Sen. Tim Grayson

Existing law makes it a crime to possess for sale or purchase for purpose of sale, transport, import, sell, furnish, administer, give away, manufacture, compound, convert, produce, derive, process, or prepare various controlled substances, including, among others, fentanyl, peyote, and various other opiates and narcotics. This bill, Alexandra's Law, would require the court to advise a person who is convicted of, or who pleads guilty or no contest to, the above crimes, as specified, of the danger of selling or administering illicit drugs and counterfeit pills and that, if a person dies as a result of that action, the defendant can be charged with homicide. The bill would require the court to read the advisory statement in a case in which the defendant exchanged a controlled substance containing fentanyl or its analogs for anything else of value, as specified. The bill would require the advisory statement to be included in a plea form, if used, and specified on the record. The bill would require that the fact the advisory was given be recorded in the abstract of conviction and would prohibit the advisement from being used as evidence in the prosecution of a minor in juvenile court.

Existing law prohibits a person or entity from providing the operation of a voice recognition feature within this state without prominently informing, during the initial setup or installation of a connected television, either the user or the person designated by the user to perform the initial setup or installation of the connected television. Existing law further prohibits any actual recordings of spoken word collected through the operation of a voice recognition feature by the manufacturer of a connected television, or a third party contracting with a manufacturer of a connected television, from being sold or used for any advertising purpose. Existing law prohibits a person or entity from compelling a manufacturer or other entity providing the operation of a voice recognition feature to build specific features for the purpose of allowing an investigative or law enforcement officer to monitor communications through that feature. Existing law prohibits a waiver of these prohibitions and authorizes their enforcement by injunction or civil penalty in a court of competent jurisdiction by the Attorney General or a district attorney. This bill would require a manufacturer of a new motor vehicle that is equipped with one or more in-vehicle cameras to disclose that fact, as specified. The bill would prohibit a dealer, as defined, from providing for the sale or lease of a new motor vehicle with one or more in-vehicle cameras in this state without prominently informing the user or the person designated by the user to purchase the vehicle, as specified, and would grant the buyer or lessee of a vehicle the right to review the owner's manual or any other document, if any is provided by the manufacturer, prior to purchase to determine if an in-vehicle camera exists. This bill would further prohibit any images or video recordings collected through the operation of an in-vehicle camera from being used for any advertising purpose or being sold to any third party. The bill would also prohibit these images or video recordings from being shared with third parties, except as provided. The bill would also prohibit any recording obtained through operation of an in-vehicle camera from being retained at any location other than the vehicle itself, or being downloaded, retrieved, or otherwise accessed by a person or entity other than the user, as defined, without affirmative prior consent, as defined, or unless the images and videos are accessed to diagnose, service, repair, or improve specified equipment and systems, except as provided. The bill would require a person or entity that provides the operation of an in-vehicle camera in this state to provide effective mechanisms for a consumer to revoke consent. The bill would provide an exception to the above prohibitions to comply with a lawful subpoena, court order, search warrant, or preservation request, as specified. The bill would prohibit a person or entity from compelling a manufacturer or other entity providing the operation of an in-vehicle camera to build specific features for the purpose of allowing an investigative or law enforcement officer to monitor images through that feature. This bill would prohibit a waiver of the above protections, and would authorize their enforcement by injunction or civil penalty in a court of competent jurisdiction by the Attorney General or a district attorney. The bill would specify that those provisions do not apply to cameras installed in vehicles that are primarily for commercial use, as specified, and do not reduce the rights afforded to a consumer or the obligations imposed on a business under any applicable state or federal law, and that in the case of a conflict between these provisions and any other law, the law providing for the greater protection for the right of privacy for consumers controls.

(1) Existing law establishes the Safe Drinking Water Account to be available to the State Water Resources Control Board, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for the purpose of providing funds necessary to administer the California Safe Drinking Water Act. This bill would expand the use of available funds in the account to be used by the state board, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to include the administration of the Water Shutoff Protection Act. The bill would, subject to the availability of funding, require the state board to make funds available for providing training statewide to community water systems with between 15 and 200 service connections to assist in compliance with the Water Shutoff Protection Act. (2) Existing law, the Water Shutoff Protection Act, prohibits an urban and community water system, defined as a public water system that supplies water to more than 200 service connections, from discontinuing residential service for nonpayment, as specified, and requires specified procedures before it can discontinue residential service for nonpayment. Existing law defines a community water system as a public water system that serves at least 15 service connections used by yearlong residents or regularly serves at least 25 yearlong residents of the area served by the system. Existing law requires an urban and community water system to have a written policy on discontinuation of residential service for nonpayment available in English, other designated languages, and any other language spoken by at least 10% of the people residing in its service area. This bill would expand the scope of the Water Shutoff Protection Act by requiring that it instead apply to a covered water system, defined to include specified water systems and suppliers, including a community water system. The bill would require a community water system, that is not otherwise required to comply, to comply with the act's provisions on and after August 1, 2024. The bill would instead apply the above-described language requirements for the written policy of discontinuation of residential service for nonpayment to a covered water system that serves 200 or more service connections. The bill would require a covered water system that serves fewer than 200 service connections to have a written policy on disconnection of residential service for nonpayment available in English, any language spoken by at least 10% of the people residing in its service area, and, upon request of a customer, other designated languages. The bill would authorize, as part of the act, the Attorney General, at the request of the board or upon the Attorney General's own motion, to bring an action in state court to restore to any person in interest any money or property, real or personal, that may have been acquired by any method, act, or practice prohibited by the act. The bill would make related changes.

