Asm. Blanca Rubio

Maddy summaryThis House Resolution designates a month as Filipino American History Month in California. It recognizes the historical contributions of Filipino Americans to the state, including early settlement (dating to 1587), agricultural labor, community building (such as "Little Manila" in Stockton), and military service during World War II. As a symbolic resolution, it does not create new laws, policies, or direct effects on any specific group.

Existing law prohibits, except as specified, a person from performing a clinical laboratory test or examination classified as of moderate or high complexity under the federal Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) unless the test or examination is performed under the overall operation and administration of the laboratory director, as specified. A violation of these provisions is a crime. Existing law authorizes unlicensed laboratory personnel who have earned a high school diploma or its equivalent and who meet specified training requirements to perform specified activities under the supervision and control of a physician and surgeon or licensed person. This bill would authorize a person to assist, as defined, in the performance of moderate or high complexity testing in a clinical laboratory if the person, in addition to the above requirements, meets the requirements under CLIA for moderate or high complexity testing. Prior to assisting in the performance of the specified activities, the bill would require the person, under direct and constant supervision, to demonstrate the skills and ability to satisfactorily perform the task. The bill would require the laboratory director to designate the supervisor and to maintain overall responsibility for the supervision and performance of the unlicensed laboratory personnel. By expanding the application of an existing crime, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. This bill would define supervision and control, as used above, to mean direction, management, and awareness of the activity of unlicensed laboratory personnel by a physician and surgeon or licensed person, who must be physically present in the laboratory and readily available for consultation during the entire time that the unlicensed laboratory personnel are engaged in the duties. 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 vests the Public Utilities Commission with regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations and gas corporations. The Public Advocate's Office of the Public Utilities Commission is established as an independent office within the commission to represent and advocate on behalf of the interests of public utility customers and subscribers within the jurisdiction of the commission. This bill would require the office to establish, by January 1, 2027, a program to, upon request of the Legislature, analyze legislation that would establish a mandated requirement or program or otherwise affect electrical or gas ratepayers, as specified. The bill would require the office to develop and implement conflict-of-interest provisions to prohibit a person from participating in an analysis for which the person knows or has reasons to know that the person has a material financial interest. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2032.

