Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission has regulatory authority over public utilities, including telephone corporations. Existing law establishes the California High-Cost Fund-A Administrative Committee Fund, the California High-Cost Fund-B Administrative Committee Fund, the Universal Lifeline Telephone Service Trust Administrative Committee Fund, the Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program Administrative Committee Fund, the Payphone Service Providers Committee Fund, the California Teleconnect Fund Administrative Committee Fund, and the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) in the State Treasury and provides that moneys in the funds are held in trust and may be expended only to accomplish specified telecommunications universal service programs, upon appropriation in the annual Budget Act or upon supplemental appropriation. This bill would prohibit the commission from collecting, for deposit into any universal service fund, any revenues derived from charges upon the provision of a communications service that the Federal Communications Commission has determined is an information service, as specified. Existing law establishes the Public Utilities Commission Utilities Reimbursement Account and authorizes the commission to annually determine a utility reimbursement fee to be paid by every public utility providing service directly to customers or subscribers and subject to the jurisdiction of the commission, except for a railroad corporation. The commission is required to establish the fee, with the approval of the Department of Finance, to produce a total amount equal to that amount established in the authorized commission budget for the same year, and an appropriate reserve to regulate public utilities, less specified sources of funding. This bill would prohibit the commission from imposing a utility reimbursement fee that is applicable to the provision of a communications service that the Federal Communications Commission has determined is an information service, as specified.
Sponsored bills
This measure would name the public street, circle, and plaza at 914 and 915 Capitol Mall in the City of Sacramento as the Willie L. Brown, Jr. Circle and Plaza. The measure would request the Department of General Services to determine the cost of erecting the appropriate signage commemorating this special designation and, upon receiving donations from nonstate sources, to cover that cost to erect that signage.
Existing law vests the Department of Transportation with full possession and control of the state highway system and associated property. Existing law generally requires proceeds from the sale of excess state highway property to be made available for other highway purposes. Existing law generally provides for the California Transportation Commission to program available funding for transportation capital improvement projects, other than state highway rehabilitation projects, through the State Transportation Improvement Program process, with available funds subject to various fair share distribution formulas. Existing law, in certain cases, requires the commission to instead reallocate funds from canceled state highway projects to a local alternative transportation improvement program within the same county and exempts those funds from the fair share distribution formulas that would otherwise apply. This bill, with respect to planned state transportation facilities over the Feather River in the City of Yuba City and the Counties of Sutter and Yuba, which facilities are no longer planned to be constructed, would authorize the affected local agencies, acting jointly with the transportation planning agency having jurisdiction, to develop and file with the commission a local alternative transportation improvement program that addresses transportation problems and opportunities in the area that was to be served by the canceled state facilities. The bill would provide that the commission has the final authority regarding the content and approval of the local alternative, and would prohibit the commission from approving the local alternative if it is submitted after July 1, 2022. The bill would require all proceeds from the sale of certain excess properties acquired by the department for the canceled state facilities, less any reimbursements due to the federal government and costs incurred in the sale of those excess properties, to be allocated by the commission to fund the approved local alternative and would exempt those funds from the fair share distribution formulas that would otherwise apply to state transportation funds.
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 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. This bill would, until January 1, 2025, exempt from CEQA egress route projects undertaken by a public agency that are specifically recommended by the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection that improve the fire safety of an existing subdivision if certain conditions are met. The bill would require the lead agency to hold a noticed public meeting to hear and respond to public comments before determining that a project is exempt. The bill would require the lead agency, if it determines that a project is not subject to CEQA and approves or carries out that project, to file a notice of exemption with the Office of Planning and Research and with the clerk of the county in which the project will be located.
The California Constitution grants many rights to persons, including the right to speak and write freely, as specified, and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Existing statutory law requires that a person providing labor or services for remuneration shall be considered an employee rather than an independent contractor, for specified purposes, unless the hiring entity demonstrates that the person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact, the person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business, and the person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed. This measure, "The Right to Earn a Living Act," would require determinations of whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor to be made using a specified multifactor test that differs from the test described above. The measure would also require that any law that limits the entry into or competition in a business or profession to be limited to those that are demonstrably necessary and narrowly tailored to fulfill legitimate public health, safety, or welfare objectives. The measure would also prohibit a law from preventing an employer from agreeing to an employee's request for a flexible work schedule, as specified.
This measure would recognize September 2020 as Sickle Cell Disease Awareness Month and encourage the Legislature to appropriate funds for research, treatment, and monitoring of sickle cell disease, and for related education and outreach.
This measure would urge specified state departments and the Attorney General to use their authority to ensure that health care service plans and health insurers subject to their authority comply with the federal Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008.
