Sen. Richard Roth

Under existing law, each applicant for the issuance or renewal of a license, certificate, registration, or other means to engage in a business or profession regulated by specified entities, who is not in compliance with a judgment or order for child or family support, is subject to support collection and enforcement proceedings by the local child support agency. Existing law also makes each licensee or applicant whose name appears on a list of the 500 largest tax delinquencies subject to suspension or revocation of the license or renewal by a state governmental licensing entity, as specified. This bill would make nonsubstantive changes to those provisions.

The California Constitution provides that the University of California constitutes a public trust administered by the Regents of the University of California, a corporation in the form of a board, with full powers of organization and government, subject to legislative control only for specified purposes. The University of California system includes 10 campuses, which are located in Berkeley, Davis, Irvine, Los Angeles, Merced, Riverside, San Diego, San Francisco, Santa Barbara, and Santa Cruz. Existing law requires, on or before April 1 of each year, the University of California to provide progress reports and specified information consistent with the published mission and vision of the University of California, Riverside, School of Medicine to the relevant policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature pertaining to funding, recruitment, hiring, and outcomes for the University of California, Riverside, School of Medicine. This bill would appropriate to the regents $80,000,000 from the General Fund for the 2020–21 fiscal year to be expended solely on the construction of a new University of California, Riverside School of Medicine facility, and an additional $25,000,000 from the General Fund each fiscal year, commencing with the 2020–21 fiscal year, to be expended solely on ongoing operational support for the expansion of the University of California, Riverside School of Medicine. As a condition of receiving the additional annual $25,000,000 appropriation, the bill would require the University of California to comply with the annual reporting requirement under existing law pertaining to funding, recruitment, hiring, and outcomes for the University of California, Riverside, School of Medicine.

Existing law allocates additional judgeships to the various counties in accordance with uniform standards for factually determining additional need in each county, as approved by the Judicial Council. Existing law authorizes 50 additional judges, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to be allocated to the various county superior courts, pursuant to uniform criteria approved by the Judicial Council. This bill would appropriate $36,500,000 from the General Fund for the purpose of funding 25 superior court judgeships currently authorized by the Legislature, and expenses associated with those positions. The bill would require the Judicial Council to determine the allocation of those positions, pursuant to that uniform criteria.

(1) Existing law authorizes a development proponent to submit an application for a multifamily housing development that satisfies specified planning objective standards to be subject to a streamlined, ministerial approval process, as provided, and not subject to a conditional use permit. This bill would authorize a development proponent of a neighborhood multifamily project located on an eligible parcel to submit an application for a streamlined, ministerial approval process that is not subject to a conditional use permit. The bill would define a "neighborhood multifamily project" to mean a project to construct a multifamily structure on vacant land, or to convert an existing structure that does not require substantial exterior alteration into a multifamily structure, consisting of up to 4 residential dwelling units and that meets local height, setback, and lot coverage zoning requirements as they existed on July 1, 2019. The bill would also define "eligible parcel" to mean a parcel that meets specified requirements, including requirements relating to the location of the parcel and restricting the demolition of certain housing development that may already exist on the site. This bill would require a local agency to notify the development proponent in writing if the local agency determines that the development conflicts with any of the requirements provided for streamlined ministerial approval within 60 days of the submission of the development to the local agency. If the local agency does not notify the development proponent within this time period, the development would be deemed to comply with those requirements. The bill would limit the authority of a local agency to impose parking standards or requirements on a streamlined development approved pursuant to these provisions, as provided. The bill would provide that the approval of a project under these provisions expires automatically after 3 years, unless that project qualifies for a one-time, one-year extension of that approval. The bill would provide that approval pursuant to its provisions would remain valid for 3 years and remain valid thereafter, so long as vertical construction of the development has begun and is in progress, and would authorize a discretionary one-year extension, as provided. The bill would prohibit a local agency from adopting any requirement that applies to a project solely or partially on the basis that the project receives ministerial or streamlined approval pursuant to these provisions. This bill would allow a local agency to exempt a project from the streamlined ministerial approval process described above by finding that the project will cause a specific adverse impact to public health and safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact. 