Existing law provides that a driver who violates specified offenses of the rules of the road that are punishable as an infraction, and as a result of that violation proximately causes bodily injury or great bodily injury to another person is guilty of the public offense of unsafe operation of a motor vehicle with bodily injury or great bodily injury. Existing law provides that a conviction under these provisions is punishable for a violation involving bodily injury by a fine of $70 and for a violation involving great bodily injury by a fine of $95. This bill, until January 1, 2020, would make a conviction under these provisions punishable by a fine, in lieu of the fines imposed for violations involving bodily injury or great bodily injury, of not less than $220 and not more than $300 for a violation involving bodily injury or great bodily injury to a vulnerable road user, as defined.
Sponsored bills
The Mello-Granlund Older Californians Act creates the California Department of Aging to provide leadership to the area agencies on aging in developing systems of home- and community-based services that maintain individuals in their own homes or least restrictive homelike environments. Existing law requires the department, in accomplishing its mission, to consider available data and population trends in developing programs and policies, collaborate with area agencies on aging, the California Commission on Aging, and other state and local agencies. This bill, until January 1, 2018, would require the department to establish a blue-ribbon task force comprised of at least 13 members, as specified, to make legislative recommendations regarding supportive services for family caregivers in California, if the department receives sufficient nonstate funds from private sources to implement the bill. The bill would require the task force to prepare a report of its findings and recommendations and provide it to the Legislature on or before July 1, 2017. The bill would make related findings and declarations.
The Planning and Zoning Law requires each city, county, or city and county to prepare and adopt a general plan for its jurisdiction that contains certain mandatory elements, including a housing element. That law requires the housing element to, among other things, include an inventory of land suitable for residential development and make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community. That law prescribes the densities appropriate to accommodate housing for lower income households and varies those densities depending upon how an area is classified, whether as metropolitan, suburban, or in another category. A city, county, or city and county is required to submit a draft housing element or draft amendment to its housing element to the Department of Housing and Community Development for a determination of whether the draft substantially complies with state law governing housing elements. This bill would require, until December 31, 2023, a county that is in the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont California Metropolitan Statistical Area and that has a population of less than 400,000 to be considered suburban for purposes of determining the densities appropriate to accommodate housing for lower income households. The bill would require these counties to utilize the sums existing in their housing trust funds as of June 30, 2013, for affordable housing, as specified. The bill would, for that same purpose, also require a city that has a population of less than 100,000 and is incorporated within that county to be considered suburban. The bill would require a county or city so classified to make 2 reports, as specified, to the Legislature and the Department of Housing and Community Development. The bill would apply housing density requirements in place on June 30, 2014, within 12 mile of a Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit station. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65583.2 of the Government Code proposed by AB 1690 that would become operative if this bill and AB 1690 are both enacted and this bill is enacted last. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for certain areas of the state.
Existing law prohibits a person from furnishing a BB device, defined to include a spot marker gun, to a minor without the permission of the minor's parent or guardian, and prohibits selling a BB device to a minor. Violation of either of these prohibitions is a crime. Existing law defines a BB device as any instrument that expels a projectile, such as a BB or pellet, that does not exceed 6 millimeters in caliber. This bill would, commencing January 1, 2016, delete the 6 millimeter restriction from the definition of a BB device. By including a device that expels a BB or pellet that exceeds 6 millimeters in caliber within the definition of a BB device, this bill would expand the scope of existing crimes, and impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law generally prohibits anyone from purchasing, selling, manufacturing, shipping, transporting, distributing, or receiving an imitation firearm. A person is liable for a civil fine of not more than $10,000 for a violation of this prohibition. Existing law excludes all BB devices from the definition of imitation firearm for these purposes. This bill would, commencing January 1, 2016, make BB devices that expel a projectile, such as a BB or a pellet, that is 6 millimeters or 8 millimeters in caliber subject to that prohibition unless the devices meet specified coloration requirements, and would exclude spot marker guns that expel a projectile larger than 10 millimeters in caliber from the prohibition. Existing law, for purposes of regulating imitation firearms, adopts coloration and construction schemes prescribed by federal law. Existing law includes a cross-reference to those federal provisions. This bill would delete the cross-reference to the federal 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
