SB 556 Poll

Do you support all of the proposed changes in SB 556?

Yes
7
26%
No
20
74%
 
Total votes: 27

User avatar
DWoolley
Posts: 279
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: Orange County
Contact:

Re: SB 556 Poll

Postby DWoolley » Mon Apr 08, 2019 7:22 pm

CELSA has been reaching out to CLSA members. SB 556, like most bills, was introduced at the deadline the last week of January. The CLSA board meeting was the following Saturday, February 2. This means the CLSA board, collectively, has not seen the language yet.

As others have stated, the language is not refined or by any means final. This is the beginning of a two year legislative cycle. I expect the CLSA board will take a position at the April meeting.

I encourage everyone interested to contact their director with any input. If you do not belong to a chapter I suggest writing Central Office or the director of a chapter.

DWoolley

User avatar
David Kendall
Posts: 351
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 1:45 pm
Location: Sonoma

Re: SB 556 Poll

Postby David Kendall » Tue Apr 09, 2019 7:35 am

Thanks to all who participated in this discussion I believe I am much more informed about the motivation behind this legislation. I have reviewed and found the Board analysis enlightening

I do not advocate tailoring the LS Act to suit my personal preference of practice. I do feel that from a pragmatic standpoint there are certain aspects that are now or soon to be archaic or obviously (to me) doomed to deregulation due to new technology and customs.

Spending our political capital to preserve our exclusive right to use mathematics or remote sensing or specific equipment or general constructiion activities and edge out other capable practitioners is in my opinion reducing our association to a selfish trade mentality (which is probably my biggest personal issue with this publication). All of you who like to imprint the term "Professional" on your stamp ought to take note.

I try to choose my battles wisely and this is one is not for me. Maybe I still don't understand it completely as this is apparently not a huge problem in my world so I perceive it to be like the picture of the old man from the Simpsons shaking his fist at the cloud

User avatar
dedkad
Posts: 355
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 3:55 pm

Re: SB 556 Poll

Postby dedkad » Tue Apr 09, 2019 11:37 am

E_Page wrote:If anyone in this thread has given the bill "blanket support", I missed it. Most have stated some version of "Although various provisions are written poorly and present problems, the basic idea underpinning the effort is a good one".


The poll was: "Do you support all of the proposed changes in SB 556?" Seven people have voted yes so far. There's your "blanket support."

User avatar
E_Page
Posts: 2051
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:49 am
Location: El Dorado County

Re: SB 556 Poll

Postby E_Page » Tue Apr 09, 2019 12:15 pm

The poll was: "Do you support all of the proposed changes in SB 556?" Seven people have voted yes so far. There's your "blanket support."


Then must be that none of those 7 qualified their votes with comments to this thread.
Last edited by E_Page on Tue Apr 09, 2019 12:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Evan Page, PLS
A Certain Forum Essayist

User avatar
Peter Ehlert
Posts: 480
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 2:40 pm
Location: N31°43', W116°39'
Contact:

Re: SB 556 Poll

Postby Peter Ehlert » Tue Apr 09, 2019 12:36 pm

That's the trouble with polls, they seldom reveal much.


(btw: Hillary did Not win!)
Peter Ehlert

User avatar
E_Page
Posts: 2051
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:49 am
Location: El Dorado County

Re: SB 556 Poll

Postby E_Page » Tue Apr 09, 2019 12:58 pm

David Kendall wrote:I do not advocate tailoring the LS Act to suit my personal preference of practice. I do feel that from a pragmatic standpoint there are certain aspects that are now or soon to be archaic or obviously (to me) doomed to deregulation due to new technology and customs.

Spending our political capital to preserve our exclusive right to use mathematics or remote sensing or specific equipment or general construction activities and edge out other capable practitioners is in my opinion reducing our association to a selfish trade mentality (which is probably my biggest personal issue with this publication). All of you who like to imprint the term "Professional" on your stamp ought to take note.

