Sen. María Elena Durazo

Existing law authorizes a peace officer to use reasonable force to effect the arrest, to prevent escape, or to overcome resistance. Existing law requires law enforcement agencies to maintain a policy on the use of force, as specified. Existing law requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to implement courses of instruction for the regular and periodic training of law enforcement officers in the use of force. This bill would prohibit the use of kinetic energy projectiles or chemical agents, as defined, by any law enforcement agency to disperse any assembly, protest, demonstration, or other gathering of persons, except in compliance with specified standards set by the bill, and would prohibit their use solely due to a violation of an imposed curfew, verbal threat, or noncompliance with a law enforcement directive. The bill would prohibit the use of chloroacetophenone tear gas or 2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile gas by law enforcement agencies to disperse any assembly, protest, demonstration, or other gathering of persons. The bill would include in the standards for the use of kinetic energy projectiles and chemical agents to disperse gatherings the requirement that, among other things, those weapons only be fired at a specific target who presents a clear and imminent threat to themselves, the officers, or other persons. The bill would make these provisions inapplicable within a state prison facility. Existing law requires specified law enforcement agencies, by no later than January 1, 2021, to maintain a policy on the use of force that meets specified requirements. This bill would require those agencies, by no later than January 1, 2022, to include in those policies specified guidelines relating to deployment at assemblies, protests, demonstrations, and similar gatherings of people. Existing law requires each law enforcement agency to annually report specified use of force incidents to the Department of Justice and requires the Department of Justice to annually publish a summary of those incidents, as specified. The bill would also require each law enforcement agency, beginning on January 1, 2023, to report any incident in which a kinetic energy projectile or chemical agent is used against a person resulting in a reported injury. The bill would require those agencies, commencing on March 31, 2024, to annually publish a report on their use of kinetic energy projectiles and chemical agents. The bill would require a city in which federal law enforcement is operating to request that the federal law enforcement agency refrain from the use of kinetic energy projectiles or chemical agents to disperse any assembly, protest, demonstration, or other gathering, except as specified in the standards. By imposing new duties on law enforcement agencies and cities, this bill would create 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 provisions of the California Constitution establish the University of California as a public trust under the administration of the Regents of the University of California. The California Constitution grants to the regents all the powers necessary or convenient for the effective administration of this public trust. Pursuant to the California Constitution, there are 7 ex officio members of the regents and 18 appointive members appointed by the Governor and approved by the Senate, a majority of the membership concurring. This measure would enact the University of California Equal Employment Opportunity Standards Act, which would, effective January 1, 2021, except as specified, require the regents to ensure that all contract workers, as defined, who are paid to perform support services for students, faculty, patients, or the general public at any campus, dining hall, medical center, clinic, research facility, laboratory, or other university location, are at all times subject to and afforded the same equal employment opportunity standards, as defined, as university employees performing similar services. The measure would authorize the regents, or any campus or other entity of the University of California, to contract for, or otherwise arrange to use, contract labor, as defined, to perform support services only under specified conditions, only if authorized to do so by statute, and only to the extent necessary to address one or more of prescribed needs. The measure would authorize the Legislature to enact statutes to further the purposes of, and to aid the enforcement of, this measure.

Existing law, including the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, the Ralph C. Dills Act, the Trial Court Employment Protection and Governance Act, the Trial Court Interpreter Employment and Labor Relations Act, and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Transit Employer-Employee Relations Act, provisions commonly referred to as the Educational Employment Relations Act, and the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act, among others, regulates the labor relations of the state, the courts, and specified local public agencies and their employees. Existing law requires these public employers to provide certain labor representatives with the names and home addresses of newly hired employees, as well as their job titles, departments, work locations, telephone numbers, and personal email addresses, within 30 days of hire or by the first pay period of the month following hire. Existing law also requires the public employers to provide this information for all employees in a bargaining unit at least every 120 days, except as specified. This bill, beginning on July 1, 2021, would generally authorize an exclusive representative to file a charge of an unfair labor practice with the Public Employment Relations Board, as specified, alleging a violation of the above-described requirements. The bill would condition this authorization on the exclusive representative giving written notice, as specified, to the public employer, or the public employer's designated representative, of the alleged violation and would provide a public employer a limited opportunity to cure certain violations. The bill would subject a violator to a penalty, not to exceed $10,000, to be determined by the board based on specified criteria, and would require the penalty to be deposited in the General Fund. The bill would require the board to award a party who prevails in these circumstances specified attorney's fees and costs.

