This measure would proclaim January 26, 2016, as India Republic Day, and would urge all Californians to join in celebrating India Republic Day.
Existing law authorizes certain toll facilities on public highways. Existing law creates the Orange County Transportation Authority with various powers and duties. This bill would prohibit the Department of Transportation from seeking or providing funding for a toll lane on a public highway within the boundaries of the County of Orange unless the project is approved by a 23 vote of the Orange County Transportation Authority. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity for special legislation.
(1) Under existing law, when school employees are terminated pursuant to a reduction in workforce, a school district is required to terminate the employees in order of seniority. Existing law authorizes a school district to deviate from the order of seniority for those purposes for specified reasons. This bill would make these provisions inoperative on July 1, 2018, and would repeal them as of January 1, 2019. (2) Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district to terminate the services of any permanent or probationary certificated employees of the school district during the time period between 5 days after the enactment of the Budget Act and August 15 of the fiscal year to which the Budget Act applies if the governing board of the school district determines that its total revenue limit per unit of average daily attendance for the fiscal year of that Budget Act has not increased by at least 2%, and if the governing board of the school district determines it is therefore necessary to decrease the number of permanent employees in the school district. This bill would make these provisions inoperative on July 1, 2018, and would repeal them as of January 1, 2019. (3) Existing law provides that, when the services of permanent or probationary employees are terminated pursuant to a reduction in workforce, those terminated employees have a preferred right to reappointment and an opportunity for substitute service in order of seniority, as specified. This bill would make these provisions inoperative on July 1, 2018, and would repeal them as of January 1, 2019. (4) Existing law prohibits, for purposes of complying with those procedures, a school district from including time spent employed in an administrative position by a certificated employee, who transfers to a teaching position and who was initially employed in an administrative position on or after July 1, 1983, in determining seniority, except in the case of a schoolsite administrator, as specified. This bill would make these provisions inoperative on July 1, 2018, and would repeal them as of January 1, 2019. (5) Existing law prohibits a school district from counting as a part of the service required as a condition precedent to the classification of the employee as a permanent employee of the school district the period of absence for certain terminated probationary employees. This bill would make these provisions inoperative on July 1, 2018, and would repeal them as of January 1, 2019. (6) Existing law extends the effective period of specified rights, and provides additional rights to certain permanent certificated employees, as specified. This bill would make these provisions inoperative on July 1, 2018, and would repeal them as of January 1, 2019. (7) Existing law provides that certain statutory layoff provisions are inapplicable to certain probationary certificated employees who are covered by a collective agreement which contains provisions for the layoff and reassignment of those employees. This bill would make these provisions inoperative on July 1, 2018, and would repeal them as of January 1, 2019. (8) This bill would require, by July 1, 2018, each governing board of a school district, in consultation with the exclusive representative of the certificated staff, if any, to adopt policies regarding the dismissal of permanent and probationary employees when a reduction in workforce is required due to declining enrollment or insufficient funding to be used commencing with the 2018–19 school year. The bill would require those adopted policies to include as a significant factor in determining the order of dismissal the evaluation rating of certificated employees, as specified. The bill would permit a school district to deviate from using the evaluation rating of certificated employees as a significant factor in determining the order of dismissal of certificated employees if the school district demonstrates specified conditions. By requiring school districts to perform additional duties, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would provide that, to the extent these provisions conflict with any provision of a collective bargaining agreement entered into before January 1, 2016, by a public school employer and an exclusive bargaining representative, the provisions shall not apply to the school district until the expiration or renewal of that collective bargaining agreement. (9) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.
(1) Existing law requires the State Board of Education to develop guidelines that school districts may use in the development of teacher evaluation procedures, and distribute such guidelines to every school district. This bill would require the state board to revise, update, and adopt guidelines that school districts may use in the development of teacher evaluation procedures by July 1, 2016. The bill would also require that the updated guidelines include a determination of a teacher's overall performance, as specified. (2) Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district or a county board of education, as specified, after a public hearing on the matter, to request the state board to waive all or part of any section of the Education Code or any regulation adopted by the state board that implements a provision of the Education Code that may be waived, except for specified provisions. This bill would prohibit the state board from granting any waiver request by a governing board of a school district if the state board finds that the governing board of the school district is out of compliance with specified requirements relating to teacher evaluation. (3) Existing law states the intent of the Legislature that governing boards of school districts establish a uniform system of evaluation and assessment of the performance of all certificated personnel within each school district of the state. Existing law requires the governing board of each school district to establish standards of expected pupil achievement at each grade level in each area of study and to evaluate and assess certificated employee performance on a continuing basis as it reasonably relates to the progress of pupils toward the established standards and, if applicable, the state adopted academic content standards as measured by state adopted criterion referenced assessments, the instructional techniques and strategies used by the employee, the employee's adherence to curricular objectives, and the establishment and maintenance of a suitable learning environment, within the scope of the employee's responsibilities. Existing law authorizes school district governing boards to develop and adopt additional evaluation and assessment guidelines or criteria. This bill would encourage the governing board of a school district to use peer observation and surveys of parents and pupils as part of the evaluation and assessment guidelines and criteria. (4) Existing law requires that an evaluation and assessment of the performance of a certificated employee be made on a continuing basis, as provided. This bill would instead require an annual evaluation and assessment of the performance of a certificated employee. The bill would require the evaluation and assessment to include a determination of the teacher's performance, as specified. By requiring school districts to perform additional duties, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would provide that, to the extent these provisions conflict with any provision of a collective bargaining agreement entered into before January 1, 2016, by a public school employer and an exclusive bargaining representative, the provisions shall not apply to the school district until the expiration or renewal of that collective bargaining agreement. (5) This bill would update cross-references and would make other nonsubstantive changes. (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, 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.
