(1) Existing law makes peace officer and custodial officer personnel records and specified records maintained by any state or local agency, or information obtained from these records, confidential and prohibits these records from being disclosed in any criminal or civil proceeding except by discovery. Existing law sets forth exceptions to this policy, including, among others, records relating to specified incidents involving the discharge of a firearm, sexual assault, perjury, or misconduct by a peace officer or custodial officer. Existing law makes a record related to an incident involving the use of force against a person resulting in death or great bodily injury subject to disclosure. Existing law requires a state or local agency to make these excepted records available for inspection pursuant to the California Public Records Act, subject to redaction as specified. This bill would make a sustained finding involving force that is unreasonable or excessive, and any sustained finding that an officer failed to intervene against another officer using unreasonable or excessive force, subject to disclosure. The bill would require records relating to sustained findings of unlawful arrests and unlawful searches to be subject to disclosure. The bill would also require the disclosure of records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in conduct involving prejudice or discrimination on the basis of specified protected classes. The bill would make the limitations on delay of disclosure inapplicable until January 1, 2023, for the described records relating to incidents that occurred before January 1, 2022. The bill would require the retention of all complaints and related reports or findings currently in the possession of a department or agency, as specified. The bill would require that records relating to an incident in which an officer resigned before an investigation is completed to also be subject to release. For purposes of releasing records, the bill would exempt from protection under the lawyer-client privilege, the disclosure of factual information provided by the public entity to its attorney, factual information discovered by any investigation by the public entity's attorney, or billing records related to the work done by the attorney. The bill would expand the authorization to redact records to allow redaction to preserve the anonymity of victims and whistleblowers. The bill would require records subject to disclosure to be provided at the earliest possible time and no later than 45 days from the date of a request for their disclosure, except as specified. By imposing additional duties on local law enforcement agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law authorizes an agency to delay the release of a record involving the discharge of a firearm or the use of force during an active criminal investigation, as provided. This bill would expand the authorization to delay the release of records during an investigation to include records of incidents involving sexual assault and dishonesty by officers, and the records of incidents involving prejudice or discrimination, wrongful arrests, and wrongful searches that are required to be made public by this bill. (3) Existing law requires a court, in determining the relevance of evidence, to exclude from trial any information consisting of complaints concerning peace officer conduct that is more than 5 years older than the subject of the litigation. This bill would delete that provision. (4) Existing law requires an agency or department employing peace officers to make a record of any investigations of misconduct. Existing law requires a peace officer seeking employment with a department or agency to give written permission to the hiring agency or department to view that file. This bill would require each department or agency to request and review that file prior to hiring a peace officer. The bill would also require every person employed as a peace officer to immediately report all uses of force by the officer to the officer's department or agency. By imposing additional duties on local law enforcement, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (5) The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. (6) 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, known as the Density Bonus Law, requires a city or county to provide a developer that proposes a housing development in the city or county 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 agrees to, among other things, construct a specified percentage of units for very low income, low-income, or moderate-income households or qualifying residents, including lower income students. Existing law requires the amount of a density bonus and the number of incentives or concessions a qualifying developer receives to be pursuant to a certain formula based on the total number of units in the housing development, as specified. This bill would require a unit designated to satisfy the inclusionary zoning requirements of a city or county to be included in the total number of units on which a density bonus and the number of incentives or concessions are based. The bill would require a city or county to grant one incentive or concession for a student housing development project that will include at least 20% of the total units for lower income students. Existing law requires a city or county to grant a density bonus and certain incentives or concessions if the developer agrees to construct a common interest development that will contain