's Affordable Rent Program. (4) Existing law vests the Department of Transportation with full possession and control of all state highways and associated property. Existing law designates and describes state highway routes, and also describes the state highway routes in the California freeway and expressway system, including all of State Highway Route 710 in the County of Los Angeles. This bill would, on January 1, 2024, remove from the California freeway and expressway system the portion of Route 710 between Alhambra Avenue in the City of Los Angeles and California Boulevard in the City of Pasadena. (5) Existing law establishes a process for the California Transportation Commission to adopt a highway on an authorized route, requires the commission to relinquish to local agencies state highway portions that have been deleted from the state highway system by legislative enactment, and authorizes relinquishment in certain other cases. This bill would authorize the commission to relinquish to the City of Pasadena the specified portions of Route 710 within its city limits, upon terms and conditions the commission finds to be in the best interests of the state, if the department and the city enter into an agreement providing for that relinquishment.