Existing law establishes the California Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority to provide financial assistance for projects that promote the use of alternative energies. Existing law, until January 1, 2021, authorizes the authority to approve a project for financial assistance in the form of a sales and use tax exclusion. Existing law prohibits the authority from granting sales and use tax exclusions that exceed $100,000,000 for each calendar year. This bill would expand projects eligible for the sales and use tax exclusion to include projects that process or utilize recycled feedstock, but would not include a project that processes or utilizes recycled feedstock in a manner that constitutes disposal. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Sections 26003 and 26011.8 of the Public Resources Code proposed by AB 1269 that would become operative only if this bill and AB 1269 are chaptered and become effective on or before January 1, 2016, and this bill is chaptered last. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Sponsored bills
Under existing law, the Emergency Medical Air Transportation Act, a penalty of $4 is imposed upon every conviction for a violation of the Vehicle Code, or a local ordinance adopted pursuant to the Vehicle Code, other than a parking offense. Existing law requires the county or the court that imposed the fine to transfer the moneys collected pursuant to this act to the Emergency Medical Air Transportation Act Fund. Under existing law, the assessment of these penalties will terminate on January 1, 2016, and any moneys unexpended and unencumbered in the Emergency Medical Air Transportation Act Fund on June 30, 2017, will transfer to the General Fund. Existing law repeals the Emergency Medical Air Transportation Act on January 1, 2018. This bill would extend the dates of the Emergency Medical Air Transportation Act, so that the assessment of the penalties will terminate commencing January 1, 2018, and any moneys unexpended and unencumbered in the Emergency Medical Air Transportation Act Fund on June 30, 2019, will transfer to the General Fund. The bill would extend the operation of the Emergency Medical Air Transportation Act until January 1, 2020. The bill would also make legislative findings and declarations as to the harmful effects of relying on penalty assessments to fund core state programs and the necessity to identify alternative funding sources for emergency medical air transportation services. The bill would require the State Department of Health Care Services and the Department of Finance to develop, by March 1, 2017, a funding plan that ensures adequate reimbursement to emergency medical air transportation providers following the expiration of the Emergency Medical Air Transportation Act on January 1, 2020.
Existing law, the Reproductive Privacy Act, provides that every individual possesses a fundamental right of privacy with respect to reproductive decisions. Existing law provides that the state shall not deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose or obtain an abortion prior to viability of the fetus, as defined, or when necessary to protect her life or health. Existing law specifies the circumstances under which the performance of an abortion is deemed unauthorized. This bill would enact the Reproductive FACT (Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency) Act, which would require a licensed covered facility, as defined, to disseminate a notice to all clients, as specified, stating, among other things, that California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services, prenatal care, and abortion, for eligible women. The bill would also require an unlicensed covered facility, as defined, to disseminate a notice to all clients, as specified, stating, among other things, that the facility is not licensed as a medical facility by the State of California. The bill would authorize the Attorney General, city attorney, or county counsel to bring an action to impose a specified civil penalty against covered facilities that fail to comply with these requirements.
The California Constitution requires that the water resources of the State be put to beneficial use to the fullest extent of which they are capable. Under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, which applies to all groundwater basins in the state, all basins designated as high- or medium-priority basins by the Department of Water Resources as basins that are subject to critical conditions of overdraft, as specified, are required to be managed under a groundwater sustainability plan or coordinated groundwater sustainability plans by January 31, 2020. This bill would establish special procedures for a comprehensive adjudication, which is defined as an action filed in superior court to comprehensively determine rights to extract groundwater in a basin. The bill would authorize the court to determine all groundwater rights of a basin, whether based on appropriation, overlying right, or other basis of right, and use of storage space in the basin. The bill would provide that these special procedures governing comprehensive adjudications do not apply in certain cases that do not involve a comprehensive allocation of a basin's groundwater supply. The bill would authorize a judge of the superior court to determine if the action is a comprehensive adjudication, as specified. This bill would require the plaintiff in a comprehensive adjudication to provide notice of the comprehensive adjudication within a specified amount of time after filing the complaint to certain persons including a city, county, or city and county that overlies the basin or a portion of the basin. The bill would require a draft notice and draft form answer, as specified, to be lodged by the plaintiff with the court when filing the complaint. Within 30 days of the assignment of a judge by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council, the bill would require the plaintiff to file a motion for approval of the draft notice and draft form answer. Following a court order approving the notice and form answer and authorizing service of landowners, as specified, the bill would require the plaintiff to identify the assessor parcel numbers and physical addresses of