The California Consumer Financial Protection Law requires the Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation to prepare and publish on the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation's internet website an annual report detailing actions taken during the prior year under the law and requires the report to include information on actions taken with respect to, among other things, the activities of the Financial Technology Innovation Office. This bill would additionally require the report to include information on actions taken with respect to the Office of the Ombuds.
Existing law generally authorizes a taxing agency to sell tax-defaulted property 5 or more years after the real property has become tax defaulted. Existing law authorizes the board of supervisors of the county in which the property is situated, or the state, county, any revenue district the taxes of which on the property are collected by county officers, or a redevelopment agency, to purchase the property, as specified, if certain conditions are met. Existing law also authorizes a nonprofit organization to purchase residential or vacant property, with the approval of the board of supervisors of the county in which it is located, if the property is used for low-income housing or public use, as specified. Existing law requires any sale under these provisions to be approved by the board of supervisors and to meet specified requirements, including notice requirements of an agreement under these provisions. This bill would prohibit a board of supervisors from approving the sale of tax-defaulted property, as described above, unless it conducts a hearing, with notice, and makes a specified finding that either the sale price is greater than or equal to the tax sale value, as defined, of the property or the tax sale value of the property is less than the amount necessary to redeem the property, as specified. The bill would require the notice of the hearing to be mailed at least 45 days prior to the hearing to the last assessee of each portion of the property and to parties of interest, and to contain, among other things, a description of the property, the proposed sale price, and the date, time, and location of the hearing. The bill would require any costs incurred in conducting the hearing and making the findings to be paid by the taxing agency or nonprofit organization by which the property is to be or may be purchased. The bill would also authorize the challenge of a board of supervisors' determination by the filing of a petition for judicial review in the superior court of the county within 45 days following the issuance of the board's decision, as specified. The bill would require the board to provide a written notice of the right to judicial review and the applicable deadlines to all parties who appeared at the hearing or submitted written evidence. The bill would authorize the superior court to vacate the board's decision and remand the matter to the board of supervisors if the court determines that the decision was not supported by substantial evidence or that the board otherwise failed to follow certain requirements. By requiring a board of supervisors to engage in specified actions relating to approving a sale of tax-defaulted property, 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 vests the Public Utilities Commission with regulatory authority over public utilities. Existing law prohibits public utilities, other than certain common carriers, from selling, leasing, assigning, mortgaging, or otherwise disposing of, or encumbering, its assets that are necessary or useful in the performance of its duties to the public, unless the public utility has secured an order from the commission to do so for a qualified transaction above $5,000,000 or an approval from the commission through the filing of an advice letter for a qualified transaction at or below $5,000,000. This bill would exempt from that prohibition easements, or changes to easements, that have a ratepayer financial impact valued at $100,000 or less if a public utility that is a party to the qualified transaction has gross annual California revenues of $500,000,000 or more. The bill would require, beginning January 1, 2030, and every 5 years thereafter, those threshold values to increase to reflect any increase in inflation, as specified. The bill would require each public utility to annually file a Tier 1 advice letter with a report of all transactions performed pursuant to this exemption, enumerated by date, value, location, and party. Under existing law, a violation of the Public Utilities Act or any order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the commission is a crime. Because the provisions of this bill would be a part of the act, and a violation of a commission action implementing the above-described provisions would be a crime, 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.
Existing law authorizes a peace officer or a regularly employed and salaried employee who is engaged in directing traffic or enforcing parking laws and regulations to remove a vehicle when, among other things, the officer arrests a person driving or in control of a vehicle for an alleged offense, and the officer is, by the Vehicle Code or other law, required or permitted to take, and does take, the person into custody. This bill would additionally authorize a peace officer to remove a vehicle that (1) has fewer than 4 wheels, but that does not meet the definition of an electric bicycle, if that vehicle is powered by an electric motor capable of exclusively propelling the vehicle in excess of 20 miles per hour on a highway and is being operated by an operator without a current license to operate the vehicle, or (2) is a class 3 electric bicycle being operated by a person under 16 years of age. The bill would authorize a city, county, or city and county to adopt a regulation, ordinance, or resolution imposing charges equal to its administrative costs relating to the removal, seizure, and storage costs of the vehicle, as provided. The bill would require an agency to release a seized vehicle to the owner, violator, or their agent after a minimum of 48 hours if certain conditions are met, including that the costs of removal, seizure, and storage have been paid. The bill would in certain circumstances authorize an agency to require, as a condition of release, proof that the violator has completed an electric bicycle safety and training program or a related local bicycle safety course, as described.
Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission has the exclusive power to, among other things, determine and prescribe the manner and the terms of installation, operation, maintenance, use, and protection of railroad crossings. Existing law prohibits the construction of a public road, highway, or street across the track of any railroad corporation at grade and other specified actions with regard to railroad crossings without the permission of the commission. This bill would require an application for a railroad crossing to include, at a minimum, certain information concerning the proposed railroad crossing. The bill would require the commission to adopt an expedited review and approval process for ratesetting proceedings for an exempt railroad crossing application, as defined. The bill also would require the commission, upon initiating a ratesetting proceeding, to determine whether the proceeding is for an exempt railroad crossing application, and if so, to issue a proposed resolution pursuant to the expedited review and approval process.
