The legislature in Sacramento is still out but that doesn't change the fact that at some point they'll be back and our business members need our advocacy more than ever. Especially critical when you hear about some of the gut-and-amend bills happening right now like AB 828, which would irreparably harm every landlord in California.
Item # 1b - August 24th City Council Meeting Minutesahcitycouncil
The August 24, 2020 City Council meeting of Alamo Heights discussed:
1) Approving the minutes from the previous meeting and the renewal of contracts with the emergency medical services director and the neighboring cities for emergency services.
2) Amending parking restrictions on Patterson Avenue based on a resident's request, with proposed changes to increase the two-hour parking section and reduce the no parking section.
3) Announcements about upcoming budget, tax rate, and bond election meetings. No citizens signed up to speak.
The Southwest California Legislative Council meeting agenda summarizes the following:
1. The meeting will be held on Monday, May 22, 2017 at the Realtor House in Murrieta. The chair is Don Murray.
2. The agenda includes discussions on strategic initiatives, approval of previous meeting minutes, and legislative reports.
3. A guest speaker, Cherise Manning from the Temecula Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau, will present. There will also be speaker and chamber announcements before adjourning and announcing the next meeting on June 19, 2017.
The Southwest California Legislative Council is an advocacy coalition comprised of representative members of the Temecula Valley, Murrieta, Wildomar, Menifee Valley, Lake Elsinore Valley and Perris Valley Chambers of Commerce representing more than 3,500 employers dedicated to promoting job growth, economic expansion, and preserving the overall global competitiveness of California.
The meeting agenda discusses strategic initiatives and legislative items to be addressed. The agenda includes a chair report, approval of previous meeting minutes, and nine legislative items to be discussed. A guest speaker will provide an update on California's drought conditions. Various chamber of commerce representatives will provide announcements. The next meeting is scheduled for May 22, 2017.
How to File a Flood Claim with the National Flood Insurance ProgramNielsen & Treas LLC
The legal team at Nielsen & Treas LLC leverages over 30 years of experience to provide clients with support in constitutional, statutory, regulatory and insurance issues. In particular, Nielsen & Treas LLC is familiar with advising clients about the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The document discusses external sources of revenue for Local Government Units (LGUs) in the Philippines. The major external sources discussed are: 1) Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA), which allocates 40% of national tax revenues to LGUs, 2) Shares of national wealth such as mining and forestry revenues, 3) Shares from government agencies and corporations operating in their jurisdictions, and 4) Credit financing options such as loans from domestic banks and bonds. LGUs have increased financing power under the Local Government Code of 1991 to fund infrastructure and services.
Example Movebubble Rentsign Rental AgreementMovebubble
This document is an assured shorthold tenancy agreement between Joe Blogs (the owner) and Annie Smith, Steve Jones, and Jonathan Doe (the renters) for rental of the property located at 123 Example Road, London, N1 6AD. The initial term is 12 months from June 1, 2014 to May 31, 2015, with rent of £1500 per month and a security deposit of £2000. The agreement defines various key terms, obligations of the renters to pay rent and other costs on time, maintain the property, and use it appropriately, and other standard lease provisions.
Item # 1b - August 24th City Council Meeting Minutesahcitycouncil
The August 24, 2020 City Council meeting of Alamo Heights discussed:
1) Approving the minutes from the previous meeting and the renewal of contracts with the emergency medical services director and the neighboring cities for emergency services.
2) Amending parking restrictions on Patterson Avenue based on a resident's request, with proposed changes to increase the two-hour parking section and reduce the no parking section.
3) Announcements about upcoming budget, tax rate, and bond election meetings. No citizens signed up to speak.
The Southwest California Legislative Council meeting agenda summarizes the following:
1. The meeting will be held on Monday, May 22, 2017 at the Realtor House in Murrieta. The chair is Don Murray.
2. The agenda includes discussions on strategic initiatives, approval of previous meeting minutes, and legislative reports.
3. A guest speaker, Cherise Manning from the Temecula Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau, will present. There will also be speaker and chamber announcements before adjourning and announcing the next meeting on June 19, 2017.
The Southwest California Legislative Council is an advocacy coalition comprised of representative members of the Temecula Valley, Murrieta, Wildomar, Menifee Valley, Lake Elsinore Valley and Perris Valley Chambers of Commerce representing more than 3,500 employers dedicated to promoting job growth, economic expansion, and preserving the overall global competitiveness of California.
The meeting agenda discusses strategic initiatives and legislative items to be addressed. The agenda includes a chair report, approval of previous meeting minutes, and nine legislative items to be discussed. A guest speaker will provide an update on California's drought conditions. Various chamber of commerce representatives will provide announcements. The next meeting is scheduled for May 22, 2017.
How to File a Flood Claim with the National Flood Insurance ProgramNielsen & Treas LLC
The legal team at Nielsen & Treas LLC leverages over 30 years of experience to provide clients with support in constitutional, statutory, regulatory and insurance issues. In particular, Nielsen & Treas LLC is familiar with advising clients about the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The document discusses external sources of revenue for Local Government Units (LGUs) in the Philippines. The major external sources discussed are: 1) Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA), which allocates 40% of national tax revenues to LGUs, 2) Shares of national wealth such as mining and forestry revenues, 3) Shares from government agencies and corporations operating in their jurisdictions, and 4) Credit financing options such as loans from domestic banks and bonds. LGUs have increased financing power under the Local Government Code of 1991 to fund infrastructure and services.
Example Movebubble Rentsign Rental AgreementMovebubble
This document is an assured shorthold tenancy agreement between Joe Blogs (the owner) and Annie Smith, Steve Jones, and Jonathan Doe (the renters) for rental of the property located at 123 Example Road, London, N1 6AD. The initial term is 12 months from June 1, 2014 to May 31, 2015, with rent of £1500 per month and a security deposit of £2000. The agreement defines various key terms, obligations of the renters to pay rent and other costs on time, maintain the property, and use it appropriately, and other standard lease provisions.
This document provides APPEA's submission regarding the Mineral and Energy Resources (Common Provisions) Bill 2014 to the Agriculture, Resources and Energy Committee. It discusses key issues and proposed amendments to chapters in the bill relating to dealings, caveats, associated agreements, land access provisions, restricted land, gas emissions, overlapping tenure and incidental coal seam gas. Specifically, it notes the importance of regulations not yet released, potential drafting errors, issues with transitional provisions, land access provisions and notifications, and liability and agreement recording requirements. The submission aims to ensure a world class regulatory framework that encourages economic development and regulatory confidence.
Enforcement changes under Queensland’s vegetation clearing lawsDeveloping InSight
This Developing InSight deals with the enhanced compliance and enforcement measures under the Vegetation Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 (VMOLA Bill).
A guide to the ontario residential tenancies actRyan
The document provides a summary of Ontario's Residential Tenancies Act which outlines the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants. It discusses topics such as rent, maintenance and repairs, entering rental units, ending tenancies, and more. The Landlord and Tenant Board resolves disputes between landlords and tenants through mediation or adjudication. The Act applies to most rental units including apartments, houses, rooms in rooming houses, care homes, retirement homes, and sites in mobile home parks.
This document amends Virginia code to allow localities to establish stormwater control programs and charge fees. It allows fees to fund stormwater facilities and activities, including construction, maintenance, monitoring, and pollution control. It specifies that fees can be assessed to property owners based on stormwater runoff contributions. It also allows localities to issue bonds to finance stormwater infrastructure and provides for unpaid fee collection.
The Supreme Court of Connecticut held that construction companies do not owe a duty of care to workers at a construction site who suffered purely economic losses, such as lost wages, due to an accident caused by the companies' alleged negligence. The Court examined four public policy factors and found that all four factors favored not recognizing a duty in this situation. Specifically, the Court found that the normal expectations of participants, the policy of encouraging industry participation while ensuring safety, avoiding increased litigation, and decisions from other jurisdictions all indicated a duty should not be owed for purely economic harm resulting from negligence.
The Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 was passed in response to a mine explosion that killed 78 miners. The Act strengthened safety and health standards in coal mines, required annual inspections of underground mines, gave miners the right to request inspections, and provided benefits to miners disabled by black lung disease. It established a federal program administered by HEW and the Department of Labor to provide monthly cash benefits to miners disabled by black lung disease and their dependents. Claims filed before 1973 would be covered by HEW, while later claims would come under state workers' compensation programs approved by the Department of Labor. The Act aimed to improve coal mine safety and support miners suffering from pneumoconiosis, also known as black lung disease
The document provides details of a Southwest California Legislative Council meeting agenda and minutes. The agenda lists legislative items to be discussed, including bills related to taxation, healthcare, the environment, and other topics. During the meeting, council members discussed and took positions on the legislative items, with most bills receiving an "oppose" position.
The Southwest California Legislative Council met on May 18, 2020 to discuss several legislative items and initiatives. The meeting agenda included a chair report, approval of previous meeting minutes, and discussion of 10 legislative bills. The bills covered topics such as unemployment benefits, property assessments, worker status, community emissions reduction programs, and the California Environmental Quality Act. The council also heard from a speaker about available COVID-19 business relief programs before adjourning and announcing their next meeting on June 15.
Real_Estate_Regulations_in_Turkey-BeachheadTurkeyJVM. Naci Tekin
This document provides an overview of real estate regulations in Turkey. It discusses several key laws and regulations, including:
1. The Law on Amendments to Various Provisions of the Law on Land Registry and the Law on Land Survey, which increases the amount of land a foreign person can own and allows foreign companies to own land indirectly through Turkish companies.
2. The Law on Redevelopment of Areas Under Disaster Risk, which aims to redevelop high-risk areas and allows for higher density development.
3. Requirements for foreign citizens and companies to own land in Turkey, which include obtaining necessary permits if the land is in restricted areas and preparing a development plan for undeveloped land.
The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission's Final Implementation Order for Chapter 23 of Act 13, otherwise known as the shale gas impact fee. These are the guidelines the PUC will use to collect and disburse monies from Marcellus Shale drillers in PA.
A wrap-up of our 2021 legislative session with special guests California state Senator Melissa Melendez and U.S. Chamber Western Region V.P. Jennings Immel
House Bill 2001 eliminates single-family zoning in Oregon, requiring cities over 25,000 people to allow duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and cottage clusters where only single-family homes were previously allowed. Senate Bill 608 limits annual rent increases to 7% plus inflation, prohibits no-cause evictions after the first year, and requires landlords to pay one month's rent in relocation expenses for certain evictions. The bills attempt to address Oregon's housing shortage and affordability crisis by increasing housing supply under HB 2001 and tenant protections under SB 608, though they remain controversial with differing perspectives between tenants and landlords.