(1) Existing law regulates the sale, transfer, possession, and ownership of firearms, including prohibiting specified persons from owning or possessing firearms. Existing law, among other things, generally prohibits a person subject to a domestic violence protective order from owning or possessing a firearm while that order is in effect. This bill would authorize a court to issue a temporary emergency gun violence restraining order if a law enforcement officer asserts and a judicial officer finds that there is reasonable cause to believe that the subject of the petition poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm and that the order is necessary to prevent personal injury to himself, herself, or another, as specified. The bill would require a law enforcement officer to serve the order on the restrained person, if the restrained person can reasonably be located, file a copy of the order with the court, and have the order entered into the computer database system for protective and restraining orders maintained by the Department of Justice. The bill would require the presiding judge of the superior court of each county to designate at least one judge, commissioner, or referee who is required to be reasonably available to issue temporary emergency gun violence restraining orders when the court is not in session. This bill would additionally authorize a court to issue an ex parte gun violence restraining order prohibiting the subject of the petition from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or ammunition when it is shown that there is a substantial likelihood that the subject of the petition poses a significant danger of harm to himself, herself, or another in the near future by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm and that the order is necessary to prevent personal injury to himself, herself, or another, as specified. The bill would require the ex parte order to expire no later than 21 days after the date on the order and would require the court to hold a hearing within 21 days of issuing the ex parte gun violence restraining order to determine if a gun violence restraining order that is in effect for one year should be issued. The bill would require a law enforcement officer or a person at least 18 years of age who is not a party to the action to personally serve the restrained person the ex parte order, if the restrained person can reasonably be located. The bill would authorize a court to issue a gun violence restraining order prohibiting the subject of the petition from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or ammunition for a period of one year when there is clear and convincing evidence that the subject of the petition, or a person subject to an ex parte gun violence restraining order, as applicable, poses a significant danger of personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm and that the order is necessary to prevent personal injury to himself, herself, or another, as specified. The bill would authorize the renewal of the order for additional one-year periods and would permit the restrained person to request one hearing to terminate the order during the effective period of the initial order or each renewal period. The bill would require a court, upon issuance of a gun violence restraining order, to order the restrained person to surrender to the local law enforcement agency all firearms and ammunition in his or her custody or control, or which he or she possesses or owns. The bill would require the local law enforcement agency to retain custody of the firearm or firearms and ammunition for the duration of a gun violence restraining order. The bill would require the court to notify the Department of Justice when any gun violence restraining order has been issued, renewed, dissolved, or terminated. The bill would also require the court, when sending that notice, to specify whether the person subject to the gun violence restraining order was present in court to be informed of the contents of the order or if the person failed to appear. The bill would require proof of service of the order to be entered into the California Restraining and Protective Order System, as specified. The bill would make it a misdemeanor to file a petition for an ex parte gun violence restraining order or a gun violence restraining order issued after notice and a hearing, knowing the information in the petition to be false or with the intent to harass. The bill would also provide that a person who owns or possesses a firearm or ammunition with the knowledge that he or she is prohibited from doing so by a gun violence restraining order is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be prohibited from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or ammunition for a 5-year period, commencing upon the expiration of the existing gun violence restraining order. By creating new crimes and by requiring new duties of local law enforcement, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law states the grounds upon which a search warrant may be issued, including when the property or things to be seized include a firearm or any other deadly weapon that is owned by, or in the possession of, or in the custody or control of, specified persons. This bill would allow a search warrant to be issued when the property or things to be seized are firearms or ammunition or both that are owned by, in the possession of, or in the custody or control of, a person who is the subject of a gun violence restraining order if a prohibited firearm or ammunition or both is possessed, owned, in the custody of, or controlled by a person against whom a gun violence restraining order has been issued, the person has been lawfully served with that order, and the person has failed to relinquish the firearm as required by law. The bill would also require the law enforcement officer executing a search warrant issued upon that ground to take custody of any firearm or ammunition that is in the restrained person's custody or control or possession or that is owned by the restrained person, which is discovered pursuant to a consensual or other lawful search and would provide rules for executing the search warrant when the location to be searched is jointly occupied by the restrained person and one or more other persons. (3) Existing law requires specified law enforcement officers to take temporary