(1) Existing law prescribes requirements for the disposal of surplus land by a local agency, as defined, and exempts from these requirements exempt surplus land. Existing law defines "exempt surplus land" for these purposes to include, among other things, surplus land that is put out to open, competitive bid by a local agency if specified entities are invited to participate in that competitive bid process. Existing law also requires that exempt surplus land put to an open, competitive bid process under these provisions be used for either (A) a housing development that complies with specified affordability requirements or (B) a mixed-use development that is more than one acre in area and includes not less than 300 housing units that comply with specified affordability requirements. This bill would expand the definition of "exempt surplus land" to include, thereby exempting from the above-described surplus land disposal procedures, surplus land for which the local agency has entered into an exclusive negotiation agreement before September 1, 2020, for a housing development that complies with specified affordability requirements that are similar to those described above. Existing law provides that certain dispositions of real property by local agencies are subject to these above-described surplus land disposal procedures as they existed on December 31, 2019, without regard to specified amendments that took effect on January 1, 2020, if those dispositions comply with specified requirements. Under existing law, these provisions apply to dispositions by a local agency that, as of September 30, 2019, has entered into an exclusive negotiating agreement or legally binding agreement to dispose of property, provided that the disposition is completed not later than December 31, 2022. This bill, except in the case of specified property, would additionally provide that the surplus land disposal procedures as they existed on December 31, 2019, apply if a local agency, as of September 30, 2019, has issued a competitive request for proposals process seeking development proposals for the property that include a residential component of at least 100 residential units and 25% of the total units developed comply with specified affordability criteria, provided that a disposition and development agreement, as defined, is entered into not later than December 31, 2022. If the property is not disposed of pursuant to a qualifying disposition and development agreement before March 31, 2024, or if no disposition and development agreement is entered into before December 31, 2022, the bill would require that future negotiations for and disposition of the property comply with the surplus land disposal procedures then in effect. The bill would extend these dates in the event of a judicial challenge to 6 months following the final conclusion of litigation. (2) 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 then requires the property to be offered to housing-related entities, as provided, prior to placing the property up for sale, subject to specified priorities. Existing law requires, if a property that is not a historic home is sold to a private housing-related entity or a housing-related public entity, that the entity develop the property as limited equity cooperative housing with first right of occupancy to present occupants, or use the property for low- and moderate-income rental or owner-occupied housing where the development of cooperative or cooperatives is not feasible. Existing law requires, if a property is a historic home, as defined, that the property be offered first to a housing-related entity, subject to the above-described requirements, or a nonprofit private entity dedicated to rehabilitating and maintaining the historic home for public and community access and use, as provided. This bill would, instead, require that surplus residential property not sold to a former owner or present occupant, as described above, be offered at fair market value to purchasers who are present tenants who have occupied the property for 5 years or more and who are in good standing with all rent obligations current and paid in full, with first right of occupancy to the present occupants. The bill would then require that surplus residential property that is a historic home be offered to the city in which the property is located or a nonprofit private entity dedicated to rehabilitating and maintaining the historic home for public and community access and use, subject to specified terms and conditions. Finally, the bill would require that surplus residential property be offered to a housing-related entity, subject to specified terms and conditions. The bill would require a housing-related entity to cause the property to be used for low- and moderate-income rental housing for a term of at least 55 years, subject to a recorded affordability covenant, as provided, and to provide a first right of occupancy to the present occupants. The