Materi anti korupsi singkat english versionDaned Aditia
The document summarizes Indonesia's anti-corruption laws and the Corruption Eradication Commission's (KPK) enforcement efforts. It outlines the KPK's duties of enforcement, prevention, and public involvement. It then describes the seven types of corruption crimes according to Indonesian law and provides data on the types of corruption cases handled by the KPK from 2004 to 2019, with the majority being bribery and illegal gratification cases. The document proceeds to summarize several key articles from Indonesia's anti-corruption laws related to bribery, illegal gratification, extortion, and acts causing state financial losses.
The document summarizes the key changes and improvements in the 2006 ALTA title insurance policy forms which replaced the 1992 forms. The 2006 forms provide expanded covered risks and definitions. Some key changes include expanded definitions of insured parties, automatic gap coverage from the date of the policy to recording, and additional covered risks like matters affecting title that would be discovered by an accurate survey.
Flood liability and public authorities
Will Thomas 2 – 4
An employer’s right to snoop?
Sarah Hooton 5 - 8
European Single Procurement Document
Jennifer Grigg and Lynne Rathbone 9 - 10
Just the starting point…
Angela Konteas 11 - 12
New penalty clause test
Lynne Rathbone 13 – 16
CASTA
Angelica Hymers 17 - 18
This bill proposes several measures to provide relief for homeowners, tenants, and consumers during the COVID-19 emergency period and 180 days after. It would prohibit lenders from initiating foreclosures or evictions during this time. It would require lenders to provide up to 180 days of forbearance on mortgage payments for borrowers experiencing financial hardship, and to extend that period if hardship continues. It would also place restrictions on lenders related to foreclosure proceedings, recording notices of default, and misleading borrowers about forbearance options. Opponents argue it imposes overly burdensome obligations on lenders and could jeopardize future credit availability.
The Southwest California Legislative Council meeting agenda summarizes several bills related to independent contractor status that will be considered for support. The meeting will take place on February 24, 2020 in Murrieta, California and will discuss the 2020 strategic initiatives and legislative priorities of budget reform, job creation, healthcare, infrastructure, and public safety. The agenda provides details on several bills that seek to carve out exemptions to California's AB 5 law governing independent contractor status for various industries and professions.
The report summarizes the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on eviction procedures in Ottawa County, Michigan from March 2020 through November 2020. Key developments include executive orders halting most evictions, the Eviction Diversion Program providing rental assistance to help tenants avoid eviction, and a CDC moratorium on evictions through December 2020. The Eviction Diversion Program administered through local housing agencies has been very successful, providing assistance to hundreds of households in Ottawa County and helping to resolve many pending eviction cases in the 58th District Court.
1.The following clause was added to the Food and Drug Actthe S.docxcroysierkathey
1.The following clause was added to the Food and Drug Act:
“the Secretary [of the Food and Drug Administration] shall not approve for use in food any chemical additive found to induce cancer in man, or, after tests, found to induce cancer in animals.”
After this clause was adopted, no new additives could be approved for use in food if they caused cancer in people or animals.
The public loved this and industry hated it.
What do you think of this clause? Do you support it or do you oppose it?
At the top of your post, please indicate SUPPORT or OPPOSE and then give your rationale. Then after you can view your classmates' posts, make your case to your fellow students.
2.There was a law that individuals who were indigent and who wished to litigate could apply to the courts for a total waiver of the normal filing fee. In the legislative session, however, a statute was enacted which limits the courts' authority to waive filing fees in lawsuits brought by prisoners against the state government.
Under this new law, a court has to require the prisoner to pay a filing fee "equal to 20 percent ... of the average monthly deposits made to the prisoner's [prison] account ... or the average balance in that account", whichever is greater (unless this calculation yields a figure larger than the normal filing fee).
A prisoner (who was indigent) wanted to appeal his case and was to be charged this fee. He filed suit claiming it was unconstitutional to charge this fee to prisoners.
Choose the side of the prisoner or the side of the state and tell why you would rule for the side you chose.
At the top of your post, please indicate SUPPORT PRISONER or OPPOSE PRISONER and then give your rationale. After you can view your classmates' posts, make your case to your fellow students.
3.A defendant pleaded guilty to receiving and possessing child pornography and was sentenced to 108 months in prison. The sentencing judge raised the defendant’s base offense level….by two levels because "a computer was used for the transmission" of the illegal material.
The appeal filed challenged the punishment enhancement (not his guilt of the base punishment.)
The defendant argued the law did not apply to him because he did not use a computer to transmit the material. (ie He was the receiver, not the sender, of the child pornography.)
Do you believe that the sentence enhancement should be upheld? Give an economic analysis and rational for your choice.
At the top of your post, please indicate SENTENCE UPHELD or SENTENCE REVERSED and then give your economic analysis/rationale. After you can view your classmates' posts, make your case to your fellow students.
4.The ordinance was enacted that gives tenants more legal rights including:
the payment of interest on security deposits;
requires that those deposits be held in Illinois banks;
allows (with some limitations) a tenant to withhold rent in an amount reflecting the cost to him of the landlord's v.
King county-superior-court-order-on-rha-v-city-of-seattle-22421Roger Valdez
This order denies the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and grants the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. It finds that the three Seattle ordinances establishing defenses to eviction due to financial hardship during COVID-19 do not conflict with state law and are therefore not preempted. While the ordinance provision staying late fees is preempted, the rest can be harmonized with state eviction statutes as establishing substantive defenses rather than conflicting with the statutes' procedural framework. Controlling Washington precedent has established that the state eviction laws provide only procedures, not substantive rights, so local governments can permissibly provide additional defenses.
This document summarizes a study note on the Inheritance Act 1975 regarding dependents and delay. It discusses two recent court cases - Lilleyman v Lilleyman (2012) and Berger v Berger (2013). Lilleyman v Lilleyman involved determining reasonable financial provision for a spouse where the marriage was short. The court had to consider factors like needs, contributions, and the size of the estate. Berger v Berger provided guidance for when applications under the Act are made out of time. The document also discusses provisions for dependents, delay in applications, and dispositions intended to defeat applications.
This document is a settlement agreement between Sharon Logan, Paw Protectors Inc. and Orange County Animal Care regarding a lawsuit concerning OCAC's animal impoundment policies and practices. Key terms of the settlement include: OCAC will not euthanize animals within statutory holding periods except under specific circumstances; OCAC will release animals to rescue groups prior to euthanasia under certain conditions; OCAC will amend some of its internal policies; OCAC will provide monthly documentation on euthanized animals to Plaintiffs for review; and the court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement until November 2017. Both parties agree to dismiss the lawsuit and release all claims against each other regarding the matters in the complaint.
This document provides APPEA's submission regarding the Mineral and Energy Resources (Common Provisions) Bill 2014 to the Agriculture, Resources and Energy Committee. It discusses key issues and proposed amendments to chapters in the bill relating to dealings, caveats, associated agreements, land access provisions, restricted land, gas emissions, overlapping tenure and incidental coal seam gas. Specifically, it notes the importance of regulations not yet released, potential drafting errors, issues with transitional provisions, land access provisions and notifications, and liability and agreement recording requirements. The submission aims to ensure a world class regulatory framework that encourages economic development and regulatory confidence.
Enforcement changes under Queensland’s vegetation clearing lawsDeveloping InSight
This Developing InSight deals with the enhanced compliance and enforcement measures under the Vegetation Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 (VMOLA Bill).
A guide to the ontario residential tenancies actRyan
The document provides a summary of Ontario's Residential Tenancies Act which outlines the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants. It discusses topics such as rent, maintenance and repairs, entering rental units, ending tenancies, and more. The Landlord and Tenant Board resolves disputes between landlords and tenants through mediation or adjudication. The Act applies to most rental units including apartments, houses, rooms in rooming houses, care homes, retirement homes, and sites in mobile home parks.
This document amends Virginia code to allow localities to establish stormwater control programs and charge fees. It allows fees to fund stormwater facilities and activities, including construction, maintenance, monitoring, and pollution control. It specifies that fees can be assessed to property owners based on stormwater runoff contributions. It also allows localities to issue bonds to finance stormwater infrastructure and provides for unpaid fee collection.
The Supreme Court of Connecticut held that construction companies do not owe a duty of care to workers at a construction site who suffered purely economic losses, such as lost wages, due to an accident caused by the companies' alleged negligence. The Court examined four public policy factors and found that all four factors favored not recognizing a duty in this situation. Specifically, the Court found that the normal expectations of participants, the policy of encouraging industry participation while ensuring safety, avoiding increased litigation, and decisions from other jurisdictions all indicated a duty should not be owed for purely economic harm resulting from negligence.
The Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 was passed in response to a mine explosion that killed 78 miners. The Act strengthened safety and health standards in coal mines, required annual inspections of underground mines, gave miners the right to request inspections, and provided benefits to miners disabled by black lung disease. It established a federal program administered by HEW and the Department of Labor to provide monthly cash benefits to miners disabled by black lung disease and their dependents. Claims filed before 1973 would be covered by HEW, while later claims would come under state workers' compensation programs approved by the Department of Labor. The Act aimed to improve coal mine safety and support miners suffering from pneumoconiosis, also known as black lung disease
The document provides details of a Southwest California Legislative Council meeting agenda and minutes. The agenda lists legislative items to be discussed, including bills related to taxation, healthcare, the environment, and other topics. During the meeting, council members discussed and took positions on the legislative items, with most bills receiving an "oppose" position.
The Southwest California Legislative Council met on May 18, 2020 to discuss several legislative items and initiatives. The meeting agenda included a chair report, approval of previous meeting minutes, and discussion of 10 legislative bills. The bills covered topics such as unemployment benefits, property assessments, worker status, community emissions reduction programs, and the California Environmental Quality Act. The council also heard from a speaker about available COVID-19 business relief programs before adjourning and announcing their next meeting on June 15.
Real_Estate_Regulations_in_Turkey-BeachheadTurkeyJVM. Naci Tekin
This document provides an overview of real estate regulations in Turkey. It discusses several key laws and regulations, including:
1. The Law on Amendments to Various Provisions of the Law on Land Registry and the Law on Land Survey, which increases the amount of land a foreign person can own and allows foreign companies to own land indirectly through Turkish companies.
