|
Amended
IN
Assembly
March 19, 2026 |
| Introduced by Assembly Member Petrie-Norris |
February 20, 2026 |
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
The Planning and Zoning Law enacts various laws relating to land use, including statewide land use planning, transportation planning, local planning, zoning regulations, and housing development, among other things. Existing law makes formal rules of evidence or procedure applicable in judicial actions and proceedings inapplicable to any proceeding subject to that law, except to the extent that a public agency otherwise provides by charter, ordinance, resolution, or rule of procedure.
This bill would make a nonsubstantive change to the latter provision.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1.
Section 3558.10 is added to the Government Code, to read:3558.10.
A public employer identified in subdivision (a) of Section 3555.5 shall provide a recognized employee organization no less than 45 days’ written notice before taking an action to develop, purchase, implement, or utilize any generative artificial intelligence to perform a service that is within the scope of work of the job classification represented by the recognized employee organization.(a)The formal rules of evidence or procedure applicable in judicial actions and proceedings shall not apply in any proceeding subject to this title except to the extent that a public agency otherwise provides by charter, ordinance, resolution, or rule of procedure.
(b)No action, inaction, or recommendation by any public agency or its legislative body or any of its administrative agencies or officials on any matter subject to this title shall be held invalid or set aside by any court on the ground of the improper admission or
rejection of evidence or by reason of any error, irregularity, informality, neglect, or omission (hereafter, error) as to any matter pertaining to petitions, applications, notices, findings, records, hearings, reports, recommendations, appeals, or any matters of procedure subject to this title, unless the court finds that the error was prejudicial and that the party complaining or appealing suffered substantial injury from that error and that a different result would have been probable if the error had not occurred. There shall be no presumption that error is prejudicial or that injury was done if the error is shown.