This measure would recognize and honor the men and women of California agriculture for their dedication and productivity by observing March 15, 2016, as National Agriculture Day, and designating March 16, 2016, as California Agriculture Day.
Existing law requires an owner of a dwelling structure containing one or more units offered to the public for rent or for lease for residential purposes, or a party signing a rental agreement or lease on behalf of the owner, to provide certain information to a tenant, including, among other things, disclosure in the rental agreement or lease the name and contact information of the person or entity to whom rent payments are required to be made and, if rent payments may be made personally, the usual days and hours that the person will be available to receive the payments, or, at the owner's option, the rental agreement or lease instead is required to disclose the number of the account in a financial institution located within 5 miles of the rental property into which rent payments may be made, and the name and street address of the institution, or the information necessary to establish an electronic funds transfer procedure for paying the rent. This bill would require that the address for payment in person be within 5 miles of the rental property and that the rental agreement or lease disclose a name and address to which rent may be paid by mail. Existing law provides that a party who enters into a rental agreement on behalf of an owner who fails to comply with laws requiring that certain information be provided to a tenant is deemed an agent of each person who is an owner for, among other things, receiving rental payments, which may be made in cash, by check, by money order, or in any form previously accepted by the owner or agent, unless the form of payment has been specified in the rental agreement or the tenant has been notified by the owner in writing that a particular form of payment is unacceptable. This bill would omit the specific reference to cash, check, or money order and instead would authorize payment in any manner disclosed in the rental agreement or lease pursuant to these provisions. Existing law, if personal delivery is not allowed, requires that it be conclusively presumed that upon mailing of any rent or notice to the owner by the tenant to the name and address provided, the notice or rent is deemed receivable by the owner on the date posted, if the tenant can show proof of mailing. This bill would require that presumption to be applied regardless of whether personal delivery is allowed. Existing law provides that a tenant of real property is guilty of unlawful detainer in certain circumstances, including when the tenant continues in possession without permission of the landlord after default in the payment of rent and 3 days' notice requiring its payment or possession of the property was served on the tenant, as specified. This bill would recast and clarify that provision. Existing law provides various methods for serving notices in unlawful detainer proceedings, including the service of notice to a tenant, whose place of residence and business cannot be ascertained or there is not a person of suitable age or discretion with whom to leave a copy, by affixing a copy in a conspicuous place on the property, delivering a copy to a person living on the property if such person can be found, and sending a copy through the mail addressed to the tenant at the place where the property is situated. This bill would add that the copy sent through the mail to the tenant be with proof of service by mail. Existing law, commonly known as the Ellis Act, generally prohibits public entities from adopting any statute, ordinance, or regulation, or taking any administrative action, to compel the owner of residential real property to offer or to continue to offer accommodations, as defined, in the property for rent or lease. Existing law authorizes a public entity to enact by ordinance or statute procedures for an owner to notify the entity of his or her intention to withdraw accommodations from rent or lease and for an owner to notify the tenant of specified information. Existing law provides, if the tenant or lessee is at least 62 years of age or disabled, as defined, and has lived in the accommodations for at least one year before the notice of intent to withdraw has been filed with the entity, the date of withdrawal of the accommodations of that tenant or lessee is extended for one year after delivery of the notice to the public entity and certain other requirements apply. This bill would additionally apply that extension if the tenant or lessee has a custodial or family relationship with a pupil enrolled in a primary or secondary school who lives in the accommodations, as specified. Existing law authorizes a public entity to also require the owner to notify the tenant of, among other things, his or her right to extended tenancy for one year after delivery of the notice if that tenant or lessee is at least 62 years of age or disabled and has lived in those accommodations for at least one year prior to the above-referenced notice of intent to withdraw accommodations from rent or lease. This bill would additionally authorize a public entity to require the owner to provide notice of this right to extend tenancy to a tenant or lessee that has a custodial or family relationship with a pupil enrolled in a primary or secondary school who lives in the accommodations, as specified. This bill also would make technical changes.