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 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 does not apply to the approval of ministerial projects. This bill would establish a streamlined ministerial approval process for neighborhood multifamily projects, thereby exempting these projects from the CEQA approval process. (2) Existing law, known as the density bonus law, requires, when an applicant proposes a housing development within the jurisdiction of a local government, that the city, county, or city and county provide the developer with a density bonus and other incentives or concessions for the production of lower income housing units or for the donation of land within the development if the developer, among other things, agrees to construct a specified percentage of units for very low, low-, or moderate-income households or qualifying residents. This bill, on or after January 1, 2023, would require a specified city, county, or city and county to grant upon request an equitable communities incentive when a development proponent seeks and agrees to construct a residential development, as defined, that satisfies specified criteria, including, among other things, that the residential development is either a job-rich housing project or a transit-rich housing project, as those terms are defined; the site does not contain, or has not contained, housing occupied by tenants or accommodations withdrawn from rent or lease in accordance with specified law within specified time periods; and the residential development complies with specified additional requirements under existing law. The bill would impose additional requirements on a residential development located within a county with a population equal to or less than 600,000. The bill would require that a residential development within a county with a population greater than 600,000 that is eligible for an equitable communities incentive receive, upon request, waivers from maximum controls on density; minimum automobile parking requirements greater than 0.5 parking spots per unit; and specified additional waivers if the residential development is located within a 12-mile or 14-mile radius of a major transit stop, as defined. For a residential development within a county with a population equal to or less than 600,000, the bill would instead require that the incentive provide waivers from maximum controls on density, subject to certain limitations; maximum height limitations less than or equal to one story, or 15 feet, above the highest allowable height for mixed use or residential use; certain requirements governing the size of the parcel and the area that the building may occupy; and minimum automobile parking requirements, as provided. The bill would require a local government to grant an equitable communities incentive unless it makes a specified finding regarding the effects of the incentive on any real property or historic district that is listed on a federal or state register of historical resources. The bill would authorize a local government to modify or expand the terms of an equitable communities incentive, provided that the equitable communities incentive is consistent with these provisions. The bill would delay implementation of these provisions in potentially sensitive communities, as defined, until July 1, 2023. The bill would further delay implementation of these provisions in sensitive communities, determined as provided, until January 1, 2026, unless the city or county in which the area is located votes to make these provisions applicable after a specified petition and public hearing process. On and after January 1, 2026, the bill would apply these provisions to a sensitive community unless the city or county adopts a community plan for the area that meets certain requirements. The bill would also exempt from these provisions a local government that has a local flexibility plan that has been reviewed and certified by the Department of Housing and Community Development, as specified. The bill, on or before July 1, 2021, would require the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, in consultation with the Department of Housing and Community Development, to develop and publish on its internet website rules, regulations, or guidelines for the submission and approval of a local flexibility plan, as specified. The bill, on or after July 1, 2021, would authorize a local government to submit a local flexibility plan for review and approval by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to those rules, regulations, or guidelines. The bill would include findings that the changes proposed by these provisions address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. The Housing Accountability Act prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning approval in a manner that renders infeasible, a housing development project that complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria in effect at the time the application for the project is deemed complete unless the local agency makes specified written findings based on a preponderance of the evidence in the record. That law provides that the receipt of a density bonus is not a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision of that act. This bill would additionally provide that the receipt of an equitable communities incentive is not a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision of that act. (3) By adding to the duties of local planning officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (4) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law, the Ortiz-Pacheco-Poochigian-Vasconcellos Cal Grant Program, establishes the Cal Grant A and B Entitlement Awards, the California Community College Transfer Entitlement Awards, the Competitive Cal Grant A and B Awards, the Cal Grant C Awards, and the Cal Grant T Awards under the administration of the Student Aid Commission, and establishes eligibility requirements for awards under these programs for participating students attending qualifying institutions. Existing law specifies the amounts of the maximum Cal Grant A and B awards for students attending private nonprofit postsecondary institutions of higher education and private for-profit postsecondary educational institutions that are regionally accredited, as specified. Beginning with the 2020–21 award year, the maximum tuition award is either $9,084 or $8,056, depending upon whether the number of new unduplicated transfer students accepted by private nonprofit postsecondary educational institutions who have been given associate degree for transfer commitments, as defined, in the prior award year meet and exceed specified targets. This bill would change, in accordance with a prescribed formula, the maximum Cal Grant award for tuition for a new recipient attending an independent institution of higher education, commencing with the 2020–21 award year. This bill would provide that the award amount for a student attending an independent institution of higher education may be determined in the annual Budget Act if the independent institutions of higher education, as a group, do not accept the specified number of transfer students who have been given associate degree for transfer commitments.

