The California Building Standards Law requires a state agency that adopts or proposes adoption of a building standard to submit the building standard to the California Building Standards Commission for approval and adoption. Existing law makes the commission responsible for the publication of an updated edition of the California Building Standards Code every 3 years. Existing law requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to propose to the commission the adoption, amendment, or repeal of building standards for, among other things, the installation of recycled water systems for newly constructed single-family residential and multifamily residential buildings, as specified. This bill would require the department to review current building standards, conduct research, and develop recommendations regarding building standards for the installation of rainwater catchment systems for nonpotable uses in newly constructed residential dwellings and would authorize the department to propose related building standards to the commission for consideration, as specified. The bill would authorize the department to expend moneys from the Building Standards Administration Special Revolving Fund for the above-described purposes, upon appropriation by the Legislature, as specified. The bill would require the department, on or before January 1, 2027, to provide a report to specified committees of the Legislature regarding the outcomes of its research and the recommendations developed.
Sponsored bills
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. A provision of the act applies to the University of California only to the extent that the Regents of the University of California, by appropriate resolution, act to make the provision applicable. A portion of the Donahoe Higher Education Act, known as the Equity in Higher Education Act, provides, among other things, that all students have the right to participate fully in the educational process, free from discrimination and harassment, and that California's postsecondary educational institutions have an affirmative obligation to combat racism, sexism, and other forms of bias, and a responsibility to provide equal educational opportunity. For purposes of the Equity in Higher Education Act, existing law defines "nationality" to include citizenship, country of origin, and national origin and defines "religion" to include all aspects of religious belief, observance, and practice, as provided. This bill would instead provide that California's postsecondary educational institutions have an affirmative obligation to combat discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality or national identity, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, and other specified characteristics, and a responsibility to provide equal educational opportunity. For purposes of the Equity in Higher Education Act, the bill would instead define "nationality" or "national identity" to include a person's actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics, citizenship, or residency in a country with a dominant religion or distinct religious identity, as provided. For purposes of the Equity in Higher Education Act, the bill would define "discrimination on the basis of religion" to include, but not be limited to, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. The bill would also state that it is the intent of the Legislature that each postsecondary educational institution undertake supportive measures to help students who have encountered discriminatory incidents, regardless of the location of the discriminatory incident, if the student feels the incident impairs their access to equal educational opportunities. This bill would require the California Community Colleges, the California State University, and independent institutions of higher education and private postsecondary educational institutions that receive state financial assistance, and would request the University of California, to include training to address discrimination against the 5 most targeted groups in the state, as provided, as part of any general antidiscrimination training or diversity, equity, and inclusion training that is offered by the institution, except as specified. By imposing new requirements on community college districts, 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
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. A provision of the act applies to the University of California only to the extent that the Regents of the University of California, by appropriate resolution, act to make the provision applicable. A portion of the Donahoe Higher Education Act, known as the Equity in Higher Education Act, provides, among other things, that all students have the right to participate fully in the educational process, free from discrimination and harassment, and that California's postsecondary educational institutions have an affirmative obligation to combat racism, sexism, and other forms of bias, and a responsibility to provide equal educational opportunity. This bill would state that the Trustees of the California State University and the Regents of the University of California have the primary responsibility to prevent and address conduct that either creates a hostile environment for students on campus or results in differential treatment of students on campus, as specified. The bill would require the trustees to, among other things, adopt rules and procedures, as specified, to prohibit violent, harassing, intimidating, or discriminatory conduct that creates a hostile environment on campus, to prohibit conduct that limits or denies a person's ability to participate in or benefit from the free exchange of ideas or the educational mission of the California State University, and to establish, and require each campus to publish on campus internet websites, reasonable content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions and, if applicable, any advance permitting requirements for protests on campus. The bill would require the trustees to develop mandatory training programs to educate students on what constitutes violent, harassing, intimidating, or discriminatory conduct that creates a hostile environment on campus, the procedures for investigating violations of the student code of conduct, when and where protests and gatherings may be held, as specified, and on how to exchange views in an atmosphere of mutual respect and civility. The bill would require the trustees to submit a report, on or before January 2, 2025, and annually thereafter, to the Legislature on the implementation and administration of the bill. The bill would request the University of California to comply with these provisions. The bill would make its provisions severable.