2. The Law on Redevelopment of Areas Under Disaster Risk, which aims to redevelop high-risk areas and allows for higher density development.
3. Requirements for foreign citizens and companies to own land in Turkey, which include obtaining necessary permits if the land is in restricted areas and preparing a development plan for undeveloped land.
The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission's Final Implementation Order for Chapter 23 of Act 13, otherwise known as the shale gas impact fee. These are the guidelines the PUC will use to collect and disburse monies from Marcellus Shale drillers in PA.
A wrap-up of our 2021 legislative session with special guests California state Senator Melissa Melendez and U.S. Chamber Western Region V.P. Jennings Immel
House Bill 2001 eliminates single-family zoning in Oregon, requiring cities over 25,000 people to allow duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and cottage clusters where only single-family homes were previously allowed. Senate Bill 608 limits annual rent increases to 7% plus inflation, prohibits no-cause evictions after the first year, and requires landlords to pay one month's rent in relocation expenses for certain evictions. The bills attempt to address Oregon's housing shortage and affordability crisis by increasing housing supply under HB 2001 and tenant protections under SB 608, though they remain controversial with differing perspectives between tenants and landlords.
Materi anti korupsi singkat english versionDaned Aditia
The document summarizes Indonesia's anti-corruption laws and the Corruption Eradication Commission's (KPK) enforcement efforts. It outlines the KPK's duties of enforcement, prevention, and public involvement. It then describes the seven types of corruption crimes according to Indonesian law and provides data on the types of corruption cases handled by the KPK from 2004 to 2019, with the majority being bribery and illegal gratification cases. The document proceeds to summarize several key articles from Indonesia's anti-corruption laws related to bribery, illegal gratification, extortion, and acts causing state financial losses.
The document summarizes the key changes and improvements in the 2006 ALTA title insurance policy forms which replaced the 1992 forms. The 2006 forms provide expanded covered risks and definitions. Some key changes include expanded definitions of insured parties, automatic gap coverage from the date of the policy to recording, and additional covered risks like matters affecting title that would be discovered by an accurate survey.
Flood liability and public authorities
Will Thomas 2 – 4
An employer’s right to snoop?
Sarah Hooton 5 - 8
European Single Procurement Document
Jennifer Grigg and Lynne Rathbone 9 - 10
Just the starting point…
Angela Konteas 11 - 12
New penalty clause test
Lynne Rathbone 13 – 16
CASTA
Angelica Hymers 17 - 18
This bill proposes several measures to provide relief for homeowners, tenants, and consumers during the COVID-19 emergency period and 180 days after. It would prohibit lenders from initiating foreclosures or evictions during this time. It would require lenders to provide up to 180 days of forbearance on mortgage payments for borrowers experiencing financial hardship, and to extend that period if hardship continues. It would also place restrictions on lenders related to foreclosure proceedings, recording notices of default, and misleading borrowers about forbearance options. Opponents argue it imposes overly burdensome obligations on lenders and could jeopardize future credit availability.
The Southwest California Legislative Council meeting agenda summarizes several bills related to independent contractor status that will be considered for support. The meeting will take place on February 24, 2020 in Murrieta, California and will discuss the 2020 strategic initiatives and legislative priorities of budget reform, job creation, healthcare, infrastructure, and public safety. The agenda provides details on several bills that seek to carve out exemptions to California's AB 5 law governing independent contractor status for various industries and professions.
The report summarizes the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on eviction procedures in Ottawa County, Michigan from March 2020 through November 2020. Key developments include executive orders halting most evictions, the Eviction Diversion Program providing rental assistance to help tenants avoid eviction, and a CDC moratorium on evictions through December 2020. The Eviction Diversion Program administered through local housing agencies has been very successful, providing assistance to hundreds of households in Ottawa County and helping to resolve many pending eviction cases in the 58th District Court.
1.The following clause was added to the Food and Drug Actthe S.docxcroysierkathey
1.The following clause was added to the Food and Drug Act:
“the Secretary [of the Food and Drug Administration] shall not approve for use in food any chemical additive found to induce cancer in man, or, after tests, found to induce cancer in animals.”
After this clause was adopted, no new additives could be approved for use in food if they caused cancer in people or animals.
The public loved this and industry hated it.
What do you think of this clause? Do you support it or do you oppose it?
At the top of your post, please indicate SUPPORT or OPPOSE and then give your rationale. Then after you can view your classmates' posts, make your case to your fellow students.
2.There was a law that individuals who were indigent and who wished to litigate could apply to the courts for a total waiver of the normal filing fee. In the legislative session, however, a statute was enacted which limits the courts' authority to waive filing fees in lawsuits brought by prisoners against the state government.
Under this new law, a court has to require the prisoner to pay a filing fee "equal to 20 percent ... of the average monthly deposits made to the prisoner's [prison] account ... or the average balance in that account", whichever is greater (unless this calculation yields a figure larger than the normal filing fee).
A prisoner (who was indigent) wanted to appeal his case and was to be charged this fee. He filed suit claiming it was unconstitutional to charge this fee to prisoners.
Choose the side of the prisoner or the side of the state and tell why you would rule for the side you chose.
At the top of your post, please indicate SUPPORT PRISONER or OPPOSE PRISONER and then give your rationale. After you can view your classmates' posts, make your case to your fellow students.
3.A defendant pleaded guilty to receiving and possessing child pornography and was sentenced to 108 months in prison. The sentencing judge raised the defendant’s base offense level….by two levels because "a computer was used for the transmission" of the illegal material.
The appeal filed challenged the punishment enhancement (not his guilt of the base punishment.)
The defendant argued the law did not apply to him because he did not use a computer to transmit the material. (ie He was the receiver, not the sender, of the child pornography.)
Do you believe that the sentence enhancement should be upheld? Give an economic analysis and rational for your choice.
At the top of your post, please indicate SENTENCE UPHELD or SENTENCE REVERSED and then give your economic analysis/rationale. After you can view your classmates' posts, make your case to your fellow students.
4.The ordinance was enacted that gives tenants more legal rights including:
the payment of interest on security deposits;
requires that those deposits be held in Illinois banks;
allows (with some limitations) a tenant to withhold rent in an amount reflecting the cost to him of the landlord's v.
King county-superior-court-order-on-rha-v-city-of-seattle-22421Roger Valdez
This order denies the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and grants the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. It finds that the three Seattle ordinances establishing defenses to eviction due to financial hardship during COVID-19 do not conflict with state law and are therefore not preempted. While the ordinance provision staying late fees is preempted, the rest can be harmonized with state eviction statutes as establishing substantive defenses rather than conflicting with the statutes' procedural framework. Controlling Washington precedent has established that the state eviction laws provide only procedures, not substantive rights, so local governments can permissibly provide additional defenses.
This document summarizes a study note on the Inheritance Act 1975 regarding dependents and delay. It discusses two recent court cases - Lilleyman v Lilleyman (2012) and Berger v Berger (2013). Lilleyman v Lilleyman involved determining reasonable financial provision for a spouse where the marriage was short. The court had to consider factors like needs, contributions, and the size of the estate. Berger v Berger provided guidance for when applications under the Act are made out of time. The document also discusses provisions for dependents, delay in applications, and dispositions intended to defeat applications.
This document is a settlement agreement between Sharon Logan, Paw Protectors Inc. and Orange County Animal Care regarding a lawsuit concerning OCAC's animal impoundment policies and practices. Key terms of the settlement include: OCAC will not euthanize animals within statutory holding periods except under specific circumstances; OCAC will release animals to rescue groups prior to euthanasia under certain conditions; OCAC will amend some of its internal policies; OCAC will provide monthly documentation on euthanized animals to Plaintiffs for review; and the court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement until November 2017. Both parties agree to dismiss the lawsuit and release all claims against each other regarding the matters in the complaint.
This document is a settlement agreement between Sharon Logan, Paw Protectors Inc. and Orange County Animal Care regarding a lawsuit concerning OCAC's animal impoundment policies and practices. Key terms of the settlement include: 1) OCAC will not euthanize animals within statutory holding periods except under specific circumstances; 2) OCAC will release stray animals to rescue groups prior to euthanasia under certain conditions; and 3) OCAC will amend some of its policies per the parties' agreement. The agreement also establishes procedures for Plaintiffs to review OCAC records regarding euthanized animals and allows the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement until October 2017.
The document discusses key changes to landlord-tenant law in New York resulting from the passage of the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (HSTPA). It focuses on how the HSTPA has impacted nonpayment eviction proceedings by tenants. Specifically, it examines the traditional "good cause" standard tenants must meet to stay an eviction warrant under RPAPL §749(3), and explores how a new provision under RPAPL §753 allowing tenants to claim "extreme hardship" may provide an additional avenue of relief in such proceedings. The article aims to guide practitioners on navigating nonpayment evictions in light of the new law.
This document requests changes to an eviction ban extension beyond June 4, 2020. It proposes allowing eviction of tenants with income who choose not to pay rent (elective non-payers), and excluding them from the moratorium. It also calls for quantifying and qualifying COVID-19 related rent delinquency across different types of residents and negotiating compensation for housing providers through direct payments or property tax relief from recovery funds. A survey of nearly 4,000 units found the problem of elective non-payers not paying rent is growing exponentially and could cause a crisis if the blanket eviction ban continues.
This document discusses terminating residential tenancies and navigating evictions in 2022. It outlines the proper notice requirements for terminating month-to-month and fixed term tenancies. It also discusses limitations on terminating tenancies, including just cause requirements in the City of San Diego and under the Tenant Protection Act of 2019. The document provides guidance on serving notices, calculating notice periods, and limitations during the notice period. It concludes with an overview of the unlawful detainer process for uncontested and contested evictions.
Order Denying Injunction Against CDC Eviction BanRoger Valdez
This order addresses a motion for preliminary injunction against the CDC's nationwide eviction moratorium. The order provides background on the COVID-19 pandemic and measures taken, including eviction moratoria. It describes the plaintiffs, who are landlords seeking to evict tenants for nonpayment of rent. It also outlines the requirements to qualify for protection under the CDC moratorium. The order analyzes the motion under the four-part test for preliminary injunctions, considering the plaintiffs' likelihood of success, irreparable injury, balance of harms, and the public interest. It notes defendants challenge plaintiffs' standing and argue failure to join indispensable parties.
