Existing law, the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975, prohibits, with certain exceptions, a person from conducting a surface mining operation unless, among other things, a reclamation plan has been submitted to and approved by the lead agency, as defined, for the operation. The act requires the owner or operator of a mining operation to submit an annual report containing information regarding the operation. For purposes of compliance with specified provisions of the Public Contract Code, the act requires the Department of Conservation to, at a minimum, quarterly publish in the California Regulatory Notice Register, or otherwise make available, upon request, to the Department of General Services or any other state or local agency, a list identifying surface mining operations that have submitted the annual report and it indicates compliance with specified standards, guidelines, and requirements or that there is a pending appeal. This bill would require the department to give notice by personal service or certified mail to a surface mining operation that it determines shall not be included in the above-described list or shall be removed from the above-described list. The bill would specify that the surface mining operation shall have 30 days from the date of receipt of service within which to file an appeal of the department's determination with the State Board of Mining and Geology. The bill would require that an appeal be scheduled and heard at a public hearing within 60 days from the date the appeal is filed, or a longer time if mutually agreed upon by the board and the appellant. The bill would require that when a timely appeal is filed on behalf of a surface mining operation pursuant to the provisions of the bill, the operation shall remain on the list pending the final outcome of the appeal, if the appeal has not been pending for more than 180 days. The bill would require the board to deny a request for an appeal of a notice issued pursuant to those provisions if either (1) the notice alleges one or more violations of the act that the board determines to be ministerial in nature and not constituting a substantial violation, in which case the appellant would have 30 days to correct the violation and achieve compliance, or (2) the specific claims asserted in the notice have been adjudicated, or are pending adjudication before the board or a lead agency in a separate action authorized by the act. The bill would prescribe requirements for the review of information and evidence pertaining to the appeal, as specified. The bill would authorize the board, by regulation, to establish procedures for declining to hear appeals that it determines raise only ministerial issues.
Existing law authorizes a superior court judge to designate the jail of a contiguous county for the confinement of a prisoner of his or her county when there is no jail in the county or when a county jail becomes unfit or unsafe for the confinement of prisoners. This bill would authorize a local law enforcement agency within the County of Fresno to transfer (1) prior to booking, a person who is under arrest and in the custody of that agency, or (2) upon a person's scheduled release from the Fresno County Jail due to overcrowding, he or she has been identified by the arresting agency as being at a high risk to reoffend, and he or she is the subject of a formal request from the arresting agency for notification prior to release. The bill would require, prior to any transfer, the governing bodies of the local law enforcement agency seeking the transfer and the receiving jail facility to enter into a written agreement governing the terms of the booking, housing, and transportation of transferees. The bill would provide that the County of Fresno, including its officers and employees, shall not be responsible for any costs, claims, or liability of any kind associated with or resulting from carrying out these provisions at the time of transfer, unless the Fresno County Sheriff's Office is the transferring agency and that all costs, claims, and liability would be the responsibility of the transferring. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the County of Fresno.
Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations, as defined. The Public Utilities Act prohibits any electrical corporation from beginning the construction of, among other things, a line, plant, or system, or of any extension thereof, without having first obtained from the CPUC a certificate that the present or future public convenience and necessity require or will require that construction (certificate of public convenience and necessity) . The existing California renewables portfolio standard program (RPS program) establishes requirements for retail sellers, as defined, and local publicly owned electric utilities, as defined, to procure minimum quantities of eligible renewable energy resources, as defined, for various compliance periods. This bill would require the Independent System Operator (ISO) and the CPUC to jointly evaluate all electrical transmission facilities that have been identified in the ISO's most recently approved transmission plan and determine which of those transmission facilities are necessary or useful to interconnect eligible renewable energy resources to facilitate achievement of the procurement requirements established for retail sellers and local publicly owned electric utilities pursuant to the RPS program. The bill would require the CPUC and ISO, by March 31, 2012, to publish a report that includes a time frame for obtaining all governmental approvals for, construction of, and placement into service of, each of the transmission facilities determined to be necessary or useful to interconnect eligible renewable energy resources pursuant to the bill's requirements. The bill would require the CPUC and the ISO to coordinate the ISO's transmission planning process and identification of needed transmission facilities with the CPUC's issuance of certificates of public convenience and necessity for transmission facilities.
Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission has regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations. Existing law authorizes the commission to establish rules for all public utilities, subject to control by the Legislature. This bill would require investor-owned electric utilities to post on their Internet Web sites any report required by a revision to the commission's Electric Rule 21, if that revision is adopted after January 1, 2012. The bill would prohibit a report posted on Internet Web sites from including information proprietary to a developer applying for interconnection.
