Existing law provides specified requirements in awarding certain public contracts. This bill would authorize the Governor to sign agreements required by the United States Olympic Committee as part of the bid process for the City of Los Angeles or the City and County of San Francisco to become the United States applicant city and candidate city for the 2024 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations that, among other things, the endorsing municipality, as defined, has developed a self-sufficient bid for financing the games. This bill would authorize the Governor to enter into an agreement for the state to be jointly liable, not to exceed a specified amount, with the Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games (OCOG) , as specified, for obligations of the OCOG, and for any financial deficit relating to the games, as provided. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Sponsored bills
The Personal Income Tax Law allows various credits against the tax imposed by that law. This bill would, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2016, and before January 1, 2021, allow a credit against that tax for amounts paid or incurred by a qualified teacher, as defined, during the school year beginning immediately prior to the taxable year for instructional materials and classroom supplies, as defined, not to exceed $250, except as provided. The bill would make related findings and declarations. The bill would require the school in which a qualified teacher works to provide a certificate certifying the hours the qualified teacher worked in a school year and the date in which the individual became a teacher. By requiring the schools to provide this certificate, 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. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
This measure would proclaim January 26, 2016, as India Republic Day, and would urge all Californians to join in celebrating India Republic Day.
(1) Existing law prohibits the taking of private property without the payment of just compensation and permits a person to maintain an action in inverse condemnation for the purpose of obtaining compensation for a taking. Existing law applies the doctrine of comparative fault for the purpose of apportioning responsibility and reducing damages to the extent a plaintiff is found partially at fault. This bill would apply the doctrine of comparative fault to inverse condemnation actions and would require a court or arbitrator to reduce the compensation paid to a plaintiff in an inverse condemnation proceeding in direct proportion to his or her percentage of fault, if any, in the damaging of property that constitutes a taking. The bill would also provide that in calculating the plaintiff's percentage of fault, the actions of the plaintiff in applying for or processing a permit or other entitlement for use or development do not damage or diminish the value of the property, nor constitute fault on the part of the plaintiff. (2) Existing law governs offers by a party to compromise a dispute that is to be resolved by trial or arbitration. Existing law provides in this regard, among other things, that if the defendant makes an offer that the plaintiff does not accept, and the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the plaintiff is prohibited from recovering his or her postoffer costs and is required to pay the defendant's costs from the time of the offer. Existing law also awards to the plaintiff in an inverse condemnation proceeding reasonable costs actually incurred because of that proceeding in the trial court, or in any appellate proceeding, in which the plaintiff prevails on any issue in that proceeding. This bill would provide, notwithstanding the latter provision, that if the defendant in an inverse condemnation action, on or after January 1, 2014, makes an offer that the plaintiff does not accept, and the plaintiff fails to obtain a judgment or award, the plaintiff shall not recover his or her postoffer costs and shall pay the defendant's postoffer costs. Additionally, the bill would provide that the plaintiff may be required to pay the defendant's costs for expert witnesses. Alternatively, if the plaintiff rejects the offer and fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the bill would prohibit the plaintiff from recovering his or her postoffer costs, but would provide that the plaintiff shall not be ordered to pay the defendant's postoffer costs.
Existing law requires the Attorney General to establish and maintain an online database, the Prohibited Armed Persons File, to cross-reference persons who have ownership or possession of a firearm on or after January 1, 1996, and who, subsequent to the date of that ownership or possession, fall within a class of persons who are prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm. Existing law restricts the access of that database to specified entities, including, among others, the courts, and specified law enforcement and prosecutorial entities. This bill would require the Department of Justice to allow the Department of Motor Vehicles to access the database in connection with the registration of vehicles and the issuance and renewal of driver's licenses. Existing law prescribes certain instances when the Department of Motor Vehicles is required to refuse registration, or renewal or transfer of registration, of a vehicle, including, among others, when the application contains a false or fraudulent statement, or the required fee has not been paid. This bill would additionally require the department to refuse registration, or renewal or transfer of registration, of a vehicle, when the department determines that the person to whom the vehicle is, or will be, registered is listed as a prohibited person in the Prohibited Armed Persons File. The bill would require the department, before registering a vehicle, or renewing or transferring the registration of a vehicle, to access the Prohibited Armed Persons File to determine if the person to whom the vehicle is, or will be, registered is listed as a prohibited person. Existing law prescribes certain instances when the Department of Motor Vehicles is required to refuse to issue or renew a driver's license, including, among others, when the person seeking the license is not of legal age to receive a driver's license. This bill would additionally require the department to refuse to issue or renew the driver's license of a person who the department determines is listed as a prohibited person in the Prohibited Armed Persons File. The bill would require the department, before issuing or renewing a driver's license, to access the Prohibited Armed Persons File to determine if the person applying for, or renewing, the driver's license is listed as a prohibited person.