This document provides a summary of a presentation on loan modification and bankruptcy basics that was given at the National Conference of Vietnamese American Attorneys. It includes information on foreclosure timelines, proposed foreclosure legislation, bankruptcy chapters and differences between Chapter 7 and Chapter 13, common exemptions, ethical obligations for attorneys, and other bankruptcy topics. Key details on the foreclosure process, loan modification requirements, and differences between bankruptcy chapters are outlined.
The Los Angeles County Eviction Moratorium bans evictions for nonpayment of rent from March 4 to June 30, 2020 if tenants can show financial hardship due to COVID-19. It prohibits evictions for nonpayment, no-fault reasons, and COVID-19 violations. Rent increases are prohibited for rent-stabilized and mobilehome units. Tenants have up to 12 months after the moratorium to repay past due rent. Landlords must accept self-certifications of hardship and cannot harass tenants exercising their rights. Tenants should notify landlords within 7 days if unable to pay and are encouraged to pay partial rent if able. The protections apply to residential, commercial, and mobilehome tenants unless in
SWK 597 Week 10. civil lawsuits and other mattersTAMUCSocialWork
The document provides information about various civil law matters that social workers may encounter, including evictions, foreclosures, bankruptcy, and legal aid programs. It discusses the eviction process, noting landlords are required to provide written notice before filing an eviction case in court. Foreclosure follows a three step process beginning with a notice of default, then notice of sale, and finally the foreclosure sale. Loss mitigation options like loan modifications can help prevent foreclosure. Bankruptcy laws provide options under different chapters for individuals, municipalities, businesses, and cross-border cases.
EOUSA 445& -·- .. . . ;;-I[! IN THE UNITED STATTanaMaeskm
EOUSA 445
& -·- ..
. .
;;-I[!�
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4PJ? l. I) FOR THE SOUTHERN DIST.RICT OF ll..LINOIS � �1'\�- :< �
�o"!JJt�t;f!{flf
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) �� �.:t;.I:J�8J'_e:. .
) ��
Plaintiff,
vs.
)
� CRIMINAL NO. O'J.-.8(J()t./0-6fH
)
BDO SEIDMAN, LLP, a New York
Limited .Liability Partnership,
)
) )
Defendant. )
PRETRIAL DIVERSION AGREEMENT
It appearing that you are reported to have committed an offense agrunst the United States beginning
in or about October 1995 and continuing to and including January 8, 1998, in violation of Title 18, U�ted
States Code, Secti�n 4, in that you are r�ported to have engaged in a misprision of a felony as set forth in
the subject Information attached hereto and incorporated by reference as EXhibit A.
UJ:lon accepting responsibility for your behavior as set .forth in the "Stipulation ofF acts" and by your
authorized signature on this Agreement. it appearing, after an investigation ofthe offense. that the interest
of the United States and your own interest and the interests of justice will be served by the following
procedure, therefore:
On the authorlly �fthe United States Attorney �or the Southern District ofiDinois and the Criminal
Division, U.S. Departme�t ofJustice, prosecution in the Southern District ofDlinoisforthis offense shall be
deferred for a period of 18 months or the last payment, whichever is later, from this date, provided you abide
by the following conditions and the requirements oftbe program set out below.
Should you violate the. conditions of this supervision. the �overnment may revoke or modify any
conditions of this pretrial diversion program or change the period of supervision which shall in no case exceed
EOUSA 446
18 months or the last payment date, �hichever is later. The government may release you from supervision
at any time. The government may at any time within the period of your supel"'/ision inmate proseCI.rtion for
this offense against BDO should you vi�late the terms of this Agreement as set forth hereinbelow. In this
case, the government will :furnish you with notice specifying the conditions of the Agreement which you have
violated. The government may extend your tenn of supeivision if you fail to comply with all conditions.
If. upon completion of your period of supervision. a pretrial diversion report is received to the effect
that you have complied with all the rules, regulations and conditions above-mentioned. no criminal
prosecution for the offense set out above will be instituted in the Southern District ofDllnois or in the Ell.Stern
District of Missouri, and the Information will be discharged. The undersigned Assistant United States
Attorneys repres�nt that they have been authorized by the United States Attorney, s Office for the Eastern
District of:Missouri to make such representation on its behalf.
This agreement and all related documents may be released by the ...
Southwest Florida Attorneys Amanda Barritt and Shannon Puopolo of Henderson Franklin provided a spring legislative update and practical information for Community Associations on such issues as gate security, homeowner bankruptcy, collections, new electronic voting rules and pet accommodations (Note that the Proposed Legislation did not pass)
How the Coronavirus Eviction Ban Impacts LandlordsChuck Hattemer
Governor Gavin Newsom issued an executive order that authorizes local governments to pause evictions for renters.
The eviction restrictions go into effect immediately through May 31, 2020.
Tenants are still obligated to pay rent, and landlords can still recover rent that is due.
Check it here to deep dive in details: https://one.rent/aae5f
The document summarizes the key changes between the 1992 ALTA title insurance policy and the new 2006 ALTA title insurance policy. The 2006 policy introduces three new forms - an owner's policy, loan policy, and short form residential loan policy. It expands covered risks to include issues like defects caused by fraud or improper electronic document execution. It also automatically provides gap coverage from the date of the policy to recording.
This document is a proclamation by the Governor of Washington extending an eviction moratorium until August 1, 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. It summarizes previous proclamations and orders relating to the pandemic. It prohibits various eviction and late fee activities by landlords and limits rent increases. The intent is to prevent a wave of homelessness during this crisis and support tenants impacted financially by the pandemic.
Similar to Southwest California Legislative Council Agenda - April 2020 (20)
This bill places a statewide general obligation bond measure on the 2022 ballot to fund kindergarten through community college facilities. If approved by voters, it would provide $12 billion for new construction, modernization, career technical education, and charter school facilities. It establishes new programs, modifies matching requirements, expands costs covered by state funds, and increases the maximum bonding capacity for districts to qualify as financially hardships. The Southwest California Legislative Council recommends supporting this bill.
This document provides the agenda and minutes for a meeting of the Southwest California Legislative Council. The agenda includes a chair report, approval of previous meeting minutes, presentations from guest speakers on topics like the French Valley Airport tower and redistricting, and reviews of several proposed bills. Key items discussed in the minutes include a presentation from the District Attorney on prosecuting fentanyl drug dealers and legislation around bail reform and limiting the use of gang enhancements. The council took positions supporting or opposing various bills.
The document is a meeting agenda for the Southwest California Legislative Council on March 15, 2021. The agenda includes a call to order, roll call, chair report, approval of minutes, and consideration of 14 legislative items. The council will also receive announcements and adjourn, with the next meeting scheduled for April 19, 2021. The document provides details on the agenda items to be discussed at the upcoming meeting of the Southwest California Legislative Council.
The Southwest California Legislative Council provides advocacy for businesses in Southwest Riverside County. It was formed in 2005 as a coalition of four local chambers of commerce. The Council monitors thousands of bills introduced in the California legislature each year and takes positions to support legislation that benefits businesses and oppose legislation that harms businesses. It publishes annual vote records analyzing how local legislators voted on the Council's priority bills. The document provides details on the Council's 2021 strategic initiatives, bills it is tracking this year, and its 2020 vote record analysis.
The document summarizes demographic and housing market statistics for the Murrieta/Temecula region. It states that 70% of residents are young families or professionals, 40% have an associate degree or higher, and incomes are higher than county and state averages. Year-to-date single family home sales and median prices are up 11% and 15% respectively compared to the previous year. It also notes various challenges on the horizon such as the end of eviction moratoriums and forbearance programs and the potential impacts on inventory, foreclosures, and rental availability.
This bill proposes to prohibit business entities from making direct contributions to political campaigns and create a public financing system to fund elections instead. It argues this is needed to reduce corporate influence over politicians and ensure elected officials represent constituents rather than corporate interests. However, others argue direct contributions are already strictly limited by law and this bill does not address the largest campaign contributors like unions and tribes, only targeting corporations. It may also violate the Citizens United ruling that prohibits restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions.
The Southwest California Legislative Council voted to OPPOSE ACA 1, a proposed amendment to the California Constitution that would lower the voter threshold for local governments to finance affordable housing, public facilities, and infrastructure projects from two-thirds to 55%. The resolution would amend various sections of the state Constitution relating to local finance.
The housing market in Southwest California had a strong year in 2020 despite the pandemic shutdown. Sales volume was the highest since 2010 with over 11,000 homes sold. Median and average home prices reached new peaks, with 259 homes selling for over $1 million, up from 174 in 2019. However, inventory remains very low with only 598 homes currently for sale, the lowest level since 2012. The low inventory coupled with continued high demand is expected to sustain price appreciation in 2021, though new policies and economic impacts from the pandemic could influence the market.
The document provides an overview of housing market trends in Wildomar, California and the surrounding region. It discusses Wildomar demographics and economic data, and notes that 80% of Wildomar residents are homeowners. Housing sales data for Wildomar and nearby cities is presented, showing increases in median home prices between 7-15% from 2019 to 2020. The forecast predicts home sales will decline in 2020 but rebound in 2021, while prices continue a slow rise. The impacts of COVID-19 on remote working and its potential effects on the housing market are also summarized.
The meeting agenda summarizes an upcoming Southwest California Legislative Council meeting to be held on September 21, 2020 at the Realtor House in Murrieta. The agenda includes a chair report, approval of previous meeting minutes, a 2020 legislative report, and a guest speaker - Senator Melissa Melendez. The council will discuss 2020 strategic initiatives and legislative items including ballot propositions, the 2020 legislative session progress to date, and announcements from speakers and chambers.
The document provides an overview of demographic, housing market, and economic trends in Lake Elsinore, California. It notes that Lake Elsinore has experienced population growth and shifts towards younger residents in recent years. Housing demand has remained strong, with home sales down slightly in 2020 but prices continuing to rise. The forecast predicts a bounce back in home sales in 2021 while prices continue a slow climb. Remote work is changing housing preferences, with more demand for homes further from urban centers that allow larger spaces for both living and working. Retail and office spaces struggling due to COVID-19 may be converted to residential units. The document also briefly discusses state policies from the 2020 legislative session.
A comprehensive summary of the housing market in Southwest California where we're enjoying the strongest Seller's market in years in July. Sales posted their 2nd highest month in the past decade, up 17% over June and up 11% over last July. Median prices continued to climb as well, advancing 6% year-to-date. We are now measuring inventory of homes for sale in weeks, not months.