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 designates the State Air Resources Board as the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of emissions of greenhouse gases. The state board is required to adopt a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit equivalent to the statewide greenhouse gas emissions level in 1990 to be achieved by 2020, and to adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum, technologically feasible, and cost-effective greenhouse gas emissions reductions. The act authorizes the state board to include the use of market-based compliance mechanisms. Existing state board regulations require specified entities to comply with a market-based compliance mechanism beginning January 1, 2013, and require additional specified entities to comply with that market-based compliance mechanism beginning January 1, 2015. This bill would instead exempt those categories of persons or entities that did not have a compliance obligation, as defined, under a market-based compliance mechanism beginning January 1, 2013, from being subject to that market-based compliance mechanism through December 31, 2020. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law defines a motorized bicycle in one case as a device that has fully operative pedals for propulsion by human power and has an electric motor that meets specified requirements, including that it has a power output of not more than 1,000 watts, is incapable of propelling the device at a speed of more than 20 miles per hour on ground level, and is incapable of further increasing the speed of the device when human power is used to propel the motorized bicycle faster than 20 miles per hour. This bill would redefine this type of "motorized bicycle" by, among other things, renaming it a "low-speed electric bicycle," stating that it can have either 2 or 3 wheels, lowering the maximum power output to 750 watts, and requiring that it weigh no more than 80 pounds. The bill would exempt a low-speed electric bicycle from the prohibition on the operation of a motorized bicycle on a bicycle path or trail, bikeway, bicycle lane established as provided, equestrian trail, or hiking or recreational trail. The bill would also make conforming changes.
Existing law authorizes the legislative body of a city or county to levy a tax on the privilege of occupying a room or other living space in a hotel, inn, tourist home or house, motel, or other lodging unless the occupancy is for a period of more than 30 days, as provided. The California Constitution also provides that a charter city may levy local taxes to raise revenues for local purposes, subject to restrictions imposed by that city's charter or preemption in matters of statewide concern. This bill would prohibit a legislative body of a local agency, defined to mean any city, county, city and county, including any chartered city, county, or city and county, from levying a tax on the privilege of occupying a residential short-term rental unit, as defined. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations regarding the statewide concern of excluding the occupancy of a residential short-term rental unit from local transient occupancy taxes to ensure statewide uniformity and fairness in how those taxes are applied.
Existing law, the Cobey-Porter Saline Water Conversion Law, states the policy of this state that desalination projects developed by or for public water entities be given the same opportunities for state assistance and funding as other water supply and reliability projects, and that desalination be consistent with all applicable environmental protection policies in the state. The law provides that is it the intention of the Legislature that the Department of Water Resources shall undertake to find economic and efficient methods of desalting saline water so that desalted water may be made available to help meet the growing water requirements of the state. This bill would make a nonsubstantive change in these provisions.
Existing property tax law provides, pursuant to the authority of a specified provision of the California Constitution, for a homeowners' exemption in the amount of $7,000 of the full value of a "dwelling," as defined, and authorizes the Legislature to increase this exemption. This bill, beginning with the lien date for the 2016–17 fiscal year, would increase the homeowners' exemption from $7,000 to $25,000 of the full value of a dwelling. This bill would also require, for the 2017–18 fiscal year and for each fiscal year thereafter, the county assessor to adjust the amount of the homeowners' exemption by the percentage change in the House Price Index for California for the first 3 quarters of the prior calendar year, as specified. The California Constitution requires the Legislature, whenever it increases the homeowners' property tax exemption, to provide a comparable increase in benefits to qualified renters. The Personal Income Tax Law authorizes various credits against the taxes imposed by that law, including a credit for qualified renters in the amount of $120 for married couples filing joint returns, heads of household, and surviving spouses if adjusted gross income is $50,000 or less, and in the amount of $60 for other individuals if adjusted gross income is $25,000 or less. Existing law requires the Franchise Tax Board to annually adjust for inflation these adjusted gross income amounts. This bill would, for taxable years beginning on and after January 1, 2016, increase this credit for a qualified renter to $428 for married couples filing joint returns, heads of household, and surviving spouses if adjusted gross income is $50,000 or less, as adjusted for inflation, and to an amount equal to $214 for other individuals if adjusted gross income is $25,000 or less, as adjusted for inflation. The bill would also require, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2017, the Franchise Tax Board to annually adjust for inflation, based upon the California Consumer Price Index, the amount of these credits. The bill would also make technical, nonsubstantive changes to the renters' credit. The California Constitution requires the Legislature, in each fiscal year, to reimburse local governments for the revenue losses incurred by those governments in that fiscal year as a result of the homeowners' property tax exemption. 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.
(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.
