The Planning and Zoning Law requires a city or county general plan to include specified elements, including a housing element that identifies adequate sites for housing and makes adequate provision for the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community. That law requires a city or county to revise its housing element according to a specified schedule, requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to determine the existing and projected need for each region for the 4th and subsequent revisions of a city's or county's housing element, and requires a city's or county's share of the regional housing need to include the share of the housing need of persons at all income levels within the area significantly affected by the general plan of that city or county. The Planning and Zoning Law requires, at least 2 years prior to a scheduled revision, each council of governments, or delegate subregion, as applicable, to develop a proposed methodology for distributing the existing and projected regional housing need to cities, counties, and cities and counties, consistent with specified objectives. This bill would require the Southern California Association of Governments or a delegate subregion, as applicable, to follow an alternate specified process for developing the required methodology. Existing law, to the extent that the final allocation plan fully allocates the regional share of statewide housing need, grants the council of governments final authority to determine the distribution of the region's existing and projected housing need. This bill would create a process for judicial review and amendment of the final allocation plan, as specified.
Sponsored bills
(1) Existing law charges the Controller with various duties, including, among others, superintending the fiscal concerns of the state. Existing law authorizes a city council to enact an ordinance providing each member of the city council a salary based on the population of the city, and to provide for other forms of compensation, as specified. This bill would require the Controller to determine, based on a review of public records or reported salary information, whether a city is an excess compensation city, as defined. The bill would authorize a city to request a hearing, as specified, to contest the Controller's determination. The bill would require the Controller, if the city does not request a hearing or if the Attorney General concurs with the Controller's determination after a hearing, to notify the city and the redevelopment agency in the city of the city's status as an excess compensation city, as prescribed. (2) The Community Redevelopment Law authorizes the establishment of redevelopment agencies in communities to address the effects of blight, as defined, in blighted areas in those communities known as project areas, and authorizes the agency to issue bonds. This bill would prohibit the agency, once the agency has received written notice from the Controller that the city is an excess compensation city, from adopting a redevelopment plan for a new project area or amending an existing redevelopment plan for existing project areas; from issuing new bonds, notes, interim certificates, debentures, or other obligations, as specified; and from encumbering any funds or expending any moneys derived from any source except as specified. (3) Existing law, the Ralph M. Brown Act, requires that all meetings of a legislative body of a local agency be open and public and all persons be permitted to attend unless a closed session is authorized. The act authorizes a legislative body to hold a closed session with the local agency's designated representatives regarding various issues, including compensation, regarding its represented and unrepresented employees, but the legislative body is prohibited from taking final action on the proposed compensation of one or more unrepresented employees. Existing law also requires that all contracts of employment with a local agency, as defined, for certain positions be ratified in an open session of the governing body and be reflected in the governing body's minutes. This bill would require that any individual contract of employment or amendment to a contract of employment with an employee who is or will be employed by, and report directly to, the legislative body of the local agency be ratified in an open session of the legislative body after prescribed information regarding the contract or amendment to the contract is made available in a conspicuous location on the local agency's Internet Web site, if it maintains one, and in a location that is freely accessible to the public, no later than 5 days prior to the meeting to ratify the contract or amend the contract. By expanding the duties of local officials, these provisions would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would also specify that final action on the proposed compensation of one or more unrepresented employees who are to be employed by, and report directly to, the legislative body of the local agency only be taken in open session, consistent with the prescribed disclosure requirements. By expanding the duties of local officials, these provisions would impose a state-mandated local program. (4) The bill would express a legislative finding and declaration that, to ensure the statewide integrity of local government, disclosure of compensation paid to officers and designated employees is an issue of statewide concern and not a municipal affair and that, therefore, all cities, including charter cities, would be subject to the provisions of the bill. (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, 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 these statutory provisions. (6) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law provides for the licensure and regulation of health facilities, including general acute care hospitals, by the State Department of Public Health. Existing law requires the department, when an applicant for a general acute care hospital license meets the applicable requirements of licensure, to issue a single consolidated general acute care hospital license that includes more than one physical plant maintained and operated on separate premises or that has multiple licenses for a single health facility on the same premises if any of specified criteria are met. One of these criteria is that the physical plants maintained and operated by the licensee that are to be covered by the single consolidated license are located not more than 15 miles apart. If the physical plants are located more than 15 miles apart, a single consolidated license may be issued to a children's hospital under specified circumstances. Existing law also authorizes the State Public Health Officer to issue a single consolidated license for a general acute care hospital to Children's Hospital Oakland and San Ramon Regional Medical Center, as well as a single consolidated license for a general acute care hospital to Children's Hospital Oakland and the John Muir Medical Center, Concord Campus. This bill would eliminate the above-mentioned provisions applicable to single consolidated licenses for children's hospitals, and would, instead, permit the department to issue a single consolidated license for a children's hospital that has physical plants located not more than 35 miles apart if prescribed conditions are met. The bill would require, to the extent permitted by federal law, the payments to prescribed children's hospitals under the Medi-Cal Hospital/Uninsured Care Demonstration Project be adjusted in a specified manner, as prescribed until January 1, 2016, or the extension of prescribed federal waiver, whichever occurs first.