(1) Existing law requires a school district to provide access to free, fresh drinking water during meal times in school food service areas, unless the governing board of a school district adopts a resolution stating that it is unable to comply with this requirement and demonstrating the reasons why it is unable to comply due to fiscal constraints or health and safety concerns. Existing law requires the resolution to be publicly noticed on at least 2 consecutive meeting agendas and approved by at least a majority of the governing board of the school district. This bill would delete the provision authorizing a school district to adopt a resolution stating that it is unable to provide access to free, fresh drinking water during meal times. The bill would instead specify that a school district shall provide access to free, fresh, and clean drinking water during meal times through the use of drinking water access points, as defined. By imposing additional duties on school districts, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would require a school district that has drinking water sources with drinking water that does not meet the United States Environmental Protection Agency drinking water standards for lead or any other contaminant to close access to those drinking water sources, to provide alternative drinking water sources, as specified, and to notify specified persons if the school district is required to provide those alternative drinking water sources. By imposing additional duties on pupil schools and school districts, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Under existing law, known as the Lead-Safe Schools Protection Act, the State Department of Public Health is required to perform various activities related to reducing the risk of exposure to lead hazards in public schools, including, among other activities, working with the State Department of Education to develop voluntary guidelines to ensure that lead hazards are minimized in the course of school repair and maintenance programs and abatement procedures. This bill would repeal the requirement that the State Department of Public Health develop voluntary guidelines. The bill would instead require the State Department of Education to make information available to school districts about the United States Environmental Protection Agency's technical guidance for reducing lead in drinking water in schools. The bill would prohibit drinking water that does not meet the United States Environmental Protection Agency drinking water standards for lead from being provided at a school facility. The bill would require a public school that has lead-containing plumbing components to flush all drinking water sources at the beginning of each schoolday, except as provided. By imposing additional duties on public schools and school districts, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (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, 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) The California Constitution establishes the Public Utilities Commission, with jurisdiction over all public utilities. The California Constitution grants the commission certain general powers over all public utilities, subject to control by the Legislature, and authorizes the Legislature, unlimited by the other provisions of the California Constitution, to confer additional authority and jurisdiction upon the commission that is cognate and germane to the regulation of public utilities. Existing law requires the Governor to designate the president of the commission from among its members and requires the president to direct the executive director, the attorney, and other staff of the commission, except for the Office of Ratepayer Advocates. This bill would authorize the commission to delegate specific management and internal oversight functions to committees composed of 2 commissioners. The bill would require the commission to appoint a chief administrative law judge who would be responsible for the oversight of the administrative law judge division and would require the chief administrative law judge to organize, coordinate, supervise, and direct the operations of the administrative law judge division as directed by the commission, consistent with commission policies and priorities. Existing law requires the executive director to keep a full and true record of all proceedings of the commission. This bill would delete that requirement and would instead require the chief administrative law judge to keep a full and true record of all proceedings of the commission. (2) Existing law requires the commission, upon initiating a hearing, to assign one or more commissioners to oversee the case and an administrative law judge, where appropriate. Existing law requires the assigned commissioner to prepare and issue, by order or ruling, a scoping memo that describes the issues to be considered and the applicable timetable for resolution. Existing law requires the commission to adopt procedures on the disqualification of administrative law judges due to bias or prejudice similar to those of other state agencies and superior courts. This bill would require the commission to additionally adopt procedures on disqualification of commissioners due to bias or prejudice similar to those of other state agencies and superior courts. For ratesetting or adjudicatory proceedings, the bill would require a commissioner or an administrative law judge to be disqualified for bias or prejudice based on specified criteria. The bill would require that the commission procedures prohibit a commissioner or administrative law judge from ruling on a motion made by a party to a proceeding to disqualify the commissioner or administrative law judge due to bias or prejudice. (3) The Public Utilities Act requires the commission to determine whether a proceeding requires a hearing and, if so, to determine whether the matter requires a quasi-legislative, an adjudication, or a ratesetting hearing. For these purposes, quasi-legislative cases are cases that establish policy rulemakings and investigations, which may establish rules affecting an entire industry, adjudication cases are enforcement cases and complaints, except those challenging the reasonableness of any rates or charges, and ratesetting cases are cases in which rates are established for a specific company, including general rate cases, performance-based ratemaking, and other ratesetting mechanisms. The act regulates communications in hearings before the commission and defines "ex parte communication" to mean any oral or written communication between a decisionmaker and a person with an interest in a matter before the commission concerning substantive, but not procedural, issues that does not occur in a public hearing, workshop, or other public proceeding, or on the official record of the proceeding on the matter. Existing law defines "person with an interest" to mean, among other things, a person with a financial interest in a matter before the commission, or an agent or employee of the person with a financial interest, or a person receiving consideration for representing the person with a financial interest. Existing law requires the commission, by regulation, to adopt and publish a definition of the terms "decisionmaker" and "persons" for those purposes, along with any requirements for written reporting of ex parte communications and appropriate sanctions for noncompliance with any rule proscribing ex parte communications. The act provides that ex parte communications are prohibited in adjudication cases and are prohibited in ratesetting cases, with certain exceptions. The act requires that ex parte communications be permitted in quasi-legislative cases, without any restrictions. The commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure define a "decisionmaker" as any commissioner, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, any Assistant Chief Administrative Law Judge, the assigned administrative law judge, or the Law and Motion Administrative Law Judge. The Rules of Practice and Procedure provide that communications with a commissioner's personal advisors are subject to all of the restrictions on, and reporting requirements applicable to, ex parte communications, except that oral communications with an advisor in ratesetting proceedings are permitted without the restrictions. This bill would require that the commission determine whether every proceeding, not just those requiring a hearing, is a quasi-legislative, adjudication, or ratesetting proceeding. The bill would delete the provision that an ex parte communication concerns a substantive, but not a procedural matter, and instead would provide that an ex parte communication concerns any matter that the commission has not specified in its Rules of Practice and Procedure as being a procedural matter and that does not occur in a public hearing, workshop, or other public proceeding, or on the official record of the proceeding on the matter. The bill would prohibit the commission from considering as a procedural matter communications between an interested person and a decisionmaker regarding which commissioner or administrative law judge may be assigned to a matter before the commission. The bill would define a person involved in issuing credit ratings or advising entities or persons who may invest in the shares or operations of any party to a proceeding as an interested person. The bill would require that the commission, by rule, adopt and publish a definition of decisionmakers, that would be required to include certain individuals in the commission. The bill would require the commission to establish and maintain a communications log summarizing all oral or written ex parte communications that occur between an interested person and any decisionmaker. The bill would require the commission to post the communications log on its Internet Web site. This bill would require that a decisionmaker, in an adjudication or ratesetting case, who makes or receives a prohibited ex parte communication, or who receives an ex parte communication that was not timely reported, to disclose certain information regarding the communication in the record of the proceeding before the commission takes a vote on the matter. If a prohibited ex parte communication is not disclosed until after the commission has issued a decision on the matter to which the communication pertained, a party not participating in the communication would be authorized to file a petition to rescind or modify the decision. The bill would require the commission to render decisions based upon the record in a case and would provide that an ex parte communication not be part of the record of the proceeding. This bill would provide that ex parte communications are permitted in quasi-legislative proceedings, but would require that they be reported within 3 working days in the communications log maintained by the commission. This bill would require the commission to additionally prohibit communications concerning procedural issues in adjudication cases between parties or persons with an interest and decisionmakers, except for the assigned administrative law judge. Under existing law, the exceptions to the prohibition upon ex parte communications in ratesetting proceedings authorize a commissioner to permit oral ex parte communications if all interested parties are invited and given not less than 3 days' notice. If an ex parte communication meeting is granted to any party, it is required that all other parties also be granted individual ex parte meetings of a substantially equal period of time and that all parties be sent a notice of that authorization at the time the request is granted, at least 3 days prior to the meeting. The exceptions authorize a commissioner to permit written ex parte communications by any party provided that copies of the communication are transmitted to all parties. This bill would delete the requirement that if an ex parte communication meeting is granted to any party in a ratesetting proceeding, that all other parties also be granted individual ex parte meetings of a substantially equal period of time and that all parties be sent a notice of that authorization at the time the request is granted, at least 3 days prior to the meeting. The bill would prohibit oral communications concerning procedural matters in ratesetting cases between parties or persons with an interest and decisionmakers other than the assigned administrative law judge, except that a commissioner would be authorized to permit an oral communication relative to procedural matters if all interested parties are invited and given not less than 3 days' notice. The bill would prohibit written ex parte communications concerning procedural matters in ratesetting cases between parties or persons with an interest and decisionmakers other than the assigned administrative law judge, except that a commissioner would be authorized to permit a written communication relative to procedural issues by any party provided that copies of the communication are transmitted to all parties on the same day. This bill would expressly make the prohibitions upon ex parte communications that relate to adjudicatory or ratesetting proceedings applicable to ex parte communications that occur at conferences, as defined. The bill would also make the requirements that pertain to ex parte communications that relate to quasi-legislative proceedings applicable to ex parte communications that occur at conferences. This bill would authorize the commission to impose civil sanctions, including civil penalties, on any entity or person, other than a decisionmaker or employee of the commission, that violates ex parte communication requirements. The bill would authorize the Attorney General to bring an enforcement action in the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco against a decisionmaker or employee of the commission who violates the ex parte communication requirements. This bill would incorporate additional changes in Section 308 of the Public Utilities Code, proposed by SB 48, to be operative only if SB 48 and this bill are both chaptered and become effective on or before January 1, 2016, and this bill is chaptered last. Under existing law, a violation of the Public Utilities Act or any order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the commission is a crime. Because the provisions of this bill would be a part of the act and because a violation of an order or decision of the commission implementing its requirements would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program by expanding the application of a crime. 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.
(1) Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to engage in disorderly conduct that delays or prevents a fire from being timely extinguished or to resist or interfere with the lawful efforts of a firefighter in the discharge of an official duty. Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to impede police officers, firefighters, emergency personnel, or military personnel in the performance of their duties in coping with an emergency. This bill would make it unlawful to knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly operate an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system, as defined, in a manner that prevents or delays the extinguishment of a fire, or in any way interferes with the efforts of firefighters to control, contain, or extinguish a fire. The bill would make a violation of this prohibition punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed 6 months, by a fine not to exceed $5,000, or by both that fine and imprisonment. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law provides certain individuals with immunity from civil liability under specific circumstances, including, among others, limiting the civil liability of a person who in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency medical or nonmedical care at the scene of an emergency, as specified. This bill would further limit the exposure to civil liability of an emergency responder, defined as an unpaid volunteer or private entity acting within the scope of authority implicitly or expressly provided by a public entity or a public employee to provide emergency services, for damages to an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system, if the damage was caused while the emergency responder was performing specific emergency services and the unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system was interfering with the provision of those emergency services. (3) The Government Claims Act sets forth the general procedure for the presentation of a claim as a prerequisite to the commencement of an action for money or damages against a "public entity" or a "public employee," and defines those terms for its purposes. The act prohibits liability against a public entity or public employee for, among other things, certain acts relating to the provision of fire protection and police and correctional activities, as specified. This bill would further limit the exposure to civil liability of a public entity or public employee for damage to an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system, if the damage was caused while the public entity or public employee was performing specific emergency services and the unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system was interfering with the provision of those emergency services. (4) 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. (5) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
The Trial Court Employment Protection and Governance Act establishes a trial court employee personnel system that provides authority to hire trial court personnel, regulates the classification and compensation of trial court employees, labor relations, and personnel files, and requires each trial court to establish a system of employment selection and advancement and an employment protection system. Existing law authorizes state agencies to use personal services contracts to achieve cost savings if specified standards are satisfied, including, among other things, the contract does not cause the displacement of civil service employees and the contract is awarded through a publicized, competitive bidding process. The State Personnel Board is required to review a proposed contract upon the request of an employee organization for compliance with those standards. This bill would establish specified standards if a trial court intends to enter into a contract for any services that are currently or customarily performed by that trial court's employees. Among other things, the bill would require the trial court to clearly demonstrate that the proposed contract will result in actual overall cost savings to the trial court. The bill would provide that those standards do not apply to a contract under certain circumstances, including, among others, when the services are incidental to a contract for the purchase or lease of real or personal property. This bill would provide that its provisions are severable.
This measure would, among other things, designate the year of 2016 as "State of California Year of Commemoration of the Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide of 1915–1923," would designate April 24, 2016, as "State of California Day of Commemoration of the 101st Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide of 1915–1923," and would call upon the President of the United States and the United States Congress to formally and consistently reaffirm the historical truth that the atrocities committed against the Armenian people constituted genocide.
Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to place or maintain any sign, picture, transparency, advertisement, or mechanical device for the purpose of advertising on public or private property without lawful permission or consent of the owner. Existing law allows information that appears on the advertisement to be used as evidence to establish the fact that a person or entity is responsible for posting the advertisement. This bill would make a technical, nonsubstantive change to these provisions.
(1) Under existing law, the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014, an employee who, on or after July 1, 2015, works in California for the same employer for 30 or more days within a year from the commencement of employment is entitled to paid sick days, as specified. Existing law requires an employee to accrue paid sick days at the rate of not less than one hour per every 30 hours worked subject to specified use and accrual limitations. For the purposes of the act, an "employee" does not include a provider of in-home supportive services, as described. This bill, on and after July 1, 2018, would entitle a provider of in-home supportive services who works in California for 30 or more days within a year from the commencement of employment to paid sick days, subject to specified full amount of leave time amounts and that rate of accrual. The bill would require the State Department of Social Services, in consultation with stakeholders, to convene a workgroup to implement paid sick leave for in-home supportive services providers and to issue guidance in that regard by December 1, 2017. The bill would authorize the department to implement that paid sick leave without complying with the Administrative Procedure Act. (2) On and after July 1, 2014, existing law requires the minimum wage for all industries to be not less than $9 per hour. On and after January 1, 2016, existing law requires the minimum wage for all industries to be not less than $10 per hour. This bill would require the minimum wage for all industries to not be less than specified amounts to be increased from January 1, 2017, to January 1, 2022, inclusive, for employers employing 26 or more employees and from January 1, 2018, to January 1, 2023, inclusive, for employers employing 25 or fewer employees, except when the scheduled increases are temporarily suspended by the Governor, based on certain determinations. The bill would also require the Director of Finance, after the last scheduled minimum wage increase, to annually adjust the minimum wage under a specified formula. On or before July 28, 2017, and on or before every July 28 thereafter until the minimum wage is a specified amount for employers employing 26 or more employees, the bill would require the Director of Finance to annually determine, based on certain factors, whether economic conditions can support a scheduled minimum wage increase and certify that determination to the Governor and the Legislature. The bill would also require the State Board of Equalization to publish specified retail sales and use tax information on its Internet Web site to be used by the Director of Finance in making that determination. On or before July 28, 2017, and on or before every July 28 thereafter until the minimum wage is a specified amount for employers employing 26 or more employees, in order to ensure that the General Fund can support the next scheduled minimum wage increase, the bill would also require the Director of Finance to annually determine and certify to the Governor and the Legislature whether the General Fund would be in a deficit in the current fiscal year, or in either of the following 2 fiscal years.
Under the existing Unclaimed Property Law, any tangible or intangible personal property, demand, savings, or matured time deposit, or other prescribed deposits or accounts escheat to the state when the owner of the deposits or accounts has not, for more than 3 years, indicated an interest in the deposit, as specified. The Unclaimed Property Law authorizes the Controller to examine a person's records if the Controller has reason to believe that the person has failed to report property that should have been reported pursuant to that law. Existing law also permits the Controller to bring an action for specified purposes to enforce the Unclaimed Property Law. This bill would instead authorize the Controller to examine records under this law even if the holder of those records does not believe that he or she has failed to report property, as required. This bill would also require a court to award the Controller its costs and attorney's fees if he or she prevails on an action to enforce the Unclaimed Property Law, as specified.
