Existing law identifies the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge as a "toll bridge" and provides that the bridge and the approaches to it are a primary state highway. Existing law requires the Department of Transportation to permanently maintain and operate the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge as a primary state highway in such a manner that the physical condition and operating efficiency thereof are of the highest character. Existing law establishes the Bay Area Toll Authority and assigns to it responsibility for the administration of all toll revenues from state-owned toll bridges. Existing law provides that the power or duty of the authority to fix the rates of toll for the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge or the power and duty of the department to collect the tolls so fixed by the authority for the use of the bridge are not affected by any law providing that state highways are to be free highways. This bill would establish the East Span, San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge Safety Review Task Force in state government and require the Legislative Analyst to provide administrative support for the task force as necessary for the completion of its duties. The task force would consist of 7 members designated by the Legislative Analyst. The members of the task force would be deemed officers of the state, serve a term of one year, and receive compensation, as specified, and reimbursement for reasonable expenses. The bill would appropriate $149,000 from the State Highway Account in the State Transportation Fund to the Legislative Analyst for purposes of paying for the compensation and expense reimbursement of the task force members. The bill would require the Bay Area Toll Authority to reimburse the State Highway Account for all funds expended for purposes of the task force. The task force would be required to assess the anticipated seismic structural performance of the East Span, as defined, of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge by conducting a series of specified reviews. The task force would be required to submit a final written report to the Legislature and the Governor that includes the results of its assessment, as specified. This bill would provide that the task force is subject to the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. This bill would provide that the records of the task force are subject to disclosure in accordance with the California Public Records Act. This bill would make these provisions, except for the provisions regarding the defense and indemnity of task force members described below, inoperative on July 1, 2014, and would repeal them as of January 1, 2015. This bill would require the Department of Transportation to defend and indemnify a member of the task force pursuant to specified provisions of the Government Claims Act in the event that the member invokes the protections provided in those provisions. The bill would require the Bay Area Toll Authority to reimburse the department for costs and judgments incurred pursuant to this requirement. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Sponsored bills
(1) Existing sales and use tax laws impose a tax on retailers measured by the gross receipts from the sale of tangible personal property sold at retail in this state, or on the storage, use, or other consumption in this state of tangible personal property purchased from a retailer for the storage, use, or other consumption in this state, and provides various exemptions from those taxes. The bill would, until January 1, 2018, provide either a partial exemption or a partial exclusion from those taxes with respect to the sale of specified low-emission vehicles, as provided. The Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law authorizes counties and cities to impose local sales and use taxes in conformity with the Sales and Use Tax Law, and existing law authorizes districts, as specified, to impose transactions and use taxes in accordance with the Transactions and Use Tax Law, which conforms to the Sales and Use Tax Law. Amendments to state sales and use taxes are incorporated into these laws. Section 2230 of the Revenue and Taxation Code provides that the state will reimburse counties and cities for revenue losses caused by the enactment of sales and use tax exemptions. This bill would provide that, notwithstanding Section 2230 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, no appropriation is made and the state shall not reimburse any local agencies for sales and use tax revenues lost by them pursuant to this bill. (2) This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
Existing law, known as the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act, contains provisions relating to employer-employee relations between the state and the employees of state institutions of higher education, including the University of California and the California State University, as well as the Hastings College of the Law. These provisions assign major responsibilities for implementation to the Public Employment Relations Board. Under the act, an "employee" or "higher education employee" is defined as any employee of the Regents of the University of California, the Directors of the Hastings College of the Law, or the Trustees of the California State University. The act further provides that the board may find student employees whose employment is contingent on their status as students are employees only if the services they provide are unrelated to their educational objectives, or that those educational objectives are subordinate to the services they perform and that coverage under this act would further the purposes of the act. This bill would provide that student employees whose employment is contingent upon their status as students are employees or higher education employees for purposes of the act. The act prohibits "scope of representation," for purposes of the University of California only, from including, among other things, conditions for the award of certificates and degrees to students. This bill would provide that the conditions for the award of certificates and degrees to students that are outside of the scope of representation include what is required for students to achieve satisfactory progress toward their degrees.