all real property in the basin and the names and addresses of all holders of fee title to real property in the basin, as specified; mail the notice, complaint, and form answer to all holders of fee title to real property in the basin, as specified; and publish the notice in one or more newspapers of general circulation, as specified. The bill would require the plaintiff to file with the court a notice of the completion of the mailing. The bill would deem fulfillment of the service and publication provisions as effective service of process of the complaint and notice on all interested parties of the comprehensive adjudication for purposes of establishing in rem jurisdiction and the comprehensive effect of the comprehensive adjudication. This bill would authorize a groundwater sustainability agency for the basin or a portion of the basin, a city, county, or city and county that overlies the basin or a portion of the basin, and certain persons to intervene in a comprehensive adjudication. This bill would require the court to convene a case management conference and would authorize the court to consider certain matters, including dividing the case into phases to resolve legal and factual issues, in the initial case management conference or as soon as practicable. In addition, the bill would require each party to serve within 6 months of appearing in the comprehensive adjudication, specified initial disclosures made under penalty of perjury to all other named parties and a special master, if one has been appointed in the action. By expanding the scope of an existing crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize the court to appoint one or more special masters in a comprehensive adjudication, whose duties could include, among other things, investigating technical and legal issues, as directed by the court, and compiling a report of the findings, as specified. The bill would authorize the court to request the State Water Resources Control Board or the Department of Water Resources to recommend candidates for appointment as a special master or to review the qualifications of candidates. This bill would authorize the court, upon a showing that the basin is in a condition of long-term overdraft, to issue a preliminary injunction that could include, among other things, a moratorium on new or increased appropriations of water. The bill would provide that a judgment in a comprehensive adjudication is binding on the parties to the action, their agents and employees, and all their successors in interest. The bill would also provide the court with continuing jurisdiction to modify or amend a final judgment in a comprehensive adjudication in specified instances. This bill would require the Department of Water Resources and each county and groundwater sustainability agency that overlies the basin or a portion of the basin to post and maintain the notice and form answer on their Internet Web sites, as specified. By requiring counties to take certain actions related to the comprehensive adjudication, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. This bill would provide that it will only become effective if SB 226 is enacted and becomes effective.
Existing law, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, an initiative measure enacted by the approval of Proposition 215 at the November 5, 1996, statewide general election, authorizes the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Existing law enacted by the Legislature requires the establishment of a program for the issuance of identification cards to qualified patients so that they may lawfully use marijuana for medical purposes, and requires the establishment of guidelines for the lawful cultivation of marijuana grown for medical use. Existing law provides for the licensure of various professions by boards or bureaus within the Department of Consumer Affairs. Existing law, the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, provides for the regulation of food, drugs, devices, and cosmetics, as specified. A violation of that law is a crime. This bill would require the Department of Food and Agriculture, the Department of Pesticide Regulation, the State Department of Public Health, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the State Water Resources Control Board to promulgate regulations or standards relating to medical marijuana and its cultivation, as specified. The bill would also require various state agencies to take specified actions to mitigate the impact that marijuana cultivation has on the environment. By requiring cities, counties, and their local law enforcement agencies to coordinate with state agencies to enforce laws addressing the environmental impacts of medical marijuana cultivation, and by including medical marijuana within the Sherman Act, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would require a state licensing authority to charge each licensee under the act a licensure and renewal fee, as applicable, and would further require the deposit of those collected fees into an account specific to that licensing authority in the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act Fund, which this bill would establish. This bill would impose certain fines and civil penalties for specified violations of the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act, and would require moneys collected as a result of these fines and civil penalties to be deposited into the Medical Cannabis Fines and Penalties Account, which this bill would establish within the fund. Moneys in the fund and each account of the fund would be available upon appropriation of the Legislature. This bill would authorize the Director of Finance to provide an initial operating loan from the General Fund to the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act Fund of up to $10,000,000, and would appropriate $10,000,000 from the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act Fund to the Department of Consumer Affairs to begin the activities of the bureau. This bill would provide that its provisions are severable. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. This bill would become operative only if AB 266 and SB 643 of the 2015–16 Regular Session are enacted and take effect on or before January 1, 2016.