custody of any firearm or deadly weapon in plain sight or discovered pursuant to a lawful search when present at the scene of a domestic violence incident involving a threat to human life or physical assault. This bill would apply the requirements described above to law enforcement officers serving a gun violence restraining order. The bill would also apply those requirements when the law enforcement officer is a sworn member of the Department of Justice who is a peace officer. (4) Existing law requires the Department of Justice to request public and private mental hospitals, sanitariums, and institutions to submit to the department information necessary to identify persons who are prohibited from having a firearm because the person has been admitted to a facility, is receiving inpatient treatment, and is a danger to himself, herself, or others. Existing law requires the department to only use the information for certain specified purposes. This bill would additionally authorize the department to use the above-described information to determine the eligibility of a person who is the subject of a petition for the issuance of a gun violence restraining order to acquire, carry, or possess firearms, destructive devices, or explosives. (5) Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. (6) This bill would incorporate additional changes in Section 18250 of the Penal Code, proposed by SB 1154, to be operative only if SB 1154 and this bill are chaptered and become effective on or before January 1, 2015, and this bill is chaptered last. (7) 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. (8) The provisions of this bill would be effective January 1, 2016.
The existing California Coastal Act of 1976 establishes the California Coastal Commission and prescribes the membership and functions and duties of the commission. The act requires the commission, among other things, to take various actions with regard to the issuance of permits for development in the coastal zone, as defined, and to conduct public meetings and hearings pertaining to matters before the commission. Existing law requires the commission to provide a notice, including a specific agenda, prior to any meeting or hearing of the commission, as specified. This bill would require the commission to make the notice of any public meeting or hearing of the commission available in both English and Spanish, and would authorize the commission also to make the notice available in any other language.
(1) Existing law, until 2020, requires an operator of a store, as defined, to establish an at-store recycling program that provides to customers the opportunity to return clean plastic carryout bags to that store. This bill, as of July 1, 2015, would prohibit stores that have a specified amount of sales in dollars or retail floor space from providing a single-use carryout bag to a customer, with specified exceptions. The bill would also prohibit those stores from selling or distributing a recycled paper bag at the point of sale unless the store makes that bag available for purchase for not less than $0.10. The bill would also allow those stores, on or after July 1, 2015, to distribute compostable bags at the point of sale only in jurisdictions that meet specified requirements and at a cost of not less than $0.10. The bill would require these stores to meet other specified requirements on and after July 1, 2015, regarding providing reusable grocery bags to customers, including distributing those bags only at a cost of not less than $0.10. The bill would require all moneys collected pursuant to these provisions to be retained by the store and be used only for specified purposes. The bill, on and after July 1, 2016, would additionally impose these prohibitions and requirements on convenience food stores, foodmarts, and entities engaged in the sale of a limited line of goods, or goods intended to be consumed off premises, and that hold a specified license with regard to alcoholic beverages. The bill would allow a retail establishment to voluntarily comply with these requirements, if the retail establishment provides the department with irrevocable written notice. The bill would require the department to post on its Internet Web site, organized by county, the name and physical location of each retail establishment that has elected to comply with these requirements. The bill would require the operator of a store that has a specified amount of sales in dollars or retail floor space and a retail establishment that voluntarily complies with the requirements of this bill to comply with the existing at-store recycling program requirements. The bill would require, on and after July 1, 2015, a reusable grocery bag sold by certain stores to a customer at the point of sale to be made by a certified reusable grocery bag producer and to meet specified requirements with regard to the bag's durability, material, labeling, heavy metal content, and, with regard to reusable grocery bags made from plastic film on and after January 1, 2016, recycled material content. The bill would impose these requirements as of July 1, 2016, on the stores that are otherwise subject to the bill's requirements. The bill would prohibit a producer of reusable grocery bags made from plastic film from selling or distributing those bags on and after July 1, 2015, unless the producer is certified by a 3rd-party certification entity, as specified. The bill would require a reusable grocery bag producer to provide proof of certification to the department. The bill would require the department to provide a system to receive proofs of certification online. The department would be required to publish on its Internet Web site a list of reusable grocery bag producers that have submitted the required certification and their reusable grocery bags. The bill would require the department to establish an administrative certification fee schedule, which would require a reusable grocery bag producer providing proof to the department of certification or recertification to pay a fee. The bill would require that all moneys submitted to the department pursuant to these fee provisions be deposited into the Reusable