Gasoline service stations

TopicBill numbersort iconAuthorInterest positionBecame law
An Act to Amend Section 490.2 Of, and to Add Section 666.1 To, the Penal Code, Relating to Crime. AB 2369 (2015-2016) PattersonSupportNo
Existing law, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, enacted by Proposition 47, as approved by the voters at the November 4, 2014, statewide general election, reduced certain felonies to… More
Existing law, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, enacted by Proposition 47, as approved by the voters at the November 4, 2014, statewide general election, reduced certain felonies to misdemeanors, including possession of specified controlled substances and theft of a firearm with a value under $950. This bill would authorize the prosecution to charge a person with a felony if the person has been previously convicted 2 or more times of the crimes reduced to a misdemeanor by Proposition 47 or, if the crime being prosecuted is petty theft, when the person had been convicted of specified other crimes, including grand theft and carjacking, and the date that 2 or more of the prior crimes were committed was within 36 months of the date of the commission of the crime for which the person is being punished. The bill would also make it grand theft, punishable in state prison as a felony, when any of the items taken is a firearm. The California Constitution authorizes the Legislature to amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that becomes effective when approved by the electors. This bill would provide that it would become effective only upon approval of the voters, and would provide for the submission of this measure to the voters for approval at statewide general election. Hide
An Act to Amend Sections 20020, 20021, 20036, and 20041 Of, to Amend the Heading of Article 6 (Commencing with Section 20035) of Chapter 5.5 of Division 8 Of, to Add Sections 20022, 20028, and 20029 To, and to Repeal and Add Section 20035 Of, the Business and Professions Code, Relating to Franchises. AB 525 (2015-2016) HoldenSupportYes
The California Franchise Relations Act sets forth certain requirements related to the termination, nonrenewal, and transfer of franchises between a franchisor, subfranchisor, and franchisee, as those… More
The California Franchise Relations Act sets forth certain requirements related to the termination, nonrenewal, and transfer of franchises between a franchisor, subfranchisor, and franchisee, as those terms are defined. That act, except as otherwise provided, prohibits a franchisor from terminating a franchise prior to the expiration of its term, except for good cause, which includes, but is not limited to, the failure of the franchisee to comply with any lawful requirement of the franchise agreement after being given notice and a reasonable opportunity to cure the failure within 30 days. This bill would instead limit good cause to the failure of the franchisee to substantially comply with the lawful requirements of the franchise agreement imposed on the franchisee after being given notice at least 60 days in advance and would require that the period for a reasonable opportunity to cure the failure be no less than 60 days from the date of the notice of noncompliance. The bill would prohibit the period for curing the failure from exceeding 75 days, except as specified. The bill also would allow immediate termination of a specified separate motor vehicle franchise under specified circumstances. This bill would make it unlawful for a franchise agreement to prevent a franchisee from selling or transferring a franchise, all or substantially all of the assets of the franchise business, as defined, or a controlling or noncontrolling interest in the franchise business, to another person, provided that the person is qualified under the franchisor’s then-existing and reasonable standards for approval of new or renewing franchisees, as specified, and the parties comply with specified transfer provisions. The bill would prohibit a sale, transfer, or assignment of a franchise, all or substantially all of the assets of a franchise business, or a controlling or noncontrolling interest in the franchise business, without the franchisor’s written consent, but would prohibit that consent from being withheld unless the buyer, transferee, or assignor does not meet standards for new or renewing franchisees or the parties fail to meet specified transfer provisions. This bill would require the franchisee, prior to the sale, assignment, or transfer of a franchise, all or substantially all of the assets of a franchise business, as defined, or a controlling or noncontrolling interest in the franchise business, to another person, to notify the franchisor of the franchisee’s intent to sell, transfer, or assign the franchise or its assets or interest, as specified, and would require the notice to be in writing and include specified information. The bill would require the franchisor, within a specified period, to notify the franchisee of the approval or disapproval of the proposed sale, assignment, or transfer of the franchise, and would require the notice to be in writing and be delivered by courier to the franchisee or sent by receipted mail. The bill would require the franchisor to communicate the franchisor’s standards for approval of new or renewing franchisees, as specified. The bill would deem a proposed sale, assignment, or transfer approved, unless disapproved by the franchisor, as specified. The act requires a franchisor that terminates or fails to renew a franchise, other than in accordance with specified provisions of law, to offer to repurchase from the franchisee the franchisee’s resalable current inventory, as specified. This bill would repeal those provisions and would, with certain exceptions, require the franchisor, upon a lawful termination or nonrenewal of a franchisee, to purchase from the franchisee at the value of price paid, minus depreciation, all inventory, supplies, equipment, fixtures, and furnishings purchased or paid for under the franchise agreement, as specified. The bill would not require a franchisor to purchase assets to which the franchisee cannot or does not provide clear title and possession. This bill would entitle a franchisee to receive from the franchisor the fair market value of the franchise business and assets, as well as resulting damages, if a franchisor terminates or fails to renew a franchise in violation of the act. The bill would provide for injunctive relief in the event of a violation or threatened violation of these provisions. The bill would limit its application to a franchise agreement entered into or renewed on or after January 1, 2016, or to franchises of an indefinite duration that may be terminated without cause. Hide
