The Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act requires that all meetings of a state body, as defined, be open and public and that all persons be permitted to attend and participate in a meeting of a state body, subject to certain conditions and exceptions. This bill would specify that the definition of "state body" includes an advisory board, advisory commission, advisory committee, advisory subcommittee, or similar multimember advisory body of a state body that consists of 3 or more individuals, as prescribed, except a board, commission, committee, or similar multimember body on which a member of a body serves in his or her official capacity as a representative of that state body and that is supported, in whole or in part, by funds provided by the state body, whether the multimember body is organized and operated by the state body or by a private corporation. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Sponsored bills
Existing law provides for the regulation and licensure of various professions and vocations by boards within the Department of Consumer Affairs. Existing law establishes fees for initial licenses, initial temporary and permanent licenses, and original licenses for those various professions and vocations. Existing law requires that licenses issued to certain licensees, including, among others, architects, acupuncturists, dental hygienists, dentists, occupational therapists, osteopathic physicians and surgeons, registered veterinary technicians, and veterinarians, expire at 12 a.m. on either the last day of the birth month of the licensee or at 12 a.m. of the legal birth date of the licensee during the 2nd year of a 2-year term, if not renewed. This bill would, commencing July 1, 2017, require that the fees imposed on these licensees for an initial license or an original license be prorated on a monthly basis. The bill would, commencing July 1, 2017, require that the fee assessed an osteopathic physician and surgeon for license renewal be prorated on a monthly basis. This bill would incorporate additional changes in Section 1724 of the Business and Professions Code, proposed by Assembly Bill 179, that would become operative only if this bill and Assembly Bill 179 are chaptered and become effective January 1, 2016, and this bill is chaptered last. This bill would incorporate additional changes in Section 1944 of the Business and Professions Code, proposed by Senate Bill 800, that would become operative only if this bill and Senate Bill 800 are chaptered and become effective January 1, 2016, and this bill is chaptered last.
(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.
Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, it is unlawful to engage in specified discriminatory practices in employment or housing accommodations on the basis of certain specified characteristics, including race, creed, or national origin. Existing law defines these characteristics and other terms for purposes of the act. Under existing law, a person deputized or appointed as a reserve or auxiliary sheriff or city police officer, a reserve deputy sheriff, a reserve deputy marshal, a reserve police officer of a transit district, a reserve park ranger, a reserve harbor or port police officer, or a reserve officer of a school district, among others, by the proper authority, who is assigned specific police functions by that authority or is designated by local ordinance or resolution, and who meets specified requirements, is a peace officer. This bill would make a person deputized or appointed by the proper authority as a peace officer pursuant to the above provisions an employee for purposes of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. The bill would also update an obsolete cross-reference.
Existing law establishes a low-income housing tax credit program pursuant to which the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee provides procedures and requirements for the allocation of state insurance, personal income, and corporation income tax credit amounts among low-income housing projects based on federal law. Existing law, in modified conformity to federal income tax law, allows the credit based upon the applicable percentage, as defined, of the qualified basis of each qualified low-income building. Existing law limits the total annual amount of the credit that the committee may allocate to $70 million per year, as specified. This bill, for calendar years 2016 through 2021, inclusive, would increase the aggregate housing credit dollar amount that may be allocated among low-income housing projects by $100,000,000, as specified. The bill, under the insurance taxation law, the Personal Income Tax Law, and the Corporation Tax Law, would modify the definition of applicable percentage relating to qualified low-income buildings that meet specified criteria. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Sections 12206, 17058, and 23610.5 of the Revenue and Taxation Code proposed by SB 377 that would become operative if this bill and SB 377 are chaptered and this bill is chaptered last. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
The Personal Income Tax Law and the Corporation Tax Law, in specified conformity with federal income tax laws regarding qualified tuition programs, provide that distributions from a qualified tuition program are generally not included in the income of the donor or the beneficiary, as specified. Existing federal law, the Stephen Beck Jr., Achieving a Better Life Experience Act of 2014 (ABLE Act) , for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2015, encourages and assists individuals and families to save private funds for the purpose of supporting persons with disabilities to maintain their health, independence, and quality of life by excluding from gross income distributions used for qualified disability expenses by a beneficiary of a Qualified ABLE Program established and maintained by a state, as specified. This bill would, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2016, conform to these federal income tax law provisions relating to the ABLE Act under the Corporation Tax Law, as provided. The bill would also establish in state government the ABLE program trust for purposes of implementing the federal ABLE Act. The bill would authorize the ABLE Act Board to adopt regulations to implement the program. The bill would create the program fund, a continuously appropriated fund, thereby making an appropriation, and the administrative fund, as specified. The bill would require the board to administer the program in compliance with the requirements of the federal ABLE Act. This bill would become operative only if SB 324 is enacted and takes effect on or before January 1, 2016.