Existing law requires each person employed by a school district in a position requiring certification qualifications, except a person employed in a position requiring administrative or supervisory credentials, to be classified on the salary schedule on the basis of uniform allowance for years of training and years of experience, except as specified. This bill would, for a teacher who holds a 5-year clear designated subjects career technical education teaching credential, require that the 3 years of work experience, as specified, be deemed to be the equivalent of a baccalaureate degree, and would require that the holder of a 5-year clear designated subjects career technical education teaching credential be placed on and advance along the salary schedule of the school district in the same manner as a teacher with a baccalaureate degree.
The Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 and the Multifamily Improvement District Law both require a management district plan for an improvement district proposed under either law to include specified information. Both laws require a city council to contract with a nonprofit corporation if the management district plan designates the nonprofit corporation to provide services to the improvement district. The Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 sets forth the procedures for establishing an assessment district under the act, including the preparation of reports by an engineer. This bill would prohibit the city council, the owners' association, and the nonprofit corporation, if one is designated, in the case of a district formed pursuant to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 or the Multifamily Improvement District Law, from contracting for services relating to the management or operation of the district with any individual, firm, corporation, partnership, limited liability company, association, or other organization that was previously contracted with for services relating to the formation of the district. The bill would also prohibit a local agency, in the case of an assessment district formed pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, from contracting for services relating to the management or operation of the district with any individual, firm, corporation, partnership, limited liability company, association, or other organization that was previously contracted with for services relating to the formation of the district.
Existing law provides for creation of airport districts. Existing law provides for transfer of the San Diego International Airport from the San Diego Unified Port District to the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority. This bill would establish the Ontario International Airport Authority as a local entity of regional government. The bill would establish the membership of the board of directors of the authority and set forth the powers of the authority. The bill would authorize the authority to enter into an agreement with the City of Los Angeles to facilitate the sale of, or the transfer of management and operational control of, the Ontario International Airport to the authority. The bill would require the authority, in cooperation with the City of Los Angeles and the City of Ontario, to develop a transition plan to facilitate the sale of, or the transfer of management and operational control of, the Ontario International Airport to the authority. The bill would also require the authority, the City of Los Angeles, the City of Ontario, the County of San Bernardino, other local and regional agencies, and the Department of Transportation to cooperate to develop effective surface transportation access to the Ontario International Airport. To the extent these provisions would impose additional duties on entities of local government, 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, 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 Budget Bill, enacted as the Budget Act of 2012, would make appropriations for the support of state government for the 2012–13 fiscal year. This bill would amend the Budget Act of 2012 by revising items of appropriation and making other changes in the Budget Act of 2012. This bill would become operative only if AB 1464 or SB 1004 is enacted as the Budget Act of 2012. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a Budget Bill.
Existing law generally provides for programming and allocation of state and federal funds available for transportation capital improvement projects by the California Transportation Commission, pursuant to various requirements. Existing law authorizes the commission, in certain cases, to adopt guidelines relative to its programming and allocation policies and procedures. Existing law, the Administrative Procedure Act, generally governs the procedure for the adoption, amendment, or repeal of regulations by state agencies and for the review of those regulatory actions by the Office of Administrative Law. Existing law, in certain instances, exempts state agencies from these requirements. This bill would establish specified procedures that the commission would be required to utilize when it adopts guidelines, except as specified, and would exempt the adoption of those guidelines from the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.
(1) Existing law provides that qualified patients, persons with valid identification cards, and the designated primary caregivers of qualified patients and persons with identification cards who associate within the State of California in order to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes, collectively or cooperatively, shall not, solely on that basis, be subject to state criminal sanctions for the possession, sale, transport, or other proscribed acts relating to marijuana. This bill instead authorizes qualified patients, persons with valid identification cards, and the designated primary caregivers of qualified patients and persons with identification cards, to associate within the State of California as collectives, cooperatives, and other business entities to cultivate, acquire, process, possess, transport, test, sell, and distribute marijuana for medical purposes. The bill would provide that these persons shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or specified sanctions for possessing, selling, transporting, or engaging in other proscribed acts relating to marijuana, unless they are not in compliance with the registration requirements described in this bill. (2) Existing law makes it a misdemeanor offense to, among other things, fraudulently use or obtain a medical marijuana identification card. This bill also would make it a misdemeanor offense to knowingly produce, issue, utilize, or sell a falsified, forged, or fraudulent physician's recommendation for medical marijuana. By creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) Existing law, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, an initiative measure, prohibits prosecution for the possession or cultivation of marijuana of a patient or a patient's primary caregiver who possesses or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician. Existing law, the Medical Marijuana Program Act, exempts qualified patients who hold an identification card issued pursuant to the program, and the caregivers of those persons, from certain state criminal sanctions related to the possession, cultivation, transportation, processing, or use of limited amounts of marijuana, as specified. This bill would establish the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Control Act for the purposes of regulating and controlling medical marijuana activities. The bill would establish the Board of Medical Marijuana Enforcement in the Department of Consumer Affairs, and require the board to perform specified duties relating to the regulation of medical marijuana facilities, as defined. The governing body of the board would consist of 9 members, appointed by the Governor, the Senate Committee on Rules, and the Speaker of the Assembly. The duties of the board would include, but not be limited to, issuing or denying registration applications, establishing fees for administering these provisions, adopting regulations in connection with these provisions, and issuing fines and penalties for the violation of these provisions. The bill would preempt local laws regarding the regulation and control of medical marijuana and would prohibit a medical marijuana facility, as defined, from operating without state-approved registration, except as specified. The bill would generally require a city or county to permit no fewer than one medical marijuana dispensary, as defined, per 50,000 residents, provided that a city or county would be permitted to opt out of this requirement, pursuant to certain procedures. The bill would exempt from the bill's provisions individual patients and caregivers cultivating marijuana at their residences who do not sell or charge for the cultivation. The bill would require the board to make available mandatory registration application forms no later than July 1, 2013, and to make a thorough investigation to determine whether the applicant meets specified criteria. The bill would require that all registration applications be approved unless the applicant fails to meet the criteria. The bill would require a registration application to be approved or denied no later than 180 days after the application is filed with the board, and, if the board fails to act within this time, would require that the application be deemed approved. The bill would require a person applying for the renewal of an existing registration to apply no less than 60 days prior to the expiration, and would require the board to act upon a timely filed registration renewal application no later than 10 days prior to the expiration of the registration. This bill would create the Medical Marijuana Fund and would require that all moneys collected pursuant to the act be deposited into the Medical Marijuana Fund and would, except for moneys derived from penalties, continuously appropriate moneys in the fund for the purposes of implementing, enforcing, and administering the program. (4) Existing law authorizes the board of supervisors of a county and the governing body of a city to levy, increase, or extend a transactions and use tax at a rate of 0.25%, or a multiple thereof, at a combined rate not to exceed 2% if approved by the required vote of the board or governing body and the required vote of qualified voters. This bill would additionally authorize the board of supervisors of a county and the governing body of a city to levy, increase, or extend a transactions and use tax on the retail sale of or storage, use, or other consumption of, medical marijuana or medical marijuana-infused products for general and specified purposes, as provided, at a combined rate not to exceed 5%. 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 Budget Bill, enacted as the Budget Act of 2012, would make appropriations for the support of state government for the 2012–13 fiscal year. This bill would amend the Budget Act of 2012 by revising items of appropriation, loans, and transfers of moneys specified in the Budget Act of 2012. This bill would become operative only if AB 1464 or SB 1004 is enacted as the Budget Act of 2012. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a Budget Bill.
Existing law generally provides that nonviolent and nonserious felonies are punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for 16 months, or 2 or 3 years, or, where the term is specified, for the term described in the underlying offense. Notwithstanding these provisions, existing law requires that a sentence be served in state prison if the defendant has a prior or current conviction for a serious or violent felony, has a prior felony conviction in another jurisdiction that has all of the elements of a serious or violent felony, is required to register as a sex offender, or has an aggravated white collar crime enhancement imposed as part of the sentence. This bill would specify that no further pleading or proof of an offense, prior conviction, enhancement, or requirement to register as a sex offender that makes a person ineligible to serve a term of imprisonment in a county jail pursuant to those provisions is required. The bill would also require that a person convicted of one or more felonies committed while the person is on mandatory supervision serve the remaining time on the mandatory supervision term, as well as the new term of imprisonment, in state prison. The bill would provide that any person sentenced to mandatory supervision upon suspension of execution of his or her county jail term, and his or her residence and possessions, would be subject to search or seizure at any time, with or without a warrant and with or without cause, by an agent of the supervising county agency or by a peace officer, as specified. Under the Postrelease Community Supervision Act of 2011, certain felons, upon release from prison, are subject to community supervision provided by a county agency designated by the county's board of supervisors, and requires the county agency to maintain postrelease supervision over the person until one of specified listed events occurs, including, but not limited to, if jurisdiction over the person has been terminated by operation of law. This bill would expand the list of events that terminates postrelease supervision to include termination of jurisdiction by a new term of imprisonment for 3 years or longer for a new criminal conviction. The bill would also specify that time during which a person on postrelease supervision is in custody for a custodial sanction of a postrelease supervision condition or a new criminal conviction shall not be credited toward a discretionary 6-month discharge or a mandatory 12-month discharge. Existing law provides for a sentence enhancement of an additional and consecutive term of imprisonment of 3, 4, or 5 years in a county jail for any person who is armed with a firearm in the commission of a violation or attempted violation of certain offenses relating to the sale, manufacture, or possession of controlled substances. This bill would provide for a sentence enhancement of an additional and consecutive term of imprisonment for 3, 4, or 5 years in state prison instead of a county jail.