Under existing law, the California Transportation Commission allocates various state and federal transportation funds through specified state programs to local and regional transportation agencies to implement projects consistent with the requirements of those programs. Existing law continuously appropriates $200,000,000 annually from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account for allocation by the commission for a program commonly known as the Local Partnership Program to local or regional transportation agencies that have sought and received voter approval of taxes or that have imposed certain fees, which taxes or fees are dedicated solely for road maintenance and rehabilitation and other transportation improvement projects. Existing law requires the commission, in cooperation with the Department of Transportation, transportation planning agencies, county transportation commissions, and other local agencies, to develop guidelines for the allocation of those moneys. This bill would require the commission to annually deposit 85% of these funds into the Local Partnership Formula Subaccount, which the bill would create, and 15% of these funds into the Small Counties and Uniform Developer Fees Competitive Subaccount, which the bill would create. The bill would require the commission to distribute the funds in the Local Partnership Formula Subaccount pursuant to a specified formula to local or regional transportation agencies that meet certain eligibility requirements. The bill would require the commission to allocate funds in the Small Counties and Uniform Developer Fees Competitive Subaccount through a competitive grant program to local or regional transportation agencies that meet other eligibility requirements. The bill would require the commission, in consultation with transportation planning agencies, county transportation commissions, and other local agencies, to develop separate guidelines for the distribution or allocation of the funds in each subaccount that, among other things, establish the types of eligible projects consistent with specified requirements. In order to receive a distribution of funds from the Local Partnership Formula Subaccount from the commission in a funding cycle, the bill would require an eligible entity to submit to the commission a description of a project nominated to be funded with the funds, including the project's status and the amount of eligible local matching funds the eligible entity is committing to the project. The bill would require the commission to review the accompanying documentation for nominated projects to ensure that each nominated project meets certain requirements, and would require that projects determined to meet those requirements be deemed eligible for funding.

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.