(1) Existing law, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, an initiative measure enacted by the approval of Proposition 215 at the November 5, 1996, statewide general election, authorizes the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Existing law enacted by the Legislature requires the establishment of a program for the issuance of identification cards to qualified patients so that they may lawfully use marijuana for medical purposes, and requires the establishment of guidelines for the lawful cultivation of marijuana grown for medical use. Existing law provides for the licensure of various professions by boards or bureaus within the Department of Consumer Affairs. Existing law, the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, provides for the regulation of food, drugs, devices, and cosmetics, as specified. A violation of that law is a crime. This bill, among other things, would enact the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act for the licensure and regulation of medical marijuana and would establish within the Department of Consumer Affairs the Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation, under the supervision and control of the Director of Consumer Affairs. The bill would require the director to administer and enforce the provisions of the act. This bill would also require the Board of Equalization, in consultation with the Department of Food and Agriculture, to adopt a system for reporting the movement of commercial cannabis and cannabis products. This bill would impose certain fines and civil penalties for specified violations of the act, and would require moneys collected as a result of these fines and civil penalties to be deposited into the Medical Cannabis Fines and Penalties Account. (2) Under existing law, certain persons with identification cards, who associate within the state in order collectively or cooperatively to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes, are not solely on the basis of that fact subject to specified state criminal sanctions. This bill would repeal these provisions upon the issuance of licenses by licensing authorities pursuant to the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act, as specified, and would instead provide that actions of licensees with the relevant local permits, in accordance with the act and applicable local ordinances, are not offenses subject to arrest, prosecution, or other sanction under state law. (3) This bill would provide that its provisions are severable. (4) Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. (5) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions. (6) The bill would provide that it shall become operative only if SB 643 and AB 243 of the 2015–16 Regular Session are also enacted and become operative.
The Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act requires owners or operators of various facilities, including pipelines, while operating in the waters of the state or where a spill from the pipelines could impact state waters, to have an oil spill contingency plan submitted to, and approved by, the administrator for oil spill response to ensure prompt and adequate response and removal action in case of a spill. The act requires the operator to maintain a level of readiness that will allow effective implementation of the applicable contingency plan. The Elder California Pipeline Safety Act of 1981, among other things, requires the State Fire Marshal to adopt hazardous liquid pipeline safety regulations in compliance with the federal law relating to hazardous liquid pipeline safety. The act requires any new pipeline constructed after January 1, 1984, and which normally operates under conditions of constant flow and pressure, to be designed and constructed in accordance with specified federal regulations, and have a means of leak detection and cathodic protection that the State Fire Marshal determines is acceptable. A violation of the act is a crime. Except as provided, the act defines "pipeline" as including every intrastate pipeline used to transport hazardous liquid substances or highly volatile liquid substances, as provided. This bill would require, by January 1, 2018, any new or replacement pipeline near environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas in the coastal zone to use best available technologies to reduce the amount of oil released in an oil spill to protect state waters and wildlife. The bill would require, by July 1, 2018, an operator of an existing pipeline near these sensitive areas to submit a plan to retrofit the pipeline, by January 1, 2020, as provided. By creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the State Fire Marshal to adopt regulations relating to the above provisions by July 1, 2017. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law establishes the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, otherwise known as the Williamson Act, and authorizes a city or county to enter into 10-year contracts with owners of land devoted to agricultural use, whereby the owners agree to continue using the property for that purpose, and the city or county agrees to value the land accordingly for purposes of property taxation, as specified. Existing law provides for the procedure to cancel a contract entered into under these provisions, and provides that the landowner and the Department of Conservation may agree on the cancellation value of the land. This bill would require the department to provide a preliminary valuation of the land to the county assessor and the city council or board of supervisors at least 60 days prior to the effective date of the agreed upon cancellation valuation if the contract includes an additional cancellation fee, as specified.
Existing law provides for the regulation and licensure of clinics, as defined, by the State Department of Public Health. Under existing law, specified types of clinics are exempted from these licensing provisions, including a clinic that is conducted, maintained, or operated by a federally recognized Indian tribe and is located on land recognized as tribal land by the federal government. This bill would expand that exemption to also include a clinic conducted, maintained, or operated by a federally recognized Indian tribe under a contract with the United States pursuant to federal law, without regard to the location of the clinic, except that if the clinic chooses to apply to the department for a state facility license, then the department would retain authority to regulate that clinic as a primary care clinic. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1206 of the Health and Safety Code proposed by AB 1130 that would become operative if this bill and AB 1130 are chaptered and this bill is chaptered last.
The Subdivision Map Act requires the legislative body of a city or county to deny approval of a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, unless it makes certain findings. Under that act, the legislative body of a county is required to make 3 specified findings before approving a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, for an area located in a state responsibility area or a very high fire hazard severity zone, as defined. This bill would exempt from those requirements the approval of a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, that would subdivide land identified in the open space element of the general plan for the managed production of resources, as defined. The bill would apply the exemption to the subdivision of land that is consistent with the open space purpose, and would require the land to be subject to a binding and recorded restriction prohibiting the development of a habitable, industrial, or commercial building or structure if the subdivision would result in parcels that are 40 acres or smaller in size. The bill would require all other structures to comply with specified defensible space requirements. The bill would additionally require the legislative body to make the 3 specified findings before later approving the removal of a binding restriction placed as a condition of a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, for land that was previously exempt from those requirements if the proposed subdivision would allow the development of a building or structure as specified.