a specified percentage of units for persons and families of moderate income, as specified, if all units in the development are offered to the public for purchase. This bill would instead require a city or county to grant that density bonus and those incentives or concessions if the developer agrees to construct a housing development that will contain that specified percentage of units for persons and families of moderate income, as specified. Existing law, upon the request of the developer, prohibits a city or county from imposing a vehicular parking ratio, inclusive of parking for persons with a disability and guests, that exceeds 0.5 spaces per unit, if the development meets specified affordability requirements, including at least 20% low-income units or at least 11% very low income units, is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, and the residents of the development have unobstructed access to the major transit stop from the development. This bill, would, additionally, upon the request of the developer, prohibit a city or county from imposing the above-described parking ratio, if the development meets specified affordability requirements, including at least 40% moderate-income units, is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, and the residents of the development have unobstructed access to the major transit stop from the development. Existing law requires the planning agency of the city or county to provide to the Department of Housing and Community Development, the Office of Planning and Research, and the legislative body of the city or county, by April 1 of each year, an annual report that includes, among other things, the city or county's progress in meeting its share of the regional housing needs. This bill would require the planning agency to include in that report the number of units in a student housing development for lower income students for which the developer was granted a density bonus. Existing law authorizes a city or county to refuse a concession or incentive if the city or county makes a written finding, based upon substantial evidence, that the concession or incentive would have a specified adverse impact on public health and safety, the physical environment, or real property listed in the California Register of Historical Resources. Existing law also prohibits certain provisions from being interpreted to require a local government to waive or reduce development standards if, among other reasons, the waiver or reduction would have a specified adverse impact upon health, safety, or the physical environment, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specified adverse impact. This bill would remove the specified adverse impact on the physical environment from the list of reasons for which a city or county is authorized to refuse a concession, an incentive, or a waiver or reduction of a development standard. This bill would make findings and declarations related to the modifications to the Density Bonus Law made by this bill. By imposing additional requirements on local governments with respect to density bonuses, 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 generally requires the licensure and regulation of various health care facilities, including, among others, a hospice facility. The Compassionate Use Act of 1996, an initiative measure enacted by the approval of Proposition 215 at the November 5, 1996, statewide general election, prohibits specified criminal penalties from being imposed on a patient or a patient's primary caregiver who possesses or cultivates cannabis for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician. Existing law, known as the Medical Marijuana Program, requires counties to administer an identification card program for qualified patients and provides immunity from arrest to qualified patients with a valid identification card or designated primary caregivers, within prescribed limits. This bill, the Compassionate Access to Medical Cannabis Act or Ryan's Law, would require specified types of health care facilities to allow a terminally ill patient's use of medicinal cannabis within the health care facility, subject to certain restrictions. The bill would require a patient to provide the health care facility with a copy of their medical marijuana card or written documentation that the use of medicinal cannabis is recommended by a physician. The bill would require a health care facility to reasonably restrict the manner in which a patient stores and uses medicinal cannabis to ensure the safety of other patients, guests, and employees of the health care facility, compliance with other state laws, and the safe operations of the health care facility. The bill would provide that compliance with the bill would not be a condition for obtaining, retaining, or renewing a license as a health care facility. The bill would require that health care facilities permitting patient use of medical cannabis comply with other drug and medication requirements, as specified, and would make those facilities subject to enforcement actions by the State Department of Public Health. The bill would authorize a health care facility to suspend compliance with these provisions if a regulatory agency, the United States Department of Justice, or the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services takes specified actions, including initiating an enforcement action against a health care facility related to the facility's compliance with a state-regulated medical marijuana program.
