This measure would acknowledge April 2022 as Child Abuse Prevention Month and encourage Californians to work together to support youth-serving child abuse prevention activities in their communities and schools.
This measure would proclaim April 28, 2022, as California Holocaust Memorial Day, and would urge all Californians to observe this day of remembrance for the victims of the Holocaust in an appropriate manner.
This measure would recognize the 30th anniversary of the Los Angeles Riots on April 29, 2022, as a time of building and reflection for the citizens of Los Angeles and the citizens of California.
This measure would declare April 28, 2022, as Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work Day, and would recognize the goals of introducing our daughters and sons to the workplace and commend all participants of Take Our Daughters And Sons To Work Day.
This measure would designate the week of May 1, 2022, through May 7, 2022, as Compost Awareness Week.
Existing law requires the Ocean Protection Council, on or before December 31, 2024, to adopt and implement a Statewide Microplastics Strategy related to microplastic materials that pose an emerging concern for ocean health, as provided. Existing law declares the goal of the Statewide Microplastic Strategy to be the increase in the understanding of the scale and risks of microplastic materials on the marine environment and to identify proposed solutions to address the impacts of microplastic materials, to the extent feasible. Existing law requires the council, on or before December 31, 2021, to submit to the Legislature the Statewide Microplastics Strategy, along with recommended policy changes, including statutory changes, that may be needed to implement the strategy. Existing law, the Microbeads Nuisance Prevention Law, prohibits a person from selling or offering for promotional purposes in the state any personal care products containing plastic microbeads that are used to exfoliate or cleanse in a rinse-off product, including, but not limited to, toothpaste. This bill would, on and after specified dates that vary based on the product, ban the sale, distribution in commerce, or offering for promotional purposes in the state of designated products, such as leave-on cosmetic products and waxes and polishes, as defined, if the products contain intentionally added microplastics, as defined, at a concentration equal to or greater than 0.01% weight by weight. The bill would exclude from this ban prescription drugs, as defined, and products consisting, in whole or in part, of specified substances or mixtures containing microplastics. The bill would make a person who violates these provisions liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $2,500 per day for each violation. The bill would authorize the penalty to be assessed and recovered in a civil action brought in any court of competent jurisdiction by the Attorney General or specified local officials. The bill would require the civil penalties collected in an action brought pursuant to the act to be paid to the office that brought the action.
This measure would proclaim, in perpetuity, the month of April as California Wines: Down to Earth Month, to celebrate the sustainable leadership of California wineries and winegrape growers throughout the month of April.
Existing law, referred to as the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975 (MICRA) , prohibits an attorney from contracting for or collecting a contingency fee for representing any person seeking damages in connection with an action for injury or damage against a health care provider based upon alleged professional negligence in excess of specified limits. This bill would recast those provisions and base the amount of contingency fee that may be contracted for upon whether recovery is pursuant to settlement agreement and release of all claims executed before a civil complaint or demand for arbitration is filed, or pursuant to settlement, arbitration, or judgment after a civil complaint or demand for arbitration is filed, as specified. The bill would add and revise definitions for these purposes. Existing law provides that in any action against a health care provider based upon professional negligence, the injured plaintiff is entitled to recover noneconomic losses to compensate for pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, disfigurement, and other nonpecuniary damage. Existing law limits the amount of damages for noneconomic losses in an action for injury against a health care provider based on professional negligence to $250,000. This bill would remove the $250,000 limit on noneconomic damages and expand the recast provisions to include an action for injury against a health care institution, as defined. The bill would increase the applicable limitation based upon whether the action for injury involved wrongful death. The bill would specify that these limitations would increase by $40,000 each January 1st for 10 years and beginning on January 1, 2034, the applicable limitations on noneconomic damages for personal injury and for wrongful death would be adjusted for inflation on January 1st of each year by 2%. Existing law specifies that in any action for injury or damages against a provider of health care services, a superior court shall, at the request of either party, enter a judgment ordering that money damages or its equivalent for future damages of the judgment creditor be paid in whole or in part by periodic payments rather than by a lump-sum payment if the award equals or exceeds $50,000. This bill would increase the minimum amount of the judgment required to request periodic payments to $250,000. Existing law makes statements, writings, or benevolent gestures expressing sympathy or a general sense of benevolence relating to the pain, suffering, or death of a person involved in an accident and made to that person, or to the family of that person, inadmissible as evidence of an admission of liability in a civil action. This bill would specify that statements, writings, or benevolent gestures expressing sympathy, regret, a general sense of benevolence, or suggesting, reflecting, or accepting fault relating to the pain, suffering, or death of a person, or to an adverse patient safety event or unexpected health care outcome, as specified, shall be confidential, privileged, protected, not subject to subpoena, discovery, or disclosure, and shall not be used or admitted into evidence in any civil, administrative, regulatory, licensing, or disciplinary board, agency, or body action or proceeding, and shall not be used or admitted in relation to any sanction, penalty, or other liability, as evidence of an admission of liability or for any other purpose.
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, 2028, the Cities of Los Angeles, Oakland, San Jose, Glendale, and Palm Springs, and the City and County of San Francisco, to establish the Speed Safety System Pilot Program if the system meets specified requirements. The bill would require the participating cities 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 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 the participating cities 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 require the participating cities 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, video, or other visual 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 reports to the Legislature, as specified, 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, 2028. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Cities of Los Angeles, Oakland, San Jose, Glendale, and Palm Springs and the City and County of San Francisco. 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.
The Wildlife Conservation Law of 1947 establishes the Wildlife Conservation Board in the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Existing law requires the board to determine the areas in the state that are most essential and suitable for wildlife production and preservation and that will provide suitable recreation, and to determine those lands in the state that are suitable for specified wildlife-related purposes. This bill would express the intent of the Legislature to encourage ecologically sensitive vegetation management practices for the purpose of maintaining ecological health and strengthening biodiversity while mitigating wildfire risk through fuel load reduction. The bill would require the board to establish a grant program to facilitate the application of ecologically sensitive vegetation management practices that can improve long-term wildfire risk reduction, improve native plant and wildlife diversity, protect water quality, and enhance ecosystem function. The bill would require the board to leverage existing state funding to award grants to local government entities, park and open-space districts, resource conservation districts, and nonprofit organizations, as separately defined, for projects that carry out ecologically sensitive vegetation management practices designed to, among other things, reduce wildfire risk by maximizing the removal or reduction of invasive plant species using an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach or maximizing long-term wildfire risk reduction.