Need help figuring out what to do with the 12 propositions you'll face on your November ballot? Every year the Southwest California legislative Council assigns our members a measure to research and present. The Council debates the issue based on what impact it will have on our business community and recommends a position. As always, we encourage voters to do their own research and to that end we have a much more extensive document available with all the arguments pro and con, what your vote means, and follow the money.
Every year the Southwest California Legislative Council evaluates statewide ballot propositions to determine which might fall within the purview of our strategic initiatives and impact our business members. Council members select a proposition to research and deliver a presentation to the group followed by discussion and a vote to recommend a YES vote, a NO vote, or NO POSITION. Here are the group's recommendation on the 12 measures you'll see on our November ballot.
Detailed information courtesy of BallotPedia.
During this time of crisis does it really make sense to deprive laid off California workers of an opportunity to make a living as temporary, gig economy workers? The Wall Street Journal has praised the gig economy as being a 'rescue' for many in this time of widespread need with companies like Uber, Lyft, GrubHub, Postmates and Uber Eats providing much needed delivery options for housebound residents as well as a supplemental source of income for laid off workers. Please encourage our Governor to do the right thing and SUSPEND enforcement of this deeply flawed measure at least for the duration of this crisis.
This document provides information from the California Employment Development Department (EDD) to support both employers and employees during the COVID-19 pandemic. It discusses several California benefit programs administered by EDD that may provide financial support, including:
- Disability Insurance for employees unable to work due to illness such as COVID-19
- Paid Family Leave for those caring for ill family members
- Unemployment Insurance for those who lose their jobs or have hours reduced
- Paid sick leave if employees cannot work while sick
- Workers' compensation if employees contract COVID-19 on the job
The EDD aims to process Disability Insurance claims within a few weeks and provides up to $1,300 per week for up
The SWCLC will continue to advocate on behalf of our local business community. The legislature has not shut down and our small business community is under more threat today from multiple sources. Our meeting today has been cancelled but we had a pretty full agenda and Anne Mayer, Executive Director of RCTC was our guest speaker. See you next month.
A bill deleterious to every retail store or restaurant in the state. Hell bent on putting every business in the state out of business or out of the state as quickly as possible. Identified as a JOB KILLER by the CalChamber.
More from Southwest Riverside County Association of Realtors (20)
Forensic Auditing Practice and Engagement Best Practice
Being a Paper Presented at the 6th Direct Membership Training of the Certified Institute of Forensics and Certified Fraud Investigations of Nigeria (CIFCFIN) on Monday, 25th of March, 2024.
Forensic Auditing Practice and Engagement Best Practice Prof. Oyedokun.pptx
Southwest California Legislative Council Agenda - April 2020
1. MEETING AGENDA
Monday April 20, 2020
Realtor House, 26529 Jefferson Ave, Murrieta
Presiding: Adam Ruiz, Chair
2020 Strategic Initiatives
Budget & Tax Reform / Job Creation and Retention / Healthcare / Infrastructure & the Environment/ Public Safety
Call to Order, Roll Call & Introductions: 12:00 p.m.
Chair Report
Approval of Minutes Action
2020 Legislative Report #4 Action
1. Ab 828 (Ting) Temporary Moratorium On Foreclosures And Unlawful Detainer Actions: Coronavirus
2. Ab 1947 (Kalra) Employment Violation Complaints: Requirements: Time
3. Ab 2019 (Holden) Pupil Instruction: College And Career Access Pathways Partnerships: County Offices Of
Education
4. Ab 2143 (Stone) Settlement Agreements: Employment Disputes
5. Ab 2570 (Stone) False Claims Act
6. Ab 2920 (Obernolte) Hazardous Waste: Transportation: Consolidated Manifesting Procedures
7. Sb 986 (Allen), Coastal Resources: New Development: Ghg Emissions
8. Sb 1084 (Umberg) Pharmacy: Dispensing: Controlled Substances
9. H.R.6467 - Coronavirus Community Relief Act
Guest speaker Paul Nolta, Inland Empire SBDC with SBA update Information
Lunch sponsor Your Kitchen Thank you
Speaker and Chamber Announcements Information
Adjourn – Next Meeting May 18
Follow us on:
The Southwest California Legislative Council Thanks Our Partners:
Southwest Riverside Country
Association of Realtors
Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California
Elsinore Valley MWD
Western MWD
CR&R Waste Services
Abbott Vascular
Temecula Valley Chamber of
Commerce
Murrieta/Wildomar Chamber of
Commerce
Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of
Commerce
Menifee Valley Chamber of Commerce
Southwest Healthcare Systems
Temecula Valley Hospital
Economic Development Coalition
The Murrieta Temecula Group
Southern California Edison
The Gas Company
California Apartment Association
Western Municipal Water District
2. Southwest California Legislative Council
Lake Elsinore Chamber of Commerce
Menifee Valley Chamber of Commerce
Murrieta/Wildomar Chamber of Commerce
Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce
Meeting Minutes
Monday, March 16, 2020
2020 Chair: Adam Ruiz
Legislative Consultant: Gene Wunderlich
Due to heightened concern over the COVID-19 virus, pending shelter-in-place mandates, and group
size restrictions (it was still 100 people at that time), in ‘an abundance of caution’ (I hope never to use
that phrase again once this is over), the SWCLC made the determination to cancel our March 16 live
meeting. Votes were solicited via email and a majority ratified the recommended positions as follows:
1. AB-2013 (Irwin) Property taxation: new construction: definition. SUPPORT
2. AB-2043 (Gonzalez) Unlawful business practices: employer liability: contracted supervisor. OPPOSE
3. AB-2149 (Gonzalez) Data sharing: food delivery platforms. OPPOSE
4. AB-2712 (Low) California Universal Basic Income (CalUBI) Program OPPOSE
5. SB-873 (Jackson) Gender: discrimination: pricing. OPPOSE
6. SB 806 (Grove) Worker status: employees: independent contractors. SUPPORT
7. AB 2465 (Gonzalez) Worker status: independent contractors: barbering and cosmetology. SUPPORT
a) AB-2489 (Choi) Worker status: employees: independent contractors: franchiser and
franchisees. SUPPORT
b) AB 2458 (Melendez) Worker status: independent contractors: physical therapists. SUPPORT
c) AB 2497 (Bigelow) Worker status: independent contractors: livestock judges. SUPPORT
d) AB 2822 (Waldron) Worker status: independent contractors: transportation network companies.
SUPPORT
e) AB-3281 (Brough) Worker status: independent contractors: business-to-business contracting
relationship. SUPPORT
The plan was to have the legislature reconvene on April 20 but as of today that looks unlikely. There
is much discussion about what the foreshortened session will look like –whether legislators will
confine themselves to addressing economic recovery issues to the exclusion of other items, or
whether they will forge ahead with their agenda while amending or adding ‘emergency’ measures.
Regardless of the path they choose, our advocacy efforts will remain in place as our business
community will need every assist they can get if they are going to survive this economic shutdown.
3. Southwest California Legislative Council
Legislative Item #1 Action
AB 828, as amended, Ting. Human trafficking caseworker-victim privilege. Temporary moratorium on
foreclosures and unlawful detainer actions: coronavirus (COVID-19).
Introduced by Assembly Members Ting, Gipson, and Kalra
(Principal coauthor: Senator Wiener)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Bonta, Burke, Gonzalez, Kamlager, and Mullin)
(Coauthor: Senator Skinner)
Recommended action: OPPOSE
Presentation: Gene Wunderlich
Summary:
The CARES Act provides for an eviction moratorium for both property owners and tenants. As of 4/4/2020,
31% of tenants across the county have not paid their rent for the month of April. Yet even that Act does not
cover all exigencies or protections, especially for landlords. The Act allows tenants to withhold rents for a
period of 120 days, with extensions, simply by providing a 7 day notice. The question of repayment of that
arrearage is left open between tenant and landlord whether it’s to be a balloon payment, increased rent paid
across some number of months or deferred to some future date.
AB 828 takes those provisions a step further by placing an eviction moratorium not to expire until 15 days
from end of the declared emergency for both property owners and tenants. While that ends the specificity for
property owners, the bill proposes significant additional protections for tenants to the detriment of landlords
and property owners. For example, rather than simply requiring a 7 day notice by the tenant, AB 828 requires
an intervention by the courts to determine validity of the claim and determine hardship to both tenant and
landlord. If the landlord has 1 or 2 rental properties it may be presumed to be a hardship but if they own 10 or
more, it would not be. If a hardship is declared by the courts in favor of the tenant due to increased costs or
decreased pay as a result of the Coronavirus, no eviction proceeding may commence until 15 days from the
end of the emergency declaration.
Following that, rent for the rental property at issue shall be reduced by 25 percent for the next 12-month
period. The tenant shall make monthly payments to the landlord beginning in the next calendar month,
(whether the next calendar month following the end of the emergency, or the end of the 12 month rent
reduction period is unclear). At such time as full rental payments are due, the tenant will adjust their payment
to include an additional 10% of the unpaid rent owing at the time of the order, excluding late fees, court costs,
attorney fees, etc.
Ting’s proposal ignores the robust rent and eviction controls already in place across California. It provides no
assurances that landlords can collect rent, remove problem tenants, or get a fair hearing in the court system.
Description:
Existing law confers a power of sale upon a mortgagee, trustee, or any other person to be exercised after a
breach of the obligation for which the mortgage or transfer is a security. Existing law requires a trustee,
mortgagee, or beneficiary to first file a record in the office of the recorder a notice of default, and establishes
other requirements and procedures for completion of a foreclosure sale.
This bill would prohibit a person from taking any action to foreclose on a residential real property while a
state or locally declared state of emergency related to the COVID-19 virus is in effect and until 15 days after
the state of emergency has ended, including, but not limited to, causing or conducting the sale of the real
property or causing recordation of a notice of default.
4. Southwest California Legislative Council
Existing property tax law attaches taxes that are owed on that property as a lien against that property.
Existing law generally requires the tax collector to attempt to sell residential property that has become tax
defaulted 5 years or more after that property has become tax defaulted.
This bill would require a tax collector to suspend the sale, and not attempt to sell, tax-defaulted properties
while a state or locally declared state of emergency related to the COVID-19 virus is in effect and until 15
days after the state of emergency has ended.
Existing law requires a county recorder to record any instrument, paper, or notice that is authorized or
required to be recorded upon payment of proper fees and taxes.