An Act to Add Article 15 (Commencing with Section 111224) to Chapter 5 of Part 5 of Division 104 of the Health and Safety Code, Relating to Public Health. SB 203 (2015-2016) MonningOpposeNo
(1)Existing federal law, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, regulates, among other things, the quality and packaging of foods introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce… More
(1)Existing federal law, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, regulates, among other things, the quality and packaging of foods introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce and generally prohibits the misbranding of food. Existing federal law, the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990, governs state and local labeling requirements, including those that characterize the relationship of any nutrient specified in the labeling of food to a disease or health-related condition. Existing state law, the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, generally regulates misbranded food and provides that any food is misbranded if its labeling does not conform with the requirements for nutrient content or health claims as set forth in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the regulations adopted pursuant to that federal act. Existing law requires that a food facility, as defined, make prescribed disclosures and warnings to consumers, as specified. A violation of these provisions is a crime. Existing state law, the Pupil Nutrition, Health, and Achievement Act of 2001, also requires the sale of only certain beverages to pupils at schools. The beverages that may be sold include fruit-based and vegetable-based drinks, drinking water with no added sweetener, milk, and in middle and high schools, an electrolyte replacement beverage if those beverages meet certain nutritional requirements. This bill would establish the Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Safety Warning Act, which would prohibit a person from distributing, selling, or offering for sale a sugar-sweetened beverage in a sealed beverage container, or a multipack of sugar-sweetened beverages, in this state unless the beverage container or multipack bears a safety warning, as prescribed. The bill also would require every person who owns, leases, or otherwise legally controls the premises where a vending machine or beverage dispensing machine is located, or where a sugar-sweetened beverage is sold in an unsealed container to place a specified safety warning in certain locations, including on the exterior of any vending machine that includes a sugar-sweetened beverage for sale. (2)Under existing law, the State Department of Public Health, upon the request of a health officer, as defined, may authorize the local health department of a city, county, city and county, or local health district to enforce the provisions of the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law. Existing law authorizes the State Department of Public Health to assess a civil penalty against any person in an amount not to exceed $1,000 per day, except as specified. Existing law authorizes the Attorney General or any district attorney, on behalf of the State Department of Public Health, to bring an action in a superior court to grant a temporary or permanent injunction restraining a person from violating any provision of the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law. This bill, commencing July 1, 2016, would provide that any violation of the provisions described in (1) above, or regulations adopted pursuant to those provisions, is punishable by a civil penalty of not less than $50, but no greater than $500. This bill would also create the Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Safety Warning Fund for the receipt of all moneys collected for violations of those provisions. The bill would allocate moneys in this fund, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to the department for the purpose of enforcing those provisions. The bill would make legislative findings and declarations relating to the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, obesity, and dental disease. Hide
An Act to Add Chapter 6 (Commencing with Section 12897) to Part 2.5 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code, and to Amend Sections 38505, 38550, 38551, and 38561 of the Health and Safety Code, Relating to Greenhouse Gases. SB 32 (2015-2016) PavleyOpposeNo
(1)The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 designates the State Air Resources Board as the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of emissions of greenhouse gases.… More