Grocery Bag Fund, which would be established by the bill, and continuously appropriated for purposes of implementing these proof of certification and Internet Web site provisions, thereby making an appropriation. The bill would also require a reusable grocery bag producer to submit applicable certified test results to the department. The bill would authorize a person to object to a certification of a reusable grocery bag producer by filing an action for review of that certification in the superior court of a county that has jurisdiction over the reusable grocery bag producer. The bill would require the court to determine if the reusable grocery bag producer is in compliance with the provisions of the bill and, based on the court's determination, would require the court to direct the department to either remove or retain the reusable grocery bag producer on its published Internet Web site list. The bill would allow a city, county, or city and county, or the state to impose civil penalties on a person or entity that knows or reasonably should have known it is in violation of the bill's requirements. The bill would require these civil penalties to be paid to the office of the city attorney, city prosecutor, district attorney, or Attorney General, whichever office brought the action, and would allow the penalties collected by the Attorney General to be expended by the Attorney General, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to enforce the bill's provisions. The bill would declare that it occupies the whole field of the regulation of reusable grocery bags, single-use carryout bags, and recycled paper bags provided by a store and would prohibit a local public agency from enforcing or implementing an ordinance, resolution, regulation, or rule, or any amendment thereto, adopted on or after September 1, 2014, relating to those bags, against a store, except as provided. (2) The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 creates the Recycling Market Development Revolving Loan Subaccount in the Integrated Waste Management Account and continuously appropriates the funds deposited in the subaccount to the department for making loans for the purposes of the Recycling Market Development Revolving Loan Program. Existing law makes the provisions regarding the loan program, the creation of the subaccount, and expenditures from the subaccount inoperative on July 1, 2021, and repeals them as of January 1, 2022. This bill would appropriate $2,000,000 from the Recycling Market Development Revolving Loan Subaccount in the Integrated Waste Management Account to the department for the purposes of providing loans for the creation and retention of jobs and economic activity in California for the manufacture and recycling of plastic reusable grocery bags that use recycled content. The bill would require a recipient of a loan to agree, as a condition of receiving the loan, to take specified actions. (3) The bill would require the department, no later than March 1, 2018, to provide a status report to the Legislature on the implementation of the bill's provisions.
Existing law establishes the California Community Colleges, under the administration of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, as one of the segments of public postsecondary education in this state. Existing law requires the board of governors to appoint a chief executive officer, to be known as the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges. Existing law establishes community college districts, administered by governing boards, throughout the state, and authorizes these districts to provide instruction to students at the community college campuses maintained by the districts. Existing law requires community colleges to offer instruction through, but not beyond, the 2nd year of college and authorizes community colleges to grant associate degrees in arts and science. This bill would, commencing January 1, 2015, authorize the board of governors, in consultation with the California State University and the University of California, to establish a statewide baccalaureate degree pilot program at not more than 15 community college districts, with one baccalaureate degree program each, to be determined by the chancellor and approved by the board of governors. The bill would prohibit each participating district from offering more than one baccalaureate degree program within the district, as specified. The bill would require a district baccalaureate degree pilot program to commence by the beginning of the 2017–18 academic year, and would require a student participating in a baccalaureate degree pilot program to complete his or her degree by the end of the 2022–23 academic year. The bill would require participating community college districts to meet specified requirements, including, but not limited to, offering baccalaureate degree programs and program curricula not offered by the California State University or the University of California, and in subject areas with unmet workforce needs, as specified. This bill would also require the governing board of a participating community college district to submit certain items for review by the chancellor and approval by the board of governors, including, among other things, the administrative plan for the baccalaureate degree pilot program and documentation of consultation with the California State University and the University of California. The bill would provide that the Legislative Analyst's Office shall conduct both a statewide interim evaluation and a statewide final evaluation of the statewide baccalaureate degree pilot program implemented under this article, as specified, and report to the Legislature and Governor, in writing, the results of the interim evaluation on or before July 1, 2018, and the results of the final evaluation on or before July 1, 2022. The bill would provide that on or before March 31, 2015, the board of governors shall develop, and adopt by regulation, a funding model for the support of the statewide baccalaureate degree pilot program, as specified. This bill would make these provisions inoperative on July 1, 2023, and would repeal the provisions on January 1, 2024.
