Asm. Phil Ting

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.

Existing law provides that 8 hours of labor constitute a day's work unless it is otherwise expressly stipulated in a collective bargaining agreement, and requires that any work in excess of specified hours in one workday or one workweek be compensated at a rate higher than the regular rate of pay for the employee, as specified. Existing law authorizes, upon the proposal of an employer, employees of an employer to adopt a regularly scheduled alternative workweek that authorizes work by the affected employees for no longer than 10 hours per day within a 40-hour workweek without the payment to the affected employees of an overtime rate of compensation, as specified. Existing law prohibits an employer from employing an employee for a work period of more than 5 hours per day without providing the employee with a meal period, as specified, but, notwithstanding these provisions, existing law authorizes the Industrial Welfare Commission to adopt a working condition order permitting a meal period to commence after 6 hours of work if specified conditions are met. Under existing law, the Industrial Welfare Commission issues wage orders that regulates wages, hours, and working conditions in various occupations, including Wage Order No. 10-2001, which regulates the amusement and recreation industry. This bill would provide that these provisions do not apply to a person who is covered by a contract to play baseball at the minor league level with a labor organization that has at least 10 years of experience representing baseball players and who is compensated pursuant to the terms of a valid collective bargaining agreement that expressly provides for the wages, hours of work, working conditions of employees, payment for time worked during the off-season and spring training, and final and binding arbitration of disputes. The bill would require the Department of Industrial Relations to amend and republish Wage Order No. 10-2001 to provide that specified provisions of the wage order do not apply to a person subject to these provisions, as specified. Existing law requires an employer, semimonthly or at the time of payment of wages, to furnish an employee an accurate, itemized, written statement containing specified information regarding the amounts earned, hours worked, and the employee's identity, among other things, subject to certain variations. Existing law provides that an itemized wage statement furnished by an employer pursuant to these provisions is not required to show total hours worked by the employee if, among other things, the employee is exempt from the payment of minimum wage and overtime under specified law. This bill would provide that an itemized wage statement furnished by an employer pursuant to these provisions is not required to show total hours worked by an employee if the employee is exempt from the payment of minimum wage and overtime under the bill's provisions described above. Existing law, the Administrative Procedure Act, governs, among other things, the procedures for the adoption, amendment, or repeal of regulations by state agencies. Existing law also describes procedures for the promulgation of regulations by the Industrial Welfare Commission. This bill would exempt these provisions from the rulemaking procedures described above. 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. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Existing law makes it unlawful for any owner or operator of a motel, motor court, or like establishment to post or maintain outdoor advertising signs relating to room rates that has any untrue, misleading, false, or fraudulent representations, and specified other requirements on outdoor signs for those establishments. Existing law also prohibits an owner or operator of a hotel or motel from increasing the hotel or motel's rates upon the proclamation of a state of emergency by the President of the United States or the Governor or upon the declaration of a local emergency, as specified. This bill would prohibit a place of short-term lodging, as defined, from advertising or offering a room rate that does not include all fees or charges required to stay at the short-term lodging except taxes and fees imposed by a government on the stay, as specified. The bill would also require a place of short-term lodging to include in the total price to be paid, before the consumer reserves a stay, all taxes and fees imposed by a government on the stay. The bill would make a violation of those provisions subject to a specified civil penalty not to exceed $10,000 and would authorize an action to enforce those provisions to be brought by a city attorney, district attorney, county counsel, or the Attorney General. The bill would make the bill's provisions operative on July 1, 2024.