This bill would prohibit a county recorder from recording any instrument, paper, or notice that constitutes a
notice of default, a notice of sale, or a trustee’s deed upon sale during the above-specified declared state of
emergency relating to the COVID-19 virus. The bill would also prohibit a court from accepting a complaint in
an action to foreclose.
Existing law establishes a procedure, known as an unlawful detainer action, that a landlord must follow in
order to evict a tenant. Existing law provides that a tenant is subject to such an action if the tenant continues
to possess the property without permission of the landlord in specified circumstances, including when the
tenant has violated the lease by defaulting on rent or failing to perform a duty under the lease.
This bill would prohibit a state court, county sheriff, or party to a residential unlawful detainer case from
accepting for filing, or taking any further action including executing a writ of possession or otherwise
proceeding with an unlawful detainer action during the timeframe in which a state of emergency related to the
COVID-19 virus is in effect and 15 days thereafter, except as specified.
The bill would also authorize a defendant, for any residential unlawful detainer action that includes a cause
of action for a person continuing in possession without permission of their landlord, to notify the court of the
defendant’s desire to stipulate to the entry of an order. The bill would require the court, upon receiving that
notice from a defendant, to notify the plaintiff and convene a hearing to determine whether to issue an order,
as specified. The bill would require the court, if it determines that the tenant’s inability to stay current on the
rent is the result of increased costs in household necessities or decreased household earnings attributable to
the COVID-19 virus, to make an order for the tenant to remain in possession, to reduce the rent for the
property by 25% for the next year, and to require the tenant to make monthly payments to the landlord
beginning in the next calendar month in accordance with certain terms. The bill would require declarations
under these procedures to be filed under penalty of perjury.
The bill would make these provisions effective in a jurisdiction in which a state or locally declared state of
emergency is in effect until 15 days after the state of emergency ends and would repeal these provisions on
January 1, 2022.
For any residential unlawful detainer action that includes a cause of action under paragraph (2) of Section
1161, any defendant may, at any time between the filing of the complaint and entry of judgment, notify the
court of that defendant’s desire to stipulate to the entry of an order pursuant to this section.
(b) Upon receiving notice from the defendant in accordance with subdivision (a), the court shall notify the
plaintiff and convene a hearing to determine whether to issue an order pursuant to subdivision (c).
(1) At the hearing, the court shall first determine whether the defendant’s inability to stay current on the rent
resulted from increased costs for household necessities or reduced household earnings due to the COVID-
19 virus. The defendant shall bear the burden of producing evidence of increased costs for household
necessities or reduced household earnings due to the COVID-19 virus. In the absence of evidence to the
contrary, if the increased costs for household necessities or decreased earnings took place at any point
between March 4, 2020, and March 4, 2021, then the court shall presume that the increased household costs
or decreased household earnings was due to the COVID-19 virus.
(2) If the court finds that the defendant’s inability to stay current on the rent resulted from increased costs for
household necessities or reduced household earnings due to the COVID-19 virus, the court shall next permit
the plaintiff to show cause for why the court should not issue an order pursuant to subdivision (c) due to
material economic hardship on the plaintiff. If the plaintiff has an ownership interest in just one or two rental
5. Southwest California Legislative Council
units, then the court shall presume that issuance of an order pursuant to subdivision (c) would constitute a
material economic hardship.
(3) If the plaintiff has an ownership in 10 or more rental units, the court shall presume that the issuance of an
order pursuant to subdivision (c) would not constitute a material economic hardship. The formal rules of
evidence shall not apply to the introduction of evidence at this hearing, but the court may look to the formal
rules of evidence in determining the weight that it shall give to the documentation presented by each side.
(c) If the court determines that the tenant’s inability to stay current on the rent is the result of increased costs
in household necessities or decreased household earnings due to the COVID-19 virus and the court finds that
it would not be an material economic hardship to the plaintiff and if the court determines that no cause exists
after review of a timely response from the plaintiff, then the court shall make the following order:
(1) The tenant shall remain in possession.
(2) The rent for the rental property at issue shall be reduced by 25 percent for the next 12-month period.
(3) The tenant shall make monthly payments to the landlord beginning in the next calendar month, in strict
compliance with all of the following terms:
(A) The payment shall be in the amount of the monthly rent as adjusted pursuant to paragraph (2), plus 10
percent of the unpaid rent owing at the time of the order, excluding late fees, court costs, attorneys fees, and
any other charge other than rent.
(B) The payment shall be delivered by a fixed day and time to a location that is mutually acceptable to the
parties or, in the absence of an agreement between the parties, by no later than 11:59 pm on the fifth day of
each month.
(C) The payment shall be made in a form that is mutually acceptable to the parties or, in the absence of
agreement between the parties, in the form of a cashier’s check or money order made out to the landlord.
(4) If the tenant fails to make a payment in full compliance with the terms of paragraph (2), the landlord may,
after 48 hours’ notice to the tenant by telephone, text message, or electronic mail, as stipulated by the tenant,
file with the court a declaration under penalty of perjury containing all of the following:
Arguments in support:
According to the author, “We already had a homeless crisis before the coronavirus reached California. The
last thing we need is to put more people on the streets and increase community spread,” said Ting. “We must
prioritize public health right now and keep people housed.”
AB 828 defines the moratorium period and provides a framework for repayment of past-due monies.
Provisions include:
• No evictions or foreclosures during the declared state of emergency related to COVID-19, plus 15 days
afterward
• Courts can set up a repayment plan for monies owed and allow residents to remain in the residence
• Payment recovery period may go through March 2021 if economic hardship due to the coronavirus can be
proven
In recognition of the same financial difficulties that small businesses and nonprofits are facing during this
pandemic, Ting has also agreed to principal co-author SB 939, a proposal by State Senator Scott Wiener (D-
San Francisco) that establishes similar protective measures on the commercial side.
“People must be able to focus on their own health and the health of our community, and AB 828 ensures
people have one less thing worry about financially. We have a moral obligation to keep people stable in their
housing and to avoid dislocation and increased homelessness. Absent a safety issue, it is unethical to evict
people during this pandemic. This legislation simply hits the pause button and sends a clear signal that we’re
6. Southwest California Legislative Council
serious about keeping people stable and housed so that they can recover as we come out of the emergency,”
said Wiener, who is also a principal co-author on Ting’s AB 828.
Both bills are expected to be acted on once the Legislature re-convenes. In the meantime, Ting will continue
to engage with groups and constituents, welcoming input not only on these proposals, but also other policy
ideas that can help California get through and recover from this public health crisis.
Arguments in opposition:
Owners of multifamily properties who were current on their mortgage payments as of February 1, 2020,
and have federally insured, assisted, or supplemented loan (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, FHA or any loans
backed or assisted by any branch of the federal government, including LIHTC) may request forbearance
for 30 days due to financial hardship, with extensions of up to a total of 90 days. Borrowers receiving the
forbearance may not evict or charge late fees to tenants for the duration of the forbearance period.
Moratorium on eviction filings, or fees or penalties for tenants for nonpayment of rent for 120 days on
properties insured, guaranteed, supplemented, protected, or assisted in any way by HUD, Fannie Mae,
Freddie Mac, the rural housing voucher program, covered by the Violence Against Women Act of 1994.
Some tenants will be temporarily protected from eviction for unpaid rent by a patchwork of federal and
local laws. But real-estate operators and analysts have worried that unpaid rent could set off a chain of
events that first cause commercial mortgage defaults, zapping investments in bonds backed by those
mortgages.
The federal government has agreed to let apartment building owners with government-backed mortgages
defer their mortgage payments, and the Federal Reserve also said it would buy up bonds tied to certain
multifamily loans.
Those measures, however, only cover part of the total rental market and don't address loans held by
banks without a government guarantee. Less than one third of U.S. rental units are federally financed and
covered by protections in last month’s stimulus package, according to an estimate from the Urban Institute,
a Washington-based think tank.
Support: (Verified 4/12/2020)
None on file
Opposition: (Verified 4/12/2020)
California Apartment Association
California Association of Realtors
Status: Assembly Public Safety
Senate Floor votes:
Assembly floor votes:
7. Southwest California Legislative Council
Legislative Item #2 Action
AB 1947 (Kalra) Employment Violation Complaints: Requirements: Time
Introduced by Assembly Members Kalra and Gonzalez
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Bonta, Chu, Jones-Sawyer, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Mark Stone, Ting, Weber,
and Wicks)
(Coauthors: Senators Lena Gonzalez and Leyva)
Recommended action: OPPOSE
Presentation: Gene Wunderlich
Summary:
AB 1947 (Kalra), undermines the essence of the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement’s (DSLE)
complaint process by requiring a one-sided attorney’s fee provision that will incentivize additional
litigation. California is already widely perceived as having a hostile litigation environment for employers. One
factor that contributes to this negative perception is high damage awards and the threat of attorney’s fees in
civil litigation that often dwarf the financial recovery the plaintiff actually receives.
Description:
Existing law creates the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, which is headed by the Labor
Commissioner, and commits to it the general authority to enforce the requirements of the Labor Code. Existing
law generally authorizes people who believe that they have been discharged or otherwise discriminated
against in violation of any law enforced by the Labor Commissioner to file a complaint with the Division of
Labor Standards Enforcement within 6 months after the occurrence of the violation. Existing law generally
requires the Labor Commissioner to commence actions to enforce labor standards within 3 years of their
accrual, as specified.
This bill would extend the period of time within which people may file complaints subject to the 6-month
deadline, described above, to within one year after the occurrence of the violations.
Existing law prohibits employers and their agents from making, adopting, or enforcing a rule, regulation, or
policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to certain entities or from providing information to,
or testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry if the employee has
reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of a law, as specified. Existing law also
prohibits retaliation against an employee for various reasons.
This bill would authorize a court to award reasonable attorney’s fees to a plaintiff who brings a successful
action for a violation of the provisions described above.
Argument in opposition
Labor Code Section 1102.5 protects an employee who provides information and has reason to believe the
information discloses a violation of the law. These employees are referred to as “whistleblowers”.
Whistleblower retaliation occurs when an employee engages in this lawful activity yet suffers an adverse
employment action because he or she engaged in this protected activity. Labor Code Section 98.7 sets forth
a detailed process regarding how these complaints are handled. These procedures have safeguards for
employees to ensure that there is adequate opportunity to present evidence in a timely and efficient manner
and pursue an appeal or litigation if necessary.