The Senior Citizens and Disabled Citizens Property Tax Postponement Law, until February 20, 2009, authorized a claimant, as defined, to file a claim with the Controller to postpone the payment of ad valorem property taxes, if household income, as defined, did not exceed specified amounts. That law authorized the Controller, upon approval of the claim, to either make a payment directly to specified entities, or to issue the claimant a certificate of eligibility that constituted a written promise of the state to pay the amount specified on the certificate, as provided. That law required these payments to be made out of specified funds appropriated to the Controller, and also required certain repaid property tax postponement payments to be paid into an impound account and transferred, as specified, to the General Fund. That law also required all sums paid by the Controller for postponed property taxes to be secured by a lien in favor of the State of California. Existing law, on and after February 20, 2009, prohibits a person from filing a claim for postponement, and prohibits the Controller from accepting applications for postponement, under the Senior Citizens and Disabled Citizens Property Tax Postponement Law. This bill would make inoperative the prohibition against a person filing a claim for postponement and the Controller from accepting applications for postponement under the program as of July 1, 2016, and would repeal this prohibition on January 1, 2017. This bill would authorize a claim for postponement to be filed after September 1 of the fiscal year in which the postponement is claimed and on or before April 10 of that fiscal year, as specified. This bill would limit the household income amount of a claimant to $35,000 and would exclude losses and nonexpenses from "income" for purposes of these provisions. This bill would also exclude mobilehomes and houseboats from the scope of these provisions, and make conforming changes to related provisions. The Senior Citizens Mobilehome Property Tax Postponement Law provides for all amounts postponed in the case of a mobilehome to be due if the claimant dies, unless the surviving spouse or other person eligible to postpone continues to occupy the mobilehome. This bill would limit this exception to the circumstance in which the surviving spouse who was previously approved continues to occupy the mobilehome. This bill would create in the State Treasury a Senior Citizens and Disabled Citizens Property Tax Postponement Fund and would require the fund to be interest-bearing at a specified rate. This bill would delete the requirement that funds be placed in an impound account and would, instead, require that repaid property tax postponement payments be directly deposited into the newly created fund. The bill would require the Controller to transfer any moneys in the fund in excess of specified amounts to the General Fund each year. The bill would require any impound account funds remaining upon the enactment of this bill to be transferred to the fund. The bill would continuously appropriate these funds to the Controller for purposes of administering the property tax postponement program, as specified. Existing law authorizes the Controller to establish a fee to implement these provisions, not to exceed $10. This bill would authorize the Controller to charge a fee not exceeding $30. Existing law authorizes the Controller to subordinate the lien for postponed property taxes if the Controller determines subordination is appropriate. This bill would eliminate that authorization and make other conforming changes. Existing law requires that the owner's equity interest in the residential dwelling be at least 20% of the full value of the property at the time the claimant files an initial postponement claim in order to be eligible to participate in the postponement program. This bill would increase the equity requirement to at least 40% for each postponement claim. Existing law requires the repayment of postponed taxes in specified circumstances. This bill would, in addition, require repayment if the claimant refinances the dwelling or has elected to participate in a revenue mortgage program for the dwelling. The bill would require the tax collector or the assessor to notify the Controller if assessment records applicable to property for which taxes have been postponed reveal a change in ownership within 60 days of processing that change, and require that the county tax collector or assessor notify the Controller within 60 days of all property subject to a "Notice of Lien for Postponed Property Taxes" and processed for notice of becoming tax defaulted or of the claimant for that property, if residential, transferring ownership or changing his or her mailing address, or having been determined to be deceased. Existing law requires a claim for postponement to be filed after May 15 of the calendar year in which the fiscal year for which postponement is claimed begins, and on or before December 10 of that fiscal year. This bill would instead require a claim for postponement to be filed after September 1 of the calendar year in which the fiscal year for which postponement is claimed begins, and on or before April 10 of that fiscal year. Existing law makes optional certain duties of local agencies related to recordation of the tax lien. This bill would delete that provision, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the notice of lien to be recorded within 14 days of the transfer of funds and notice of lien