Existing law establishes a basic speed law that prohibits a person from driving a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent given the weather, visibility, traffic, and highway conditions and in no event at a speed that endangers the safety of persons or property. This bill would authorize, until January 1, 2032, the Cities of Los Angeles, San Jose, Oakland, Glendale, and Long Beach, and the City and County of San Francisco to establish a Speed Safety System Pilot Program if the system meets specified requirements. The bill would require a participating city or city and county to adopt a Speed Safety System Use Policy and a Speed Safety System Impact Report before implementing the program, and would require the participating city or city and county to engage in a public information campaign at least 30 days before implementation of the program, including information relating to when the systems would begin detecting violations and where the systems would be utilized. The bill would require a participating city or city and county to issue warning notices rather than notices of violations for violations detected within the first 60 calendar days of the program. The bill would also require a participating city or city and county to develop uniform guidelines for, among other things, the processing and storage of confidential information. The bill would designate all photographic or administrative records, not including data about the number of violations issued or the speeds at which they were issued for, made by a system as confidential, and would only authorize public agencies to use and allow access to these records for specified purposes. This bill would specify that any violation of a speed law recorded by a speed safety system authorized by these provisions would be subject only to the provided civil penalties. The bill would, among other things, provide for the issuance of a notice of violation, an initial review, an administrative hearing, and an appeals process, as specified, for a violation under this program. The bill would require any program created pursuant to these provisions to offer a diversion program for indigent speed safety system violation recipients, as specified. The bill would require a city or city and county participating in the pilot program to submit a report to evaluate the speed safety system to determine the system's impact on street safety and economic impact on the communities where the system is utilized. Existing law establishes a $25 filing fee for specified appeals and petitions. This bill would require a $25 filing fee for an appeal challenging a notice of violation issued as a result of a speed safety system until January 1, 2032. 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. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Cities of Los Angeles, San Jose, Oakland, Glendale, and Long Beach, and the City and County of San Francisco.

Existing law prescribes requirements for the disposal of land determined to be surplus land by a local agency. Those requirements include a requirement that a local agency, prior to disposing of a property or participating in negotiations to dispose of that property with a prospective transferee, send a written notice of availability of the property to specified entities, depending on the property's intended use, and send specified information in regard to the disposal of the parcel of surplus land to the Department of Housing and Community Development. Existing law, among other enforcement provisions, makes a local agency that disposes of land in violation of these disposal provisions, after receiving notification of violation from the department, liable for a penalty of 30% of the final sale price of the land sold in violation for a first violation and 50% for any subsequent violation. Under existing law, except as specified, a local agency has 60 days to cure or correct an alleged violation before an enforcement action may be brought. Existing law provides for the deposit and use of penalty revenues for housing, as prescribed. This bill, until January 1, 2030, would require the County of Orange, or any city located within the County of Orange, if notified by the department that its planned disposal of surplus land is in violation of existing law, to cure or correct the alleged violation within 60 days, as prescribed. The bill would prohibit a County of Orange jurisdiction that has not cured or corrected any alleged violation from disposing of the parcel until the department determines that it has complied with existing law or deems the alleged violation not to be a violation. The bill would authorize a local agency that receives that notice to provide to the Department of Housing and Community Development a statement describing the actions taken to cure or correct the alleged violation within 60 days of receipt of the notice, and would require the department, if it receives that statement, to make specified determinations and notify the local agency of those determinations within 30 days of receipt of the statement. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the County of Orange. By imposing new duties on local agencies, 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 prescribes requirements for the disposal of surplus land by a local agency. Existing law defines terms for these purposes. Existing law defines "surplus land" to generally mean land owned in fee simple by a local agency for which the local agency's governing body takes formal action in a public meeting declaring that the land is surplus and not necessary for the agency's use. Existing law defines "agency's use" to include land that is being used, is planned to be used pursuant to a written plan adopted by the local agency's governing board, or is disposed of to support agency work or operations. Existing law excludes from "agency's use" commercial or industrial uses or activities, or property disposed of for the sole purpose of investment or generation of revenue, unless the local agency is a district, except as specified, and the agency's governing body takes specified actions in a public meeting. Existing law excludes from these requirements the disposal of exempt surplus land by an agency of the state or any local government. Existing law requires a local agency to declare land as either surplus land or exempt surplus land, as supported by written findings, before a local agency may take any action to dispose of it. Under existing law, exempt surplus land includes, among other types of land, property that is used by a district for an "agency's use" as expressly authorized, land for specified developments, including a mixed-use development, if put out to open, competitive bid by a local agency, as specified, and surplus land that is subject to specified valid legal restrictions. This bill would define the term "dispose" for these purposes to mean the sale of the surplus property or a lease of any surplus property entered into on or after January 1, 2024, for a term longer than 15 years, including renewal options, as specified. The bill would provide that "dispose" does not include entering a lease for surplus land on which no development or demolition will occur, regardless of the term of the lease. The bill would also redefine the term "agency's use" to include property owned by a port that is used to support logistics uses, sites for broadband equipment or wireless facilities, and waste disposal sites. This bill would revise and recast certain provisions related to exempt surplus land, including exempting surplus land that is less than one-half acre and not contiguous to land owned by a state or local agency that is used for open-space or low- and moderate- income housing purposes, and provisions related to mixed-use developments, among others. The bill would add various new categories of exempt surplus land, including (1) specified land that is owned by a California public-use airport on which residential uses are prohibited, (2) surplus land owned by a local agency whose primary mission or purpose is to supply the public with a transportation system that is developed for commercial, or industrial uses or activities, for the sole purpose of investment if certain conditions are met, and (3) land transferred to a community land trust, as specified. The bill would also specify that certain legal restrictions are valid legal restrictions and would require that for surplus land that is subject to valid legal restrictions to be considered exempt surplus land, a declaration of exemption must be supported by documentary evidence, as provided. This bill would specify that the law governing surplus land does not require a local agency to dispose of land that is determined to be surplus. Existing law requires a local agency disposing of surplus land to send a written notice of availability of the property to specified local agencies and housing sponsors before disposing of the property or participating in negotiations. This bill would specify additional actions that are not considered "participating in negotiations" for purposes of the above-described notice of availability requirement, including issuing a request for proposals or negotiating a lease for purposes of complying with specified provisions of law. Existing law requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to maintain on its internet website a list of all notices of availability throughout the state. This bill would require the department to also maintain on its internet website a list of all entities, including housing sponsors, that have notified the department of their interest in surplus land for the purpose of developing low- and moderate-income housing. Existing law requires an entity proposing to use surplus land for developing low- and moderate-income housing shall agree to make available not less than 25 percent of the total number of units developed on the parcels at affordable housing cost for a period of at least 55 years. This bill would instead require the entity to agree to make available not less than 25 percent of the total number of units developed on the parcels at affordable housing cost for a minimum of 55 years for rental housing, 45 years for ownership housing, and 50 years for rental or ownership housing located on tribal trust lands. Under existing law, a local agency that disposes of surplus land after receiving a notification from the Department of Housing and Community Development that the agency is in violation of the law governing surplus land is liable for 30% of the final sale price of the land. Existing law authorizes certain entities and interested persons to bring an action to enforce these provisions. This bill would instead make a local agency that is in violation of these provisions liable for 30% of the applicable disposition value, which the bill would define. This bill would prohibit the penalties for violating these provisions from applying to nonsubstantive violations that do not impact the availability or construction of housing affordable to lower income households or the ultimate disposition of the land, as specified. Existing law further requires the department to review, adopt, amend, or repeal guidelines to establish uniform standards to implement certain provisions and exempts those guidelines from the Administrative Procedure Act. This bill would remove that exemption from the Administrative Procedure Act. By imposing new duties on local agencies, 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. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 54221 of the Government Code proposed by Assembly Bill 480 to be operative only if this bill and Assembly Bill 480 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. This bill would make its operation contingent on the enactment of Assembly Bill 480 of the 2023-24 Regular Session.

