Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care, and makes a willful violation of the act a crime. Existing law provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Department of Insurance. Existing law requires a health care service plan contract issued, amended, delivered, or renewed on or after January 1, 2000, or an individual or group policy of disability insurance or self-insured employee welfare benefit plan to provide coverage for mammography for screening or diagnostic purposes upon referral by specified professionals. Under existing law, mammography performed pursuant to those requirements or that meets the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force is provided to an enrollee or an insured without cost sharing. This bill would require a health care service plan contract, a policy of health insurance that provides hospital, medical, or surgical coverage, or a self-insured employee welfare benefit plan issued, amended, or renewed on or after January 1, 2025, to provide coverage without imposing cost sharing for, among other things, screening mammography and medically necessary diagnostic breast imaging, including diagnostic breast imaging following an abnormal mammography result and for an enrollee or insured indicated to have a risk factor associated with breast cancer, except as specified. 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.
Sponsored bills
Existing law provides for the payment of unemployment compensation benefits and extended benefits to eligible individuals who meet specified requirements. Under existing law, unemployment benefits are paid from the Unemployment Fund, which is continuously appropriated for these purposes. Existing law makes an employee ineligible for benefits if the employee left work because of a trade dispute and specifies that the employee remains ineligible for the duration of the trade dispute. Existing case law holds that employees who left work due to a lockout by the employer, even if it was in anticipation of a trade dispute, are eligible for benefits. This bill would restore eligibility after the first 2 weeks for an employee who left work because of a trade dispute. The bill would codify specified case law that holds that employees who left work due to a lockout by the employer, even if it was in anticipation of a trade dispute, are eligible for benefits. The bill would specify that the bill's provisions do not diminish eligibility for benefits of individuals deprived of work due to an employer lockout or similar action, as specified. Because this bill would expand the categories of people eligible to receive benefits from a continuously appropriated fund, it would make an appropriation.
Existing law prohibits a local authority from enacting or enforcing an ordinance on matters covered by the Vehicle Code unless expressly authorized by the Vehicle Code. Existing law authorizes local authorities to adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution regarding specified matters, including, among others, crossing guards, the operation of bicycles, the removal of illegally parked vehicles, and cruising, as defined. This bill would remove the authorization for a local authority to adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or regulation regarding cruising. Existing law makes it unlawful to operate a passenger vehicle, or commercial vehicle under 6,000 pounds, that has been modified from its original design so that any portion of the vehicle, other than the wheels, has less clearance from the surface of a level roadway than the clearance between the roadway and the lowermost portion of any rim of any wheel in contact with the roadway. This bill would repeal that prohibition. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 21100 of the Vehicle Code proposed by AB 825 and SB 50 to be operative only if this bill and AB 825, this bill and SB 50, or this bill, AB 825, and SB 50 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
(1) Existing law establishes various state water policies, including the policy that the use of water for domestic purposes is the highest use of water. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations concerning water use, including that the use of potable water to irrigate nonfunctional turf is wasteful and incompatible with state policy relating to climate change, water conservation, and reduced reliance on the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta ecosystem. The bill would direct all appropriate state agencies to encourage and support the elimination of irrigation of nonfunctional turf with potable water. (2) Existing law, the Integrated Regional Water Management Planning Act, authorizes a regional water management group to prepare and adopt an integrated regional water management plan in accordance with specified requirements, including, among other things, the identification and consideration of the water-related needs of disadvantaged communities in the area within the boundaries of the plan. This bill would additionally require an integrated regional water management plan to address the identification and consideration of the water-related needs of owners and occupants of affordable housing, including the removal and replacement of nonfunctional turf. (3) Existing law provides various findings and declarations of the Legislature related to sustainable water use and demand reduction. Existing law imposes various water use reduction requirements that apply to urban retail water suppliers, including a requirement that the state achieve a 20% reduction in urban per capita water use by December 31, 2020. This bill would prohibit the use of potable water, as defined, for the irrigation of nonfunctional turf located on commercial, industrial, and institutional properties, other than a cemetery, and on properties of homeowners' associations, common interest developments, and community service organizations or similar entities, as specified. The bill would authorize the State Water Resources Control Board to create a form for compliance certification and would require owners of covered properties to certify their compliance, as specified. The bill would authorize a public water system, city, county, or city and county to enforce these provisions, as specified. The bill would require the Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development to support small and minority-owned businesses that provide services that advance compliance with these provisions.
Existing law regulates the use of pesticides and authorizes the Director of Pesticide Regulation to adopt regulations to govern the possession, sale, or use of any pesticide, as prescribed. Existing law prohibits the use of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides, as defined, in wildlife habitat areas. Existing law additionally prohibits the use of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides in the state until the director certifies to the Secretary of State that, among other things, the Department of Pesticide Regulation, in consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, has adopted any additional restrictions necessary to ensure that continued use of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides is not reasonably expected to result in significant adverse effects to nontarget wildlife, as provided. Existing law exempts the use of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides from these prohibitions under certain circumstances. Existing law requires the director, and each county agricultural commissioner under the direction and supervision of the director, to enforce the provisions regulating the use of pesticides. A violation of these provisions is a misdemeanor. This bill would also prohibit the use of diphacinone in a wildlife habitat area and in the state and would generally apply the above provisions and other related requirements to diphacinone. The bill would change the above-described condition required for the director to make the certification to the Secretary of State to instead provide that the Department of Pesticide Regulation, in consultation with, and with the concurrence of, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, has adopted any additional restrictions that are necessary to ensure a trend of statistically significant reductions in the mean concentration values of detectable levels of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides or any of their metabolites in tested tissues of a scientifically representative sample of wildlife. The bill would authorize these restrictions to include a requirement to implement alternatives, such as integrated pest management, before the use of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides. The bill would also set forth similar conditions for the director to make the certification with respect to diphacinone, as provided. By imposing additional duties on county agricultural commissioners, and expanding the definition of a crime, this 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.