Existing law, the California High-Speed Train Act, creates the High-Speed Rail Authority to develop and implement a high-speed train system in the state, with specified powers and duties. Existing law, the Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century, approved by the voters as Proposition 1A at the November 4, 2008, general election, provides for the issuance of $9.95 billion in general obligation bonds for high-speed rail and related purposes. This bill, subject to appropriation by the Legislature, would require the authority to expend federal funds made available by the federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) for specified high-speed rail purposes. The bill would require the authority to take various actions in that regard. The bill would also require the authority to submit to the Legislature and the Legislative Analyst an expenditure plan for the federal funds within 60 days of finalization of a cooperative agreement with the federal government. The bill would make legislative findings and declarations relative to federal funds to be made available to the state by ARRA for high-speed rail purposes. The bill would exempt the Transbay Transit Center project in San Francisco from these provisions. This bill would provide that it shall become operative only if A.B. 289 is also enacted.
Under existing law, a provision of a memorandum of understanding reached between the state employer and a recognized employee organization representing state civil service employees that requires the expenditure of funds does not become effective unless approved by the Legislature in the annual Budget Act. This bill would approve provisions that require the expenditure of funds of a memorandum of understanding entered into between the state employer and an unspecified bargaining unit, and would provide that these provisions will become effective even if these provisions are approved by the Legislature in legislation other than the annual Budget Act. This bill would provide that provisions of the memorandum of understanding approved by this bill that require the expenditure of funds will not take effect unless funds for these provisions are specifically appropriated by the Legislature, and would require the state employer and the affected employee organization to meet and confer to renegotiate the affected provisions if funds for these provisions are not specifically appropriated by the Legislature.
(1) The County Employees Retirement Law of 1937 sets forth the membership composition for boards of retirement, as specified. Under that law, the retirement board in specified counties is comprised of 9 members and an alternate member who is the candidate for the 7th member from the group of safety members, under specified provisions, that is not represented by a board member who received the highest number of votes for all candidates in that group, except as specified. The alternate member has, unless prohibited by a resolution or regulation of the board, the same rights, privileges, responsibilities, and access to closed sessions as the 2nd, 3rd, 7th, and 8th member and the right to hold positions on committees of the board independent of the 2nd, 3rd, 7th, or 8th member and to participate in the deliberations of the board or its committees, as specified. This bill would delete the authority of the board to prohibit, by a resolution or regulation of the board, a member from having the same rights, privileges, responsibilities, and access to closed sessions as the 2nd, 3rd, 7th, or 8th member, or from holding positions on committees of the board, and participating in board or committee deliberations, as described above. The bill would authorize the alternate 7th member to participate in the deliberations of the board on any of its committees to which the alternate 7th member has been appointed regardless of whether the 2nd, 3rd, 7th, or 8th member is present. The bill would require the board to cause an election to be held at the earliest possible date to fill a vacancy for the duration of the current term, except as specified, if there is a vacancy in the 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 8th, or alternate 7th member position. It would limit candidacy to the 7th member and alternate member positions, as specified. The bill would require the board of supervisors to forgo an election in specified circumstances when there is only one candidate. The bill would also make various changes in terminology and delete obsolete references. (2) Existing law prescribes the manner of appointing an alternate retired member to the office of the 8th member of the board of retirement. If there is a vacancy with respect to the 8th member, existing law requires that the alternate retired member fill the vacancy until a successor qualifies. Existing law authorizes the alternate retired member to hold positions on committees of the board independent of the 8th member and to participate in the deliberations of the board or its committees regardless of whether the 8th member is present, unless prohibited by resolution or regulation of the board. This bill would instead require the board of retirement to, by majority vote, appoint a replacement alternate member, in the same manner as prescribed for the initial appointment of an alternate retired member, who shall serve until the expiration of the current term of the current member. The alternate retired member would have the same rights, privileges, responsibilities, and access to closed sessions as the 8th member, except as specified. The bill would also delete the authority of the board to prohibit the alternate retired member from holding positions on committees of the board or participating in the deliberations of the board or any of its committees to which the alternate retired member has been appointed, as described above. The bill would also make changes in terminology. (3) Existing law permits the board of supervisors in a county in which the assets of the retirement system exceed $800,000,000 to establish a board of investments, to consist of 9 members of specified classifications, which is responsible for the investments of the retirement system. Existing law prescribes the terms for the members of the board of investments. This bill would prescribe a process for filling vacancies in specified positions on a board of investments, as described above. The bill would require the board to cause an election to be held at the earliest possible date to fill those vacancies, except as specified, with a replacement member to serve for the duration of the current term, unless the remaining portion is 6 months or less, in which case concurrent elections would be authorized to be held for the vacant term position and the succeeding term position. The bill would require the board of supervisors to forgo an election in specified circumstances when there is only one candidate. The bill would also delete obsolete references and establish the initial term of a person appointed as a 9th member.
