17 - Laserfiche WebLink

AB 3269 (Chiu) State and local agencies: homelessness plan. This bill will require a statewide needs and gaps analysis to and to identify state programs that provide housing or services to persons experiencing homelessness and create a financial model that will assess certain investment needs for the purpose of moving persons experiencing homelessness into permanent housing. It will require the state Housing and Community Development Department to approve or work with local agencies (county's) to identify appropriate benchmark goals to reduce homelessness for each local agency and cities within each local agency. This bill will requires each city in the local agency's jurisdiction to participate in the plan, and each local agency would be required to request and actively seek the participation of all homeless continuums of care that serve the local agency's jurisdiction. The plan is to include a description and the amount of all funding sources the local agency and any incorporated jurisdiction and continuum of care, has earmarked or committed to addressing homelessness, mental illness, and substance abuse within the jurisdiction. This bill also establishes an independent state officer, the Housing and Homelessness Inspector General, within the department of Housing and Community Development, with the authorization to request the court to bring an action against the state, a local agency, or a city that fails to adopt a plan or fails, within a reasonable time, to make progress in accordance with their adopted plan. And if the court finds that the state or applicable local agency or city has not substantially complied it would authorizes the Inspector General to request the court to issue an order or judgment directing the state, local agency, or city to substantially comply and would allow the imposition of a civil penalty. Recommended Position: Oppose unless amended This bill would create a new unfunded mandate to the city, diverting responsibility for the provision of social services for those experiencing homelessness from the state and county to the local jurisdiction. It would also require that Alameda County in cooperation with it's cities, prepare a local agency plan. This plan must be adopted by each city in Alameda County. Cities may be held legally accountable for not meeting established benchmarks outlined in the local agency plan and that are set by the state and county. Based on past experience, it may prove challenging to adopt a Countywide plan that meets the needs of Pleasanton and East County. One bill was identified that addresses employment practices. SB 1383 (Jackson) Unlawful employment practice: family leave. Existing law, the Moore-Brown-Roberti Family Rights Act, commonly known as the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), makes it an unlawful employment practice for a government employer or any employer with 50 or more employees, as specified, to refuse to grant a request by an employee, who has at least 1,250 hours of service with the employer during the previous 12-month period, to take up to 12 workweeks of unpaid protected leave during any 12-month period to bond with a new child of the employee or to care for themselves, a child, a parent, or a spouse, as specified. Existing law authorizes an employer to refuse to grant the request if the employer employs less than 50 employees within 75 miles of the worksite where the employee is employed or if the employee is a salaried employee who is among the highest paid 10% of the employer's employees, as provided. Existing law, if both parents of a child are Page 6 of 11