I try to choose my battles wisely and this is one is not for me. Maybe I still don't understand it completely as this is apparently not a huge problem in my world so I perceive it to be like the picture of the old man from the Simpsons shaking his fist at the cloud



You say you don't advocate tailoring the LSA to suit your preferred areas of practice and then you go on to argue why we should tacitly allow your non-preferred areas of practice to be removed by ignoring incursions on those areas.

Again, you reduce your non-preferred areas of practice as nothing more than measurement by the use of particular technologies and the application of simple math. Gee, you sound like some of the CEs at some of the companies I used to work for who thought surveyors were nothing more than overpaid brush apes and construction laborers.

Simply because you are unaware of the professional aspects of the other areas of practice does not make it something less than professional, and your limited impression does not make an attempt to preserve the areas that should be preserved as descending to a protectionist trade mentality. I know quite well what it means to be a professional. Part of being a professional is knowing that your knowledge, even within the full range of the practice of surveying, has limits. In recognizing those limits, you should have the sense and grace to recognize that other areas of practice have more complicated aspects than you are even aware of.

I take exception to your implication that perhaps I should not consider myself as a professional because I feel that the practice act is worth protecting.
Evan Page, PLS
A Certain Forum Essayist

User avatar
David Kendall
Posts: 351
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 1:45 pm
Location: Sonoma

Re: SB 556 Poll

Postby David Kendall » Tue Apr 09, 2019 4:20 pm

E_Page wrote:I take exception to your implication that perhaps I should not consider myself as a professional because I feel that the practice act is worth protecting.


Mr Page, since I see you have such great passion for this topic, I suggest you direct the energy of your ire at the maker of the bill whose Fact Sheet characterizes land surveying as a construction trade in paragraph 1. That line is a liability to your ideal.

I did not create this situation I simply provide color commentary...

Again I don't believe that protecting the public from potentially capable practitioners interested in laying something out using mathematics (plumbers, landscapers, painters?) protects the practice act. If you do then please elaborate and defend that line because I cannot see it

Anyway I believe you misunderstand the intent of that comment on the "Professional Land Surveyor" imprint on the stamp.

It should be noted that of the 10 County Surveyors who signed the cover sheet of the recently (on another thread) posted 12 County Riverside Water District Record of Survey (two were RPE), not one called himself a Professional Land Surveyor. This was around 1996. Every County Surveyor for ten counties was a Licensed Land Surveyor. For some reason in the last 20 years everyone became a Professional. I find it intriguing but that is a topic for another thread.

FYI my stamp says "Licensed Land Surveyor"
Last edited by David Kendall on Tue Apr 09, 2019 4:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
DWoolley
Posts: 279
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: Orange County
Contact:

Re: SB 556 Poll

Postby DWoolley » Tue Apr 09, 2019 4:31 pm

As a director, I have had several members of our chapter send me comments. One common thread in the comments is opposition to the insurance requirements. I have discussed the likely need to remove the requirement from the bill.

Please continue to comment. We need to hear the constructive comments. I welcome the opposition equally to the favorable.

DWoolley

William Magee
Posts: 294
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 12:27 pm

Re: SB 556 Poll

Postby William Magee » Wed Apr 10, 2019 4:33 am

E_Page wrote:.

CELSA tried a similar effort about 3 or 4 years ago and floated it by the CLSA Leg Comm. The language in that bill was similarly problematic, but again, the basic idea was one worth moving forward. Unfortunately, they came to us with their proposal at essentially the last minute and there wasn't sufficient time to wordsmith it into a workable legislative proposal, so we took an "Oppose unless Amended" stance. We asked them to let us work with them to get it into a workable form for the next legislative cycle. Instead, they got upset that we didn't just hop on their bandwagon and moved it forward without us.

That effort died fairly quickly.



Interesting information. Thanks for the history.

Skimming through the past year or so of CLSA Board minutes searching for this topic reveals that CLSA appointed a couple of persons to work with CELSA on crafting legislation. While that effort woulda/coulda/shoulda been to properly vet and get interested group’s buy in on proposed legislation, the earliest inklings of proposed language came at the Feb CLSA Board meeting, after the deadline for spot bill submission. So once again the professions is back to contending with another attempt at driving the cart in front of the horse.

