(1) The federal Clean Air Act regulates the discharge of air pollutants into the atmosphere. The federal Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of pollutants into water. The federal Safe Drinking Water Act establishes drinking water standards for drinking water systems. The federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 generally prohibits activities affecting threatened and endangered species listed pursuant to that act unless authorized by a permit from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service, as appropriate. Existing state law regulates the discharge of air pollutants into the atmosphere. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act regulates the discharge of pollutants into the waters of the state. The California Safe Drinking Water Act establishes standards for drinking water and regulates drinking water systems. The California Endangered Species Act requires the Fish and Game Commission to establish a list of endangered species and a list of threatened species, and generally prohibits the taking of those species. This bill would, until January 20, 2025, require specified agencies to take prescribed actions regarding certain federal requirements and standards pertaining to air, water, and protected species, as specified. By imposing new duties on local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would revise the enforcement provisions of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, as provided. (2) Existing law provides for the enforcement of laws regulating the discharge of pollutants into the atmosphere and waters of the state. Existing law provides for the enforcement of drinking water standards. Existing law provides for the enforcement of the California Endangered Species Act. This bill would, until January 20, 2025, authorize a person acting in the public interest to bring an action to enforce certain standards if specified conditions are satisfied. (3) Existing federal law, including the federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, and the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, generally establishes standards for workers' health and safety. Existing state law, including the California Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973, generally establishes standards for workers' health and safety. This bill would, until January 20, 2025, require specified agencies to take prescribed actions regarding certain requirements and standards pertaining to workers' health and safety. (4) Existing law makes it unlawful to take a bird, mammal, fish, reptile, or amphibian, except as authorized by law. This bill would make it unlawful for a person in California to transport, sell, offer for sale, possess with the intent to sell, receive, acquire, or purchase any fish, wildlife, or plant that was taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law, treaty, regulation, policy, or finding of the United States with regard to national or international trade of fish, wildlife, or plants in effect on January 19, 2017. The bill would make these provisions inoperative on January 20, 2025, and would repeal them on January 1, 2026. Under existing law, a violation of the Fish and Game Code is a crime. Because the above provision would be part of the Fish and Game Code, a violation of which would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (5) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Sponsored bills
Existing law establishes the University of California, under the administration of the Regents of the University of California, and the California State University, under the administration of the Trustees of the California State University, as 2 of the segments of public postsecondary education in this state. This bill would express findings and declarations of the Legislature relating to the availability of abortion by medication techniques at on-campus student health centers at public postsecondary educational institutions in the state. The bill would require, on and after January 1, 2023, each student health care services clinic on a California State University or University of California campus to offer abortion by medication techniques, as specified. The bill would require the Commission on the Status of Women and Girls to administer the College Student Health Center Sexual and Reproductive Health Preparation Fund, which the bill would establish. The bill would continuously appropriate the moneys in that fund to the commission for allocations to each public university student health care services clinic for specified activities in preparation for providing abortion by medication techniques, thereby making an appropriation. The bill would provide that its requirements would be implemented only if, and to the extent that, a total of at least $10,290,000 in private moneys is made available to the fund in a timely manner on or after January 1, 2020. The bill would require the commission to submit a report to the Legislature, on or before December 31, 2021, and on or before December 31 of every year thereafter until December 31, 2026, that includes, but is not necessarily limited to, specified information relating to abortion by medication techniques at these student health clinics.
Existing law, the Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Law of 1997, establishes the Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund to provide grants or revolving fund loans for the design and construction of projects for public water systems that will enable those systems to meet safe drinking water standards. Existing law, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, establishes the State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund program pursuant to which state and federal funds are continuously appropriated from the State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund to the State Water Resources Control Board for loans and other financial assistance for, among other purposes in accordance with the federal Clean Water Act, measures to reduce the demand for publicly owned treatment works capacity through water conservation, efficiency, or reuse and for reusing or recycling wastewater, stormwater, or subsurface drainage water. This bill would require, as a condition of receiving construction financing from the Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and as a condition of receiving financial assistance from the State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund, for specified work performed at the City of San Diego's North City Water Reclamation Plant, North City Pure Water Facility, or any other portion of the Pure Water San Diego Program, an applicant to ensure a construction contract awarded on or after January 1, 2020, requires the contractor to enter into a project labor agreement in accordance with specified existing law. The bill would provide that this condition on receiving construction financing and financial assistance remains in effect only until completion of all phases of the Pure Water San Diego Program. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City of San Diego.