bill would authorize the Department of Transportation to designate in regulations, or delegate by agreement to, a public agency to monitor a property's compliance with the bill's terms, conditions, and restrictions, in the case of a historic home, or the recorded covenant, in the case of surplus residential properties sold to a housing-related entity, and authorize the monitoring entity to charge the property owner a fee to cover the cost of monitoring. This bill would prohibit surplus residential property from being sold at less than the price paid by the Department of Transportation for original acquisition of the property. The bill would prohibit the adjustment of this original acquisition price for inflation. The bill would require the Department of Transportation to offer to sell specified unimproved properties at the original acquisition price paid by the department to a housing-related entity for affordable housing purposes, as provided. The bill would provide that these provisions do not apply to any sales of surplus residential property that are in escrow as of December 31, 2020. Existing law, known as the Administrative Procedure Act, governs the procedures for the adoption, amendment, or repeal of regulations by state agencies and for the review of those regulatory actions by the Office of Administrative Law. Existing law establishes procedures for the adoption of emergency regulations, including requiring that the state agency make a finding that the adoption of a regulation or order of repeal is necessary to address an emergency, as defined. Under existing law, a regulation, amendment, or repeal adopted as an emergency regulatory action may only remain in effect for up to 180 days, unless the adopting agency complies with specified requirements relating to notice of regulatory action and public comment. This bill would require the Department of Transportation to adopt emergency regulations by June 1, 2021, to implement the above-described requirements relating to the disposal of surplus property. The bill would include findings that an emergency exists for purposes of specified provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. The bill, notwithstanding the 180-day limit for emergency regulations, would provide that emergency regulations adopted under its provisions would remain in effect for 2 years after adoption, or until the adoption of permanent regulations, whichever occurs sooner. This bill would make related findings and declarations. (3) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 54221 of the Government Code proposed by SB 1030 to be operative only if this bill and SB 1030 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (4) This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the sale of surplus residential property located in neighborhoods within the Cities of Pasadena and South Pasadena and in the El Sereno neighborhood of the City of Los Angeles.

Existing law provides that a person who is under 18 years of age and who commits a crime is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, except as specified. Existing law authorizes the district attorney or other appropriate prosecuting officer to file an accusatory pleading in a court of criminal jurisdiction against a minor who is alleged to have violated a criminal statute or ordinance and who has been declared not a fit and proper subject to be dealt with under the juvenile court law or as to whom charges in a petition in the juvenile court have been transferred to a court of criminal jurisdiction. Existing law requires, except as specified, a minor declared not a fit and proper subject to be dealt with under the juvenile court law, if detained, to remain in the juvenile hall pending final disposition by the criminal court or until the minor attains 18 years of age, whichever occurs first. Existing law authorizes the detention of minors in jails or other security facilities for the confinement of adults only under specified conditions, including under circumstances upon which a minor is found not a fit and proper subject to be dealt with under the juvenile court law, their case is transferred to a court of criminal jurisdiction, and it is found that, among other things, the minor's further detention in the juvenile hall would endanger the safety of the public or other minors in the juvenile hall. This bill would revise and recast those provisions and repeal specified provisions that authorize the detention of minors in an adult facility. The bill would instead require any person whose case originated in juvenile court to remain in a county juvenile facility until they turn 21 years of age, except as specified. The bill would make technical and conforming changes to related provisions, and would make related findings and declarations. By requiring local entities to retain custody of those persons in county juvenile facilities, 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.

