Existing law, the Veterans' Bond Act of 2008, as approved by the voters, authorizes the issuance of bonds in the amount of $900,000,000, pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law, for purposes of financing the Cal-Vet program for farm, home, and mobilehome purchase assistance for veterans. This bill would amend the Veterans' Bond Act of 2008 to reduce the amount of bonds that are authorized to be issued under the act from $900,000,000 to $300,000,000. The bill would enact the Veterans Housing and Homeless Prevention Bond Act of 2014 (the bond act) to authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of $600,000,000, as specified, for expenditure by the California Housing Finance Agency, the Department of Housing and Community Development, and the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide multifamily housing to veterans pursuant to the Veterans Housing and Homeless Prevention Act of 2014 (VHHPA) , also enacted by the bill. The bill would authorize the Legislature to amend the provisions of the bond act, by majority vote, for specified purposes. The bill would impose a specified reporting requirement on the Department of Housing and Community Development to evaluate, in collaboration with the Department of Veterans Affairs, any program established by the former pursuant to the VHHPA. The bill would authorize the Department of Housing and Community Development to provide specified assistance to veterans. The bill would provide for submission of a specified section to the voters at the June 3, 2014, statewide primary election, as specified. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Sponsored bills
Existing law provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care. Existing law provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Department of Insurance. Existing law requires health care service plan contracts and health insurance policies to provide benefits for specified conditions, including coverage for behavioral health treatment, as defined, for pervasive developmental disorder or autism, except as specified. A willful violation of these provisions with respect to health care service plans is a crime. These provisions are inoperative on July 1, 2014, and are repealed on January 1, 2015. This bill would extend the operation of these provisions until January 1, 2017. By extending the operation of provisions establishing crimes, 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.
(1) Existing law requires the State Department of Public Health to establish uniform statewide recycling criteria for each varying type of use of recycled water where the use involves the protection of public health. Existing regulations prescribe various requirements and prohibitions relating to recycled water. Existing law requires any person who, without regard to intent or negligence, causes or permits any sewage or other waste, or the effluent of treated sewage or other waste, to be discharged in or on any waters of the state, or where it probably will be discharged in or on any waters of the state, to immediately notify the local health officer of the director of environmental health of the discharge, as prescribed. This bill, the Water Recycling Act of 2013, would provide that this notification requirement does not apply to an unauthorized discharge of effluent of treated sewage defined as recycled water, as defined. (2) Existing law provides for the regulation of cemeteries, including, among others, private cemeteries, public cemeteries, and cemeteries operated by a religious organization. Existing law permits a governing board of a city or county to prescribe standards of maintenance for cemeteries to protect the public health or safety. This bill would specify that hose bibs are approved for use at cemeteries supplied with disinfected tertiary treated recycled water. The bill would require a cemetery supplied with disinfected tertiary treated recycled water that installs a hose bib in a public access area to post visible signage and labeling indicating that the water is nonpotable. (3) Existing law establishes the State Water Resources Control Board and the California regional water quality control boards as the principal state agencies with authority over matters relating to water quality. This bill would authorize compliance with effluent limitations and any other permit or waste discharge requirements for the release or discharge of recycled water determined to be suitable for direct potable reuse or surface water augmentation into a conveyance facility to be determined at the point where the recycled water enters the conveyance facility but prior to commingling with any raw water. The bill would require, before a discharge may be allowed, that consent be obtained from the owner or operator of the conveyance facility that directly receives the recycled water.
(1) Existing law establishes the State Water Resources Control Board, referred to as the state board, and the California regional water quality control boards, referred to as regional boards, as the principal state agencies with authority over matters relating to water quality. Existing law requires the State Department of Public Health to investigate the feasibility of developing uniform water recycling criteria for direct potable reuse, as defined, and to provide a final report on that investigation to the Legislature on or before December 31, 2016. Existing law also requires the department to complete a public review draft of its report by June 30, 2016. This bill would require the department, in consultation with the state board, to investigate the feasibility of developing uniform water recycling criteria for direct potable reuse and to provide a final report on that investigation to the Legislature on or before December 31, 2016. This bill would also require the department to complete the public review draft of its report by September 1, 2016. (2) Existing law requires an expert panel to be convened and administered by the department and requires the expert panel to be comprised of, at a minimum, an epidemiologist, a microbiologist, and a chemist, among others. Existing law authorizes the department to appoint an advisory group, task force, or other group, comprised of no fewer than 9 representatives of specified entities to advise the department regarding the development of uniform water recycling criteria for direct potable reuse. This bill would require the department to convene and administer the expert panel on or before February 15, 2014. The bill would require the expert panel, in addition to its existing responsibilities, to assess any additional areas of research that are needed to be able to establish uniform regulatory criteria for direct potable reuse and recommend an approach for accomplishing any of the additional needed research regarding uniform criteria for direct potable reuse in a timely manner. The bill would also require the expert panel to include a limnologist. The bill would require the department to convene the advisory group, task force, or other group, on or before January 15, 2014, and would subject the advisory group to specific open meetings provisions. The bill would further expand the list of specified entities from which the representatives of the advisory group, task force, or other group could be selected to include, among others, the department, the state board, ratepayer or taxpayer advocate organizations, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The bill would require, on or before June 30, 2016, the department to prepare a draft report summarizing the recommendations of the expert panel. The bill would authorize the department to contract with a public university or other research institution for purposes of the expert panel. (3) Existing law also authorizes the department to accept funds from any source and use those funds, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for certain purposes. This bill would instead authorize the department to accept funds from nonstate sources and use those funds for certain purposes.