Vetting of proposed legislation must be done prior to being placed in the legislature chambers. Attempting to ramrod such important ideas through legislation without prior vetting is a bad recipe.

Its kind of like a surveyor who copies the assessor's parcel map and submits it for CS review as a draft R/S prior to researching records and a field investigation. Far better to have the ducks in a row beforehand than after.
Don't shoot the messenger.

User avatar
LS_8750
Posts: 739
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Sonoma
Contact:

Re: SB 556 Poll

Postby LS_8750 » Thu Apr 11, 2019 7:43 am

Last Friday, with this thread in the back of my mind, I was perusing the Nevada equivalent of the LS Act in preparation for my NV specific LS exam (I passed).

Interestingly, in Nevada they sort of combined their LS Act and PE Act into one. Nevada's definition of land surveying is not unlike ours in California. Engineers have no authority to survey in Nevada. Black and white. Period. It was on the exam.

I don't object to they way they do it in Nevada. They have a clean approach.
Clark E. Stoner, PE, PLS
CFS Engineering
Sonoma County
Santa Cruz County
tel. 707.996.8449 (Sonoma) or 831.477.9215 (Santa Cruz)
stoner@cfsengineering.com

User avatar
DWoolley
Posts: 279
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: Orange County
Contact:

Re: SB 556 Poll

Postby DWoolley » Thu Apr 11, 2019 8:14 am

In Nevada a licensed land surveyor is authorized to prepare grading plans for minor subdivisions. Many of the land surveyors I know, that began surveying in the 80s or earlier, are proficient at preparing grading plans.

Nevada also requires the business to be registered with the board - somewhat similar to Certificate of Authority proposed in SB556.

Mr. Kendall, there is a story behind California land surveyors becoming "professional" land surveyors. I will try to find the time to get you the legislative history and tell the story.

DWoolley

User avatar
Warren Smith
Posts: 709
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:41 am
Location: Sonora

Re: SB 556 Poll

Postby Warren Smith » Fri Apr 12, 2019 7:49 am

Looks like the bill was sent out of committee for a second reading with the author's removal of the Corporation Code amendments relating to the Certificate of Authority. It was referred back to committee as read.
Warren D. Smith, LS 4842
County Surveyor
Tuolumne County

User avatar
DWoolley
Posts: 279
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: Orange County
Contact:

Re: SB 556 Poll

Postby DWoolley » Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:40 am

It appears as though the Orange County concerns submitted are being addressed. Now we have to redistribute the language and start again, fair enough.

I am nonplussed with this new language:

"(o) Nothing in this section shall require the use of a licensed land surveyor for underground utility locating and subsurface imaging that is not required under this chapter as it read on January 1, 2018."

I believe the location of underground fixed works is squarely in the practice of land surveying. Thoughts?

DWoolley

User avatar
Jim Frame
Posts: 1161
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:52 pm
Location: Davis, CA
Contact:

Re: SB 556 Poll

Postby Jim Frame » Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:55 am

I suggest replacing "locating" with "marking" in the phrase "underground utility locating" to avoid conflict with §8726.
Jim Frame
Frame Surveying & Mapping
609 A Street
Davis, CA 95616
[url]framesurveying.com[/url]

William Magee
Posts: 294
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 12:27 pm

Re: SB 556 Poll

Postby William Magee » Fri Apr 12, 2019 9:08 am

Warren Smith wrote:Looks like the bill was sent out of committee for a second reading with the author's removal of the Corporation Code amendments relating to the Certificate of Authority. It was referred back to committee as read.



Looks to be quite a bit more involved than just the Corp Code changes. One bigun is the deletion of the $20k minimum fine to an "as set by BPELSG" amount. Lessor biggee is they deleted the pro liability insurance reqm't. And there are others.

Contrary to delusional commentary elsewhere, these recent amendments are likely in consideration of concerns brought forth by a number of entities, such as BPELSG, CEAC, CLSA's Leg Comm, among others.
Don't shoot the messenger.