The Personal Income Tax Law and the Corporation Tax Law allow various credits against the taxes imposed by those laws. This bill would allow to a taxpayer that receives a tax credit allocation a credit against those taxes for each taxable year beginning on or after January 1, 2021, and before January 1, 2026, in an amount, determined in modified conformity with a specified section of the Internal Revenue Code, for rehabilitation of certified historic structures and, under the Personal Income Tax Law, for a qualified residence. The bill would provide for a 20% credit, or 25% credit, of qualified rehabilitation expenditures if the structure meets specified criteria, for rehabilitation of a certified historic structure or a qualified residence, as provided, within the state to be allocated on a first-come-first-served basis by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee, in conjunction with the Office of Historic Preservation, as provided. The bill would authorize both of these agencies to charge a reasonable fee not to exceed a specified amount for costs incurred in carrying out certain responsibilities related to the tax credit. The aggregate amount of credit would be $50,000,000 per calendar year, plus unused allocation tax credit for the preceding year, $10,000,000 of which would be set aside for rehabilitation projects for qualified residences and for rehabilitation projects with qualified rehabilitation expenditures of less than $1,000,000, as specified. The bill would require the Legislative Analyst to, on an annual basis, collaborate with the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and the Office of Historic Preservation to review the effectiveness of the tax credit, as provided. The bill would also provide that the credit amount is $0 for each taxable year beginning on or after January 1, 2021, and before January 1, 2026, unless otherwise specified in a bill providing for appropriations related to the Budget Act. This bill would make specified findings detailing the goals, purposes, and objectives of the above-described tax credits, performance indicators for determining whether the credits meet those goals, purposes, and objectives, and data collection requirements. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
Existing law generally provides for the compensation of victims and derivative victims of specified types of crimes by the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board from the Restitution Fund, a continuously appropriated fund, for specified losses suffered as a result of those crimes. Existing law requires a victim or derivative victim seeking compensation to have sustained one or more specified physical or emotional injuries, or pecuniary losses, as a direct result of the crime. Existing law authorizes the board to grant compensation for pecuniary loss, if it determines it will best aid the person seeking compensation, by authorizing a cash payment or reimbursement to a victim for expenses incurred in relocating, including a security deposit, if the expenses are determined by law enforcement to be necessary for the personal safety of the victim or by a mental health treatment provider to be necessary for the emotional well-being of the victim. Existing law specifies that if a security deposit is required for relocation, the board shall be named as the recipient, and receive the funds, upon expiration of the victim's rental agreement. This bill would specify, for purposes of these provisions, that "expenses incurred in relocating" may include the costs of temporary housing for any pets belonging to the victim upon immediate relocation. The bill would also authorize the cash payment or grant to reimburse a victim for a security deposit, pet deposit, or both, for which the board would be named as the recipient, and would receive the funds, upon expiration of the victim's rental agreement. By expanding the authorizations for use of moneys in the Restitution Fund, a continuously appropriated fund, this bill would make an appropriation. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 13957 of the Government Code proposed by AB 629 to be operative only if this bill and AB 629 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Existing law provides funding for the development, construction, and maintenance of the state's bridges and highways and requires that a project study report be prepared for any new project involving the construction of a new bridge, or the replacement of a bridge with a history of documented suicides, that demonstrates that a suicide barrier was a feature that was considered during the project's planning process. This bill would require the Director of Transportation to select members for an advisory committee to provide input into the selection of a physical suicide deterrent system for the San Diego-Coronado Bridge that would include, but would not be limited to, a representative from the Department of the California Highway Patrol, a mental health advocate, a member of a local suicide prevention group, residents of specified cities, and representatives of specified city and county governments. The bill would also provide for the selection to the advisory committee of one representative each by the Assembly Members or State Senators whose districts include the San Diego-Coronado Bridge. This bill would repeal these provisions upon the Department of Transportation's selection of a physical suicide deterrent system for the San Diego-Coronado Bridge, or on January 1, 2030, whichever occurs first. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, prohibits housing discrimination, including discrimination through public or private land use practices, decisions, or authorizations, based on specified personal characteristics, including source of income. Existing law defines the term "source of income" for purposes of the provisions relating to discrimination in housing accommodations described above, to mean lawful, verifiable income paid directly to a tenant or paid to a representative of a tenant. Existing law specifies that for the purposes of this definition, a landlord is not considered a representative of a tenant. This bill would instead define the term for purposes of those provisions, to mean verifiable income paid directly to a tenant or to a representative of a tenant, or paid to a housing owner or landlord on behalf of a tenant, including federal, state, or local public assistance and housing subsidies, as specified. The bill would also specify that for the purposes of this definition, a housing owner is not considered a representative of a tenant. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 12927 of the Government Code proposed by AB 1497 and SB 222 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1497 or SB 222 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 12955 of the Government Code proposed by SB 222 to be operative only if this bill and SB 222 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Existing law specifies that a hiring of residential real property, for a term not specified by the parties, is deemed to be renewed at the end of the term implied by law unless one of the parties gives written notice to the other of that party's intention to terminate. Existing law requires an owner of a residential dwelling to give notice at least 60 days prior to the proposed date of termination, or at least 30 days prior to the proposed date of termination if any tenant or resident has resided in the dwelling for less than one year, as specified. Existing law requires any notice given by an owner to be given in a prescribed manner, to contain certain information, and to be formatted, as specified. This bill would, with certain exceptions, prohibit an owner, as defined, of residential real property from terminating a tenancy without just cause, as defined, which the bill would require to be stated in the written notice to terminate tenancy when the tenant has continuously and lawfully occupied the residential real property for 12 months, except as provided. The bill would require, for certain just cause terminations that are curable, that the owner give a notice of violation and an opportunity to cure the violation prior to issuing the notice of termination. The bill, if the violation is not cured within the time period set forth in the notice, would authorize a 3-day notice to quit without an opportunity to cure to be served to terminate the tenancy. The bill would require, for no-fault just cause terminations, as specified, that the owner, at the owner's option, either assist certain tenants to relocate, regardless of the tenant's income, by providing a direct payment of one month's rent to the tenant, as specified, or waive in writing the payment of rent for the final month of the tenancy, prior to the rent becoming due. The bill would require the actual amount of relocation assistance or rent waiver provided to a tenant that fails to vacate after the expiration of the notice to terminate the tenancy to be recoverable as damages in an action to recover possession. The bill would provide that if the owner does not provide relocation assistance, the notice of termination is void. The bill would except certain properties and circumstances from the application of its provisions. The bill would require an owner of residential property to provide prescribed notice to a tenant of the tenant's rights under these provisions. The bill would not apply to residential real property subject to a local ordinance requiring just cause for termination adopted on or before September 1, 2019, or to residential real property subject to a local ordinance requiring just cause for termination adopted or amended after September 1, 2019, that is more protective than these provisions, as defined. The bill would void any waiver of the rights under these provisions. The bill would repeal these provisions as of January 1, 2030. Existing law governs the hiring of residential dwelling units and requires a landlord to provide specified notice to tenants prior to an increase in rent. Existing law, the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, prescribes statewide limits on the application of local rent control with regard to certain properties. That act, among other things, authorizes an owner of residential real property to establish the initial and all subsequent rental rates for a dwelling or unit that meets specified criteria, subject to certain limitations. This bill would, until January 1, 2030, prohibit an owner of residential real property from, over the course of any 12-month period, 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 bill would prohibit an owner of a unit of residential real property from increasing the gross rental rate for the unit in more than 2 increments over a 12-month period, after the tenant remains in occupancy of the unit over a 12-month period. The bill would exempt certain properties from these provisions. The bill would require the Legislative Analyst's Office to submit a report, on or before January 1, 2030, to the Legislature regarding the effectiveness of these provisions. The bill would provide that these provisions apply to all rent increases occurring on or after March 15, 2019. The bill would provide that in the event that an owner increased the rent by more than the amount specified above between March 15, 2019, and January 1, 2020, the applicable rent on January 1, 2020, shall be the rent as of March 15, 2019, plus the maximum permissible increase, and the owner shall not be liable to the tenant for any corresponding rent overpayment. The bill would authorize an owner who increased the rent by less than the amount specified above between March 15, 2019, and January 1, 2020, to increase the rent twice within 12 months of March 15, 2019, but not by more than the amount specified above. The bill would void any waiver of the rights under these provisions. The Planning and Zoning Law requires the owner of an assisted housing development in which there will be an expiration of rental restrictions to, among other things, provide notice of the proposed change to each affected tenant household residing in the assisted housing development subject to specified procedures and requirements, and to also provide specified entities notice and an opportunity to submit an offer to purchase the development prior to the expiration of the rental restrictions. This bill would authorize an owner of an assisted housing development, who demonstrates, under penalty of perjury, compliance with the provisions described above with regard to the expiration of rental restrictions, to establish the initial unassisted rental rate for units without regard to the cap on rent increases discussed above, but would require the owner to comply with the above cap on rent increases for subsequent rent increases in the development. The bill would authorize an owner of a deed-restricted affordable housing unit or an affordable housing unit subject to a regulatory restriction contained in an agreement with a government agency limiting rental rates that is not within an assisted housing development to establish the initial rental rate for the unit upon the expiration of the restriction, but would require the owner to comply with the above cap on rent increases for subsequent rent increases for the unit. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2030. The bill would void any waiver of the rights under these provisions. By requiring an owner of an assisted housing development to demonstrate compliance with specified provisions under penalty of perjury, this bill would expand the existing crime of perjury and thus 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 establishes in the Department of Justice a Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training. Existing law requires the Governor to appoint members to the commission, 2 of whom are required to be members of the public who are not peace officers. This bill would require the President pro Tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the Assembly to each appoint a member of the commission who is not a peace officer and who has demonstrated expertise in specified areas.