(1) The California Financing Law (CFL) provides for the licensure and regulation of finance lenders and brokers by the Commissioner of Business Oversight. The CFL prohibits anyone from engaging in the business of a finance lender or broker without obtaining a license. A willful violation of the CFL is a crime, except as specified. Under existing law, a licensee who lends any sum of money is authorized to contract for and receive charges at a maximum rate that does not exceed specified sums on the unpaid principal balance per month, ranging from 2 12 % to 1%, based on the consumer loan amount, as specified. This provision, however, does not apply to any loan of a bona fide principal amount of $2,500 or more, as determined in accordance with a provision governing regulatory ceilings and evasion of the CFL. The CFL also authorizes a licensee, as an alternative to the above-described rate charges for consumer loan amounts, to instead contract for and receive charges at the greater of a rate not exceeding 1.6% per month on the unpaid principal balance or a rate not exceeding 5 56 of 1% per month, plus a specified percentage per month, as established by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, on advances to member banks under federal law, or if there is no single determinable rate, the closest counterpart of this rate. Under existing law, these provisions do not apply to a loan of a bona fide principal amount of $2,500 or more, as specified. The CFL further authorizes a licensee to contract for and receive an administrative fee of a specified amount that varies with the bona fide principal amount of the loan. This bill, entitled the Fair Access to Credit Act, would authorize a finance lender, with respect to a loan of a bona fide principal amount of $2,500 or more but less than $10,000, to contract for or receive charges at a rate not exceeding an annual simple interest rate of 36% plus the Federal Funds Rate. The bill would require finance lenders making loans subject to these provisions to, among other requirements, report each borrower's payment performance to at least one consumer reporting agency that compiles and maintains files on consumers on a nationwide basis and to also offer, at no cost to the borrower, a credit education program or seminar that has been previously reviewed and approved by the commissioner, in accordance with specific requirements. The bill would further specify that a licensee may contract for and receive an administrative fee, as described above, in addition to these charges. (2) Under the CFL, certain principles apply in determining whether a loan is a loan of a bona fide principal amount under specified provisions and whether the regulatory ceiling provision is used for purposes of evading the CFL. This bill would apply these principles to loans of a bona fide principal amount of $2,500 or more but less than $10,000. The bill would also apply these principles to any fees paid to a licensee for the privilege of participating in an open-end credit program. (3) Existing law prohibits licensees subject to the CFL from entering into a contract for a consumer loan that provides for a scheduled repayment of principal over more than the maximum terms set forth in relation to the respective size of the loan. Among other things, this provision prohibits a loan of at least $3,000 but less than $5,000 from exceeding a maximum term of 60 months and 15 days. This bill would increase the maximum principal loan amount under the above schedule to $10,000. The bill would also prohibit a licensee from entering into a contract for a consumer loan that is at least $2,500 but less than $10,000 that provides for a scheduled repayment of principal that is less than 12 months. The bill would also specify that the maximum loan term of 60 months and 15 days does not apply to a loan secured by real property of a bona fide principal amount of at least $5,000. The bill would also prohibit a licensee from charging, imposing, or receiving any penalty for the prepayment of a loan under the CFL, except as specified. (4) The CFL regulates a specific type of consumer loan known as an open-ended loan. The CFL prescribes the amount upon which charges authorized by the CFL may be based, the amount of a minimum monthly payment, the amount of fees, costs, and expenses a licensee may receive, and the amount to be delivered by the licensee at the time the open-ended loan is made. The CFL applies these provisions only to a loan of a bona fide principal amount not exceeding $5,000, as specified. This bill would apply those provisions to an open-ended loan in a bona fide principal amount not exceeding $10,000, as specified. The bill would make conforming and nonsubstantive changes. By expanding the application of the CFL to cover more loans, the bill would expand the scope of an existing crime, thereby imposing 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) Existing law authorizes the governing board of any school district or community college district to order an election and submit to the electors of the district the question of whether the bonds of the district shall be issued and sold to raise money for specified purposes. Existing law generally requires, to pass a school bond measure, that either at least 23 of the votes cast on the proposition of issuing bonds be in favor of issuing the bonds to pass the measure, or, if certain conditions are met, at least 55% of the votes cast on the proposition of issuing bonds be in favor of issuing the bonds. Existing law prohibits the total amount of bonds issued by a school district or community college district from exceeding 1.25% of the taxable property of the district, as provided. This bill would raise that limit to 2%. (2) Existing law also authorizes a unified school district to issue bonds receiving at least 55% of the votes cast on the proposition of issuing the bonds that, in aggregation with bonds issued with a 23 favorable vote, do not exceed 2.5% of the taxable property of the district, as provided. This bill would raise that limit to 4%. The bill would make a similar percentage increase for community college