The California Constitution generally limits ad valorem taxes on real property to 1% of the full cash value of that property. For purposes of this limitation, "full cash value" is defined as the assessor's valuation of real property as shown on the 1975–76 tax bill under "full cash value" or, thereafter, the appraised value of that real property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership has occurred. Existing property tax law specifies those circumstances in which the transfer of ownership interests in a corporation, partnership, limited liability company, or other legal entity results in a change in ownership of the real property owned by that entity, and generally provides that a change in ownership as so described occurs if a legal entity or other person obtains a controlling or majority ownership interest in the legal entity. Existing law also specifies other circumstances in which certain transfers of ownership interests in legal entities result in a change in ownership of the real property owned by those legal entities. This bill would instead specify that if 100% of the ownership interests in a legal entity, as defined, are sold or transferred in a single transaction, as specified, the real property owned by that legal entity has changed ownership, whether or not any one legal entity or person that is a party to the transaction acquires more than 50% of the ownership interests. The bill would require the State Board of Equalization to notify assessors if a change in ownership as so described occurs. Existing law requires a person or legal entity that obtains a controlling or majority ownership interest in a legal entity, or an entity that makes specified transfers of ownership interests in the legal entity, to file a change in ownership statement signed under penalty of perjury with the State Board of Equalization, as specified. Existing law requires a penalty of 10% of the taxes applicable to the new base year value, as specified, or 10% of the current year's taxes on the property, as specified, to be added to the assessment made on the roll if a person or legal entity required to file a change in ownership statement fails to do so. This bill would require a person or legal entity acquiring ownership interests in a legal entity, if 100% of the ownership interests in the legal entity are sold or transferred, as described above, to file a change in ownership statement signed under penalty of perjury with the State Board of Equalization. This bill would increase the penalties for failure to file a change in ownership statement, as described above, from 10% to 20%. This bill would also require a person or legal entity that acquires the ownership interest of a legal entity to report the change in ownership interests to the State Board of Equalization if any change in the ownership interests in a legal entity holding an interest in real property in this state occurs, as provided. This bill would require a legal entity to report subsequent changes in the ownership interests of the legal entity to the county assessor if a specified transfer between an individual or individuals and a legal entity or between legal entities occurs, as provided. This bill would also require a deed to be recorded with the county recorder by the owner of the real property, even if the owner of the real property does not change, if a change of an ownership interest in a legal entity holding an interest in real property occurs. By expanding the crime of perjury and by imposing new duties upon local county officials with respect to changes in ownership, this 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 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 include a change in state statute that would result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax within the meaning of Section 3 of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of 23 of the membership of each house of the Legislature. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
Existing law authorizes a court to recall a sentence of imprisonment in the state prison and to resentence a defendant in the same manner as if he or she had not previously been sentenced, upon the court's own motion or the recommendation of the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation or the Board of Parole Hearings. Existing law prohibits the new sentence from being greater than the initial sentence and requires that credit be given to time served. This bill would similarly authorize the court to recall a sentence of imprisonment in the county jail for a felony, upon the court's own motion or the recommendation of the sheriff who administers the county jail facility, as specified. Existing law authorizes a court, when sentencing a person to county jail for a felony, to commit the person to county jail for either the full term in custody, as specified, or to suspend the execution of a concluding portion of the term selected at the court's discretion. Under existing law, this period of suspended execution is supervised by the county probation officer and is known as mandatory supervision. This bill would instead require the court to suspend execution of the concluding portion of the term in county jail for at least six months, during which time the person would be subject to mandatory supervision. By increasing the duties of county probation officers, 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 these statutory provisions.
(1) Existing law provides that it is unlawful for a lessor to increase rent, decrease services, cause a lessee to quit involuntarily, bring an action to recover possession, or threaten to do any of those acts, for the purpose of retaliating against the lessee because he or she has lawfully organized or participated in a lessees' association or an organization advocating lessees' rights or has lawfully and peaceably exercised any rights under the law. This bill would, with respect to that provision, notwithstand another law that provides that, if a lessor retaliates against a lessee of a dwelling for exercising his or her rights or because of a complaint to an appropriate agency as to tenantability and the lessee is not in default as to the payment of rent, the lessor may not recover possession, cause the lessee to quit involuntarily, increase the rent, or decrease any services within 180 days of the occurrence of specified events. (2) Existing law governs unlawful detainer proceedings. Existing law requires a court, in an unlawful detainer proceeding involving residential premises, as specified, and in which the tenant has raised as an affirmative defense a breach of the landlord's obligations, as provided by law, or of any warranty of habitability, to determine whether a substantial breach of these obligations has occurred. This bill would clarify that, in unlawful detainer proceedings involving residential premises, the jury, or the court, if the proceeding is tried without a jury, shall determine whether a substantial breach of the obligations has occurred.
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 (EIR) 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 also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA defines "environment" and "significant effect on the environment" for its purposes. CEQA requires the EIR to include a detailed statement setting forth specified facts. This bill would revise those definitions, as specified. This bill would additionally require the lead agency to include in the EIR a detailed statement on any significant effects that may result from locating the proposed project near, or attracting people to, existing or reasonably foreseeable natural hazards or adverse environmental conditions. Because the lead agency would be required to undertake this additional consideration, this 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 establishes various categorical education programs and appropriates the funding for those programs in the annual Budget Act. Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction, for the 2008–09 to 2014–15 fiscal years, inclusive, to apportion from the amounts provided in the annual Budget Act for specified categorical education programs an amount based on the relative proportion that the local educational agency received in the 2008–09 fiscal year for those programs and authorizes school districts, for those fiscal years, to use these funds, with specified exceptions, for any educational purpose, to the extent permitted by federal law. Existing law requires a local educational agency to report expenditures of these funds to the State Department of Education. This bill would remove the California School Age Families Education Program (Cal-SAFE) from the list of categorical education programs for which their funding may be used for any educational purpose. This bill would also require school districts, charter schools, and county offices of education selecting not to maintain or reestablish a Cal-SAFE program to have their funding received in the annual Budget Act for the Cal-SAFE program reappropriated to the Budget Act item related to the Cal-SAFE program in the 2013–14 fiscal year and each subsequent fiscal year. The reappropriated funds shall be restricted to expanding existing Cal-SAFE programs or establishing new Cal-SAFE programs.