(1)The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 designates the State Air Resources Board as the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of emissions of greenhouse gases. The state board is required to adopt a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit equivalent to the statewide greenhouse gas emissions level in 1990 to be achieved by 2020 and to adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum, technologically feasible, and cost-effective greenhouse gas emissions reductions. This bill would require the state board to approve a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit that is equivalent to 40% below the 1990 level to be achieved by 2030. The bill also would state the intent of the Legislature for the Legislature and appropriate agencies to adopt complementary policies that ensure the long-term emissions reductions advance specified criteria. (2)The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 requires the State Air Resources Board to prepare and approve a scoping plan for achieving the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and to update the scoping plan at least once every 5 years. This bill would prohibit the state board from taking any action to implement the next update of the scoping plan until a draft of, and the final version of, the next update to the scoping plan have been submitted to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee and the appropriate policy committees of the Legislature, as specified, before adoption of the updated scoping plan and until the state board has conducted specified evaluations relating to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The bill would require the Legislature to hold at least one oversight hearing to review that draft and one oversight hearing to review the final version. The bill would require the state board, on or before January 1, 2017, and each year thereafter, to prepare and submit to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee and appropriate policy committees a report relating to achieving the greenhouse gas emissions limits required by the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The bill would require the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, on or before July 1, 2017, to prepare and make available to the public and the Legislature a report analyzing the impacts of the greenhouse gas emissions limits adopted by the state board on disadvantaged communities, as specified. (3)This bill would also make conforming changes and would provide that its provisions are severable. Hide
An Act to Amend Section 25249.7 of the Health and Safety Code, Relating to Toxic Substances, and Declaring the Urgency Thereof, to Take Effect Immediately. AB 227 (2013-2014) GattoSupportYes
(1)The existing Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65) prohibits any person, in the course of doing business, from knowingly and intentionally exposing any individual… More
(1)The existing Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65) prohibits any person, in the course of doing business, from knowingly and intentionally exposing any individual to a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without giving a specified warning, or from knowingly discharging or releasing such a chemical into water or any source of drinking water, except as specified. The act imposes civil penalties of not more than $2,500 per day upon persons who violate those prohibitions, and provides for the enforcement of those prohibitions by the Attorney General, a district attorney, or specified city attorneys or prosecutors, and by any person in the public interest. The act requires any person bringing an action in the public interest, or any private person filing an action in which a violation of the act is alleged, to notify the Attorney General, the district attorney, city attorney, or prosecutor in whose jurisdiction the violation is alleged to have occurred, and the alleged violator that such an action has been filed. This bill would require a person filing an enforcement action in the public interest for certain specified exposures to provide a notice in a specified proof of compliance form. The bill would prohibit an enforcement action from being filed by that person, and would prohibit the recovery of certain payments or reimbursements, if the notice to the alleged violator alleges a failure to provide a clear and reasonable warning for those specified exposures and, within 14 days after receiving the notice, the alleged violator corrects the alleged violation, pays a civil penalty in the amount of $500 per facility or premises, and notifies the person bringing the action that the violation has been corrected pursuant to the specified proof of compliance form. The bill would specify that the alleged violator may correct the violation, pay the civil penalty, and serve a correction notice on the person who served notice of the violation only one time for a violation arising from the same exposure in the same facility or on the same premises. The bill would require the Judicial Council, on April 1, 2019, and at each 5-year interval thereafter, to adjust that civil penalty, as specified. (2)Proposition 65 provides that it may be amended by a statute, passed in each house by 23 vote, to further its purposes. This bill would find and declare that it furthers the purposes of Proposition 65 and would make other findings regarding the purposes of the bill. The bill would declare that a specified provision of the bill is independent and severable from the other changes made by this bill. (3)This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute. Hide
An Act to Amend Sections 44060.5, 44125, 44271, 44275, 44280, 44281, 44282, 44283, 44287, 44299.1, and 44299.2 Of, and to Repeal Section 44299 Of, the Health and Safety Code, and to Amend Sections 9250.1, 9261.1, and 9853.6 of the Vehicle Code, Relating to Vehicular Air Pollution, and Declaring the Urgency Thereof, to Take Effect Immediately. SB 11 (2013-2014) PavleySupportNo
(1)Existing law creates the enhanced fleet modernization program, administered by the Bureau of Automotive Repair in the Department of Consumer Affairs, to provide compensation for the retirement of… More