Existing law provides that every person confined in any local detention facility who commits a battery by gassing upon the person of any peace officer, as defined, or employee of the local detention facility is guilty of aggravated battery and shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail or by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years. This bill would broaden the scope of application of this offense by providing that it is aggravated battery, punishable as specified above, for any person to commit battery by gassing upon the person of any peace officer. By broadening the scope of application of an existing crime, 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 governs mortgages and deeds of trust on real property. This bill would provide that, except as otherwise provided by federal law, if a person has applied to a lender for a loan secured by a mortgage or deed of trust on owner-occupied residential real property and an appraisal has been completed for that lender, in connection with the loan application, that person may instruct the lender to provide a copy of the previously completed appraisal to a second or subsequent lender if that appraisal meets specified criteria, and that appraisal shall be accepted by that second or subsequent lender for purposes of determining whether to approve the loan application. This provision would also prohibit the lender from requiring the loan applicant to obtain a new appraisal of the property as a condition of approval of the loan. This bill would also provide that a second or subsequent lender may not request that an appraiser change the name of a client within an appraisal report, except as specified.
(1) The Administrative Procedure Act generally sets forth the requirements for the adoption, publication, review, and implementation of regulations by state agencies. An agency that is considering adopting, amending, or repealing a regulation is authorized to consult with interested persons before initiating regulatory action, and requires an agency to do so when the regulation involves complex or numerous proposals. This bill would require the agency, if it does not, or is unable to, consult with these parties to inform in writing the Office of Small Business Advocate and the Department of Finance of its decision and the reasons for not consulting the impacted businesses. (2) The act requires every state agency subject to the act to submit, with the notice of the proposed adoption, amendment, or repeal of a regulation, an initial statement of reasons for proposing the adoption, amendment, or repeal of a regulation, which is required to include, among other things, a description of any reasonable alternatives that would lessen any adverse impact on small business and the agency's reasons for rejecting those reasonable alternatives. The act specifies the agency is not required, in this initial statement, to artificially construct alternatives, describe unreasonable alternatives, or justify why it has not described alternatives. This bill would require the agency to describe the agency's reasons for rejecting each specific alternative, and would delete the specification that an agency is not required to artificially construct alternatives, describe unreasonable alternatives, or justify why it has not described alternatives. (3) The act requires a state agency to assess the potential of a proposal to adopt, amend, or repeal a regulation to adversely affect business enterprises and individuals. This bill would also require an agency to submit an economic impact statement that makes that assessment and would also require an agency, before submitting a proposal, to prepare a small business economic impact statement that contains specified information. (4) Under the act, the agency must issue a notice of proposed action that includes prescribed information, including, if a state agency makes an initial determination that the adoption, amendment, or repeal of a regulation will not have a significant statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting business, a declaration of that determination. This bill would delete that requirement and instead require, if an agency declares that it is not aware of any cost impact, that the notice of proposed action include a statement describing how a private person or business could comply with the proposed regulation without incurring a cost. This bill would also require that the notice of proposed action include the small business economic impact statement that this bill requires an agency to prepare. (5) The act also requires the Department of Finance to adopt and update, as necessary, instructions for inclusion in the State Administrative Manual prescribing the methods that any agency is required to use in making the determinations relating to mandates on local agencies or school districts, as specified. This bill would also require the Department of Finance to adopt and update, as necessary, instructions prescribing the methods that any agency is required to use in making the determinations relating to significant, statewide adverse economic impacts directly affecting business, as specified. (6) The act requires the Office of Administrative Law to review and approve regulations that are adopted, amended, or repealed, using prescribed standards. The act requires that the office reject a proposed regulation in specified circumstances. This bill would require that the office reject a proposed regulation if the adopting agency does not provide specified information relating to the small business economic impact statement. (7) The act authorizes any interested person to obtain a judicial declaration as to the validity of specified regulations or orders of repeal, by bringing an action for declaratory relief in the superior court in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure. This bill would specify that an interested person includes, but is not limited to, a small business or an organization or trade association that represents small businesses and whose members are affected by the regulation. (8) The bill would also make conforming changes to the act.