User avatar
DWoolley
Posts: 279
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: Orange County
Contact:

Re: SB 556 Poll

Postby DWoolley » Fri Apr 12, 2019 9:35 am

William Magee wrote:

Contrary to delusional commentary elsewhere, these recent amendments are likely in consideration of concerns brought forth by a number of entities, such as BPELSG, CEAC, CLSA's Leg Comm, among others.


As a CLSA Legislative Committee member, I can say there has been no concerns presented to CELSA that I have seen. If there are concerns they will need to be presented to the CLSA board (and approved) at the next meeting. The same can be said for CEAC, I have not seen any comments. Magee, please provide any evidence to the contrary. However, I have been in regular contact with the CELSA folks concerning the language. In fact, I received two separate requests this week from CELSA members to attend this week's BPELSG in Calabasas - to discuss SB556. Unfortunately, my calendar did not allow for me to attend.

I received a report that BPELSG will be removing the words "to cooperate" from 8780.2 - a violation of the professional's due process rights - in the sunset bill. The opposition to the violation of the due process rights came from Orange County.

Magee, I find it interesting you never let the truth stand in the way of your callous statements - the cowardly luxury afforded hiding behind a pseudonym. If you cannot be constructive, please grind your bitter axe elsewhere. Meanwhile, the Orange County Chapter, the practice based chapter, will continue to contribute to the association.

DWoolley

User avatar
David Kendall
Posts: 351
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 1:45 pm
Location: Sonoma

Re: SB 556 Poll

Postby David Kendall » Fri Apr 12, 2019 10:25 am

DWoolley wrote:I received a report that BPELSG will be removing the words "to cooperate" from 8780.2 - a violation of the professional's due process rights - in the sunset bill. The opposition to the violation of the due process rights came from Orange County.


Nice catch.... I greatly appreciate the passion of OC chapter with regard to legislative processes!

William Magee
Posts: 294
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 12:27 pm

Re: SB 556 Poll

Postby William Magee » Fri Apr 12, 2019 1:37 pm

Glad to see some constructive progress, albeit some pretty backwards movement too (more on that later). At first read it would appear that the authors had taken notice of the BPELSG staff report concerns attached elsewhere in this thread. I can't imagine that CEAC or CLSA's leg comm or a number of other potentially affected entities haven't had concerns. In the Feb 2, 2019 CLSA board agenda, I notice it shows that the legislative committee was scheduled to meet on March 9, in which SB 556 would have already been available for review as it had already been read in the Senate. Perhaps there were no concerns brought up then, but I'm an optimist that wasn't the case. Same goes with CEAC. I am optimistic the county surveyors have been making some calls.

But considering that, Dave brought up a good point where he says:

DWoolley wrote:As a CLSA Legislative Committee member, I can say there has been no concerns presented to CELSA that I have seen. If there are concerns they will need to be presented to the CLSA board (and approved) at the next meeting.


That makes sense, and thank you for pointing out the committee has to present their findings to the Board prior to making a legislative stance. However, I have to presume that if the committee has concerns or needs clarifications, that communication with the authoring group is not out of the question prior to Board approval. Surely that occurs.

In fact, a review of CLSA's website section on committees shows that there is a "Surveyor Coalition Committee" of which Dave is the chair. (For those who haven't been reading the CLSA's BOD agendas and minutes, the "Coalition" is the one and same group of surveyors who wrote SB 556

The first bullet on the website for the committee says its' and the chair's direction is to "work with the Legislative Committee to bring forward to the Coalition legislative items for members consideration and support".

But wait, didn't I just read that

DWoolley wrote:As a CLSA Legislative Committee member, I can say there has been no concerns presented to CELSA that I have seen. .


So, isn't discussing any concerns raised at CLSA's Leg Comm with the "Coalition" what Dave is supposed to be doing? Of course, there is the remote possibility that SB 556 went through the Leg Comm without any concerns being raised. Highly unlikely with astute people like Evan residing on that committee

However, this brings up a whole 'nuther concern.

DWoolley wrote:It appears as though the Orange County concerns submitted are being addressed. ....
..... Thoughts?


