Existing law allows a plaintiff to collect statutory damages in a construction-related accessibility claim against a place of public accommodation only if the plaintiff was denied full and equal access to the place of public accommodation on a particular occasion, as specified. Existing law imposes a minimum liability of $1,000 on these statutory damages for each offense when a defendant demonstrates that the defendant has corrected the construction-related accessibility violation within 60 days of being served with a complaint and the defendant demonstrates that the structure or area of the alleged violation was determined to meet standards or was subjected to an inspection, as specified. Existing law also imposes a minimum liability of $2,000 for each offense if the defendant has corrected all construction-related violations that are the basis of the claim within 30 days of being served with the complaint and the defendant is a small business, as specified. This bill would instead provide that a defendant's maximum liability for statutory damages in a construction-related accessibility claim against a place of public accommodation is $1,000 for each offense if the defendant has corrected all construction-related violations that are the basis of the claim within 180 days of being served with the complaint and the defendant demonstrates that the structure or area of the alleged violation was determined to meet standards or was subjected to an inspection, as specified. The bill would reduce that maximum liability to $1,000 for each offense if the defendant has corrected all construction-related violations that are the basis of the claim within 180 days of being served with the complaint and the defendant is a small business, as revised. The bill would also provide that specified statutory damages in a construction-related accessibility claim against a place of public accommodation that is a small business, as defined, may only be recovered if the place of public accommodation is granted a 180-day stay of court proceedings to meet specified requirements.
Sponsored bills
(1) Existing law establishes a 25 miles per hour prima facie limit when approaching or passing a school building or the grounds thereof, contiguous to a highway and posted up to 500 feet away from the school grounds, with a standard "SCHOOL" warning sign, while children are going to or leaving the school either during school hours or during the noon recess period. The prima facie limit also applies when approaching or passing school grounds that are not separated from the highway by a fence, gate, or other physical barrier while the grounds are in use by children and the highway is posted with a standard "SCHOOL" warning sign. A violation of that prima facie limit is an infraction. Existing law additionally allows a city or county to establish in a residence district, on a highway with a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour or slower, a 15 miles per hour prima facie limit when approaching, at a distance of less than 500 feet from, or passing, a school building or the grounds thereof, contiguous to a highway and posted with a school warning sign that indicates a speed limit of 15 miles per hour, while children are going to or leaving the school, either during school hours or during the noon recess period. The prima facie limit would also apply when approaching, at that same distance, or passing school grounds that are not separated from the highway by a fence, gate, or other physical barrier while the grounds are in use by children and the highway is posted with one of those signs. Existing law additionally allows a city or county to establish in a residence district, on a highway with a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour or slower, a 25 miles per hour prima facie speed limit when approaching at a distance of 500 to 1,000 feet from a school building or grounds thereof, contiguous to a highway and posted with a school warning sign that indicates a speed limit of 25 miles per hour, while children are going to or leaving the school, either during school hours or during the noon recess period. The prima facie limit would also apply when approaching, at that same distance, or passing school grounds that are not separated from the highway by a fence, gate, or other physical barrier while the grounds are in use by children and the highway is posted with one of those signs. This bill would allow a city or county to establish in a residence district, on a highway with a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour or slower, a 15 miles per hour prima facie speed limit when approaching, at a distance of less than 1,320 feet from, or passing, a school building or grounds thereof, contiguous of to a highway and posted with a school warning sign that indicates a speed limit of 15 miles per hour 24 hours a day. This bill would provide that a 25 miles per hour prima facie limit in a residence district, on a highway, with a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour or slower, applies, as to those local authorities, when approaching, at a distance of 500 to 1,320 feet from a school building or grounds thereof. This bill would also authorize a local authority, on the basis of an engineering and traffic survey, to extend the maximum distance to establish a prima facie speed limit and school warning signs, as specified. This bill would also allow the 15 miles per hour or 25 miles per hour prima facie speed limit to apply 24 hours a day. By authorizing a change in the prima facie limits, the bill would expand the scope of an existing crime, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. (2) 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 Personal Income Tax Law provides for modified conformity to specified provisions of federal income tax law relating to the exclusion of the discharge of qualified principal residence indebtedness, as defined, from an individual's income if that debt is discharged after January 1, 2007, and before January 1, 2014, as provided. The federal Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2014 extended the operation of those provisions to debt that is discharged before January 1, 2015. This bill would conform to that federal extension, discharge indebtedness for related penalties and interest, and make legislative findings and declarations regarding the public purpose served by the bill. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law dissolved redevelopment agencies and community development agencies as of February 1, 2012, and provides for the designation of successor agencies to wind down the affairs of the dissolved redevelopment agencies, subject to review by oversight boards, and to, among other things, make payments due for enforceable obligations and to perform obligations required pursuant to any enforceable obligation. Existing law requires the Department of Finance to issue a finding of completion to a successor agency upon confirmation by the county auditor-controller that specified payments have been fully made by the successor agency. Existing law defines "enforceable obligation" for these purposes to generally exclude any agreements, contracts, or arrangements between the city, county, or city and county that created the redevelopment agency and the former redevelopment agency. However, existing law provides that upon application by the successor agency and approval by the oversight board, loan agreements entered into between the redevelopment agency and the city, county, or city and county that created the redevelopment agency are deemed to be enforceable obligations provided that the oversight board makes a finding that the loan was for legitimate redevelopment purposes. This bill would additionally provide that upon application by the successor agency and approval by the oversight board, loan agreements entered into between a redevelopment agency and the City of San Joaquin, where the outstanding principal balance of the loan is $1,250,000 or less, are enforceable obligations if the oversight board finds, among other things, that the loan was for legitimate redevelopment purposes, it was entered into more than 2 years after the creation of the former redevelopment agency and prior to January 1, 2011, and it is the only debt of the former redevelopment agency remaining to be paid on the recognized obligation payment schedule. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City of San Joaquin.
(1) Existing sales and use tax laws impose a tax on retailers measured by the gross receipts from their sales of tangible personal property sold at retail in this state, or on the storage, use, or other consumption of tangible personal property purchased from a retailer for storage, use, or other consumption in this state, and specify certain exemptions from the amount of tax imposed. This bill, until January 1, 2021, would exempt from these taxes the gross receipts from the sale of, and the storage, use, or other consumption in this state of, an energy or water efficient home appliance purchased by a public utility that is provided at no cost to a low-income participant in a federal, state, or ratepayer-funded energy or water efficiency program for use by that low-income participant in the energy efficiency program. The bill would define terms for its purposes. (2) The Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law authorizes counties and cities to impose local sales and use taxes in conformity with the Sales and Use Tax Law, and existing law authorizes districts, as specified, to impose transactions and use taxes generally in accordance with the Transactions and Use Tax Law, which generally conforms to the Sales and Use Tax Law. Amendments to state sales and use taxes are incorporated into these laws. Section 2230 of the Revenue and Taxation Code provides that the state will reimburse counties and cities for revenue losses caused by the enactment of sales and use tax exemptions. This bill would provide that, notwithstanding Section 2230 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, no appropriation is made and the state shall not reimburse any local agencies for sales and use tax revenues lost by them pursuant to this bill. (3) This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy, but its operative date would depend on its effective date.
(1) Existing law prescribes various requirements regarding the formation, content, and enforcement of state and local public contracts. Existing law applicable to state public contracts generally requires that the resolution of claims related to those contracts be subject to arbitration. Existing law applicable to local agency contracts prescribes a process for the resolution of claims related to those contracts of $375,000 or less. This bill would establish, for contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2016, a claim resolution process applicable to all claims by contractors in connection with public works. The bill would define a claim as a separate demand by the contractor for one or more of the following: a time extension for relief from damages or penalties for delay, payment of money or damages arising from work done pursuant to the contract for a public work, or payment of an amount disputed by the public entity, as specified. The bill would require a public entity, defined to exclude certain state entities, upon receipt of a claim sent by registered or certified mail, to review it and, within 45 days, provide a written statement identifying the disputed and undisputed portions of the claim. The 45-day period may be extended by mutual agreement. The bill would require any payment due on an undisputed portion of the claim to be processed within 60 days, as specified. The bill, if the public entity fails to issue the written statement, would require that the claim be deemed rejected in its entirety. The bill would authorize, if the claimant disputes the public entity's written response or if the public entity fails to respond to a claim within the time prescribed, the claimant to demand to meet and confer for settlement of the issues in dispute. The bill would require any disputed portion of the claim that remains in dispute after the meet and confer conference to be subject to nonbinding mediation, as specified. The bill would provide that unpaid claim amounts accrue interest at 7% per annum. The bill would prescribe a procedure by which a subcontractor or lower tier contractor may make a claim through the contractor. The bill would require the text of these provisions or a summary of them to be set forth in the plans or specifications for any public work which may give rise to a claim. The bill would specify that a waiver of the rights granted by its provisions is void and contrary to public policy, except as specified. The bill would also specify that it does not impose liability on a public entity that makes loans or grants available through a competitive application process, for the failure of an awardee to meet its contractual obligations. By increasing the duties of local agencies and officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would, on January 1, 2019, repeal the provision establishing the claim resolution process. (2) 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) Article XIX of the California Constitution restricts the expenditure of revenues from taxes imposed by the state on fuels used in motor vehicles upon public streets and highways to street and highway and certain mass transit purposes, and restricts the expenditure of revenues from fees and taxes imposed by the state upon vehicles or their use or operation to state administration and enforcement of laws regulating the use, operation, or registration of vehicles used upon the public streets and highways, as well as to street and highway and certain mass transit purposes. These restrictions do not apply to revenues from taxes or fees imposed under the Sales and Use Tax Law or the Vehicle License Fee Law. Article XIX prohibits the Legislature from borrowing revenues from taxes imposed by the state on fuels used in motor vehicles, and from using those revenues other than as specifically permitted by Article XIX. Article XIX provides that up to 25% of fuel tax revenues allocated to the state may be pledged or used for the payment of principal and interest on voter-approved transportation bonds issued for street and highway purposes on and after November 2, 2010, upon voter approval and appropriation by the Legislature. Article XIX provides that up to 25% of fuel tax revenues allocated to cities and counties may be pledged or used for the payment of principal and interest on voter-approved transportation bonds issued for street and highway purposes. However, in counties where voters have approved the use of fuel tax revenues for certain mass transit purposes, Article XIX provides that the Legislature may authorize any fuel tax revenues allocated to mass transit purposes to be pledged or used for payment of principal and interest on voter-approved bonds issued for those mass transit purposes. This measure would prohibit the Legislature from borrowing revenues from fees and taxes imposed by the state on vehicles or their use or operation, and from using those revenues other than as specifically permitted by Article XIX. The measure would also provide that none of those revenues may be pledged or used for the payment of principal and interest on bonds or other indebtedness. The measure would delete the provision that provides for use of any fuel tax revenues allocated to mass transit purposes to be pledged or used for payment of principal and interest on voter-approved bonds issued for those mass transit purposes, and would instead subject those expenditures to the existing 25% limitation applicable to the use of fuel tax revenues for street and highway bond purposes. This measure would also restrict the expenditure of revenues from taxes imposed by the state on motor vehicle fuels used in propelling water-borne vessels solely to purposes relating to boating facilities, safety, and boating-related activities, as specified, and would prohibit the Legislature from borrowing those revenues. (2) Article XI of the California Constitution requires the revenues derived under the Vehicle License Fee Law from a rate that does not exceed 0.65% of the market value of a vehicle to be allocated to cities and counties, and does not restrict expenditure of those revenues for a particular purpose. This measure would require revenues derived from that portion of the vehicle license fee rate that exceeds 0.65% of the market value of a vehicle to be used solely for street and highway purposes and would prohibit the Legislature from borrowing those revenues. The measure would also prohibit those revenues from being pledged or used for the payment of principal and interest on bonds or other indebtedness. (3) This measure would make other conforming changes.
Until December 31, 2017, existing law, as a pilot program, authorizes elections in San Mateo County and Yolo County, other than statewide primary or general elections, or special elections to fill a vacancy in a state office, the Legislature, or Congress, to be conducted wholly by mail if specified conditions are satisfied. If San Mateo County or Yolo County conducts an all-mailed ballot election, existing law requires the county to report to the Legislature and the Secretary of State, as specified. This bill would extend this pilot program until January 1, 2018. This bill would also authorize Monterey and Sacramento Counties to conduct all-mailed ballot elections as part of this program, subject to a requirement to provide additional polling places. The bill would also make technical, nonsubstantive changes.
Existing law generally requires all elective city offices, including the members of a city council, to be filled at large by the city electorate at a general municipal election. Existing law, at any municipal election or special election held for this purpose, authorizes the legislative body of a city to submit to the registered voters an ordinance providing for the election of members of the legislative body by district or from district, as defined, and with or without an elective mayor. This bill would authorize the legislative body of a city with a population of fewer than 100,000 people to adopt an ordinance that requires the members of the legislative body to be elected by district or by district with an elective mayor without being required to submit the ordinance to the voters for approval. The bill would require the ordinance to include a specified declaration and would require the population of the city to be determined by the most recent federal decennial census.
The California Constitution requires that the water resources of the State be put to beneficial use to the fullest extent of which they are capable. Under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, which applies to all groundwater basins in the state, all basins designated as high- or medium-priority basins by the Department of Water Resources as basins that are subject to critical conditions of overdraft, as specified, are required to be managed under a groundwater sustainability plan or coordinated groundwater sustainability plans by January 31, 2020. This bill would establish special procedures for a comprehensive adjudication, which is defined as an action filed in superior court to comprehensively determine rights to extract groundwater in a basin. The bill would authorize the court to determine all groundwater rights of a basin, whether based on appropriation, overlying right, or other basis of right, and use of storage space in the basin. The bill would provide that these special procedures governing comprehensive adjudications do not apply in certain cases that do not involve a comprehensive allocation of a basin's groundwater supply. The bill would authorize a judge of the superior court to determine if the action is a comprehensive adjudication, as specified. This bill would require the plaintiff in a comprehensive adjudication to provide notice of the comprehensive adjudication within a specified amount of time after filing the complaint to certain persons including a city, county, or city and county that overlies the basin or a portion of the basin. The bill would require a draft notice and draft form answer, as specified, to be lodged by the plaintiff with the court when filing the complaint. Within 30 days of the assignment of a judge by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council, the bill would require the plaintiff to file a motion for approval of the draft notice and draft form answer. Following a court order approving the notice and form answer and authorizing service of landowners, as specified, the bill would require the plaintiff to identify the assessor parcel numbers and physical addresses of all real property in the basin and the names and addresses of all holders of fee title to real property in the basin, as specified; mail the notice, complaint, and form answer to all holders of fee title to real property in the basin, as specified; and publish the notice in one or more newspapers of general circulation, as specified. The bill would require the plaintiff to file with the court a notice of the completion of the mailing. The bill would deem fulfillment of the service and publication provisions as effective service of process of the complaint and notice on all interested parties of the comprehensive adjudication for purposes of establishing in rem jurisdiction and the comprehensive effect of the comprehensive adjudication. This bill would authorize a groundwater sustainability agency for the basin or a portion of the basin, a city, county, or city and county that overlies the basin or a portion of the basin, and certain persons to intervene in a comprehensive adjudication. This bill would require the court to convene a case management conference and would authorize the court to consider certain matters, including dividing the case into phases to resolve legal and factual issues, in the initial case management conference or as soon as practicable. In addition, the bill would require each party to serve within 6 months of appearing in the comprehensive adjudication, specified initial disclosures made under penalty of perjury to all other named parties and a special master, if one has been appointed in the action. By expanding the scope of an existing crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize the court to appoint one or more special masters in a comprehensive adjudication, whose duties could include, among other things, investigating technical and legal issues, as directed by the court, and compiling a report of the findings, as specified. The bill would authorize the court to request the State Water Resources Control Board or the Department of Water Resources to recommend candidates for appointment as a special master or to review the qualifications of candidates. This bill would authorize the court, upon a showing that the basin is in a condition of long-term overdraft, to issue a preliminary injunction that could include, among other things, a moratorium on new or increased appropriations of water. The bill would provide that a judgment in a comprehensive adjudication is binding on the parties to the action, their agents and employees, and all their successors in interest. The bill would also provide the court with continuing jurisdiction to modify or amend a final judgment in a comprehensive adjudication in specified instances. This bill would require the Department of Water Resources and each county and groundwater sustainability agency that overlies the basin or a portion of the basin to post and maintain the notice and form answer on their Internet Web sites, as specified. By requiring counties to take certain actions related to the comprehensive adjudication, 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 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. This bill would provide that it will only become effective if SB 226 is enacted and becomes effective.