(1) Existing law, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, an initiative measure enacted by the approval of Proposition 215 at the November 6, 1996, statewide general election, authorizes the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Existing law enacted by the Legislature requires the establishment of a program for the issuance of identification cards to qualified patients so that they may lawfully use marijuana for medical purposes, and requires the establishment of guidelines for the lawful cultivation of marijuana grown for medical use. Existing law provides for the licensure of various professions by the Department of Consumer Affairs. Existing law, the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, provides for the regulation of food, drugs, devices, and cosmetics, as specified. A violation of that law is a crime. This bill would enact the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Control Act and would establish within the office of the Governor, the Governor's Office of Marijuana Regulation to coordinate and provide oversight of the licensing and regulation of various commercial cannabis activities, as defined. The bill would establish the Division of Medical Cannabis Regulation, which is established within the State Board of Equalization, for the licensure and regulation of medical cannabis dispensaries and transporters. The bill would establish the Division of Medical Cannabis Manufacturing and Testing within the State Department of Public Health for the licensing and regulation of medical cannabis manufacturers and certified testing laboratories. The bill would also require the Division of Medical Cannabis Manufacturing and Testing to set specified standards for edible cannabis products. The bill would also establish the Division of Medical Cannabis Cultivation within the Department of Food and Agriculture for the licensure and regulation of medical cannabis cultivators. The bill would set forth the duties of these various divisions. The bill would require the office, by March 1, 2016, to convene a task force to advise the office on the development of standards for the regulation of medical cannabis. This bill would provide for the enforcement of the provisions of the act and of local ordinances relating to medical cannabis by the state and local governments and would require the office to develop an enforcement framework that clarifies the enforcement roles of the state and local governments. The bill would provide that the director of the office and other prescribed persons employed by licensing and law enforcement authorities are peace officers for purposes of enforcing the provisions of this act. The bill would specify that it does not supersede the provisions of Measure D, approved by the voters of the City of Los Angeles on the May 21, 2013, ballot. This bill would require, before a business granted a state license commences operation, that the business also obtain a license or permit from the local jurisdiction and would authorize the local jurisdiction to regulate commercial cannabis activity in specified ways. The bill would provide for provisional licensure to engage in commercial cannabis activity, as specified, until the state license application is either granted or denied or until July 1, 2017. This bill would, by January 1, 2017, require the Division of Labor Standards and Enforcement to develop a certification program for cannabis employees. The bill would require, by January 1, 2019, that all persons who perform work as cannabis employees be certified or participating in an apprenticeship program, as provided. This bill would establish the Medical Cannabis Regulation Fund and various accounts within that fund for the collection of fines and fees imposed on the licensees conducting commercial cannabis activities. (2) Existing law establishes the Division of Apprenticeship Standards, which audits and regulates apprenticeship programs for various trades, including electricians. This bill would require the division to investigate, approve, or reject applications for apprenticeship employees of a licensed cultivation site or a licensed dispensing facility, as defined. (3) Existing law, the Medical Practice Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of physicians and surgeons by the Medical Board of California. Existing law requires the board to prioritize investigations and prosecutions of physicians and surgeons representing the greatest threat of harm, as specified. Existing law identifies the cases that are to be given priority, which include cases of repeated acts of excessively prescribing, furnishing, or administering controlled substances without a good faith prior examination of the patient. Existing law sets forth the conduct that would constitute unprofessional conduct for a physician and surgeon, including, but not limited to, prescribing certain drugs without an appropriate examination or medical indication. Existing law provides that a violation of the Medical Practice Act is a crime. This bill would require the board to consult with the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research on developing and adopting medical guidelines for the appropriate administration and use of marijuana. The bill would also make it a misdemeanor for a physician and surgeon who recommends marijuana to a patient for a medical purpose to accept, solicit, or offer any remuneration from or to a licensed dispensing facility in which the physician and surgeon or his or her immediate family has a financial interest. By creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would specify that recommending marijuana to patients without an appropriate prior examination and a medical indication is unprofessional conduct. The bill would provide that specified acts of recommending marijuana for medical purposes without a good faith examination are among the types of cases that should be given priority for investigation and prosecution by the board, as described above. The bill would further prohibit a physician and surgeon from recommending medical marijuana to a patient unless that person is the patient's attending physician, as defined. Because a violation of that provision would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (4) Existing law authorizes the legislative body of a city or county to impose various taxes, including a transactions and use tax at a rate of 0.25%, or a multiple thereof, if approved by the required vote of the legislative body and the required vote of qualified voters, and limits the combined rate of transactions and use taxes within a city or county to 2%. This bill would authorize the board of supervisors of a county to impose a tax on the privilege of cultivating, dispensing, producing, processing, preparing, storing, providing, donating, selling, or distributing marijuana or products containing