AB 1947 will undermine the DLSE process by adding one-sided attorney’s fee recovery for an employee who
prevails in a whistleblower action. The DLSE does not have exclusive jurisdiction over whistleblower
complaints. Instead, the DLSE process provides an alternative to civil litigation. The decision is up to the
8. Southwest California Legislative Council
employee and, if the employee decides to file a complaint with the Labor Commissioner, it is usually because
this is the less contentious approach. However, if AB 1947 were to be enacted, then more employees would
file their claims in civil court rather than utilize the DLSE process.
Support: (Verified 412/2020)
None on file
Opposition: (Verified 4/12/2020)
None on file
Status: Assembly Committees on Labor and Employment, Judiciary
Legislative Item #3 Action
AB 2019 (Holden) Pupil Instruction: College and Career Access Pathways Partnerships: County Offices
of Education
Recommended action: SUPPORT
Presentation: Gene Wunderlich
Summary:
One constraint on California’s economy has been a lack of Californians with the skills need to keep our
economy growing. This has hurt businesses – who cannot find the workers they need – and has hurt workers
– who lack the skills to fill California’s jobs. Furthermore, this gap is only growing as high-skilled baby boomers
retire and their jobs become vacant. The SWCLC SUPPORTED this program when it was established in 2015
(AB 288-Holden).
Description:
Existing law, until January 1, 2027, authorizes the governing board of a community college district to enter
into a College and Career Access Pathways (CCAP) partnership with the governing board of a school district
or the governing body of a charter school with the goal of developing seamless pathways from high school to
community college for career technical education or preparation for transfer, improving high school graduation
rates, or helping high school pupils achieve college and career readiness.
This bill would also authorize county offices of education to enter into CCAP partnerships with the governing
boards of community college districts in accordance with these provisions.
Argument in support:
The existing College and Career Access Pathways (CCAP) program allows partnerships between school
districts and community colleges in order to develop seamless transitions from high school to community
college. These programs help promote career technical education and improve high school graduation rates
and transfer rates for community college students.
9. Southwest California Legislative Council
AB 2019 will add to this program by allowing – but not compelling – community colleges to enter agreements
to help a group that is not, at present, allowed under CCAP legislation: youths in the juvenile courts system.
AB 2019 will allow this segment of California’s youth the potential to reap the benefits of CCAP programs,
including improved high school graduation rates and improved success in college. Moreover, it will potentially
help California’s economy by helping them fill the holes in California’s workforce.
Support: (Verified 4/12/2020)
CalChamber
Opposition: (Verified 412/2020)
None on file
Status: Assembly Higher Education
Legislative Item #4 Action
AB 2143 (Stone) Settlement Agreements: Employment Disputes
Recommended action: SUPPORT
Presentation: Gene Wunderlich
Summary:
This bill is a follow-up to last year’s AB 749 (Stone, Ch. 808, Stats. 2019) OPPOSED by the SWCLC. That
measure prohibited the use of no-rehire provisions in any agreement settling an employment dispute where
the employee had filed a complaint against the employer.
AB 2143 amends that statute that prohibits an agreement to settle an employment dispute from containing
any provision that prohibits, prevents, or otherwise restricts an "aggrieved person," as defined, from obtaining
future employment with the employer against which a claim or action has been filed.
Background:
Existing law prohibits an agreement to settle an employment dispute from containing a provision that
prohibits, prevents, or otherwise restricts a settling party that is an aggrieved person, as defined, from working
for the employer against which the aggrieved person has filed a claim or any parent company, subsidiary,
division, affiliate, or contractor of the employer.
This bill would require the aggrieved person to have filed the claim in good faith for the prohibition to apply.
Existing law creates an exception from the prohibition if the employer has made a good faith determination
that the aggrieved person engaged in sexual harassment or sexual assault.
This bill would require the determination of sexual assault or sexual harassment to be documented by the
employer before the aggrieved person filed the claim. The bill would also expand this exception to include
determinations that the aggrieved person engaged in any criminal conduct.
10. Southwest California Legislative Council
Argument in support:
The California Chamber of Commerce, writing on behalf of itself and other business and employer
associations, supports AB 2143 because it “expands the legitimate reasons upon which an employer
may include a provision in a settlement agreement that precludes a person from seeking reemployment.”
The Chamber points out that it opposed last year’s AB 749 “on the basis that there are additional
reasons other than harassment or assault that justify an employer prohibiting future employment. AB
2143 recognizes these additional reasons and allows an employer to include a prohibition to future
employment for any employee the employer believes in good faith engaged in any criminal conduct.”
Although the Chamber and the other supporters believe that there are additional reasons that justify an
employer prohibiting future employment of an individual, they are nonetheless “pleased to see the
addition of criminal conduct.”
Support: (Verified 3/12/2020)
California Apartment Association
California Association of Joint Powers Association
California Association of Winegrape Growers
California Restaurant Association
California State Association of Counties
North Orange County Chamber Official
Police Garages of Los Angeles
Rancho Cordova Chamber of Commerce
Santa Maria Valley Chamber of Commerce
Western Growers Association
Opposition: (Verified 4/12/2020)
None on file
Status: Committee on Judiciary
Legislative Item #5 Action
Ab 2570 (Stone) False Claims Act
Recommended action: OPPOSE
Presentation: Gene Wunderlich
Summary:
AB 2570 will bring nuisance lawsuits into tax enforcement, create conflicts with existing tax law, and lead to
double jeopardy for taxpayers.
Description:
Existing law, the False Claims Act, provides that any person who commits specified acts, including, but not
limited to, knowingly presenting a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval or knowingly making or
using a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim, is liable to the state or to the political
11. Southwest California Legislative Council
subdivision for 3 times the amount of damages that the state or political subdivision sustained because of the
act and for the costs of a civil action brought to recover any penalties or damages, and is subject to a civil
penalty. That act requires the Attorney General or the prosecuting authority of a political subdivision to
diligently investigate violations of those specific acts involving state funds or political subdivision funds,
respectively, and authorizes the Attorney General, the prosecuting authority, or a qui tam plaintiff to bring a
civil action against a person who commits those acts.
This bill, with respect to whether a false record or statement is material, would require that the materiality
test focus on the potential effect of the false record or statement when it is made. This bill would specify that
the amount of damages, as described above, include consequential damages. The bill would state that these
changes are declaratory of existing law.
The False Claims Act does not apply to claims, records, or statements made under the Revenue and
Taxation Code.
This bill would apply the False Claims Act to apply to claims, records, or statements made under the Revenue
and Taxation Code if specified conditions are met, including if damages pleaded in an action under the act
exceed $200,000 and that the claim, record, or statement was made on or after January 1, 2021. The bill
would define “person” for these purposes.
This bill would require the Attorney General or prosecuting authority, as described, to consult with the taxing
authorities to whom the claim was submitted prior to filing or intervening in any action under the act that is
based on the filing of false claims, records, or statements made under the Revenue and Taxation Code.
This bill would authorize the Attorney General or the prosecuting authority, but not the qui tam plaintiff, to
obtain otherwise confidential records relating to taxes, fees, or other obligations under the Revenue and
Taxation Code. The bill would prohibit the disclosure of federal tax information to the Attorney General or the
prosecuting authority without authorization from the Internal Revenue Service. The bill would require that any
such information obtained be kept confidential, except as necessary to investigate and prosecute violations
of these provisions.
Under the False Claims Act, an employee, contractor, or agent who is discharged, demoted, suspended,
threatened, harassed, or in any other manner discriminated against in the terms and conditions of their
employment for engaging in lawful acts, as specified, or other efforts to stop violations of the act, is entitled
to all relief necessary to make them whole.
This bill would specify that the relief described above applies to any current or former employee, contractor,
or agent if these parties are otherwise harmed or penalized by an employer. This bill would define lawful acts
to include specified acts that may violate a contract, employment term, or duty owed to an employer or
contractor.
Arguments in opposition:
Opponents claim that though AB 2570 is being presented as a means to combat tax fraud, this is a solution
in search of a problem. Present fiscal analysis of AB 2570 has not identified any estimated increase in
revenue to California from expanding the FCA to allow tax-related suits. It is our belief that this is because
there is not any present lack of anti-fraud statutes or mechanisms in state tax law. Thankfully, California
already applies civil and criminal liability for fraud under California Rev & Tax Code Section 19706 (tax fraud)
and Penal Code Section 72 (false statement to public entities may constitute a felony). Similarly, there is no
reporting of rampant tax fraud in California that would justify new tools such as the FCA being utilized or would
suggest additional income if FCA lawsuits could be brought.
Importantly, we do not condone tax fraud, nor do we oppose this bill in order to defend such bad faith actions
by individuals or businesses. Our opposition stems from serious concerns about the drastic changes that AB
2570 would bring to California by introducing conflicting standards into tax law and allowing private attorneys
to bring tax lawsuits against taxpayers.
12. Southwest California Legislative Council
Support: (Verified 4/12/2020)
None on file
Opposition: (Verified4/12/2020)
CalChamber
Status: Assembly Judiciary, Revenue & Taxation
Legislative Item #6 Action
AB 2920 (Obernolte) Hazardous Waste: Transportation: Consolidated Manifesting Procedures
Recommended action: SUPPORT
Presentation: Gene Wunderlich
Summary:
AB 2920 would authorize surplus household waste to be collected and transported by state-registered waste
transporters to appropriate permitted facilities for proper treatment or disposal under consolidated manifesting
procedures.
Description:
Existing law, as part of the hazardous waste control laws, imposes various manifest requirements for
transporting hazardous waste, including, among others, requiring any person generating hazardous waste
that is transported, or submitted for transportation, for offsite handling, treatment, storage, disposal, or any
combination thereof, to complete a manifest and be subject to transporter registration requirements. Existing
law authorizes transporters and generators to use consolidated manifesting procedures for certain kinds of
waste if specified requirements are met. A violation of the hazardous waste control laws is a crime.
This bill would authorize those consolidated manifesting procedures to be used additionally for surplus
household waste, as defined, collected from a retailer engaged in business in the state. By expanding the
application of the requirements governing the use of consolidated manifesting procedures to additional kinds
of waste, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
Arguments in support:
Existing law forces California retailers to place individual collected retail hazardous waste items on its own
individual manifest, then place them in individual containers located on the transporter truck, even if an
identical retail hazardous waste item is being collected from multiple store locations owned and operated by
the very same retailer. As a result, each year California requires thousands of unnecessary truck trips to
almost a half-million retail locations around the state.