Existing law prescribes requirements for the disposal of surplus land by a local agency, as defined, and requires, except as provided, a local agency disposing of surplus land to comply with certain notice requirements before disposing of the land or participating in negotiations to dispose of the land with a prospective transferee, particularly that the local agency send a notice of availability to specified entities that have notified the Department of Housing and Community Development of their interest in surplus land, as specified. Under existing law, if the local agency receives a notice of interest, the local agency is required to engage in good faith negotiations with the entity desiring to purchase or lease the surplus land. This bill would define the term "dispose" to mean the sale of the surplus property or a lease of any surplus property entered into on or after January 1, 2024, for a term longer than 15 years, including renewal options, as specified. The bill would provide that "dispose" does not include entering a lease for surplus land on which no development or demolition will occur, regardless of the term of the lease. Existing law requires a local agency to take formal action in a regular public meeting to declare that land is surplus and is not necessary for the agency's use and to declare land as either "surplus land" or "exempt surplus land," as supported by written findings, before a local agency may take any action to dispose of it consistent with an agency's policies or procedures. This bill would exempt a local agency, in specified instances, from making a declaration at a public meeting for land that is "exempt surplus land" if the local agency identifies the land in a notice that is published and available for public comment at least 30 days before the exemption takes effect. Existing law defines "exempt surplus land," for which a local agency is not required to follow the requirements for disposal of surplus land, except as provided, as, among other things, surplus land that is put out to open, competitive bid by a local agency for specified housing and mixed-use development purposes, and surplus land that is subject to valid legal restrictions that are not imposed by the local agency and that would make housing prohibited, as specified. This bill would recast the definition of "exempt surplus land" with respect to surplus land for specified housing purposes, to remove the requirement that it be put out to open, competitive bid. The bill would also include within the definition of "exempt surplus land" surplus land totaling 10 or more acres, consisting of a single parcel, or of 2 or more adjacent or nonadjacent parcels totaling 10 or more acres, combined for disposition to one or more buyers pursuant to a plan or ordinance adopted by the legislative body of the local agency, or a state statute, as specified. The bill would require that land be subject to an open, competitive bid process, as specified, and that the development satisfy certain requirements. The bill would make a violation of these provisions subject to specified penalties. The bill would also require that a local agency that disposes of land pursuant to those provisions do so through a disposition and development agreement containing specified provisions. The bill would also require, with respect to surplus land that is subject to valid legal restrictions, that the legal restrictions described above be supported by documentary evidence and written findings, as specified. The bill would require that certain surplus land be transferred with a covenant or restriction recorded against the land at the time of sale, as specified. By narrowing the circumstances under which certain surplus land may be defined as "exempt surplus land" and, therefore, expanding the duties of local officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law defines "exempt surplus land" to include surplus land that a local agency is exchanging for another property necessary for the agency's use. This bill would include easements necessary for the agency's use for purposes of that provision. Existing law specifies that, for purposes of these provisions, the term "exempt surplus land," includes, among other things, surplus land that is put out to open, competitive bid by a local agency, as specified, for purposes of a mixed-use development that is more than one acre in area, that includes not less than 300 housing units, and that restricts at least 25% of the residential units to lower income households with an affordable sales price or an affordable rent for a minimum of 55 years for rental housing and 45 years for ownership housing. This bill would modify these provisions to require that the mixed-use development include not less than 300 residential units, would modify the affordability restriction to 50 years for rental or ownership housing located on tribal trust lands, and would require the restrictions to be recorded, as specified. Existing law also defines exempt surplus land as, among other things, land that was transferred by the state to a local agency, as specified, that includes residential units that are restricted to persons and families of low or moderate income with an affordable sales price or rent, at least 80% of which shall be restricted to persons and families of lower income. This bill would expand the definition of exempt surplus land to include land that is owned by a California public-use airport on which residential use is prohibited pursuant to specified federal law. The bill would expand in the definition of exempt surplus land to also include certain mixed-use developments that meet specified conditions, including that at least 25% of the residential units are restricted to lower income households and at least 50% of the square footage of the new construction is designated for residential use, and surplus land owned by a local agency whose primary mission or purpose is to supply the public with a transportation system that is developed for commercial, or industrial uses or activities, for the sole purpose of investment if certain conditions are met. The bill would also modify exemptions related to land transferred after activation of a parking authority and land that is a former military base to include an affordability