Existing law establishes the California Promise, which requires at least 20 campuses of the California State University to establish a California Promise program by which the campus enters into a pledge with a qualifying transfer student to support the student in earning a baccalaureate degree within 2 academic years of the student's first year of enrollment to the campus, as provided. Existing law repeals these provisions on January 1, 2026. This bill would rename the California Promise program the Finish in Four and Through in Two program, as provided. The bill would require each campus participating in the Finish in Four and Through in Two program to take specified actions to promote the program. The bill would require the Trustees of the California State University, on or before July 1, 2025, and annually thereafter, until January 1, 2034, to submit a report to the Legislature that includes specified program participation information. The bill would delete an obsolete reporting requirement. The bill would delete the January 1, 2026, program repeal date, thereby extending the program indefinitely.
Existing law requires the Department of Health Care Access and Information, formerly the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, in consultation with the Community Clinics Advisory Committee, to prescribe minimum construction standards of adequacy and safety for clinics, as specified, in the California Building Standards Code. This bill would require construction standards for the community clinics or rural health clinics, as defined, established by the department and established or applied by a city or county to comply with safety and accessibility standards required for the physical environment of a clinic to ensure participation in the federal Medicare and Medicaid programs. If the standards are amended, the bill would prohibit the amended standards from being more restrictive or stringent than specified construction standards. The bill would require the Department of Health Care Access and Information to hold a minimum of 2 public meetings to solicit public comment on the proposed new standards. Existing law imposes plan review and building inspection responsibilities on cities and counties for the construction or alteration of buildings where outpatient clinical services or limited inpatient services of a licensed health facility, as defined, are provided when those buildings are separated from a building in which hospital services are provided. Existing law prohibits building standards for the construction or alteration of these buildings from being more restrictive or comprehensive than comparable building standards established or applied to licensed clinics, as defined. This bill would remove the prohibition described above.
Existing law provides for the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program, under which each county provides cash assistance and other benefits to qualified low-income families and individuals. Existing law provides for homeless assistance to a homeless family seeking shelter when the family is eligible for CalWORKs aid, including a nonrecurring special needs benefit for permanent housing assistance to pay for last month's rent and security deposits if these payments are conditions of securing a residence, or to pay for up to 2 months of rent arrearages, if these payments are a reasonable condition of preventing eviction. Existing law prohibits the last month's rent or monthly arrearage portion of the payment from exceeding 80% of the family's total monthly household income without the value of CalFresh benefits or special needs benefit for a family of that size, and requires it be made to families that have found permanent housing costing no more than 80% of the family's total monthly household income without the value of CalFresh benefits or special needs benefit for a family of that size. This bill, beginning January 1, 2026, or when specified automation processes are available, and for purposes of determining the family's total monthly household income for the permanent housing assistance, would require the county human services agency to include any amount that is regularly received or will be regularly received from other government and nonprofit housing and homeless subsidy programs and any regularly received private support intended or designed to help the family with housing. By imposing additional duties on counties, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law continuously appropriates moneys from the General Fund to defray a portion of county costs under the CalWORKs program. This bill would instead provide that the continuous appropriation would not be made for purposes of implementing these provisions. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
The Political Reform Act of 1974 prohibits certain contributions of more than $250 to an officer of an agency by any party, participant, or party or participant's agent in a proceeding while a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use is pending before the agency and for 12 months following the date a final decision is rendered in the proceeding, as specified. The act requires disclosure on the record of the proceeding, as specified, of certain contributions of more than $250 within the preceding 12 months to an officer from a party or participant, or party's agent. This bill would exempt a city attorney or county counsel providing legal advice to the agency who does not have the authority to make a final decision in the proceeding from the definition of "officer" for purposes of these provisions. The bill would specify that certain types of contracts, including the periodic review or renewal of development agreements and competitively bid contracts, unless there are material modifications or amendments to the agreement, are not considered a license, permit, or other entitlement for these purposes. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 84308 of the Government Code proposed by SB 1243 to be operative only if this bill and SB 1243 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. The Political Reform Act of 1974, an initiative measure, provides that the Legislature may amend the act to further the act's purposes upon a 23 vote of each house of the Legislature and compliance with specified procedural requirements. This bill would declare that it furthers the purposes of the act.