AB 2920 would instead permit certain types of common household waste items to be routinely picked up at
California’s retail stores and transported for disposal with other wastes under consolidated manifesting
procedures. Such common surplus household wastes include cleaning products, light bulbs, laundry
detergent, and fertilizers, to name a few. By allowing the consolidated manifesting of these specific types of
13. Southwest California Legislative Council
the bill will allow DTSC-registered transporters to eliminate unnecessary in-state and/or out-of-state vehicle
trips that currently require a separate manifest and separate pickup, thereby substantially lowering
greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel consumption. Moreover, the bill encourages businesses to properly
manage and treat their wastes, lower costs on businesses (and ultimately consumers), improves the
efficiencies of the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) by reducing duplicative paperwork, and
improves DTSC’s ability to track these wastes “from cradle-to-grave.”
Support: (Verified 3/12/2020)
CalChamber
Opposition: (Verified 3/12/2020)
None on file
Status: Environmental Safety and Hazardous Materials
Legislative Item #7 Action
SB 986 (Allen), Coastal Resources: New Development: Ghg Emissions
(Coauthors: Senators Bates, Borgeas, Chang, Dahle, Jones, Moorlach, Morrell, Nielsen, and Wilk)
Recommended action: OPPOSE
Presentation: Gene Wunderlich
Summary:
SB 986, which would add a new onerous requirement on all new development in the Coastal Zone—including
housing development—to “minimize” greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), no matter how infeasible or costly
the burden. This obligation is on top of the stringent GHG reduction requirements placed on housing and
other development under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and through the state’s rigorously
green building code.
While this specific bill is aimed directly at future development in the Coastal Zone subject to both CEQA with
an overlay of Coastal Commission, requirements like this have a tendency to spread once adopted. Much as
with attempted expansions of Coastal Commission to control inland waterways, and the recently defeated
WOTUS rule seeking to expand the definition of navigable waterways, the concern is that if passed, this would
set the stage for further encroachment into ALL development regardless of location.
Description:
The California Coastal Act of 1976 regulates development, as defined, in the coastal zone, as defined, and
requires that new development comply with specified requirements, including, among other things,
requirements intended to minimize the adverse environmental impacts of the new development, minimize
energy consumption and vehicle miles traveled, and, where appropriate, protect special communities and
14. Southwest California Legislative Council
neighborhoods that, because of their unique characteristics, are popular visitor destination points for
recreational uses.
This bill would additionally require that new development minimize greenhouse gas emissions.
Arguments in opposition:
CEQA already requires development to adopt feasible GHG mitigation. By removing the feasibility
requirement that is inherent in CEQA this bill could force even small housing projects to adopt all GHG
reduction measures, no matter what they cost or how little additional GHG emissions they succeed in
preventing. In addition, it has taken over a decade for CEQA case law and guidelines to provide the guidance
critical to interpreting individual housing project’s obligations. This broad mandate will undoubtedly spur
additional litigation as opponents of housing turn to courts to delay projects and judges are then forced to
interpret what constitutes adequate “minimization.”
The State Building Code Already Requires New Housing Incorporate Cost-Effective GHG reductions.
California already maintains the first-in-the-nation mandatory green building standards code, which was
adopted specifically in an effort to meet the goals of AB 32, which established a comprehensive statewide
program of cost-effective reductions of GHG. The Building Code is adopted and regularly updated after
extensive study and evaluation by code experts and is world renowned for its green attributes which include
a host of GHG reducing obligations from solar mandates and insulation specifications to water conservation
and energy efficiency requirements. There is no justification to ignore the rigorous work of the Building
Standards Commission and force additional costly requirements without any vetting as to integration,
redundancy or necessity.
SB 986 Would Stifle Affordable Housing Construction In the Coastal Zone.
At a time when the state is experiencing an unprecedented housing and homeless crisis, to force additional
GHG mitigation obligations on housing that is already the greenest in the nation with no mechanism to
evaluate its cost effectiveness and feasibility is at best unwise and at worst irresponsible. From a practical
perspective, the additional infeasible mitigation this bill compels means that the housing simply won’t be built
in the Coastal Zone. Setting aside the issues raised by that on its face, if housing is not built in the Coastal
Zone it will have to be built in other areas which would increase commute times and overall GHG emissions,
precisely the opposite of what is intended.
Support: (Verified 4/12/2020)
None on file
Opposition: (Verified 4/12/2020)
CalChamber
Status: Senate Natural Resources and Water
15. Legislative Item #8 Action
SB 1084 (Umberg) Pharmacy: Dispensing: Controlled Substances
Recommended action: OPPOSE
Presentation: Gene Wunderlich
Summary:
SB 1084 will increase prescription drug prices by requiring non-hospital pharmacies to dispense schedule II
and IIN drugs in a lockable vial. While we agree that opioid abuse is a significant problem, we respectfully
disagree that pharmacies and patients should bear the increased costs that will accompany this mandate.
Description:
The Pharmacy Law provides for the licensing and regulation of pharmacists by the California State Board of
Pharmacy, which is within the Department of Consumer Affairs. Existing law, except as specified, prohibits a
person from possessing any controlled substance, except that furnished to a person upon the prescription of
a physician, dentist, podiatrist, optometrist, veterinarian, or another of prescribed healing arts licensees
pursuant to existing law. A violation of the Pharmacy Law is a crime.
This bill, with certain exceptions, on and after June 30, 2021, would require a pharmacist who dispenses in
solid oral dosage form a controlled substance in Schedule II or Schedule IIN of the federal Controlled
Substances Act to dispense it in a lockable vial, as defined, provide an educational pamphlet on controlled
substances, and, if the lockable vial uses an alphanumeric passcode or other code, include the code in any
patient notes in the database or other system used by the pharmacy in the dispensing of prescription drugs.
The patient, or the patient’s parent or legal guardian if the patient is a minor or otherwise unable to authorize
medical care, would choose the code. code, except as specified.
The bill would require the board to develop the educational pamphlet and provide it to pharmacists in printed
form. The bill would require the manufacturer of a controlled substance to reimburse the pharmacy each
month for the cost of lockable vials used by the pharmacy for the dispensation of the controlled substance. to
dispense controlled substances within 30 days of receiving a claim for reimbursement, and would require the
manufacturer to pay, among other costs, the net acquisition cost of the lockable vials and dispensing costs.
The bill would make the manufacturer subject to a civil penalty of $1,000 for each day the manufacturer is
delinquent in reimbursing the pharmacy.
The bill would require a vendor that contracts with a pharmacy to provide lockable vials to make available at
all times assistance online or through a toll-free phone number for patient use.
Access to the vial would require:
1. An alphanumeric passcode or other code. or
2. A unique physical key. or
3. A locking mechanism that is accessible only by the patient with a code, alphanumeric passcode, or key,
or by another secure mechanism. and
4. The manufacturer of a controlled substance shall reimburse the pharmacy within 30 days of receiving the
claim and shall pay a reasonable rate for the net acquisition cost of the lockable vials, dispensing costs,
and services rendered, including any patient consultation and instruction.
Arguments in opposition:
SB 1084 would require pharmacists to dispense narcotics in a lockable vial regardless of patient preference
or request. According to the bill, the pharmacy would be forced to seek reimbursement for the vial’s cost from
the drug manufacturer who would have to remit payment within 30 days of receiving a monthly claim. The
process will force pharmacies to frontload the vial cost and then depend on timely invoicing and payment
practices so as to avoid financial pitfalls. This process will prove cumbersome and expensive. Specifically,
16. independent pharmacies will likely experience cashflow difficulties since they will need to frontload the vial
costs, establish invoicing practices, then rely on timely execution and payment to receive a reimbursement.
Furthermore, pharmacies would have to maintain vial passcodes, stock locking vials in inventory, and manage
logistics, including freight and shipping costs, in response to this bill. This cumbersome process will certainly
increase prescription drug prices and these costs will be passed on to the consumer.
SB 1084 is also unneeded since locking vials are already available to consumers should they wish to
purchase one. This bill would eliminate a consumer’s choice and mandate a costly and cumbersome product
be provided, thus increasing costs while hurting pharmacies. While certain patients would be exempted from
necessitating a locking vial, all patients would feel the impact of the mandate by way of increased costs.
Status: Assembly Business and Professions, Labor and Employment
Legislative Item 9 Action
H.R. 6467 - Coronavirus Community Relief Act
Recommended action: SUPPORT / or comparable
Presentation: Gene Wunderlich
Summary:
To provide for an enhanced Coronavirus relief fund for units of government with a population of 500,000 or
less, and for other purposes.
Description:
IN GENERAL. Out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are
appropriated for making payments to units of local government with a population of 500,000 or less
$250,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2020.
AUTHORITY TO MAKE PAYMENTS. The Secretary shall pay to a unit of local government of the relative
unit of local government population proportion amount within 30 days after a unit of local government of a
State submits the certification required by subsection (e).
USE OF FUNDS. A unit of local government shall use the funds provided under a payment made under this
section to cover only those costs of the unit of local government that are costs that:
are reasonably deemed by the unit of local government to be necessary; and
directly or indirectly involve, relate to, are, have been, or will be incurred due to, or are, have been,
or will be a response to circumstances caused by, the public health emergency with respect to the
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID–19); and
were incurred during the period that begins on March 1, 2020, and ends on December 30, 2020.
17. Arguments in support:
Even as the Congress has passed three bills to deal with the pandemic, Cities across the country are already
realizing the fiscal impacts of the recent extraordinary measures are having on local budgets. Many sources
of revenue are falling precipitously as whole sectors of the economy are shut down in compliance with state
and local stay at home orders.
While we appreciate that Congress provided $150 billion in supplemental funding in the CARES Act for fiscal
year 2020 through the Coronavirus Relief Fund for state, local, and tribal governments, many cities across
the country, including our own local cities, do not have direct access to funding through the legislation. As
most of the nation’s cities and counties do not have a population that exceeds 500,000, those entities must
rely on their states to receive any direct funding to help meet local obligations.
2020 Meeting Schedule
w/ Guest speakers
1/27 Open – Capt. Tony Conrad, Murrieta PD
2/24 Open – Jennings Immel, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
3/16 Open – Anne Mayer, Executive Director, RCTC
4/20 Open
5/18 Open
6/15 Open
7/20 Open
8/17 Open
9/21 Open
10/19 Open
11/16 Closed
12/16 Dark