I am reminded of Section 8.02 of CLSA's Bylaws, "Authority of Association over Chapter" and cannot help but ask why OC Chapter concerns are going direct to the "Coalition", without first going through the Leg Comm or CLSA's BOD? Where does CLSA's member's primary fiduciary duty belong to? CLSA as a whole, or the individual chapters? In the case of concerns regarding SB 556, the answer is not what I would expect.

I am again reminded about that letter to ACEC, asking them to consider pursuing regaining full survey authority for civil engineers.

And, I for one am sick and tired of the placing of a single chapter, by individuals, over the association as a whole. I absolutely believe the association as a whole has become broken by the desire for control being exerted by individuals using their chapter as the vehicle for that means.
Don't shoot the messenger.

William Magee
Posts: 294
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 12:27 pm

Re: SB 556 Poll

Postby William Magee » Fri Apr 12, 2019 1:54 pm

Warren Smith wrote:Looks like the bill was sent out of committee for a second reading with the author's removal of the Corporation Code amendments relating to the Certificate of Authority. It was referred back to committee as read.


Took a quick re-read of the newly amended language and the following caught my eye:

6731.1. Civil engineering also includes the practice or offer to practice, either in a public or private capacity, all of the following:

(a) Locates, relocates, establishes, reestablishes, retraces, or lays out through the use of mathematics or geometric measurements the alignment or elevation for any buildings or other the fixed works embraced within the practice of civil engineering, as described in Section 6731.

Note the words "buildings or other" was added.

It'll take someone smarter than me to define whether "buildings" means all buildings or only those "embraced within the practice of civil engineering".
And if only means those buildings "embraced within the practice of civil engineering", does that mean if the truss design is stamped by an engineer than the building is "embraced within the practice of civil engineering", or does it fall to the more strict category such as when a building as a whole has to be designed by a civil engineer? What about those buildings which can only be designed by a structural engineer and for which fall outside of a civil engineer's license?

On its face value and as a layperson to the engineering realm, I gotta think that when Joe Contractor shows up to your neighbor's house to build a 10' x 12' storage shed, this new proposed language will require that the shed better be layed out by a licensed land surveyor. Or better yet, by a licensed professional land surveyor. :>) Better get your BPELSG complaint forms handy, en masse
Last edited by William Magee on Fri Apr 12, 2019 9:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Don't shoot the messenger.

User avatar
David Kendall
Posts: 351
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 1:45 pm
Location: Sonoma

Re: SB 556 Poll

Postby David Kendall » Fri Apr 12, 2019 3:16 pm

William Magee wrote:I gotta think that when Joe Contractor shows up to your neighbor's house to build a 10' x 12' storage shed, this new proposed language will require that the shed better be layed out by a licensed land surveyor.


I believe that would only apply if Joe were to try and use mathematics to lay out the shed. If he could do it using maybe a witching stick or The Force or throwing lawn darts off of the roof of the house then I suppose he would be acting within the law.

It might be simpler if the state could just restrict the sale of measuring equipment like tape measures and rulers and gps receivers to only those carrying a certificate of authority. This would more effectively protect the public from unlicensed practice

William Magee
Posts: 294
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 12:27 pm

Re: SB 556 Poll

Postby William Magee » Sat Apr 13, 2019 7:01 am

David Kendall wrote:
William Magee wrote:I gotta think that when Joe Contractor shows up to your neighbor's house to build a 10' x 12' storage shed, this new proposed language will require that the shed better be layed out by a licensed land surveyor.


I believe that would only apply if Joe were to try and use mathematics to lay out the shed. If he could do it using maybe a witching stick or The Force or throwing lawn darts off of the roof of the house then I suppose he would be acting within the law.

It might be simpler if the state could just restrict the sale of measuring equipment like tape measures and rulers and gps receivers to only those carrying a certificate of authority. This would more effectively protect the public from unlicensed practice


Yeah, kinda hard to build a storage shed with a tape and square without using addition and subtraction, you know, i.e. “mathematics”.
Sheesh. The more I see of SB 556, the more I think these full-steam-ahead authors need to “step away from the keyboard “
Don't shoot the messenger.