Existing law generally regulates classes of insurance, including pet insurance. Under existing law, a pet insurance policy marketed, issued, amended, renewed, or delivered to a California resident on or after July 1, 2015, is subject to state regulation of pet insurance. Existing law requires an insurer transacting pet insurance to make specified disclosures to consumers. Existing law defines various terms relating to the regulation of pet insurance. This bill would require an insurer to disclose if it reduces coverage or increases premiums based on the age of the covered pet or a change in the geographic location of the insured, as well as if it requires a medical examination to effectuate coverage or imposes a waiting period. The bill would authorize the issuance of a pet insurance policy that excludes preexisting conditions or imposes a waiting period, if specified criteria are met. The bill would require coverage to be issued no later than 12:01 a.m. on the 2nd day after receipt of a complete application and valid payment information, except as specified. The bill would set forth requirements for a pet wellness program, as defined, would prohibit the marketing of a wellness program as pet insurance, and would specify when a wellness program is considered a pet insurance policy. The bill would also update existing definitions and define additional terms, including "orthopedic," "producer," and "renewal."
Existing law, the Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976, affords all persons within the jurisdiction of this state the right to be free from any violence, or intimidation by threat of violence, committed against their persons or property because of political affiliation, any specified personal characteristic, or position in a labor dispute, or because another person perceives them to have one or more of those characteristics. Existing law specifies that whoever denies this right, or aids, incites, or conspires in that denial, is liable for each and every offense for the actual damages suffered by any person denied that right and, in addition, exemplary damages, a civil penalty of $25,000, and attorney's fees. Existing law authorizes a person claiming to be aggrieved by an alleged unlawful practice in violation of this right to also file a verified complaint with the Civil Rights Department. Existing law defines the phrase "intimidation by threat of violence" for purposes of this provision. This bill would expand the definition of "intimidation by threat of violence" for purposes of these provisions to also include terrorizing the owner or occupant of private property with the distribution of materials on the private property, without authorization, with the purpose of terrorizing, as defined, the owner or occupant of that private property. The bill would prohibit speech alone from supporting an action brought pursuant to the Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976 unless there is a showing that the speech itself threatens violence against a specific person or group of persons, the person or group of persons against whom the threat is directed reasonably fears that, because of the speech, violence will be committed against them or their property, and the person threatening violence is acting in reckless disregard for the threatening nature of their speech and has the apparent ability to carry out the threat. The bill would prohibit that restriction on speech alone supporting an action from being construed to negate or otherwise abrogate the requirements set forth in other specified provisions of the Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976 to bring an action pursuant to that act. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law provides that in a civil action brought by a plaintiff to challenge a housing development project that meets or exceeds the requirements for low- or moderate-income housing, a defendant may seek an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish an undertaking as security for costs and damages that may be incurred by the defendant if the bringing of the action or seeking by the plaintiff of particular relief, including injunctive relief, would result in a delay in carrying out the development project. Existing law requires this motion to be made on the grounds that (1) the action was brought in bad faith, vexatiously, to delay or thwart the low- or moderate-income nature of the housing development project and (2) the plaintiff will not suffer undue economic hardship by filing the undertaking. If the court determines, after hearing, that the grounds for the motion have been established, existing law requires the court to order the plaintiff to file an undertaking that may not exceed $500,000 as security for the defendant's costs and damages. This bill would require the motion described above to be made on the grounds that the action is without merit and that the action was brought in bad faith, vexatiously, for the purpose of delay, or to thwart the low- or moderate-income nature of the housing development project. The bill would permit the plaintiff, in responding to the motion, to seek to limit the amount of the undertaking by presenting evidence that filing the undertaking will cause the plaintiff to suffer undue economic hardship. The bill would require the court, in ordering the plaintiff to file such an undertaking, to take into consideration admitted evidence of the plaintiff's economic hardship and to avoid causing the plaintiff to suffer such hardship. The bill would authorize the court to decline to impose a bond on the plaintiff if the court determines that, based on the evidence, the bond would cause the plaintiff to suffer undue economic hardship.