to the county by the Controller. The bill would impose additional requirements in the case of liens upon mobilehome loans established prior to February 20, 2009, and specify procedures to be followed by the Controller if the obligation secured by the lien is paid in full or otherwise discharged. Existing law requires, if a postponement claim, as specified, is filed timely but before the delinquency date of the first or 2nd installment of property taxes, that any delinquent penalties and interest for the fiscal year be canceled unless the failure to perfect the claim was due to willful neglect on the part of the claimant or representative, in which case the certificates of eligibility for the fiscal year can be used to pay delinquent taxes only if accompanied by sufficient amounts to pay the delinquent interest and penalties. This bill would instead require, if a postponement claim is filed timely before the delinquency date of the 2nd installment of property taxes on the secured roll, that any delinquent penalties, costs, fees, and interest accrued for the fiscal year be canceled. This bill would instead require, in the event of willful neglect to perfect the claim, that an electronic funds transfer for that current fiscal year be used to pay only the delinquent taxes. This bill would authorize the tax collector, if the payment amount sufficient to pay all of the delinquent penalties, costs, fees, and interest is not received by the tax collector within 30 days from the date of the electronic funds transfer, to return the electronic funds transfer to the Controller to deny the postponement claim. This bill would require the Controller to provide a specified notification to the claimant and a copy of the notification to the tax collector. This bill would also require the Controller, upon written request of the tax collector, to provide the tax collector with information that is required for the preparation and enforcement of the sale of tax-defaulted property. The bill would require the tax collector or assessor, in the case of a tax-defaulted property sale, to include the outstanding balance of the property tax postponement loan in the minimum bid. The bill would require that, in the event that the property fails to receive the minimum bid and the minimum bid is reduced, all moneys paid to the Controller's office and county tax collector be a proportionate allocation of the total moneys owed. The bill would also require the tax collector or his or her designee to certify, under penalty of perjury, that the information is requested for these purposes. This bill would also provide that any information provided to the tax collector is not a public record and is not open to public inspection. By requiring the tax collector to make a certification under penalty of perjury, this bill would expand the crime of perjury thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. Existing law authorizes a tax collector, 5 years or more after a nonresidential commercial property has become tax defaulted, to sell the property, as specified. This bill would authorize a county to adopt conditions and procedures to delay the sale of property that it deems may be eligible to file a property tax postponement claim, as specified, and to cancel any delinquent penalties, costs, fees, and interest associated with these properties. Existing law requires the price at which certain tax-defaulted property may be offered for sale to be the total amount necessary to redeem the property, plus costs. This bill would require the outstanding balance, as defined, of any property tax postponement loan to also be included in the price described above. Existing law requires, after certain other amounts have been satisfied, the proceeds from the sale of tax-defaulted property to be distributed to taxing agencies in specified proportions to each assessment fund with the remaining balance to each tax fund. This bill would require the proceeds remaining after the distributions described above to be distributed to the State Controller for the outstanding balance of any property tax postponement loan. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. 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 declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law requires the State Water Resources Control Board to establish uniform statewide recycling criteria for each varying type of use of recycled water where the use involves the protection of public health. This bill would require, by December 31, 2016, the state board, in consultation with impacted state agencies, to determine whether the use of disinfected tertiary treated recycled water for the purpose of providing water to animals, as defined, would not pose a significant risk to public and animal health. This bill would require the state board to establish uniform statewide recycling criteria for the use of recycled water for the purpose of providing water to animals if the state board determines that the use of disinfected tertiary treated recycled water for this purpose would pose a significant risk to public or animal health. The bill would authorize the state board to approve the use of disinfected tertiary treated recycled water for this purpose if the state board determines that its use would not pose a significant risk to public or animal health but would prohibit the use of disinfected tertiary treated recycled water in the water supply for dairy animals that are currently producing dairy products for human consumption.