The Planning and Zoning Law requires each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for its physical development and the development of any land outside its boundaries that, in the planning agency's judgment, bears relation to its planning, as provided. After the legislative body has adopted a general plan, that law also authorizes, or if so directed by the legislative body, requires, the planning agency to prepare specific plans for the systematic implementation of the general plan for all or part of the area covered by the general plan, as provided. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA limits the review of a project under its provisions if the parcel is zoned or designated in a community plan to accommodate a particular density of development, an environmental impact report was certified for that zoning or planning action, and the project is consistent with the zoning or community plan, as specified. CEQA requires a court, if it finds that any determination, finding, or decision of a public agency has been made without compliance with CEQA, to enter an order that includes one or more specified mandates, including a mandate to void the determination, finding, or decision of the public agency. Previous law, until January 1, 2025, notwithstanding the above-described requirement for a court to enter an order under CEQA, prohibited a court in an action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the acts or decisions of the local agency, including a charter city, in adopting an update to a community plan on the grounds of noncompliance with CEQA from, on the basis of that noncompliance, invalidating, reviewing, voiding, or setting aside the approval of a development project that meets certain requirements. Previous law specified that those provisions did not affect or alter the obligation for the approval of a development project that was consistent with an approved community plan update to comply with CEQA or, except as expressly provided, preclude or limit an action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the approval of a development project that was consistent with an approved community plan pursuant to specified law. Previous law provided that the repeal of those provisions does not affect any right or immunity granted by those provisions to a development project that meets specified requirements before January 1, 2025. This bill would reenact those provisions, with certain changes. The bill would specify that its provisions would apply to an update to a community plan adopted on or after January 1, 2025, and would apply to a development project for which an application has been filed with, and accepted as complete by, the local jurisdiction on or before January 1, 2036. 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. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, prohibits various forms of employment and housing discrimination, including various types of discrimination because of national origin. Existing law empowers the Civil Rights Department to investigate and prosecute complaints alleging unlawful practices. This bill would provide that an employee's assessment, testing, admission, or acknowledgment of their own personal bias that was made in good faith and solicited or required as part of a bias mitigation training does not constitute unlawful discrimination, as prescribed.
(1) Existing law authorizes a county board of supervisors, by resolution, to authorize the use of a facsimile signature of the chairperson of the board on all papers, documents, or instruments requiring the signature of the chairperson, as provided, if certain requirements are met relating to the personal signature of the chairperson. Under existing law, if those requirements are met, the papers, documents, or instruments bearing the facsimile signature are accorded the same force and effect as though personally signed by the chairperson. This bill would remove the requirement for that authorization to occur by resolution of the board. The bill would authorize the board, in addition to authorizing a facsimile signature, to authorize the use of an electronic or digital signature of the chairperson on all papers, documents, or instruments requiring the signature of the chairperson. Under the bill, a document bearing the electronic or digital signature of the chairperson would have the same force and effect as if personally signed by the chairperson. Existing law also requires ordinances enacted by a county board of supervisors to be signed by the chairperson of the board and attested by the clerk. Existing law requires city ordinances passed by a city council to be signed by the mayor and attested by the city clerk. Existing law specifies that, when attesting to a digital signature, a county clerk or a city clerk may presume that the signature is genuine and attributable to the signatory if the digital signature complies with specified requirements. This bill would additionally apply the above-described presumption to electronic signatures, as provided. (2) Existing law authorizes a county board of supervisors to authorize the use of photographs, microphotographs, electronic data processing records, optical disks, or any other medium that is a trusted system and that does not permit additions, deletions, or changes to the original document, or photocopies of all records, books, and minutes of the board. Under existing law, if the documents are signed using a digital signature, the reproduced documents are considered authenticated if the reproduced documents are created by a trusted system, as defined in pertinent digital signature regulations. This bill would provide that if the documents are signed using an electronic or digital signature, the reproduced documents are considered authenticated if the reproduced documents are created by a trusted system, as defined in pertinent digital signature regulations, or in compliance with the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. (3) Existing law authorizes a registrar of voters to be appointed by the board of supervisors in specified counties to discharge all duties vested by law in the county clerk that relate to and are a part of election procedure. This bill would include the Counties of Kern and Nevada among those counties in which the board of supervisors is authorized to appoint a registrar of voters. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Counties of Kern and Nevada. (4) Existing law regulates the investment of public funds by local agencies, as defined. Existing law authorizes the legislative body of a local agency, as specified, that has money in a sinking fund or in its treasury not required for immediate needs to invest the money as it deems wise or expedient in certain securities and financial instruments. In this regard, existing law authorizes investment in prime quality commercial paper issued by entities meeting certain criteria, if the eligible commercial paper has a maximum maturity of 270 days or less. This bill would revise the maximum maturity periods for the investments in prime quality commercial paper to 397 days. (5) Existing law, the Vallejo Flood and Wastewater District Act, provides for contracting by the Vallejo Flood and Wastewater District. Existing law requires the district, in all work of improvement or repair of any of the works or property of the district and in the furnishing of materials or supplies, when the expenditures exceed $4,000, to do the work by contract let to the lowest responsible bidder, after prescribed notice, as specified. This bill would specify that "furnishing of materials and supplies" referenced in the above-described provision is for work of improvement or repair of any of the works or property of the district. The bill would also make a nonsubstantive change with respect to the act. Existing law further authorizes the board of trustees of the district to declare a state of emergency and take prescribed actions. Existing law requires the board of trustees to comply with certain emergency contracting procedures, if, with regard to actions taken during the emergency, notice for bids to let contracts will not be given. This bill would delete the authorization for the board of trustees to declare a state of emergency and take prescribed actions and would delete the above-described requirement. (6) Existing law, the Municipal Utility District Act, governs the formation and governance of municipal utility districts. The act provides that the government of every district is vested in a board of 5 or 7 directors and specifies procedures for filling a vacancy on a board. Those procedures authorize the remaining board members to fill a vacancy by appointment until the next district general election that is scheduled 90 or more days after the effective date of the vacancy, as provided. This bill would require the person appointed to fill a vacancy to hold office until the person elected at the next district general election that is scheduled 90 or more days after the effective date of the vacancy has been qualified and takes office. (7) The bill would also correct various cross-references, as provided.
The Civic Center Act authorizes, and in some instances requires, the governing board of a school district to allow the use of school facilities or grounds as a civic center, for specified purposes. The act authorizes or requires, as applicable, the governing board of a school district to charge a fee, not to exceed the school district's direct costs, as defined, for use of its school facilities or grounds. Existing law, for these purposes, defines "direct costs" to mean the costs of supplies, utilities, janitorial services, services of school district employees, and salaries paid to school district employees directly associated with the administration of this section necessitated by the entity's use of the school facilities or grounds. Existing law, until January 1, 2025, expanded the definition of direct costs to include a specified share of the operating and maintenance costs proportional to the entity's use of the school facilities or grounds and a share of the costs for maintenance, repair, restoration, and refurbishment of the school facilities or grounds proportional to that entity's use of the school facilities or grounds, as specified. This bill would restore, indefinitely, the above-described expanded definition of direct costs that was repealed as of January 1, 2025. The bill would require funds collected relating to maintenance, repair, restoration, and refurbishment to be deposited into a special fund and to be used only for certain purposes. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law authorizes airports to require rental companies to collect a customer facility charge or an alternative customer facility charge for purposes that include financing, designing, and constructing airport vehicle rental facilities and common-use transportation systems. Existing law requires the aggregate amount of charges collected to not exceed, among other things, the reasonable costs to finance, design, and construct those facilities. Existing law authorizes a rental company to collect a customer facility charge under specified circumstances, including that revenues collected from the fee do not exceed the reasonable costs of financing, designing, and constructing the facility. Existing law authorizes an airport to require rental companies to collect an alternative customer facility charge under specified conditions, including that the airport finds that the reasonable cost of the project requires the additional amount of revenue that would be generated by the proposed daily rate, and prohibits the daily rate of the alternative customer facility charge from exceeding $9 per day. Existing law limits use of proceeds of any bonds backed by alternative customer facility charges to construction and design of the consolidated rental vehicle facility, terminal modifications, and operating costs of the common-use transportation system. This bill would require that the aggregate amount of charges collected also not exceed the reasonable costs of performance of major maintenance on airport vehicle rental facilities, as provided. The bill would increase the daily maximum alternative customer facility charge an airport is authorized to require rental companies to collect to $12 per day. The bill would also authorize proceeds of any bonds backed by, or revenues from, alternative customer facility charges to be used for major maintenance of a consolidated rental vehicle facility and would remove the authorization for the proceeds of those bonds to be used for terminal modifications.
Existing law prohibits a court from ordering a civil action into mediation when the amount in controversy exceeds $50,000, as specified. This bill would, as of January 1, 2027, increase the dollar amount of the above-described amount in controversy limitation to $75,000 and impose additional requirements, such as there being no ongoing discovery disputes and at least one party notifying the court of an interest in mediation, to be met before a court may order a civil action into mediation. If the parties do not stipulate to a mutually agreeable mediator, the bill would require the court to select a mediator, at no cost to the parties. Court-ordered mediation would be required to conclude with a mutually acceptable statement of agreement or nonagreement, as specified.
Existing law authorizes the Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol to issue authorized emergency vehicle permits for certain vehicles, including any vehicle owned and operated by a public utility and any vehicle owned and operated by a fire company, as specified, upon a finding that the vehicle is used in responding to emergency calls for fire or law enforcement, the immediate preservation of life or property, or the apprehension of law violators. This bill would authorize the commissioner to issue an emergency vehicle permit to any vehicle owned by a county, city, or city and county office of emergency services only while that vehicle is being used by a public employee who is employed by the office in responding to any disaster.