restriction of 50 years for rental or ownership housing located on tribal trust lands. Existing law requires any local agency disposing of surplus land to send a written notice of availability of the property to specified entities. Existing law requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to maintain on its internet website a list of all notices of availability throughout the state. This bill would require the department to also maintain on its internet website a list of all entities, including housing sponsors, that have notified the department of their interest in surplus land for the purpose of developing low- and moderate-income housing. This bill would also specify that certain actions are not considered "participating in negotiations" for purposes of the above-described notice of availability requirement, including issuing a request for proposals or negotiating a lease for purposes of complying with specified provisions of law. The bill would make other nonsubstantive changes to provisions that describe the entities to which notices of availability for developing low- and moderate-income housing, for open-space purposes, and for school facilities construction are required to be sent. Existing law requires an entity proposing to use the surplus land for developing low- and moderate-income housing to agree to make available not less than 25% of the total number of units developed on the parcels at affordable housing cost for a period of at least 55 years. This bill would instead require the entity to require requirement to agree to make available not less than 25% of the total number of units developed on the parcels at affordable housing cost for a minimum of 55 years for rental housing, land use for ownership housing, and 50 years for rental or ownership housing located on tribal trust lands. Existing law specifies that after the disposing agency has received a notice of interest from the entity desiring to purchase or lease the land, if price or terms cannot be agreed upon after a good faith negotiation period, the land may be disposed of, as specified. This bill would recast that provision to state that after the specified good faith negotiation, the local agency may dispose of the surplus land, as specified. Existing law proclaims that nothing in these provisions relating to the disposition of surplus property shall preclude a local agency, housing authority, or redevelopment agency that purchases land from a disposing agency from reconveying the land to a nonprofit or for-profit housing developer for development of low- and moderate-income housing. This bill would modify that provision to remove reference to housing authorities and redevelopment agencies and make other nonsubstantive changes. Existing law specifies that any public agency disposing of surplus land to a specified entity that intends to use the land for park or recreation purposes, for open-space purposes, for school purposes, or for low- and moderate-income housing purposes may provide for a payment period of up to 20 years in any contract of sale or sale by trust deed for the land. This bill would modify those provisions to refer, instead, to a local agency disposing of surplus land. Existing law authorizes a local agency to negotiate concurrently with all entities that provide notice of interest for the purpose of developing affordable housing that meets specified requirements. This bill would modify that provision to reference low- and moderate-income housing that meets specified requirements. The bill would make other nonsubstantive changes to this provision. Existing law makes a local agency that disposes of land in violation of these provisions after receiving notice from the Department of Housing and Community Development liable for a penalty of 30% of the final sale price of the surplus land sold for a first violation and 50% for any subsequent violation. This bill would, instead, make a local agency that disposes of surplus land in violation of these provisions, except as specified, after receiving a notification from the Department of Housing and Community Development, as specified, that the local agency is in violation of these provisions liable for a penalty of 30% of the applicable disposition value, which the bill would define. This bill would prohibit the penalties for violating these provisions from applying to nonsubstantive violations that do not impact the availability or construction of housing affordable to lower income households or the ultimate disposition of the land, as specified. The bill would make nonsubstantive changes to, and correct an erroneous cross-reference in, those provisions. Existing law provides that certain dispositions of real property by local agencies are subject to surplus land disposal procedures as they existed on December 31, 2019, if those dispositions are pursuant to specified legal agreements and the disposition is completed by December 31, 2022, or by December 31, 2024, if the property is located in a charter city with a population of over 2,000,000 persons and a local agency has an option agreement duly authorized by the governing body to purchase the property from a former redevelopment agency. This bill would instead subject dispositions of real property by local agencies to surplus land disposal procedures as they existed on December 31, 2019, if those dispositions are pursuant to specified legal agreements and the dispositions are completed by December 31, 2027. The bill would authorize a local agency that terminated an exclusive negotiating agreement or legally binding agreement to dispose of property, as specified, to elect whether to ask the requisite party to consider reviving the terminated agreement, and would make the revived agreement subject to these provisions, as applicable. This bill would specify that the law governing surplus land does not require a local agency to dispose of land that is determined to be surplus. 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. This bill would make its operation contingent on the enactment of SB 747 of the 2023–24 Regular Session. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 54221 of the Government Code proposed by SB 747 to be operative only if this bill and SB 747 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.