User avatar
LS_8750
Posts: 739
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Sonoma
Contact:

Re: SB 556 Poll

Postby LS_8750 » Tue Apr 16, 2019 2:36 pm

Bottom line is somebody is making efforts to bring this to the table. I find that encouraging over the bickering.

The current system is broken. In the present climate I know of nearly zero engineers that have a practical understanding of surveying, let alone the know how to go out and perform a surveying task. It surprises me. I thought with all of the retiring pre 82 RCEs there would be an influx of crossover engineers like me. This is not the case. What you have is engineers in decision making roles overseeing so called engineering surveying and making a mess of the whole profession. I've seen it up in Fountaingrove in the wake of the 2017 Sonoma County fires, engineer stamped maps plotting property lines 10 feet off because they never took the time to pull the deed for the property they are working on, compare it to the subdivision map, and realize there had been a lot line adjustment done some time in the past. It is not getting any better.

Carry on with your practice based selves. I'd like to see a change, similar to Nevada's setup.

User avatar
LS_8750
Posts: 739
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Sonoma
Contact:

Re: SB 556 Poll

Postby LS_8750 » Fri May 10, 2019 4:12 pm

Interesting.
Hawaii has a nice little definition of land surveying, quite comprehensive as opposed to ours in CA.

Carry on with your practice based selves. Ratchet it up.

Seems to me that getting rid of 6731.1 of the PE act would equate to making some headway. Good luck with that. Who just said it?

khuerth
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 9:33 am

Re: SB 556 Poll

Postby khuerth » Wed Jun 12, 2019 7:12 am

SB 556 as it stands today, it passed in the Senate 5/28/19 and now it is in the Assembly. Quite a bit different than the original.

SECTION 1. Section 8728.5 is added to the Business and Professions Code, to read:

8728.5. (a) For purposes of this section, “business” means a partnership, general partnership, limited liability partnership, or corporation. However, “business” does not include a sole proprietorship or a limited liability company. Nothing in this section requires a certificate for any form of corporation or partnership otherwise prohibited in this chapter from offering or providing land surveying services.
(b) A business shall not engage in the practice of, or offer services for, land surveying, as defined in Section 8726, in the state, unless that business obtains a certificate from the board pursuant to the requirements of this section.
(c) The board shall create a process to certify a business practicing land surveying. As a part of that process, the board shall establish an application form for a business to apply for certification, that shall contain all of the information required by subdivision (d), as well as any other information the board determines is necessary or convenient to administer this section.
(d) A business shall apply for a certificate to practice land surveying by submitting an application form to the board. The board may develop rules and regulations governing the conditions under which a certificate shall be granted, including, but not limited to, taking into consideration whether the business has submitted the following requirements to the board:
(1) A completed application form that includes all of the following:
(A) The name and address of the business applying for the certification.
(B) The name and current state license number of the professional land surveyor or civil engineer who will be the responsible charge of work of the business.
(C) The name of the partners in a partnership, general partnership, or limited liability partnership, or the names of the majority stockholders of a corporation.
(D) The signature and title of an agent authorized by the partnership, general partnership, limited liability partnership, or corporation to submit the application.
(2) (A) The board shall charge an application fee as determined pursuant to Section 8805.
(B) The board may develop rules and regulations governing both of the following:
(i) The circumstances when the board may require a business to seek a renewal of an existing certificate, including, but not limited to, consideration of a business’s change of ownership.
(ii) The circumstances when the board may revoke an existing certificate.
(3) A copy of a resolution by the partners of a partnership, the general partners of a general partnership or a limited liability partnership, or the board of directors of a corporation that designates an individual in the business with a current license issued by this state for the practice of land surveying or civil engineering who is authorized to practice surveying that is the responsible charge for work and that has the authority to make all final decisions in the practice of land surveying on behalf of the business.
(4) A copy of the partnership agreement of a partnership, general partnership, or limited liability partnership, the articles of incorporation or the bylaws of a corporation.
(e) A business that is organized or incorporated in a state or territory outside of California shall not offer land surveying services in California unless that business obtains a certificate under this section and complies with all other requirements of this chapter.
(f) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2022.
SEC. 2. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests