San Mateo County
Chamber of Commerce Alliance
New Issues:
1. AB 1991 (Mullin) Subdivisions: Tentative Maps.
2. SB 1240 (Kehoe) Air Pollution: Low-Carbon Fuel Standards
3. SB 1539 (Calderon) Meal Periods
Updated Issues:
4. High Speed Rail Bond
5. Legislative Bill Updates
April 2008
Legislative Report #4
Prepared by:
Shaun Lumachi
shaun@chamberadvocacy.biz
562.843.0947
New Issues:
1. AB 1991 (Mullin) Subdivisions: Tentative Maps.
Summary
- On November 28, 2007 U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker issued a ruling in a case brought by a real estate developer against the City of Half Moon Bay and entered a judgment against the City in the amount of $36.8 million.
- The Subdivision Map Act provides that an approved or a conditionally approved tentative map expires after 24 months unless extended by local ordinance not to exceed an additional 12 months.
- Extensions cannot extend the tentative map more than 10 years from its approval or conditional approval, as specified.
- This bill would allow an approved tentative map, whose expiration was due in part to a city-initiated utility-service moratorium and that is the subject of pending litigation, to be deemed in full force and effect as part of a litigation settlement.
Background
- Legislation which when amended would be necessary for the City of Half Moon Bay to codify a potential settlement of expensive and protracted litigation thus avoiding possible municipal insolvency.
- The case stems from a 24 acre, 85 lot development approved in 1990 which was delayed due to a variety of reasons, including a City-initiated sewer moratorium, followed by protracted litigation between the property owners and the City.
- The court found that the CityÕs actions, including the on-site installation of utilities and the denial of final building approvals, constituted an unjust taking of private property and awarded the developer a multi-million dollar judgment.
- The City is concurrently appealing the decision and pursuing potential settlement discussions.
- If settlement negotiations are not successful and the judgment is upheld on appeal the cost of the judgment and related legal fees would exceed $40 million, an amount that would exceed the resources of the City, with its population of 12,300 residents.
- If settlement negotiations are successful it is likely that reinstating the lapsed development approvals will constitute the most expeditious and equitable mechanism to ensure a timely solution that is in the best interests of the property owners, the public and the City of Half Moon Bay.
- AB 1991 would allow the City to reinstate the lapsed development approvals without further proceedings under State law, specifically under the Coastal Act.
- There are statutory precedents for codification of municipal legal settlements involving development regulated under the Coastal Act.
Arguments in Opposition
13. AB 1991 is not necessary as the City of Half Moon Bay needs to abided by the current court ruling and use applicable appeal process as stated by law.
Opposing
None at this time
Arguments in Supporting
14. AB 1991 will allow the City of Half Moon Bay to remain solvent and protect itself against the court ruling.
Supporting
City of Half Moon
2. SB 1240 (Kehoe): Air Pollution: Low-Carbon Fuel Standards
Summary
1. SB 1240 requires the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to develop, implement, and enforce a low-carbon fuel standard to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels in California.
2. This bill requires on or before January 1, 2010 that ARB develops, implement, and enforce a low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS) that achieves the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emissions reductions, and at least a 10 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, in furtherance of the greenhouse gas emissions limit established in AB 32.
3. The standard shall apply to all refiners, blenders, producers, and importers of transportation fuels in California.
Background
4. In 2005, the Legislature passed AB 1007 (Pavley), which requires the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (CEC), in partnership with ARB and other specified state agencies, to develop and adopt a state plan to increase the use of alternative transportation fuels not later than June 30, 2007. The CEC adopted this plan in December 2007.
5. In 2006, the Legislature passed AB 32 (Nunez), to establish a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit such that by 2020 California reduces its greenhouse gas emissions to the level they were in 1990. Last year, ARB included implementing a low-carbon fuel standard as an early action measure in meeting the goals of AB 32.
6. In January 2007, Governor Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S-01-07 in which he ordered the establishment of a statewide goal of reducing the carbon intensity of California's transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020 and ordered ARB to establish a LCFS for the state.
7. ARB is issuing the first draft of the LCFS regulation for public comment this month, and ARB staff that the ARB is on schedule to consider adoption of the low-carbon fuel standard in December 2008.
Arguments in Support
8. This bill provides necessary and helpful legislative direction that will assist, and not impede, the implementation of the low carbon fuel standard and ensure that fuels meet important air quality, environmental, sustainability and environmental justice criteria.
9. The author introduced this bill to codify a low-carbon fuel standard rather than rely on an executive order.
10. The LCFS requires additional oversight, guidelines, and authorization. This bill makes the LCFS a statutory requirement and provides that it shall be implemented without weakening existing air quality laws and regulations.
11. This bill also subjects the LCFS to periodic reviews to identify its significant environmental and other impacts. The bill requires ARB to adjust the LCFS to address the identified impacts.
Supporting
American Lung Association
Natural Resources Defense Council
Arguments in Opposition
12. SB 1240 interferes with the development of a competitive alternative fuels market and threatens job creation in California by creating a costly Low Carbon Fuel Standard that conflicts with the existing standard created by Governor's Executive Order S-7-04.
13. In order to meet increasing consumer demand, it is necessary that the fuels market is full of options and represents a mix of alternatives.
14. However, unlike the GovernorÕs Executive Order, this bill would limit the fuel technology providers could use to meet the 10% reduction standard.
15. Last year Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law the worldÕs most sweeping legislation to control global greenhouse gas emissions, Assembly Bill 32.
16. This groundbreaking legislation establishes a process for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and requires the development of a comprehensive plan in a balanced and expeditious manner, including encouraging the use of alternative fuels.
17. The California Air Resources Board has been tasked with the duty to explore and develop regulations to achieve the reductions required under AB 32. This process is currently underway.
18. SB 1240 (Kehoe) however, ignores this planning and prejudges the outcome of AB 32 and the GovernorÕs Low Carbon Fuel Standard as created in his Executive Order earlier this year.
Opposing
California Chamber of Commerce
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
3. SB 1539 (Calderon) Meal Periods
Summary
1. SB 1539 would allow the following:
a. Employer shall provide an employee with one off-duty meal period after an employee has worked 5 hours per workday before the employee completes 6 hours of work.
b. If an employee works no more than 6 hours per workday, the employer and employee may agree to waive the employerÕs duty of providing the employee with a meal period.
c. Employer shall provide an employee who works more than 10 hours per day in a workday with a second off-duty meal period.
d. If an employee works no more than 12 hours in a workday, the employer and employee may agree to waive the employerÕs duty of providing the employee with either the first or the second meal period, but not both.
Background
2. Current law states that a non-exempt employee may not work more than five hours in a workday without being provided with a 30-minute meal period.
3. These provisions have been interpreted in various ways by state enforcement officials and the courts, contributing to significant confusion.
4. This confusion has lead to costly litigation against California businesses that now may face closure due to exorbitant settlements.
5. Meal period disputes are currently 40 percent of all California class-action lawsuits and approximately half of all employment-related lawsuits filed in California each year.
6. Current enforcement interpretation requires the following:
a. Employer must compel the worker to cease work during the meal period which requires the employer to police its workforce, watch the clock to ensure the meal period is taken at the prescribed time, for the entire time and without interruption.
b. Employee may not voluntarily skip the meal period.
c. Employee may not take the meal period at another time.
d. Employee may not return early, leave late or do any work during the meal period.
e. Non-compliant, independent employee action with regards to their meal period creates a liability for the employer.
f. The conditions which permit an on-duty meal period are so rigidly interpreted that most workplaces which should appropriately permit on-duty meal periods do not qualify.
g. There is confusion over when the meal period should commence.
h. As a result of a recent court challenge, a collective bargaining agreement does not supersede the statute (Bearden v. Borax).
7. To avoid liability under these interpretations, some employers have had to discipline or discharge employees for not taking meal periods as directed.
Arguments in Opposition
None at this time.
Opposing
None at this time.
Arguments in Support
8. SB 1539 will provide clarity and guidance for the compliance and enforcement of meal period laws.
9. This bill is a comprehensive solution that serves employers and employees across all industries regardless of size or union status, providing clarification so employees have the opportunity to take meal breaks, enter into on-duty meal period agreements in appropriate situations, and collectively bargain for meal periods.
10. Provides a comprehensive solution to compliance and enforcement of meal period laws that provides clarity and flexibility to employers and employees across all industries regardless of employer size or union status in California.
11. SB 1539 provides a comprehensive solution to provide employees with flexibility, clarify when an employer and employee can enter into an on-duty meal period agreement, and addresses collective bargaining agreements with respect to meal periods.
Supporting
California Chamber of Commerce
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
Updated Issues:
4. High-Speed Rail Bond
The Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century was originally scheduled to appear on the November 2, 2004, General Election ballot. Subsequently, SB 1169in 2004, provided that it appear on the November 7, 2006, General Election ballot. However, most recently, AB 713 in 2006, provides for the submission of this Act on the November 4, 2008, General Election ballot instead.
Recent Newspaper Articles
High-speed rail bond has strong Bay Area support
April 1, 2008 - Mike Aldax - The Examiner
Bay Area residents fed up with bumper-to-bumper traffic overwhelmingly support shelling out nearly $10 billion in state funds for a 200-mph train connecting the stateÕs major cities, a recent poll indicates.
A statewide survey of 800 registered voters shows that 67 percent of Bay Area residents plan to vote ÒyesÓ on a $9.9 billion high-speed rail bond in November, an approval rating higher than any other California region.
Statewide, 58 percent of voters approved of the bond measure, and 61 percent said ÒyesÓ in the Los Angeles and San Joaquin areas, the study said.
That Bay Area residents want state money set aside for high-speed trains is little surprise, seeing as recent studies place the region among the worst in the nation for traffic congestion and deteriorating roads, said Rod Diridon Sr., a member of the high-speed rail board.
ÒI think [the Bay Area has] the perfect storm of negatives,Ó Diridon said. ÒOur highway system, built back in the Õ50s, Õ60s and Õ70s, is now falling apart and our population is growing rapidly. Traditional sources of revenue for transportation maintenance and development is declining.Ó
Diridon added that most Californians donÕt realize the bond measure would not increase taxes. He said the bonds would derive from the stateÕs general fund.
Lawmakers and transportation officials alike say passing the bond measure is crucial to speeding up the start date for rail construction.
Former state Sen. Quentin Kopp, chairman of the rail board, said a November approval of the bond issue Òwill enable us to be in construction in 2009.Ó
Kopp called the recent poll Òa cherry resultÓ demonstrating increased awareness about the proposed 700-mile, $40 billion rail network that would be built over a 20-year period.
The bond measure has faced obstacles in the past. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has yet to sign on to the measure, twice supported legislation postponing it from going to the ballot.
But that doesnÕt mean he doesnÕt support the measure, spokeswoman Sabrina Lockhart said. She said thereÕs no indication at this point that any legislation will be proposed to pull it from the November ballot and added that itÕs not unusual for Schwarzenegger to reserve an official opinion on a measure so far from the November election.
Bill would let bond for high-speed rail cover more ground
February 29, 2008 - AP - Contra Costa Times
Two Democrats have introduced legislation sought by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger that could broaden voter support for a twice-delayed, $9.9 billion high-speed rail bond on the November ballot.
The bill by Assemblywomen Cathleen Galgiani of Stockton and Fiona Ma of San Francisco would allow the bond to be used for all segments of the proposed 700-mile rail system. The bond's current language dedicates the money only for the proposed segment between the Los Angeles region and the Bay Area.
The bill also would put a 10 percent cap on the amount of state bond money that could be spent on studies, planning and engineering work instead of construction. In addition, it would require the state's high-speed rail board to have a detailed funding plan in place for each segment of the system before awarding a construction contract for that segment.
The board has recommended that California link its major cities with trains running at top speeds of more than 200 mph as a way to ease increasing congestion on freeways and at airports.
In addition to Los Angeles and San Francisco, the trains would reach Sacramento, Fresno, San Jose, Oakland, Irvine, Riverside and San Diego. The $40 billion rail network would be built during a 20-year period.
In January, when he released his state budget proposals, Schwarzenegger dropped a request that lawmakers delay a vote on the bonds a third time. But he said he wanted legislation requiring the rail board to identify federal and private funding to help finance the project before moving ahead with construction.
Sabrina Lockhart, a spokeswoman for Schwarzenegger, said Thursday that the administration worked with the rail board to draft the Galgiani and Ma bill.
"As it stands today, it addresses the concerns the governor outlined in his budget proposals," she said. "We are happy that this legislation has been introduced, and we'll be monitoring the bill as it makes its way through the Legislature."
Ma and Mehdi Morshed, the rail board's executive director, said the bill could broaden public support for the bonds by allowing all areas served by the project to compete for money.
The bill would require the board to give top priority for bond funding to segments of the project that could attract the most federal, local government or private financing and that also could be used by other passenger trains.
But those commuter train systems would have to use the same equipment as high-speed rail to mesh with the faster train service once it began, Morshed said.
5. Legislative Bill Updates
AB X1 1 (Nunez) The Health Care Security and Cost Reduction Act
Status: FAILED
Summary: Relates to the Health Care Cost and Quality Transparency Committee, requiring residents to enroll in and maintain minimum health care coverage, the Cooperative Health Insurance Purchasing Program, the Healthy Action Incentives and Rewards Program, Medi-Cal hospital rate stabilization, health insurance market reforms, health care service plans' prescription drug benefits, employer cafeteria plans, a diabetes services program, medical assistants, nurse practitioners, and electronic prescribing.
AB 2127 (Benoit) Small Business Family Scheduling Option Act of 2008
Status: Assembly Labor and Employment Committee, 04/09/2008 1:30 pm
Summary: AB 2127 (Benoit) would allow small businesses to agree to provide scheduling options for an employee that requests it to help accommodate employees' diverse family obligations, personal pursuits, commuting issues and environmental concerns. This proposed new law will apply exclusively to small businesses with 25 or fewer employees by adding this option to Labor code 511.
AB 2127 establishes a voluntary, employee-driven process where the employee of a small business can request, and their employer may mutually agree, to a 4-day compressed workweek schedule or to work a 9/80 schedule.
AB 2716 (Ma) Employment: Paid Sick Leave
Status: Assembly Labor and Employment Committee, 04/09/2008 1:30 pm
Summary: This bill would provide that an employee who works in California for 7 or more days in a calendar year is entitled to paid sick time, which shall be accrued at a rate of no less than one hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours worked.
Allows a worker to use paid sick time for up to 40 hours or 5 days in each calendar year for workers of small businesses, and 72 hours or 9 days per calendar year for all other workers. An employee would be entitled to use accrued sick time beginning on the 90th calendar day of employment.
Requires employers to provide paid sick time, upon the request of the employee, for diagnosis, care, or treatment of health conditions of the employee or an employee's family member, or for leave related to domestic violence or sexual assault. An employer would be prohibited from discriminating or retaliating against an employee who requests paid sick time.
Would require employers to satisfy specified posting and notice, and recordkeeping requirements.