(1) Existing law requires that a person, other than a nonimmigrant alien, as defined, who has attended high school in California for 3 or more years, who has graduated from a California high school or attained the equivalent thereof, who has registered at or attends an accredited institution of higher education in California not earlier than the fall semester or quarter of the 2001–02 academic year, and who, if he or she is an alien without lawful immigration status, has filed a prescribed affidavit, is exempt from paying nonresident tuition at the California Community Colleges and the California State University. This bill would enact the California Dream Act of 2010. The bill, as of July 1, 2011, would exempt a person who has attended, for 3 or more years, at least one of which shall have been in a high school, and graduated from, secondary school in California from paying nonresident tuition at the California Community Colleges and the California State University. Under the bill, persons attending and graduating from California technical schools and adult schools, as well as high schools, would be included within the scope of this provision. (2) The Donahoe Higher Education Act sets forth, among other things, the missions and functions of California's public and independent segments of higher education, and their respective institutions of higher education. Provisions of the act apply to the University of California only to the extent that the Regents of the University of California, by appropriate resolution, act to make a provision applicable. In any action in which a state court finds that a specified law, or any similar provision adopted by the regents, is unlawful, existing law authorizes the court to order the administering entity that is the subject of the lawsuit to terminate any waiver awarded under that statute or action, as equitable relief, prohibits the award of money damages, tuition refund or waiver, or other retroactive relief, and provides that the California Community Colleges, the California State University, and the University of California are immune from the imposition of any award of money damages, tuition refund or waiver, or other retroactive relief in a lawsuit. This bill would amend the Donahoe Higher Education Act, as of July 1, 2011, to require the Trustees of the California State University and the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, and to request the regents, to establish procedures and forms that enable persons who are exempt from paying nonresident tuition under the provision described in (1) above, or who meet equivalent requirements adopted by the regents, to apply for, and participate in, all student aid programs administered by these segments to the full extent permitted by federal law, except as provided. This provision would apply to the University of California only if the regents, by appropriate resolution, act to make it applicable. If a state court finds that this provision, or a similar provision adopted by the regents, is unlawful, this bill would provide that the same limitations described above would apply. This bill would further provide that, on and after January 1, 2011, a student attending the California State University, the California Community Colleges, or the University of California who is exempt from paying nonresident tuition under the provision described above would be eligible to receive a scholarship derived from nonstate funds received, for the purpose of scholarships, by the segment at which he or she is a student. Existing federal law requires that a state may provide that an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States is eligible for any state or local public benefit for which that alien would otherwise be ineligible under a specified federal law only through enactment of a state law that affirmatively provides for that eligibility. This bill would find and declare that the amendments to the Donahoe Higher Education Act described above are state laws within the meaning of this federal provision. (3) Existing law establishes the California Community Colleges under the administration of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges. Existing law authorizes the establishment of community college districts under the administration of community college governing boards, and authorizes these districts to provide instruction, for prescribed fees, at community college campuses throughout the state. Existing law authorizes the waiver of these fees for, among others, students who are eligible under income standards established by the board of governors. This bill, as of July 1, 2011, would require community college districts to waive the fees of persons who are exempt from nonresident tuition under the provision described in (1) above, and who otherwise qualify for a waiver under this provision, under regulations and procedures adopted by the board of governors. Because the bill would impose new duties on community college districts with respect to determining eligibility for fee waivers, the bill would constitute 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, 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 these statutory provisions.