Existing law establishes the State Historical Resources Commission and the California Register of Historical Resources. Existing law requires the Department of Parks and Recreation to consider all recommendations for registration made by the commission, and requires the department to register, as state historical landmarks, those buildings, structures, sites, or places that the department deems to be important historical resources. Existing law authorizes a resource to be nominated for listing as a historical resource in the California Register of Historical Resources in accordance with specified nominating procedures. Existing law establishes the State Office of Historic Preservation and requires the office to perform certain duties, including recommending properties of historical significance for nomination by the commission for, among other things, listing in the California Register of Historic Resources. This bill would require the office to educate the public on the process required to nominate a resource for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, as provided. The bill would also require the office, by January 1, 2015, to identify publicly owned resources that may be appropriate for potential listing as historical resources, historical landmarks, or points of historical interest for their association with the labor and civil rights movements or California's modern history, as defined, and report its findings to the commission. This bill would require the land known as Nuestra Señora Reina de La Paz, which includes the home and burial site of the late Cesar Chavez, to be registered as a state historical landmark. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute.
Existing law authorizes the Supreme Court to admit an applicant as an attorney at law in all the courts of the state, upon certification by the examining committee of the State Bar of California that the applicant has fulfilled the requirements for admission to practice law, as specified. This bill would additionally authorize the Supreme Court to admit to the practice of law an applicant who is not lawfully present in the United States, upon certification by the committee that the applicant has fulfilled those requirements for admission, as specified.
Existing law, the State Bar Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of attorneys by the State Bar of California, a public corporation. This bill would make it a violation of specified provisions of law relating to the unauthorized practice of law for any person who is not an attorney to literally translate from English into another language the phrases "notary public," "notary," "licensed," "attorney," "lawyer," or any other terms that imply that the person is an attorney. The bill would prescribe penalties, not to exceed $1,000 per day for each violation, for a person who violates these provisions. The bill would authorize these penalties to be allocated to a specified fund for purposes of providing free legal services related to immigration reform act services to clients of limited means, or to a fund for the purposes of mitigating unpaid claims of injured immigrant clients, as specified, as directed by the Board of Trustees of the State Bar. The bill would require the Board of Trustees of the State Bar to annually report any collection and expenditure of these moneys to the Assembly and Senate Committees on Judiciary. This bill would require, when a contract for legal services is required in writing pursuant to specified provisions of law, that an attorney providing immigration reform act services, as defined, provide a written notice informing the client that he or she may report complaints to specified entities. The bill would make these provisions operative when the State Bar posts the form and specified translations of the form on its Internet Web site, but no later than 45 days after the effective date of the bill. Existing law provides for the regulation of a person engaged in the business or acting in the capacity of an immigration consultant, and provides that a violation of these provisions is a crime. Existing law requires an immigration consultant to provide a client with a written contract containing specified information prior to providing services. Existing law requires an immigration consultant to file a bond of $50,000 with the Secretary of State in accordance with specified provisions of law. This bill would, commencing July 1, 2014, increase the amount of this bond to $100,000. The bill would require that the written contract contain additional information relating to an explanation of the purpose of each service to be performed. The bill would require an immigration consultant to establish a client trust account and to deposit in this account any funds received from the client prior to performing immigration reform act services, as defined, for that client, and would impose certain requirements relating to the expenditure of funds from this trust account. The bill would prohibit an attorney or an immigration consultant from demanding or accepting the advance payment of any funds from a person before the enactment of an immigration reform act, as defined, and would require any funds received after the effective date of this bill, but before the enactment of an immigration reform act, to be refunded to the client promptly, but no later than 30 days after the receipt of any funds. The bill would require any funds that were received before the effective date of the bill for services not rendered before the effective date of the bill to be either refunded to the client or deposited in a client trust fund in accordance with specified provisions. The bill would prescribe penalties, not to exceed $1,000 per day for each violation, for immigration consultants who violate these provisions. Existing law prohibits an immigration consultant from literally translating the phrase "notary public" into Spanish. This bill would provide that a violation of these provisions constitutes a violation of specified provisions of law relating to the unauthorized practice of law. The bill also would prescribe penalties, not to exceed $1,000 per day for each violation, for immigration consultants who violate these provisions. Because a violation of these provisions by an immigration consultant would be a 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. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law establishes grounds for suspension or revocation of certain business and professional licenses. This bill would subject those business licenses to suspension or revocation, with a specified exception, if the licensee has been determined by the Labor Commissioner or the court to have violated specified law and the court or Labor Commissioner has taken into consideration any harm such a suspension or revocation would cause to employees of the licensee, as well as the good faith efforts of the licensee to resolve any alleged violations after receiving notice. The bill would subject a licensee of an agency within the Department of Consumer Affairs who has been found by the Labor Commissioner or the court to have violated specified law to disciplinary action by his or her respective licensing agency. The State Bar Act establishes specific causes for the disbarment or suspension of a member of the State Bar. This bill would make it a cause for suspension, disbarment, or other discipline for any member of the State Bar to report suspected immigration status or threaten to report suspected immigration status of a witness or party to a civil or administrative action or his or her family member, as defined, to a federal, state, or local agency because the witness or party exercises or has exercised a right related to his or her employment. Existing law establishes various rights and protections relating to employment and civil rights that may be enforced by civil action. This bill would provide that it is not necessary to exhaust administrative remedies or procedures in order to bring a civil action enforcing designated rights. Under the bill, reporting or threatening to report an employee's, former employee's, or prospective employee's suspected citizenship or immigration status, or the suspected citizenship or immigration status of the employee's or former employee's family member, as defined, to a federal, state, or local agency because the employee, former employee, or prospective employee exercises a designated right would constitute an adverse action for purposes of establishing a violation of the designated right. Because a violation of certain of those designated rights is a misdemeanor, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program by changing the definition of a crime. Existing law prohibits an employer from discharging an employee or in any manner discriminating against any employee or applicant for employment because the employee or applicant has engaged in prescribed protected conduct relating to the enforcement of the employee's or applicant's rights. Existing law makes it a misdemeanor for an employer to take adverse employment action against employees who file bona fide complaints. This bill would also prohibit an employer from retaliating or taking any adverse action against any employee or applicant for employment because the employee or applicant has engaged in protected conduct. The bill would expand the protected conduct to include a written or oral complaint by an employee that he or she is owed unpaid wages. The bill would subject an employer to a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per violation of these provisions. Existing law entitles an employee to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and benefits if the employee has been discharged, demoted, suspended, or in any way discriminated against because the employee engaged in protected conduct or because the employee made a bona fide complaint or claim or initiated any action or notice, as prescribed. This bill would similarly grant these entitlements to an employee who is retaliated against or subjected to an adverse action. Existing law prohibits an employer from making, adopting, or enforcing any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, where the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation. Existing law further prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee for such a disclosure. Under existing law, a violation of these provisions by an employer is a crime. This bill would additionally prohibit any person acting on behalf of the employer from making, adopting, or enforcing any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, as provided, and would extend those prohibitions to preventing an employee from, or retaliating against an employee for, providing information to, or testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry. Because a violation of these provisions by an employer would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1102.5 of the Labor Code proposed by SB 496 that would become operative if this bill and SB 496 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. 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 California Small Business Financial Development Corporation Law, creates the California Small Business Board and the California Small Business Expansion Fund, a continuously appropriated fund which includes General Fund moneys. Existing law authorizes the formation of small business financial development corporations to grant loans from, or guarantee loans made by a financial institution or financial company, as defined, against, moneys awarded to the corporation from the expansion fund for the purpose of stimulating small business development. Existing law authorizes a director designated by the Secretary of Business, Transportation and Housing, the latter office abolished by existing law and the Governor's Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 2012, effective on July 3, 2012, and operative July 1, 2013, to perform specified duties under that law. A violation of certain conflict-of-interest provisions by the director and other persons, as specified, is a crime. This bill would revise and recast these provisions, and would transfer the administration of the California Small Business Financial Development Corporation Law to the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (I-Bank) , located within the Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development, and a program manager designated by the executive director of the I-Bank, as specified. The bill would expand the definitions of "financial institution" and "financial company" for those purposes. The bill would also describe the transition of oversight of the Small Business Loan Guarantee Program from the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency to the I-Bank and compliance with federal and state program requirements. Because the above-described conflict-of-interest provisions would apply to the members of the I-Bank's board of directors, the program manager, the executive director, and other officers and employees, as specified, the bill would extend the application of a crime, and 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. Because this bill would expand the purposes for which a continuously appropriated fund is expended, the bill would make an appropriation. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Article XIIIC of the California Constitution generally requires a majority vote of the electorate for a local government to impose, extend, or increase any general tax and a 23 vote of the electorate to impose, extend, or increase any special tax, and permits the use of the initiative to affect local taxes, assessments, fees, and charges. Article XIIIC of the California Constitution also defines a local tax and sets out the categories of charges that are excluded from that definition. Existing law, the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act, prescribes specific procedures and parameters for local jurisdictions to comply with Article XIIIC of the California Constitution, and defines various terms for these purposes. This bill would add a provision to the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act to additionally define the terms "specific benefit," and "specific government service" for purposes of Article XIIIC of the California Constitution. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.