Existing law requires the State Department of Public Health to license and regulate various health facilities, including general acute care hospitals. Existing law requires the department to issue a special permit, in addition to a license, to a health facility to offer one or more special services, such as an emergency center, if specified requirements are met, including that the department finds that the standards of care and services are adequate and appropriate. Existing regulations generally require emergency medical services and care to be provided within a hospital. Existing law provides that a special permit issued under these provisions expires on the expiration date of the license, which occurs 12 months from the date of the issuance of the license. This bill would make legislative findings relating to the impact of the Camp Fire in 2018 on the County of Butte, including the destruction of Feather River Hospital in that county. Pursuant to those provisions, the bill would require the department to issue a special permit to allow a general acute care hospital to offer emergency stabilization services at a location that is neither inside nor contiguous to the hospital if the hospital provides satisfactory evidence to the department that, among other things, the hospital has a written transfer agreement with the hospital closest to the location where emergency stabilization services will be provided, and satisfactory evidence to the department that this location meets certain requirements, including that the location is in the town of Paradise within the County of Butte and serves the same area previously served by Feather River Hospital. The bill would require that the special permit application fee be $15,000. The bill would require this special permit to expire 2 years from the date of its issuance, and would authorize the special permit to be renewed every 2 years, for a combined period not to exceed 6 years from the initial date of issuance. The bill would impose certain requirements on the hospital to renew a special permit under these provisions. The bill would authorize the department to implement these provisions through an All Facilities Letter or similar instruction, without taking regulatory action. The bill would repeal its provisions on January 1, 2028. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the County of Butte.
Existing law authorizes a development proponent to submit an application for a development permit that is subject to a streamlined, ministerial approval process and not subject to a conditional use permit if the development satisfies specified objective planning standards, including that the development is a multifamily housing development that contains 2 or more residential units. This bill would authorize a development proponent to submit an application for a residential development, or mixed-use development that includes residential units with a specified percentage of space designated for residential use, within the territorial boundaries or a specialized residential planning area identified in the general plan of, and adjacent to existing urban development within, specified cities that is subject to a similar streamlined, ministerial approval process and not subject to a conditional use permit if the development satisfies specified objective planning standards. The bill would require a local government to notify the development proponent in writing if the local government determines that the development conflicts with any of those objective standards by a specified time; otherwise, the development is deemed to comply with those standards. The bill would provide that if a local government approves a project pursuant to that process, that approval will not expire if that project includes investment in housing affordability, and would otherwise provide that the approval of a project expires automatically after 3 years, unless that project qualifies for a one-time, one-year extension of that approval. The bill would prohibit a city from imposing any automobile parking standards on a development subject to these provisions if the development is located within 12 mile of a high-quality bus corridor, as defined, or major transit stop, as defined. The bill would provide that approval pursuant to its provisions would remain valid for 3 years and remain valid thereafter so long as vertical construction of the development has begun and is in progress, and would authorize a discretionary one-year extension, as provided. The bill would require a local government to file a notice of any approval of a development under these provisions with the Office of Planning and Research. The bill would prohibit a local government from adopting any requirement that applies to a project solely or partially on the basis that the project receives ministerial or streamlined approval pursuant to these provisions, except as provided. The bill would repeal these provisions as of January 1, 2026. This bill would include findings that the changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all of the specified cities, including charter cities. 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 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 does not apply to the approval of ministerial projects. By establishing a streamlined, ministerial approval process for certain housing developments, this bill would expand the exemption for the ministerial approval of projects under CEQA. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the cities specified in the bill. By imposing new duties on specified local agencies with respect to the streamlined, ministerial approval process described above, 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.
The Planning and Zoning Law authorizes a local agency to provide, by ordinance, for the creation of accessory dwelling units in single-family and multifamily residential zones and requires a local agency that has not adopted an ordinance to ministerially approve an application for an accessory dwelling unit, and sets forth required ordinance standards, including that the ordinance prohibit the sale or conveyance of the accessory dwelling unit separately from the primary residence. Existing property tax law establishes a welfare exemption under which property is exempt from taxation if the property is owned and operated by a nonprofit corporation that is organized and operated for the purpose of building and rehabilitating single-family or multifamily residences for sale, as provided, at cost to low-income families. This bill would authorize a local agency to allow, by ordinance, an accessory dwelling unit that was created pursuant to the process described above to be sold or conveyed separately from the primary residence to a qualified buyer if certain conditions are met. Those conditions include, among others, that the property was built or developed by a qualified nonprofit corporation that is receiving the above-described welfare exemption, a recorded contract exists between the qualified buyer and the qualified nonprofit corporation that imposes an enforceable restriction upon the sale and conveyance of the property that ensures the property will be preserved for affordable housing, and that the property is held pursuant to a recorded tenancy in common agreement that includes specified provisions.