(1) The Planning and Zoning Law requires a local agency, as defined, to compile one or more lists that specify in detail the information required from any applicant for a postentitlement phase permit, as defined. Existing law also establishes time limits for completing reviews regarding whether an application for a postentitlement phase permit is complete and compliant, and whether to approve or deny an application. If a local agency finds that a complete application is noncompliant, existing law requires the local agency to provide the applicant with a list of items that are noncompliant and a description of how the application can be remedied by the applicant within specified time limits. Existing law requires the time limits to be tolled, if the local agency requires review of the application by an outside entity, until the outside entity completes the review and returns the application to the local agency, as specified. This bill would prohibit the local agency from requiring or requesting more than 2 plan check and specification reviews in connection with an application for a building permit, as part of its review, except as specified. The bill would authorize a local agency to deny an application that is not compliant with the permit standards following 2 plan check and specification reviews. The bill would also authorize an applicant to request additional submittals of applications that are not compliant with the permit standards. The bill, if a local agency finds that a complete application is noncompliant, would prohibit a local agency from requesting or requiring any action or inaction as a result of a building inspection undertaken to assess compliance with the applicable building permit standards that would represent a deviation from a previously approved building plan or similar approval for the building permit, except as specified. This bill would remove the above-described tolling requirements relating to outside entity reviews and, instead, would require, if federal or state law requires review of the application by another public agency that is independent of the local agency before the local agency is authorized to act on the application, the time limits to be tolled for the application until the public agency completes the review and returns the application to the local agency. The bill would require the local agency to notify the applicant, within 3 business days of the start of the tolling and within 3 business days of the resumption of the time limit, of the tolling and the resumption of the time limit, respectively. (2) Existing law, if a postentitlement phase permit is determined to be incomplete or noncompliant, requires a local agency to provide a process for an applicant to appeal that decision in writing to the governing body of the agency or, if there is no governing body, to the director of the agency, as provided by that agency. Existing law requires the city or county to provide that the right of appeal is to the governing body or, at their option, the planning commission, or both. Existing law requires a local agency to provide a final written determination on the appeal not later than 60 business days after receipt of the applicant's written appeal, for housing development projects with 25 units or fewer, and not later than 90 business days for a housing development projects with 26 units or more. Existing law also specifies that the fact that an appeal is permitted to both the planning commission and to the governing body does not extend the specified time period. This bill would revise those timelines to not later than 30 business days for housing development projects with 25 units or fewer and 45 business days for housing development projects with 26 units or more. The bill would remove the specification that the fact that an appeal is permitted to both the planning commission and to the governing body does not extend the specified time period. The bill would remove the requirement that, if a postentitlement phase permit is determined to be incomplete or noncompliant, a local agency provide a process for an applicant to appeal that decision to the director of the agency if there is no governing body, as provided by that agency. The bill would remove the requirement that a city or county provide that the right of appeal is to the governing body or, at their option, the planning commission, or both. This bill would authorize the applicant to seek a writ of mandate to compel approval of the application, if the applicant's appeal is denied, or a decision on the appeal is not made within the timelines provided, or an appeals process is not provided as required. By imposing additional duties on local agencies regarding postentitlement phase permits, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) Existing law, the Housing Accountability Act, among other things, prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning approval in a manner that renders infeasible, a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households unless the local agency makes written findings as to one of certain sets of conditions, as specified. The act also requires, when a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, that the local agency base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that 2 specified conditions exist. Existing law defines the term "disapprove the housing development project" for these purposes to include any instance in which a local agency takes certain actions or fails to comply with certain requirements, including the time limits described above. Existing law makes a local agency's failure to meet the above-described time limits relating to postentitlement phase permits a violation of the Housing Accountability Act. This bill would, instead, make a violation of the above-described provisions relating to postentitlement phase permits, among others, a violation of the Housing Accountability Act. The bill would also revise the definition of "disapprove the housing development project" under the Housing Accountability Act to include any instance in which a local agency fails to comply with any of the provisions described above relating to postentitlement phase permits. By requiring local agencies to take certain actions, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (4) The bill would make other conforming changes and would provide that certain changes are declaratory of existing law. (5) The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. (6) 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 California Constitution establishes the Public Utilities Commission consisting of 5 members appointed by the Governor and approved by the Senate. This bill would require that one member be an at-large member with expertise in nongovernmental public advocacy or public interest law and with a nongovernmental background, as specified. The bill would require the Governor, in selecting, and the Senate, in confirming, members of the commission to consider regional diversity in the membership of the commission. The bill would require the Governor, in appointing a candidate for membership in the commission, to consider using a candidate pool that comprises persons with permanent residences in certain regions of the state, as specified. Existing law requires the president of the commission to appear annually before the appropriate policy committees of the Senate and the Assembly to present certain information. Existing law authorizes the commission to fix the rates and charges for public utilities, and requires that those rates and charges be just and reasonable. This bill would require the president of the commission, at the annual appearance before those committees, to also present information related to rates affordability and ratesetting cases decided by, or pending before, the commission. Existing law requires the commission to report annually to the Legislature on the timeliness in resolving cases, including the number of orders issued extending the statutory deadline. This bill would specify that the above information includes the number of cases in which the commission failed to issue a decision within the statutory deadline. The bill would require the commission, within 15 days of adopting a final decision on a ratesetting case, to submit to the Legislature a report containing certain information regarding the ratesetting case.

