Sen. Bill Dodd

This measure would provide that the Legislature strongly and unequivocally supports the current federal prohibition on new oil and gas drilling in federal waters offshore California, opposes the Trump administration's proposal to remove safety and environmental protections related to offshore drilling operations, and opposes the Trump administration's proposed leasing plan that would expose the state to new offshore drilling. The measure would also urge the United States Secretary of the Interior to remove California from that proposed leasing plan, and would request that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management hold more than one public hearing on the plan in the State of California to ensure that all Californians have an opportunity to have their voices heard.

(1) Existing federal law prohibits a state or local statute, regulation, or legal requirement from prohibiting an interstate or intrastate telecommunications service, but recognizes the ability of a state to impose, on a competitively neutral basis, requirements necessary to preserve and advance universal service, protect the public safety and welfare, ensure the continued quality of telecommunications services, and safeguard the rights of consumers. If the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) determines that this prohibition has been violated, existing federal law requires the FCC to preempt the enforcement of the offending statute, regulation, or legal requirement to the extent necessary to correct the violation. Existing federal law additionally recognizes the authority of a state or local government to manage public rights-of-way or to require fair and reasonable compensation from telecommunications providers, on a competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis, for the use of public rights-of-way on a nondiscriminatory basis, if the compensation required is publicly disclosed by that government. Existing federal law provides that no state or local government has the authority to regulate the entry of, or the rates charged by, a commercial mobile service, but permits a state to regulate the other terms and conditions of commercial mobile services. Under existing law, the placement or installation of certain wireless facilities, including antennas and related equipment, on or immediately adjacent to a wireless telecommunications facility, as specified, is a permitted use not subject to a city or county discretionary permit, but certain other wireless telecommunications facilities are subject to city or county discretionary permitting and are required to comply with specified criteria. This bill would provide that a small cell, as defined, is a permitted use, subject only to a specified permitting process adopted by a city or county, if the small cell meets specified requirements. By imposing new duties on local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize a city or county to require an encroachment permit or a building permit, and any additional ministerial permits, for a small cell, as specified. The bill would authorize a city or county to charge 3 types of fees relating to these small cells: an annual charge for each small cell attached to city or county vertical infrastructure, an annual attachment rate, and a one-time reimbursement fee. The bill would require the city or county to comply with notice and hearing requirements before imposing the annual attachment rate. The bill would require an action or proceeding to challenge a fee imposed under the provisions of this bill to be commenced within 120 days of the effective date of the ordinance or resolution. This bill would require each wireless service provider, on or before July 1, 2019, and again on or before December 31, 2020, to submit a report to the Legislature specifying the number of, and geographical location by ZIP Code of, the small cells that the wireless service provider has commenced operating within the state during the 18 months preceding the date of each report. (2) Existing law requires a local publicly owned electric utility, as defined, to make available appropriate space and capacity on and in certain utility poles and related structures. Existing law requires fees adopted to cover the costs to provide this use, and the terms and conditions of access, to meet specified requirements, and specifies the manner in which these fees and terms and conditions of access may be challenged. This bill would provide that it does not authorize or impose an obligation to charge a different use fee on a local publicly owned electric utility, and does not change or remove any obligation by the owner or operator of a small cell to comply with a local publicly owned electric utility's reasonable and feasible safety, reliability, and engineering policies. (3) The Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006 establishes a procedure for the issuance of state franchises for the provision of video service and cable service and designates the Public Utilities Commission as the sole franchising authority for a state franchise under the act. The act requires the holder of a state franchise to pay franchise fees, as specified. The act prescribes the extent of the obligation of a holder of a state franchise to provide public, educational, and governmental access (PEG) channels, but authorizes a local entity, as defined, to establish a fee to support the costs of PEG channel facilities, in the amount of 1% of gross revenues, or more in specified circumstances. This bill would prohibit a city or county from requiring a provider of video or cable service to obtain any additional authorization or permit not described above to provide any communications services that are provided by a provider that holds a franchise pursuant to the act. The bill would prohibit a city or county from requiring the provider of video or cable service to pay any tax, fee, assessment, or other charge not authorized by the act, this bill, or other state laws. (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.

Existing law generally protects employees who disclose illegal or improper workplace activities by prohibiting interference with, and retaliation for, making such disclosures. Existing law provides procedures for a person to file a complaint alleging violations of legislative ethics. Existing law also authorizes each house of the Legislature to adopt rules for its proceedings and to select committees necessary for the conduct of its business. This bill would impose criminal and civil liability on a Member of the Legislature or legislative employee, as defined, who interferes with, or retaliates against, a legislative employee's exercise of the right to make a protected disclosure, which is defined as a good faith allegation made by a legislative employee to specified entities that a Member of the Legislature or a legislative employee has engaged in, or will engage in, activity that may constitute a violation of law, including sexual harassment, or a violation of a legislative standard of conduct. The bill would also impose civil liability on an entity that interferes with, or retaliates against, a legislative employee's exercise of the right to make a protected disclosure, as specified. By creating new crimes, 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Existing law establishes the California State University, under the administration of the Trustees of the California State University, the California Community Colleges, under the administration of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, and the University of California, under the administration of the Regents of the University of California, as the 3 segments of public postsecondary education in this state. Existing law, known as the Donahoe Higher Education Act, among other things, sets forth the missions and functions of these 3 segments. This bill would express legislative findings and declarations relating to the costs of public postsecondary education. The bill would require that the amount of tuition charged to eligible students of the California State University, and the amount of the enrollment fee charged to eligible students of the California Community Colleges, not be increased from the amounts that were charged as of December 31, 2016, until the completion of the 2019–20 academic year. Notwithstanding this provision, the bill would not be operative in a fiscal year for which the Governor has issued a proclamation declaring a fiscal emergency pursuant to a specified provision of the California Constitution. The bill would define "eligible students" as students exempt from payment of nonresident tuition either because they are California residents, as defined, or are exempted from payment of nonresident tuition pursuant to any of several specified provisions of existing law. The bill would also urge the regents to adopt policies that are consistent with this provision.

Existing law regulates real property acquired and operated by the state as wildlife management areas, and authorizes the Department of Fish and Wildlife, when income is directly derived from that real property, as provided, to annually pay to the county in which the property is located an amount equal to the county taxes levied upon the property at the time it was transferred to the state. Existing law further authorizes the department to pay the assessments levied upon the property by any irrigation, drainage, or reclamation district. Existing law requires those payments to only be made from funds that are appropriated to the department for those purposes. This bill would, commencing with the 2018–19 fiscal year and each fiscal year thereafter, require, instead of authorize, the department to make these payments subject to appropriation by the Legislature.