marijuana. The bill would authorize the tax to be imposed for either general or specific governmental purposes. The bill would require a tax imposed pursuant to this authority to be subject to any applicable voter approval requirement. (5) Existing law exempts qualified patients, persons with valid identification cards, and the designated primary caregivers of qualified patients and persons with identification cards from certain crimes, including possession of concentrated cannabis and marijuana, cultivation of marijuana, and possession of marijuana for sale. This bill, commencing 180 days after the Division of Medical Cannabis Regulation within the State Board of Equalization posts a notice on its Internet Web site that the licensing authorities have commenced issuing provisional licenses, would repeal those provisions. (6) Existing law establishes the Department of the California Highway Patrol. Existing law also prohibits and establishes standards for driving under the influence of alcohol. This bill would require the Department of the California Highway Patrol to establish protocols to determine whether a driver is operating a vehicle under the influence of cannabis, and to develop protocols setting forth best practices to assist law enforcement agencies. (7) Existing law regulates the labor practices of agricultural employers. Existing law establishes the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board within the Department of Industrial Relations to adopt, amend, and repeal occupational safety and health standards and establishes the Division of Occupational Safety and Health to enforce those standards. This bill would include licensed cultivation sites in the definition of agricultural employer. The bill would require the division to convene an advisory committee to evaluate whether there is a need to develop industry-specific regulations relating to facilities issued a conditional license. (8) This bill would provide that its provisions are severable. (9) 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. (10) 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.
(1) Existing law, the Gambling Control Act, provides for the licensure of certain individuals and establishments that conduct controlled games, as defined, and for the regulation of these gambling activities by the California Gambling Control Commission. The Department of Justice has related investigatory and enforcement duties under the act. Any violation of these provisions is punishable as a misdemeanor, as specified. This bill, which would be known as the Internet Poker Consumer Protection Act of 2015, would establish a framework to authorize intrastate Internet poker, as specified. The bill would authorize eligible entities to apply for a 4-year license to operate an authorized poker Web site offering the play of authorized Internet poker games to registered players within California, as specified. The bill would require that the license be automatically renewed every 4 years upon application, as specified. The bill would prohibit the offer or play of any gambling game provided over the Internet that is not an authorized Internet poker game permitted by the state pursuant to these provisions. The bill would provide that it is unlawful for a person to aggregate computers or any other Internet access device in a place of public accommodation within the state, including a club or other association, or a public or other setting, that can accommodate multiple players to simultaneously play an authorized Internet poker game, or to promote, facilitate, or market that activity. The bill would provide that any violation of the Internet Poker Consumer Protection Act of 2015 is punishable as a felony. By creating new crimes, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would require the commission, and any other state agency with a duty pursuant to these provisions, to adopt regulations to implement the provisions within 270 days after the operative date of this bill, in consultation with the department and federally recognized California Indian tribes, and to facilitate the operation of authorized poker Web sites and expedite the state's receipt of revenues. The bill would require an eligible entity, as defined, to pay an application processing fee sufficient to cover all reasonable costs associated with the review of the entity's suitability for licensure and the issuance of the license, for deposit into the Internet Poker Fund, as created by the bill, to be continuously appropriated to the department and the commission in the amounts necessary to perform their duties pursuant to this bill. The bill would require an entity seeking to act as a service provider to apply for a service provider license, employees of a licensed operator or a licensed service provider to obtain employee work permits, and owners, officers, and directors of a licensed operator to be subject to a suitability review and obtain employee work permits. The bill would establish a tribal gaming regulatory authority process for the purpose of processing tribal employee work permits, and authorize a tribe that is a licensed operator to elect to participate in the tribal gaming regulatory authority process. This bill would require the payment of an annual regulatory fee, for deposit into the Internet Poker Fund, to be continuously appropriated for the actual costs of license oversight, consumer protection, state regulation, and other purposes related to this bill. The bill would require each licensee to pay a one-time license deposit into the General Fund in the amount of $10,000,000. The license deposit would be credited against quarterly fees equivalent to 8.5% of the licensee's gross gaming revenue proceeds, as specified. The bill would require an applicant for an operator license to provide documentation establishing that the applicant is qualified to pay the one-time license deposit through its own net position or through credit directly to the applicant, as specified. This bill would establish the Unlawful Gambling Enforcement Fund within the General Fund for purposes of ensuring adequate resources for law enforcement charged with enforcing the prohibitions and protections of the provisions described above. The bill would authorize the Attorney General, and other public prosecutors, as specified, to bring a civil action to recover a civil penalty in an unspecified amount against a person who engages in those prohibited activities described above, or other specified unlawful gambling activities. The bill would provide for an unspecified percentage of revenues from civil penalties collected to be deposited into the fund and used for law enforcement activities pursuant to these provisions, upon appropriation by the Legislature. This bill would require the commission, in consultation with the department, the Treasurer, and the Franchise