districts. (3) The Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998 provides for the adoption of rules, regulations, and procedures, under the administration of the Director of General Services, for the allocation of state funds by the State Allocation Board for the construction and modernization of public school facilities. This bill would, among other things, require a school district to submit to the Department of General Services a 5-year school facilities master plan or updated 5-year school facilities master plan, as provided, as a condition of participating in the school facilities program under the act, would require the school district to submit specified information in the school district's application for an apportionment of state funds, and would make other changes to requirements a school district is required to comply with before participating in programs under the act. The bill would require the department to process applications to participate in the program, as specified, and would make other changes to the method by which the board makes apportionments of moneys under the act. This bill would establish the 2020 State School Facilities Fund, and authorize the board to apportion, and make disbursements of, moneys in the fund, as provided. The bill would require, for bonds approved by voters in 2020 or thereafter, the board to adjust a school district's required local and state contribution, as specified. The bill would authorize new construction and modernization grants to be used for seismic mitigation purposes and, among other things, to establish schoolsite-based infrastructure to provide broadband internet access. The bill would also authorize modernization grants to be used, among other things, for the control, management, or abatement of lead and for the demolishment and construction of a building on an existing schoolsite that meets specified conditions. The bill would prohibit the use of new construction and modernization grants for the purchase of portable electronic devices with a useful life of less than 3 years. This bill would authorize funding for health and safety projects by a school district, as provided. This bill would authorize the board to provide a grant to test for lead in water outlets used for drinking or preparing food on schoolsites serving kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive, as provided. The bill would specify procedures that small school districts, as defined, may use to obtain project and construction management, new construction grants, and modernization grants. The bill would also make conforming changes in, and remove inoperative provisions from, the act. (4) The act also requires the board to adopt regulations for determining the amount of funding and the eligibility and prioritization of funding that school districts with a financial hardship may receive from bond acts for construction, modernization, or relocation assistance. The act requires those regulations to include consideration of various factors, including whether the school district's total bonding capacity is $5,000,000 or less, in which case the school district shall be deemed eligible for financial hardship. This bill, for purposes of the regulations related to financial hardship eligibility, would increase the total bonding capacity cap to $15,000,000, to be adjusted as specified. (5) The California Constitution prohibits the Legislature from creating a debt or liability that singly or in the aggregate with any previous debts or liabilities exceeds the sum of $300,000, except by an act that (A) authorizes the debt for a single object or work specified in the act, (B) has been passed by a 23 vote of all the Members elected to each house of the Legislature, (C) has been submitted to the people at a statewide general or primary election, and (D) has received a majority of all the votes cast for and against it at that election. This bill would set forth the Public Preschool, K-12, and College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2020 as a state general obligation bond act that would provide $15,000,000,000 to construct and modernize education facilities, as specified. This bond act would become operative only if approved by the voters at the March 3, 2020, statewide primary election. The bill would also provide for the submission of the bond act to the voters at that election. (6) Existing law establishes the California State University, which is administered by the Board of Trustees of the California State University, and the University of California, under the administration of the Regents of the University of California, as segments of public postsecondary education in this state. This bill would require the Board of Trustees and the Regents to comply with certain conditions, as provided, before receiving funds from the 2020 University Capital Outlay Bond Fund established pursuant to the Public Preschool, K-12, and College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2020. (7) Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district to impose, as specified, an alternative fee, charge, dedication, or requirement on developers to fund school facilities, until the date new construction bond proceeds authorized by the Preschool-College Public Education Bond Act of 2016 are expended, or December 31, 2020, whichever is earlier. This bill would remove this authority beginning the earlier of January 1, 2021, or the date new construction bond proceeds authorized by the 2016 bond act are expended or apportioned, until January 1, 2028. The bill would also exempt multifamily housing developments that are located no further than 12 mile from a major transit stop, and reduce by 20% from specified amounts for any other multifamily housing developments, as specified, from any fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement for the construction or reconstruction of school facilities, as provided. (8) This bill, except for the provision making the provisions of the bill severable, would become effective upon the adoption of the Public Preschool, K-12, and College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2020 by the voters at the March 3, 2020, statewide primary election.