Existing law makes garment manufacturers liable for guaranteeing payment of wages to employees of their contractors. This bill would expand the definition of garment manufacturing to include dyeing, altering a garment's design, and affixing a label to a garment. The bill would prohibit any employee engaged in the performance of garment manufacturing to be paid by the piece or unit, or by the piece rate, except as specified. The bill would impose compensatory damages of $200 per employee against a garment manufacturer or contractor, payable to the employee, for each pay period in which each employee is paid by the piece rate. This bill would define "brand guarantor" for purposes of these provisions as a person contracting for the performance of garment manufacturing, as specified, regardless of whether the person with whom they contract performs manufacturing operations or hires a contractor or subcontractor to perform manufacturing operations. This bill would specify that a garment manufacturer, contractor, or brand guarantor who contracts with another person for the performance of garment manufacturing operations shares joint and several liability with any manufacturer and contractor for the full amount of unpaid wages, and any other compensation, including interest, due to any and all employees who performed manufacturing operations for any violation, attorney's fees, and civil penalties, as specified. The bill would also make garment manufacturers and contractors liable for the full amount of damages and penalties for any violation, as specified. This bill would create a rebuttable presumption in a claim filed with the Labor Commissioner to recover unpaid wages and associated penalties, if an employee has provided the Labor Commissioner with labels or other information that the commissioner finds credible relating to the identity of any brand guarantor or garment manufacturer that the brand guarantor or garment manufacturer is liable with the contractor for any amounts found to be due to the employee. The bill would also give the Labor Commissioner authority to enforce these provisions by issuing a stop order or a citation. Existing law requires every employer engaged in the business of garment manufacturing to keep certain records for 3 years, including, among other things, contract worksheets indicating the price per unit agreed to between the contractor and manufacturer. This bill would also require every employer engaged in the business of garment manufacturing and brand guarantors to keep all contracts, invoices, purchase orders, work orders, style or cut sheets, and any other documentation pursuant to which garment manufacturing work was, or is being, performed for 4 years. Existing law requires the commissioner to deposit $75 of each garment manufacturer's registration fee into one separate account to be disbursed by the commissioner only to persons determined by the commissioner to have been damaged by the failure to pay wages and benefits by a garment manufacturer, contractor, or subcontractor. This bill would instead require these funds to be disbursed by the commissioner only to persons determined by the commissioner to have been damaged by the failure to pay wages and benefits by a garment manufacturer, brand guarantor, or contractor. Existing law precludes any employer, or other person or entity, who may be liable for a violation of any provision of the Labor Code from introducing as evidence, in an administrative proceeding contesting a citation or writ proceeding under specified provisions, books, documents, or records that are not provided pursuant to a duly served written request by the Labor Commissioner within the time the Labor Commissioner requests those books, documents, or records be produced, as specified. This bill would expand those provisions to also preclude the introduction of records not provided to the Labor Commissioner, as specified, in an administrative proceeding under the provisions described above relating to the payment of wages for the performance of garment manufacturing.
Existing law establishes the State Air Resources Board as the state agency responsible for monitoring and regulating sources emitting greenhouse gases. Existing law, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, requires the state board to ensure that statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 40% below the 1990 level by 2030. The act requires the state board to prepare and approve a scoping plan for achieving the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Existing law establishes the Natural Resources Agency, composed of departments, boards, conservancies, and commissions responsible for the restoration, protection, and management of the state's natural and cultural resources. Existing law requires the agency to update the state's climate adaptation strategy, known as the Safeguarding California Plan, every 3 years. This bill would require, no later than July 1, 2023, the Natural Resources Agency, in coordination with the California Environmental Protection Agency, the state board, the Department of Food and Agriculture, and other relevant state agencies, to establish the Natural and Working Lands Climate Smart Strategy and, in developing the strategy, to create a framework to advance the state's climate goals. The bill would require the state board, as part of its scoping plan, to establish specified carbon dioxide removal targets for 2030 and beyond. This bill would require, no later than July 1, 2023, the Natural Resources Agency to establish and maintain a registry for the purposes of identifying and listing projects in the state that drive climate action on the state's natural and working lands and are seeking funding from state agencies or private entities. The bill would authorize the agency, in collaboration with relevant state agencies, to create an application process for applicants to have their projects located in the state listed on the registry, as specified. The bill would require the agency to establish a mechanism for retiring the listing of a project from the registry once it is funded and tracking the outcome of the project to ensure it is completed. The bill would require project proponents to notify the agency when a project is completed and provide monitoring and reporting data for the duration of the contract terms of the project. The bill would require the agency to track carbon removal and greenhouse gas emission reduction benefits derived from projects funded through the registry. The bill would authorize the agency to contract with a third-party organization to develop and operate the registry.
The Budget Act of 2021 made appropriations for the support of state government for the 2021–22 fiscal year. This bill would amend the Budget Act of 2021 by amending, adding, and repealing items of appropriation and making other changes. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a Budget Bill.