The Personal Income Tax Law and the Corporation Tax Law allow a credit (CalCompetes tax credit) against the taxes imposed under those laws, for each taxable year beginning on and after January 1, 2014, and before January 1, 2030, in an amount as provided in a written agreement between the Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development and the taxpayer, approved by the California Competes Tax Credit Committee, and based on specified factors, including the number of jobs the taxpayer will create or retain in the state and the amount of investment in the state by the taxpayer. Existing law establishes the continuously appropriated Tax Relief and Refund Account and provides that specified payments required to be made to taxpayers, including refunds, are to be paid from that account. This bill, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2021, would allow a qualified taxpayer, to the extent a CalCompetes tax credit amount exceeds a qualified taxpayer's tax liability for the taxable year, as specified, to elect to be paid a refund from the Tax Relief and Refund Account, not to exceed the amount of total taxes imposed by the state and paid by the qualified taxpayer during the taxable year. The bill would define a "qualified taxpayer" as a taxpayer that has created at least 5,000 prevailing wage, full-time or full-time equivalent jobs in the state each year for a period of 10 years. The bill would require a qualified taxpayer that receives a refund to reinvest the refund into immobile capital equipment that supports infrastructure improvements, expansion, or developments for media production facilities in the state, as provided. By authorizing new refund payments to be paid from the continuously appropriated Tax Relief and Refund Account, this bill would make an appropriation.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of an environmental impact report (EIR) on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA authorizes the preparation of a master EIR and authorizes the use of the master EIR to limit the environmental review of subsequent projects that are described in the master EIR, as specified. This bill would require a lead agency to prepare a master EIR for a general plan, plan amendment, plan element, or specified plan for housing projects where the state has provided funding for the preparation of the master EIR. The Jobs and Economic Improvement Through Environmental Leadership Act of 2011 (leadership act) authorizes the Governor, until January 1, 2020, to certify projects that meet certain requirements, including a requirement that the project applicant agrees to pay the costs of the court of appeal in hearing and deciding a case challenging a lead agency's action on a certified project and certain labor-related requirements, for streamlining benefits provided by the leadership act related to compliance with CEQA and streamlining of judicial review of action taken by a public agency to require a judicial action to be resolved within 270 days of the filing of the certified record of proceedings with the court. The leadership act provides that if a lead agency fails to approve a project certified by the Governor before January 1, 2021, the certification expires and is no longer valid. The leadership act requires a lead agency to prepare the record of proceedings for the certified project concurrent with the preparation of the EIR. The leadership act is repealed by its own terms on January 1, 2021. This bill would extend the authority of the Governor to certify a project to January 1, 2024. The bill would authorize the Office of Planning and Research to charge a fee on an applicant seeking certification for costs incurred by the Governor's office in the implementation of the leadership act. The bill would additionally include housing development projects, as defined, meeting certain conditions as projects eligible for certification. The bill would, except for those housing development projects, require the quantification and mitigation of the impacts of a project from the emissions of greenhouse gases, as provided. The bill would provide for the certification by the Governor of a project alternative described in an EIR for a certified project, as provided. The bill would additionally require the project applicant, as a condition of certification, to agree to pay for the costs of the trial court in hearing and deciding the case. The bill would revise and recast the labor-related requirements for projects undertaken by public agencies and for projects undertaken by private entities. The bill would instead specify that the time period for the final resolution of any judicial action is 270 business days after the filing of the record of proceedings with the court. The bill would provide that the certification expires and is no longer valid if the lead agency fails to approve a certified project before January 1, 2025. The bill would instead repeal the leadership act on January 1, 2025. Because the bill would extend the obligation of the lead agency to prepare concurrently the record of proceedings, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law provides for the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services, under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services. The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid program provisions. The federal Medicaid program provisions prohibit payment to a state for medical assistance furnished to an alien who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence or otherwise permanently residing in the United States under color of law. Existing law requires individuals under 19 years of age enrolled in restricted-scope Medi-Cal at the time the Director of Health Care Services makes a determination that systems have been programmed for implementation of these provisions to be enrolled in the full scope of Medi-Cal benefits, if otherwise eligible, and extends eligibility for full-scope Medi-Cal benefits to individuals under 25 years of age, and who are otherwise eligible for those benefits but for their immigration status. Existing law makes the effective date of enrollment for those individuals the same day that systems are operational to begin processing new applications pursuant to the director's determination, and requires the department to maximize federal financial participation for purposes of implementing the requirements. Existing law requires that benefits for services under these provisions be provided with state-only funds only if federal financial participation is not available for those services. This bill would, subject to an appropriation by the Legislature, and effective July 1, 2020, extend eligibility for full-scope Medi-Cal benefits to individuals who are 65 years of age or older, and who are otherwise eligible for those benefits but for their immigration status. The bill would delete provisions delaying implementation until the director makes the determination described above. The bill would require the department to seek federal approvals to obtain federal financial participation to implement these requirements. Because counties are required to make Medi-Cal eligibility determinations and this bill would expand Medi-Cal eligibility, 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 prescribes various requirements to be satisfied before the exercise of a power of sale under a mortgage or deed of trust. Existing law requires that a notice of default and a notice of sale be recorded and that specified periods of time elapse between the recording and the sale. Existing law establishes certain requirements in connection with foreclosures on mortgages and deeds of trust, including restrictions on the actions mortgage servicers may take while a borrower is attempting to secure a loan modification or has submitted a loan modification application. Existing law applies certain of those requirements only to a first lien mortgage or deed of trust that is secured by owner-occupied residential real property containing no more than four dwelling units. This bill, the Tenant, Homeowner, and Small Landlord Relief and Stabilization Act of 2020, would, among other things, until January 1, 2023, additionally apply those protections to a first lien mortgage or deed of trust that is secured by residential real property that is occupied by a tenant, contains no more than four dwelling units, and meets certain criteria, including that a tenant occupying the property is unable to pay rent due to a reduction in income resulting from the novel coronavirus. The bill would also enact the COVID-19 Small Landlord and Homeowner Relief Act of 2020 (Homeowner Act) , which would require a mortgage servicer, as defined, to provide a specified written notice to a borrower, as defined, if the mortgage servicer denies forbearance during the effective time period, as defined, that states the reasons for that denial if the borrower was both current on payments as of February 1, 2020, and is experiencing a financial hardship that prevents the borrower from making timely payments on the mortgage obligation due, directly or indirectly, to the COVID-19 emergency. The Homeowner Act would also require a mortgage servicer to comply with applicable federal guidance regarding borrower options following a COVID-19 related forbearance. Existing law provides that a tenant is guilty of unlawful detainer if the tenant continues to possess the property without permission of the landlord after the tenant defaults on rent or fails to perform a condition or covenant of the lease under which the property is held, among other reasons. Existing law requires a tenant be served a 3 days' notice in writing to cure a default or perform a condition of the lease, or return possession of the property to the landlord, as specified. Existing law, the Mobilehome Residency Law, prohibits a tenancy from being terminated unless specified conditions are met, including that the tenant fails to pay rent, utility charges, or reasonable incidental service charges, and 3 days' notice in writing is provided to the tenant, as specified. This bill would, until February 1, 2025, enact the COVID-19 Tenant Relief Act of 2020 (Tenant Act) . The Tenant Act would require that any 3 days' notice that demands payment of COVID-19 rental debt that is served on a tenant during the covered time period meet specified criteria, including that the notice include an unsigned copy of a declaration of COVID-19-related financial distress and that the notice advise the tenant that the tenant will not be evicted for failure to comply with the notice if the tenant delivers a signed declaration of COVID-19-related financial distress to the landlord, as specified. The Tenant Act would define "covered time period" for purposes of these provisions to mean the time between March 1, 2020, and January 31, 2021. The Tenant Act would deem a 3 days' notice that fails to comply with this criteria void and insufficient to support a judgment for unlawful detainer or to terminate a tenancy under the Mobilehome Residency Law. The Tenant Act would