Existing law requires the State Fire Marshal to classify lands within state responsibility areas into fire hazard severity zones, and, by regulation, designate fire hazard severity zones and assign to each zone a rating reflecting the degree of severity of fire hazard that is expected to prevail in the zone. Existing law requires the State Fire Marshal to periodically review designated and rated zones and, as necessary, revise zones or their ratings or repeal the designation of zones. Existing law also requires the State Fire Marshal to identify areas in the state that are not state responsibility areas as moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones based on consistent statewide criteria and based on the severity of fire hazard that is expected to prevail in those areas, and to periodically review and, as necessary, make recommendations relative to very high fire hazard severity zones. This bill would prohibit the State Fire Marshal's determination of fire hazard severity zone, in both state responsibility areas and lands that are not state responsibility areas, from being based on risk mitigation activities. The bill would, as applied to both state responsibility areas and lands that are not state responsibility areas, authorize the State Fire Marshal, in periods between the State Fire Marshal's review of areas of the state for recommendations regarding an area's fire hazard severity zone, to confer with entities, including, but not limited to, public agencies, tribes, nonprofit organizations, project applicants, and members of the public, on actions that may impact the degree of fire hazard in an area or the area's recommended fire hazard severity zone designation. The bill would authorize the State Fire Marshal to provide a written response to an entity on actions that may impact the degree of fire hazard, and would require this written response to be posted on the State Fire Marshal's internet website. This bill would authorize those entities to provide information to the State Fire Marshal on wildfire safety improvements or other actions the entity has taken or plans to take, and any information submitted to or by the department, as specified, before the next review that may impact the degree of fire hazard in an area or the area's fire hazard severity zone designation. The bill would authorize the State Fire Marshal to consider this information in the next review, and would require any documentation provided to the State Fire Marshal to be posted in a manner that is easily accessible on the State Fire Marshal's internet website. This bill would authorize the State Fire Marshal to require a fee from an entity that confers with the State Fire Marshal, or provides information to the State Fire Marshal, to cover the State Fire Marshal's costs associated with these processes, as specified.

Under existing law, 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 by the executive officer of any county, city, or city and county, and for 30 days or 180 days, as specified, following the proclamation or declaration of emergency, it is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in county jail, a fine of $10,000, or both that imprisonment and fine, for a person, contractor, business, or other entity to sell or offer to sell certain goods or services for a price of more than 10% greater than the price charged by that person immediately prior to the proclamation or declaration of emergency. This bill would instead make that misdemeanor applicable, for those provisions for which the misdemeanor is applicable for a period of 30 days following the proclamation or declaration of emergency, for a period of 60 days. The bill would, for an entity or person other than a natural person, make that misdemeanor punishable by a fine of $25,000. By expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Under existing law, as described above, it is unlawful to increase the rental price for housing by more than 10%, or evict any residential tenant of residential housing, upon the proclamation or declaration of emergency. Existing law defines "housing" for purposes of these provisions as any rental housing with an initial lease term of no longer than one year. This bill would expand the definition of "housing" to include any rental housing without regard to the length of the initial lease term. The bill would make the prohibitions on increasing the rental price by more than 10% and eviction generally applicable to commercial real property. By expanding the scope of a crime, 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.

This measure would call on members of the United States Congress to oppose reductions to funding that negatively impact educational services for students with disabilities and would call on the President of the United States and Congress to ensure that services and funding for students with disabilities are uninterrupted.

This measure would recognize February 2025 as Black History Month, urge all citizens to join in celebrating the accomplishments of African Americans during Black History Month, and encourage the people of California to recognize the many talents of African Americans and the achievements and contributions they make to their communities to create equity and equality for education, economics, and social justice. The measure would also recognize the significance in protecting citizens' right to vote and remedying racial discrimination in voting.

Maddy summaryThis is a commemorative resolution, not a bill with policy changes. It recognizes key historical milestones of transgender people in California, including Indigenous gender diversity documented in 1775, 19th-century transgender figures in San Francisco's Tenderloin, early activism like the 1959 Cooper Do-nuts Riot, and legal precedents such as Sir Lady Java's 1967 employment discrimination case. The resolution has no binding effect and does not create new laws or directly affect any individuals or groups. It serves solely to honor these historical contributions.