Tax Board, to issue a report to the Legislature describing the state's efforts to meet the policy goals articulated in this bill within one year of the operative date of this bill and, annually, thereafter. The bill would also require the Bureau of State Audits, at least 4 years after the issue date of any license by the state, but no later than 5 years after that date, to issue a report to the Legislature detailing the implementation of this bill, as specified. The bill would provide that specified provisions are not severable. (2) 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. (3) 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. (4) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law required, by September 1, 2011, the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection to adopt emergency regulations to establish a fire prevention fee of not more than $150 for the necessary fire prevention activities of the state that benefit the owners of structures within a state responsibility area. This bill would repeal the fire prevention fee. The bill would instead create the Disaster Response Fund in the State Treasury. The bill would require all insureds in the state to pay a special purpose surcharge on each commercial and residential fire and multiperil insurance policy issued or renewed on or after January 1, 2016, as specified. Moneys from this surcharge would be deposited in the fund and be appropriated by the Legislature for the purposes of funding emergency activities of the Office of Emergency Services, the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, and the Military Department, and local public entities for disaster preparedness and response. The bill would also require every admitted insurance company in the state to collect the surcharge and separately identify the surcharge on each affected insurance policy. The bill would provide that the failure of an insured to pay the surcharge would result in the cancellation of his or her policy. Because the payment of the special purpose surcharge, under the bill, would result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax within the meaning of Section 3 of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution, the bill would require for passage the approval of 23 of the membership of each house of the Legislature.
The Small Business Procurement and Contract Act requires the Director of General Services and the heads of other state agencies that enter into contracts for the provision of goods, services, and information technology and for the construction of state facilities to establish goals for the participation of small businesses in these contracts, to provide for small business preference in the award of these contracts, to give special consideration and special assistance to small businesses, and, whenever possible, to make awards to small businesses, as specified. This bill would require all state agencies, departments, boards, and commissions to establish and achieve an annual goal of 25% small business participation in state procurements and contracts, to ensure that the state's procurement and contract processes are administered in order to meet or exceed the goal, and to report to the director statistics regarding small business participation in the agency's procurements and contracts. The bill would require the Department of General Services to monitor the progress of the agencies toward meeting the goal and to provide this information to the Office of Small Business Advocate. The bill would also require a state agency, department, board, or commission that has not achieved the goal by the close of the fiscal year to submit a corrective action plan to the department within 45 days. The bill would require the department, in collaboration with the Office of Small Business Advocate, to undertake reasonable means to assist agencies in improving small business participation in their contracting. The bill would require all state agencies, departments, boards, and commissions to use a contracting procedure established in the act for specified contracts with small businesses whenever possible. The bill would also require the Office of Small Business Advocate to collaborate with the department to cooperatively enhance the state's small business program by helping small businesses access capital and other financial resources necessary to successfully fulfill state contracts. The bill would apply to all state public entities that receive state public funding, including the California State University, the University of California, and the California Community Colleges. In calculating the total amount of contracting covered by this bill, the California State University, the University of California, and the California Community Colleges would only be required to meet the 25% goal for state funding used in contracting.
Existing law generally prohibits housing discrimination with respect to the personal characteristics of race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, or genetic information. This bill would make it unlawful for the owner of any rental housing accommodation to deny the rental or lease of a housing accommodation without first satisfying specified requirements relating to the application process. The bill would prohibit the owner of a rental housing accommodation from inquiring about, or requiring an applicant for rental housing accommodation to disclose, a criminal record during the initial application assessment phase, as defined, unless otherwise required by state or federal law. The bill would permit an owner of a rental housing accommodation to disclose the owner's criminal background check policy on the rental housing accommodation application, as specified, and after successful completion of the initial application assessment phase, to request a criminal background check and inquire about and consider an applicant's criminal record in deciding whether to rent or lease. The bill would require that disclosure and request to include a written disclosure that the applicant may provide evidence demonstrating inaccuracies within the applicant's criminal record or evidence of rehabilitation or other mitigating factors, as defined. The bill would prohibit, in connection with a rental application, the owner of the rental housing accommodation from requiring disclosure of, or, if such information is received, denying a dwelling based in whole or in part on specified information or occurrence, including arrests that did not result in conviction, with specified exceptions, convictions that have been voided, and juvenile justice determinations, among others. The bill would provide that an owner is not liable to any person for accepting or denying a person with a criminal record as a tenant if the owner followed the above-described procedures in accepting that person as a tenant.