(1)Existing law creates the enhanced fleet modernization program, administered by the Bureau of Automotive Repair in the Department of Consumer Affairs, to provide compensation for the retirement of passenger vehicles, and light-duty and medium-duty trucks that are high polluters. Existing law provides that under this program compensation for retired vehicles for a low-income motor vehicle owner, as defined, is $1,500, and for all other motor vehicle owners, it is $1,000. Existing law authorizes this compensation to be increased by the department based on various factors, including the emissions benefits of the vehicle’s retirement. This bill would require the state board, in consultation with the bureau and no later than June 30, 2015, to update the guidelines for the enhanced fleet modernization program to include specified elements and to study and consider specified elements. The bill, in addition, would establish compensation for replacement vehicles for low-income vehicle owners at not less than $2,500 and would make this compensation available to an owner in addition to the compensation for a retired vehicle. The bill also would instead authorize an increase in the compensation under these programs for either retired or replacement vehicles only for low-income motor vehicle owners as necessary to balance maximizing air quality benefits of the program while ensuring participation by low-income motor vehicle owners, as specified.(2)Existing law, until January 1, 2016, increases vehicle registration fees, vessel registration fees, and specified service fees for identification plates by a specified amount. Existing law requires the revenue generated by the increase in those fees to be deposited in the Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Fund, and either the Air Quality Improvement Fund or the Enhanced Fleet Modernization Subaccount, as provided. Existing law, until January 1, 2016, imposes on certain vehicles a smog abatement fee of $20, and requires a specified amount of this fee to be deposited in the Air Quality Improvement Fund and in the Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Fund. This bill would extend those fees in the amounts required to make these deposits into the Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Fund, the Air Quality Improvement Fund, and the Enhanced Fleet Modernization Subaccount until January 1, 2024, at which time the fees would be reduced by those amounts. (3)Existing law establishes the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program, which is administered by the state board, to provide grants to offset the incremental cost of eligible projects that reduce emissions of air pollutants from sources in the state and for funding a fueling infrastructure demonstration program and technology development efforts. Existing law, beginning January 1, 2015, limits the Carl Moyer program to funding projects that reduce emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx). This bill would extend the current authorization for the Carl Moyer program to fund a broader range of projects that reduce emissions until January 1, 2024, and would make other conforming changes in that regard. The bill also would delete obsolete references and make conforming changes to the Carl Moyer program.(4)Section 3 of Article XIX of the California Constitution restricts the expenditure of revenues from fees and taxes imposed by the state on vehicles to specified purposes, subject to certain exceptions. This bill would require the commission and the state board to ensure that revenues from specified fees imposed on vehicles that are used for purposes of the Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program and the Air Quality Improvement Program are expended in compliance with Section 3 of Article XIX of the California Constitution.(5)This bill would make its provisions contingent on the enactment of AB 8 of the 2013–14 Regular Session.(6)This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute. Hide
An Act to Amend Sections 20010, 20020, and 20035 Of, and to Add Article 2.5 (Commencing with Section 20016) to Chapter 5.5 of Division 8 Of, the Business and Professions Code, Relating to Franchises. SB 610 (2013-2014) JacksonSupportNo
The California Franchise Relations Act sets forth certain requirements related to the termination, nonrenewal, and transfer of franchises between a franchisor, subfranchisor, and franchisee, as those… More
The California Franchise Relations Act sets forth certain requirements related to the termination, nonrenewal, and transfer of franchises between a franchisor, subfranchisor, and franchisee, as those terms are defined. Existing law provides that any condition purporting to bind any person to waive compliance with the act is contrary to public policy and void. This bill would provide that a condition of a franchise agreement requiring the franchisee to waive the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is contrary to public policy and void. The bill would prohibit a franchise agreement from restricting the right of a franchisee to join or participate in an association of franchisees to the extent the restriction is prohibited by existing law. The bill would prohibit a franchise agreement from preventing a franchisee from selling or transferring a franchise or a part of the interest of a franchise to another person, except as provided. The bill would prohibit a franchise agreement from giving a franchisee a right to sell, transfer, or assign the franchise, or a right thereunder, without the consent of the franchisor, as provided. The bill would prohibit a franchise agreement from allowing the transferring franchisee to fail to notify the franchisor of the franchisee’s decision to sell, transfer, or assign the franchise, as provided. Existing law prohibits a franchisor from terminating a franchise agreement prior to the expiration of its term, except for good cause, as defined, and upon the occurrence of specified events. This bill would prohibit a franchisor from terminating a franchise agreement prior to the expiration of its term unless there is a substantial and material breach on the part of the franchisee of a lawful requirement of the franchise agreement, except as otherwise provided. Existing law requires a franchisor that terminates or fails to renew a franchise, other than in accordance with specified provisions of law, to offer to repurchase from the franchisee the franchisee’s resalable current inventory, as specified. This bill would require a franchisor that terminates or fails to allow the sale, transfer, or assignment of a franchise, other than in accordance with specified provisions of law, to, at the election of the franchisee, either reinstate the franchisee and pay specified damages or pay to the franchisee the fair market value of the franchise and franchise assets, as provided. Hide
AB 291 (2011-2012) WieckowskiSupportYes
AB 46 (2011-2012) PerezOpposeNo