prohibit a tenant that delivers a declaration, under penalty of perjury, of COVID-19-related financial distress pursuant to these provisions from being deemed in default with regard to the COVID-19 rental debt, as specified. By expanding the crime of perjury, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. The Tenant Act would prohibit a court from finding a tenant guilty of an unlawful detainer before February 1, 2021, subject to certain exceptions, including if the tenant was guilty of the unlawful detainer before March 1, 2020. The bill would prohibit, before October 5, 2020, a court from taking specified actions with respect to unlawful detainer actions, including issuing a summons on a complaint for unlawful detainer in any action that seeks possession of residential real property and that is based, in whole or in part, on nonpayment of rent or other charges. The Tenant Act would also authorize a landlord to require a high-income tenant, as defined, to additionally submit documentation supporting the claim that the tenant has suffered COVID-19-related financial distress if the landlord has proof of income showing the tenant is a high-income tenant. The Tenant Act would preempt an ordinance, resolution, regulation, or administrative action adopted by a city, county, or city and county in response to the COVID-19 pandemic to protect tenants from eviction based on nonpayment of rental payments, as specified. The bill would require the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency to, in consultation with the Department of Finance, engage with residential tenants, landlords, property owners, deed-restricted affordable housing providers, and financial sector stakeholders about strategies and approaches to direct potential future federal stimulus funding to most effectively and efficiently provide relief to distressed tenants, landlords, and property owners, as specified. Existing law prohibits a landlord from taking specified actions with intent to terminate the occupancy under any lease or other tenancy or estate at will, however created, of property used by a tenant as the tenant's residence. Existing law makes a violator of those provisions subject to certain damages in a civil action. This bill would, until February 1, 2021, make a violator of those provisions whose tenant has provided to that violator the declaration of COVID-19-related financial distress described above liable for damages in an amount between $1,000 and $2,500. Existing law, The Small Claims Act, grants jurisdiction to a small claims court in cases where the amount demanded does not exceed $5,000, as specified, and prohibits a person from filing more than 2 small claims actions in which the amount demanded exceeds $2,500 anywhere in the state in any calendar year. This bill would instead, until February 1, 2025, provide that a small claims court has jurisdiction in any action for recovery of COVID-19 rental debt, as defined, regardless of the amount demanded and would provide that a claim for recovery of a COVID-19 rental debt is exempt from the prohibition on filing more than 2 small claims actions described above. Existing law, the Tenant Protection Act of 2019, prohibits, with certain exceptions, an owner of residential real property from increasing the gross rental rate for a dwelling or unit more than 5% plus the "percentage change in the cost of living," as defined, or 10%, whichever is lower, of the lowest gross rental rate charged for the immediately preceding 12 months, subject to specified conditions. The act exempts certain types of residential real properties, including dormitories constructed and maintained in connection with any higher education institution within the state for use and occupancy by students in attendance at the institution and housing that has been issued a certificate of occupancy within the previous 15 years. This bill would revise and recast those exemptions to exempt dormitories owned and operated by an institution of higher education or a kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, school. The bill would also make clarifying changes to the definition of "percentage change in the cost of living." This bill would also make clarifying and conforming changes. 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. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Existing law, the Stop Tobacco Access to Kids Enforcement (STAKE) Act, prohibits a person from selling or otherwise furnishing tobacco products, as defined, to a person under 21 years of age. Existing law also prohibits the use of tobacco products in county offices of education, on charter school or school district property, or near a playground or youth sports event, as specified. This bill would prohibit a tobacco retailer, or any of the tobacco retailer's agents or employees, from selling, offering for sale, or possessing with the intent to sell or offer for sale, a flavored tobacco product or a tobacco product flavor enhancer, as those terms are defined, except as specified. The bill would make a violation of this prohibition an infraction punishable by a fine of $250 for each violation. The bill would state the intent of the Legislature that these provisions do not preempt or prohibit the adoption and implementation of local ordinances that impose greater restrictions on the access to tobacco products than the restrictions imposed by the bill, as specified. The bill would state that its provisions are severable. By creating a new crime, 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.