(1) Existing law establishes the Department of Transportation and provides that the department has full possession and control of all state highways and property and rights in property acquired for state highway purposes. Existing law authorizes the department to construct, improve, and maintain state highways. Existing law requires the department to update guidance by July 1, 2021, to specify the appropriate use of positive protection measures with the goal of isolating workers or work zones from traffic. Existing law requires the department to provide compensation for the use of a safety device where the updated guidance allows, but does not require, the optional safety device when requested by a contractor on a public works project. Existing law requires the department to submit a report to the Legislature by January 1, 2024, that includes findings and recommendations on the use of positive protection measures used pursuant to these provisions. Existing law repeals these provisions on January 1, 2025. This bill would eliminate the January 1, 2025, repeal date, thereby extending these provisions indefinitely. The bill would specify that the department is only required to compensate for an optional safety device requested for use on a public works project of the department. After the submittal of the report due on January 1, 2024, the bill would require the department to prescribe standards and specifications to require the appropriate use of positive protection on all covered activities on the state highway system, as specified. The bill would authorize the department to adopt regulations as necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of these provisions, and would exempt those regulations from the Administrative Procedures Act. (2) Existing law grants the Division of Occupational Safety and Health, which is within the Department of Industrial Relations, jurisdiction over all employment and places of employment, with the power necessary to enforce and administer all occupational health and safety laws and standards. This bill would require a contractor that has requested and received compensation from the department for an optional safety device to use the optional safety device in conformance with the department's guidance. The bill would authorize the division to adopt regulations as necessary or appropriate to enforce this requirement.
Existing law makes it unlawful for any owner or operator of a motel, motor court, or like establishment to post or maintain outdoor advertising signs relating to room rates that has any untrue, misleading, false, or fraudulent representations, and specified other requirements on outdoor signs for those establishments. Existing law also prohibits an owner or operator of a hotel or motel from increasing the hotel or motel's rates upon the proclamation of a state of emergency by the President of the United States or the Governor or upon the declaration of a local emergency, as specified. This bill would prohibit a place of short-term lodging, as defined, from advertising or offering a room rate that does not include all fees or charges required to stay at the short-term lodging except taxes and fees imposed by a government on the stay, as specified. The bill would also require a place of short-term lodging to include in the total price to be paid, before the consumer reserves a stay, all taxes and fees imposed by a government on the stay. The bill would make a violation of those provisions subject to a specified civil penalty not to exceed $10,000 and would authorize an action to enforce those provisions to be brought by a city attorney, district attorney, county counsel, or the Attorney General. The bill would make the bill's provisions operative on July 1, 2024.
Existing law establishes a basic speed law that prohibits a person from driving a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent given the weather, visibility, traffic, and highway conditions and in no event at a speed that endangers the safety of persons or property. This bill would authorize, until January 1, 2032, the Cities of Los Angeles, San Jose, Oakland, Glendale, and Long Beach, and the City and County of San Francisco to establish a Speed Safety System Pilot Program if the system meets specified requirements. The bill would require a participating city or city and county to adopt a Speed Safety System Use Policy and a Speed Safety System Impact Report before implementing the program, and would require the participating city or city and county to engage in a public information campaign at least 30 days before implementation of the program, including information relating to when the systems would begin detecting violations and where the systems would be utilized. The bill would require a participating city or city and county to issue warning notices rather than notices of violations for violations detected within the first 60 calendar days of the program. The bill would also require a participating city or city and county to develop uniform guidelines for, among other things, the processing and storage of confidential information. The bill would designate all photographic or administrative records, not including data about the number of violations issued or the speeds at which they were issued for, made by a system as confidential, and would only authorize public agencies to use and allow access to these records for specified purposes. This bill would specify that any violation of a speed law recorded by a speed safety system authorized by these provisions would be subject only to the provided civil penalties. The bill would, among other things, provide for the issuance of a notice of violation, an initial review, an administrative hearing, and an appeals process, as specified, for a violation under this program. The bill would require any program created pursuant to these provisions to offer a diversion program for indigent speed safety system violation recipients, as specified. The bill would require a city or city and county participating in the pilot program to submit a report to evaluate the speed safety system to determine the system's impact on street safety and economic impact on the communities where the system is utilized. Existing law establishes a $25 filing fee for specified appeals and petitions. This bill would require a $25 filing fee for an appeal challenging a notice of violation issued as a result of a speed safety system until January 1, 2032. 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. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Cities of Los Angeles, San Jose, Oakland, Glendale, and Long Beach, and the City and County of San Francisco.