The Personal Income Tax Law and the Corporation Tax Law, in specified conformity with federal income tax laws regarding qualified tuition programs, provide that distributions from a qualified tuition program are generally not included in the income of the donor or the beneficiary, as specified. Existing federal law, the Stephen Beck, Jr., Achieving a Better Life Experience Act of 2014 (ABLE Act) , for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2014, encourages and assists individuals and families to save private funds for the purpose of supporting persons with disabilities to maintain their health, independence, and quality of life by excluding from gross income distributions used for qualified disability expenses by a beneficiary of a Qualified ABLE Program established and maintained by a state, as specified. This bill, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2016, would conform to these federal income tax law provisions relating to the ABLE Act under the Personal Income Tax Law, as provided. The bill would create the ABLE Act Board and would require the board provide an annual listing of distributions to individuals that have an interest in an ABLE account to the Franchise Tax Board, as provided. This bill would provide that it will only become effective if AB 449 is enacted and becomes effective.
The California Franchise Relations Act sets forth certain requirements related to the termination, nonrenewal, and transfer of franchises between a franchisor, subfranchisor, and franchisee, as those terms are defined. That act, except as otherwise provided, prohibits a franchisor from terminating a franchise prior to the expiration of its term, except for good cause, which includes, but is not limited to, the failure of the franchisee to comply with any lawful requirement of the franchise agreement after being given notice and a reasonable opportunity to cure the failure within 30 days. This bill would instead limit good cause to the failure of the franchisee to substantially comply with the lawful requirements of the franchise agreement imposed on the franchisee after being given notice at least 60 days in advance and would require that the period for a reasonable opportunity to cure the failure be no less than 60 days from the date of the notice of noncompliance. The bill would prohibit the period for curing the failure from exceeding 75 days, except as specified. The bill also would allow immediate termination of a specified separate motor vehicle franchise under specified circumstances. This bill would make it unlawful for a franchise agreement to prevent a franchisee from selling or transferring a franchise, all or substantially all of the assets of the franchise business, as defined, or a controlling or noncontrolling interest in the franchise business, to another person, provided that the person is qualified under the franchisor's then-existing and reasonable standards for approval of new or renewing franchisees, as specified, and the parties comply with specified transfer provisions. The bill would prohibit a sale, transfer, or assignment of a franchise, all or substantially all of the assets of a franchise business, or a controlling or noncontrolling interest in the franchise business, without the franchisor's written consent, but would prohibit that consent from being withheld unless the buyer, transferee, or assignor does not meet standards for new or renewing franchisees or the parties fail to meet specified transfer provisions. This bill would require the franchisee, prior to the sale, assignment, or transfer of a franchise, all or substantially all of the assets of a franchise business, as defined, or a controlling or noncontrolling interest in the franchise business, to another person, to notify the franchisor of the franchisee's intent to sell, transfer, or assign the franchise or its assets or interest, as specified, and would require the notice to be in writing and include specified information. The bill would require the franchisor, within a specified period, to notify the franchisee of the approval or disapproval of the proposed sale, assignment, or transfer of the franchise, and would require the notice to be in writing and be delivered by courier to the franchisee or sent by receipted mail. The bill would require the franchisor to communicate the franchisor's standards for approval of new or renewing franchisees, as specified. The bill would deem a proposed sale, assignment, or transfer approved, unless disapproved by the franchisor, as specified. The act requires a franchisor that terminates or fails to renew a franchise, other than in accordance with specified provisions of law, to offer to repurchase from the franchisee the franchisee's resalable current inventory, as specified. This bill would repeal those provisions and would, with certain exceptions, require the franchisor, upon a lawful termination or nonrenewal of a franchisee, to purchase from the franchisee at the value of price paid, minus depreciation, all inventory, supplies, equipment, fixtures, and furnishings purchased or paid for under the franchise agreement, as specified. The bill would not require a franchisor to purchase assets to which the franchisee cannot or does not provide clear title and possession. This bill would entitle a franchisee to receive from the franchisor the fair market value of the franchise business and assets, as well as resulting damages, if a franchisor terminates or fails to renew a franchise in violation of the act. The bill would provide for injunctive relief in the event of a violation or threatened violation of these provisions. The bill would limit its application to a franchise agreement entered into or renewed on or after January 1, 2016, or to franchises of an indefinite duration that may be terminated without cause.
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.
Existing law establishes a state policy that no adoptable animal should be euthanized if it can be adopted into a suitable home. Existing law authorizes the State Department of Public Health to prescribe rules under which approval shall be granted to persons who wish to keep or use animals for diagnostic purposes, education, or research. Existing law authorizes the State Department of Public Health to make, promulgate, modify, amend, or rescind reasonable rules and regulations relating to the use of animals in diagnostic procedures and medical research. A person who violates these provisions is guilty of a misdemeanor. Under existing law, the segments of postsecondary education in this state include the University of California, the California State University, the California Community Colleges, and independent institutions of higher education, as defined. This bill would require a campus of the University of California, the California State University, or the California Community Colleges, or an independent institution of higher education, as defined, or an employee or student thereof, that confines dogs or cats for science or research purposes, if the institution assesses the health of an animal and determines, after the completion of any testing or research, that the animal is suitable for adoption, the animal's destruction is not required, and the animal is no longer needed, and if the institution's existing procedures for adopting the animal do not result in an adoption, to offer the dog or cat to an animal adoption organization or animal rescue organization, as defined, prior to euthanizing the animal. The bill would not apply to animals suffering from a serious illness or severe injury, or to newborn animals that need maternal care and have been impounded without their mothers.