This measure would proclaim August 2021 as Breastfeeding Awareness Month of 2021 in California. The measure would recognize the unique benefits that breastfeeding provides, as specified, and would affirm that Californians should work to ensure that barriers to initiation and continuation of breastfeeding are removed. The measure would encourage Californians to work together to explore ways to, among other things, improve women's access to breastfeeding support services in medical, social, and employment settings.
Existing law, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, requires a housing development project be subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when a preliminary application is submitted, except as specified. The act defines "housing development project" to mean a use consisting of residential units only, mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses with at least 23 of the square footage designated for residential use, and transitional or supportive housing. This bill would clarify, for various purposes of the act, that "housing development project" includes projects that involve no discretionary approvals, projects that involve both discretionary and nondiscretionary approvals, and projects that include a proposal to construct a single dwelling unit. The bill would specify that this clarification is declaratory of existing law, except that the clarification does not affect a project for which an application was submitted to the city, county, or city and county before January 1, 2022. Existing law specifies that the act does not prohibit a housing development project from being subject to ordinances, policies, and standards adopted after the preliminary application was submitted in certain circumstances, including when the housing development project has not commenced construction within 2.5 years following the date that the project received final approval. This bill would specify that the act does not prohibit a housing development project that is an affordable housing project, as defined, from being subject to ordinances, policies, and standards adopted after the preliminary application was submitted if the project has not commenced construction within 3.5 years. Existing law prohibits an affected county or an affected city from approving a housing development project that requires the demolition of occupied or vacant protected units, as defined, unless the developer agrees to provide the occupants of any protected units with relocation benefits and a right of first refusal for a comparable unit available in the new housing development affordable to the household at an affordable rent or an affordable housing cost. This bill would limit the requirement to provide relocation benefits and a right of first refusal to only the occupants of protected units that are lower income households, as defined. The bill would also specify that the requirement to provide relocation benefits and a right of first refusal does not apply to an occupant of a short-term rental that is rented for a period of fewer than 30 days. The bill would exempt from these provisions, a housing development project for which an application was submitted after January 1, 2019, but before January 1, 2020, that is located in a jurisdiction with a population of under 31,000, and that has adopted a rent or price control ordinance. This bill would exempt certain protected units from the above requirement to provide a right of first refusal, including a development project that consists of a single residential unit located on a site where a single protected unit is being demolished. The bill would also exempt protected units in a housing development where 100% of the units are reserved for lower income households, not including any manager's units, unless the occupant of a protected unit qualifies for residence in the new development and the occupant is not precluded from occupancy due to unit size limitations or other requirements of one or more funding source of the housing development. Existing law requires the department to determine the affected cities and affected counties for purposes of the act, by June 30, 2020, and authorizes the department to update the list of affected cities and affected counties once on or after January 1, 2021, as specified. Existing law provides that the department's determinations remain valid until January 1, 2025. This bill would authorize the department to update the list of affected cities and affected counties a 2nd time on or after January 1, 2025. The bill would provide that the department's determinations remain valid until January 1, 2030. Existing law prohibits an affected county or affected city from reducing the intensity of land use within an existing general plan land use designation, specific plan land use designation, or zoning district below what was allowed and in effect on January 1, 2018. This bill would clarify that this prohibition applies to the general plan land use designations, specific plan land use designations, and zoning districts in effect at the time of the proposed change. Existing law specifies that the act does not prohibit an affected county or an affected city from changing a land use designation or zoning ordinance to a less intensive use if the city or county concurrently changes the development standards, policies, and conditions applicable to other parcels within the jurisdiction to ensure that there is no net loss in residential capacity. This bill would define "concurrently" to mean that the action is approved at the same meeting of the legislative body or, if the action that would result in a net loss of residential capacity is requested by an applicant for a housing development project, within 180 days. The bill would, in the case of an initiative measure, define "concurrently" to mean that the action is included in the initiative in a manner that ensures the added residential capacity is effective at the same time as the reduction in residential capacity. Existing law makes the act inoperative on January 1, 2025. This bill would extend the operation of the act until January 1, 2030. By extending the duties of local officials and a crime with respect to housing, 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 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. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Sections 65940 and 65941.1 of the Government Code proposed by SB 37 to be operative only if this bill and SB 37 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Existing law makes a member of the active militia who, when subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, commits a sexual assault crime, as defined, subject to prosecution by the office of the district attorney or other equivalent civilian prosecutorial authority with appropriate jurisdiction, and authorizes the Military Department or California National Guard to claim jurisdiction only if the district attorney, or other equivalent civilian prosecutorial authority, refuses to pursue a criminal prosecution of that member. Existing law requires a member of the active militia recommended for court-martial, as specified, for a sexual assault offense to be tried by general court-martial. The bill would additionally make a member of the active militia who has been lawfully ordered to any type of state duty and who commits sexual harassment punishable by specified military proceedings or by a court-martial. The bill would also state that these provisions do not preclude any other military or civilian authority from exercising its jurisdiction over any act or omission that violates any local, state, or federal law. Existing law requires the Military Department, on or before July 1 of each year, to report specified information to the Governor, the Legislature, the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs, the Assembly Committee on Veterans Affairs, the Attorney General, and the United States Attorney for each district in California, including, among other things, statistical data relating to incidents of sexual assault against service members and plans for the prevention of, and response to, sexual assault involving service members. This bill would require that information to also include statistical data relating to incidents of sexual harassment against service members and plans for the prevention of, and response to, sexual harassment involving service members. The bill would also require the department to make that information available on the department's internet website in the form of aggregated statistical data, as specified. Existing law states that members of the militia in active service shall not be liable civilly or criminally for any act done by them in the performance of their duty. This bill would clarify that this exemption does not apply to any act or acts by members of the militia in the active service of the state done by them outside the performance of their military duty, including, but not limited to, sexual assault or sexual harassment.
The Planning and Zoning Law requires a city or county to adopt a general plan for land use development within its boundaries that includes, among other things, a housing element. Existing law requires an attached housing development to be a permitted use, not subject to a conditional use permit, on any parcel zoned for multifamily housing if at least certain percentages of the units are available at affordable housing costs to very low income, lower income, and moderate-income households for at least 30 years and if the project meets specified conditions relating to location and being subject to a discretionary decision other than a conditional use permit. Existing law provides for various incentives intended to facilitate and expedite the construction of affordable housing. This bill would, notwithstanding any local restrictions on adopting zoning ordinances, authorize a local government to adopt an ordinance to zone any parcel for up to 10 units of residential density per parcel, at a height specified in the ordinance, if the parcel is located in a transit-rich area or an urban infill site, as those terms are defined. The bill would prohibit a local government from adopting an ordinance pursuant to these provisions on or after January 1, 2029. The bill would specify that an ordinance adopted under these provisions, and any resolution to amend the jurisdiction's General Plan, ordinance, or other local regulation adopted to be consistent with that ordinance, is not a project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. The bill would prohibit an ordinance adopted under these provisions from superceding a local restriction enacted or approved by a local initiative that designates publicly owned land as open-space land or for park or recreational purposes. The bill would impose specified requirements on a zoning ordinance adopted under these provisions, including a requirement that the zoning ordinance clearly demarcate the areas that are subject to the ordinance and that the legislative body make a finding that the ordinance is consistent with the city or county's obligation to affirmatively further fair housing. The bill would require an ordinance to be adopted by a 23 vote of the members of the legislative body if the ordinance supersedes any zoning restriction established by local initiative. The bill would prohibit an ordinance adopted under these provisions from reducing the density of any parcel subject to the ordinance and would prohibit a legislative body from subsequently reducing the density of any parcel subject to the ordinance. The bill would prohibit a residential or mixed-use residential project consisting of 10 or more units that is located on a parcel zoned pursuant to these provisions from being approved ministerially or by right or from being exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, except as specified. This bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.