Existing law includes the terms "mentally retarded persons," "mentally retarded children," "retardation," and "handicap." This bill, The Dignity for All Act, would make nonsubstantive changes to those provisions to eliminate this obsolete terminology. The bill would repeal obsolete provisions of law.

Existing law, the Money Transmission Act, generally prohibits a person from engaging in the business of money transmission, as defined, without a license from the Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation. This bill, the Digital Financial Assets Law, would, on and after July 1, 2025, prohibit a person from engaging in digital financial asset business activity, or holding itself out as being able to engage in digital financial asset business activity, with or on behalf of a resident unless any of certain criteria are met, including the person is licensed with the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation, as prescribed. The bill would define "digital financial asset" to mean a digital representation of value that is used as a medium of exchange, unit of account, or store of value, and that is not legal tender, whether or not denominated in legal tender, except as specified. The bill would exempt activity by specified entities, and would authorize the commissioner, by regulation or order, to further exempt any person or transaction, if the commissioner finds the exemption to be in the public interest, as provided. This bill would, among other things, authorize the department to conduct examinations of a licensee, as prescribed, and would require a licensee to maintain, for all digital financial asset business activity with, or on behalf of, a resident for 5 years after the date of the activity, certain records, including a general ledger maintained at least monthly that lists all assets, liabilities, capital, income, and expenses of the licensee. This bill would authorize the department to take an enforcement measure against a licensee or person that is not a licensee but has engaged, is engaging, or is about to engage in digital financial asset business activity with, or on behalf of, a resident in any of certain instances, including the licensee or person materially violates the provisions of the bill, a rule adopted or order issued under the bill, or a law of this state other than the bill that applies to digital financial asset business activity of the violator with, or on behalf of, a resident. The bill would prescribe certain civil penalties for violations of its provisions. This bill would require a covered person, before engaging in digital financial asset business activity with a resident, to make certain disclosures to the resident, including a schedule of fees and charges the covered person may assess, the manner by which fees and charges will be calculated if they are not set in advance and disclosed, and the timing of the fees and charges. The bill would define "covered person" to mean a person required to obtain a license under the Digital Financial Assets Law. This bill would require an applicant, before submitting an application, to create and, during licensure, maintain in a record policies and procedures for, among other things, an information security program and an operational security program. This bill would become operative only if SB 401 of the 2023–24 Regular Session is enacted and takes effect on or before January 1, 2024.

Existing law, which is part of the Planning and Zoning Law, requires a local agency to compile a list of information needed to approve or deny a postentitlement phase permit, to post an example of a complete, approved application and an example of a complete set of postentitlement phase permits for at least 5 types of housing development projects in the jurisdiction, as specified, and to make those items available to all applicants for these permits no later than January 1, 2024. Existing law establishes time limits for completing reviews regarding whether an application for a postentitlement phase permit is complete and compliant and whether to approve or deny an application, as specified, and makes any failure to meet these time limits a violation of specified law. Existing law defines various terms for these purposes, including "local agency" to mean a city, county, or city and county, and "postentitlement phase permit," among other things, to exclude a permit required and issued by a special district. This bill would require a special district that receives an application from a housing development project for service from a special district or an application from a housing development project for a postentitlement phase permit, as specified, to provide written notice to the applicant of next steps in the review process, including, but not limited to, any additional information that may be required to begin to review the application for service or approval. The bill would require the special district to provide this notice within 30 business days of receipt of the application for a housing development with 25 units or fewer, and within 60 business days for a housing development with 26 units or more. The bill would define various terms for these purposes. By imposing additional duties on special 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.

Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, authorizes a development proponent to submit an application for a multifamily housing development that is subject to a streamlined, ministerial approval process, as provided, and not subject to a conditional use permit, if the development satisfies specified objective planning standards, including, among others, that the development proponent has committed to record, prior to the issuance of the first building permit, a land use restriction or covenant providing that any lower or moderate-income housing units required, as specified, remain available at affordable housing costs, as defined, or rent to persons and families of lower or moderate income for no less than specified periods of time. Existing law repeals these provisions on January 1, 2026. This bill would authorize the Department of General Services to act in the place of a locality or local government, at the discretion of that department, for purposes of the ministerial, streamlined review for development in compliance with the above-described requirements on property owned by or leased to the state. The bill would extend the operation of the streamlined, ministerial approval process to January 1, 2036. The bill would provide that the streamlined, ministerial approval process does not apply to applications for developments proposed on qualified sites, defined as a site that is located within an equine or equestrian district and meets certain other requirements, that are submitted on or after January 1, 2024, but before July 1, 2025. This bill would modify the above-described objective planning standards, including by revising the standard that prohibits a multifamily housing development from being subject to the streamlined, ministerial approval process if the development is located in a coastal zone to apply only if the development that is located in the coastal zone meets any one of specified conditions. The bill would require a development that is located in a coastal zone that satisfies the specified conditions to obtain a coastal development permit. The bill would require a public agency with coastal development permitting authority to approve a coastal development permit if it determines that the development is consistent with all objective standards of the local government's certified local coastal program, as specified. The bill would provide that the changes made by this act would apply in a coastal zone on or after January 1, 2025. This bill would modify the objective planning standard that prohibits a development subject to the streamlined, ministerial approval process from being located in a high fire severity zone by deleting the prohibition for a development to be located within a high or very high fire hazard severity zone as indicated on maps adopted by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, and would instead prohibit a development from being located with the state responsibility area, as defined, unless the site has adopted specified standards. The bill would also remove an exception for sites excluded from specified hazard zones by a local agency, as specified. This bill would also provide an alternative definition for "affordable rent" for a development that dedicates 100% of units, exclusive of a manager's unit or units, to lower income households. The bill would, among other modifications, delete the objective planning standards requiring development proponents to pay at least the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and utilize a skilled and trained workforce and would instead require a development proponent to certify to the local government that certain wage and labor standards will be met, including a requirement that all construction workers be paid at least the general prevailing rate of wages, as specified. The bill would require the Labor Commissioner to enforce the obligation to pay prevailing wages. By expanding the crime of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would specify that the requirements to pay prevailing wages, use a workforce participating in an apprenticeship, or provide health care expenditures do not apply to a project that consists of 10 or fewer units and is not otherwise a public work. Existing law requires a local government to approve a development if the local government determines the development is consistent with the objective planning standards. Existing law requires, if the local government determines a submitted development is in conflict with any of the objective planning standards, the local government to provide the development proponent written documentation of the standards the development conflicts with and an explanation for the conflict within certain timelines depending on the size of the development. Existing law, the Housing Accountability Act, prohibits a local agency from disapproving a housing development project, as described, unless it makes specified written findings. This bill would instead require approval if a local government's planning director or equivalent position determines the development is consistent with the objective planning standards. The bill would make conforming changes. The bill would require all departments of the local government that are required to issue an approval of the development prior to the granting of an entitlement to also comply with the above-described streamlined approval requirements within specified time periods. The bill would prohibit a local government from requiring, prior to approving a development that meets the requirements of the above-described streamlining provisions, compliance with any standards necessary to receive a postentitlement permit or studies, information, or other materials that do not pertain directly to determining whether the development is consistent with the objective planning standards applicable to the development. The bill would, for purposes of these provisions, establish that the total number of units in a development includes (1) all projects developed on a site, regardless of when those developments occur, and (2) all projects developed on sites adjacent to a site developed pursuant to these provisions if, after January 1, 2023, the adjacent site had been subdivided from the site developed pursuant to these provisions. Existing law requires, before submitting an application for a development subject to the above-described streamlined, ministerial approval process, the development proponent to submit to the local government a notice of its intent to submit an application, as described. For developments proposed in a census tract that is designated either as a moderate resource area, low resource area, or an area of high segregation and poverty, as described, this bill would require local governments to provide, within 45 days of receiving a notice of intent and before the development proponent submits an application for the proposed development that is subject to the streamlined, ministerial approval process, for a public meeting, as described, to provide an opportunity for the public and the local government to comment on the development. The bill would require this public meeting to be held by the jurisdiction's planning commission if the development proposal is located within a city with a population greater than 250,000 or an unincorporated area of a county with a population of greater than 250,000. Existing law authorizes the local government's planning commission or any equivalent board or commission responsible for review and approval of development projects, or as otherwise specified, to conduct any design review or public oversight of the development. This bill would remove the above-described authorization to conduct public oversight of the development and would only authorize design review to be conducted by the local government's planning commission or any equivalent board or commission responsible for design review. By imposing additional duties on local officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The 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. 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 specified reasons.