Asm. Blanca Rubio

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 federal law, the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) , authorizes multiple employer welfare arrangements (MEWAs) in which 2 or more employers join together to provide health care coverage for employees or to their beneficiaries. Existing law authorizes an association of employers to offer a large group health care service plan contract, consistent with ERISA, if certain requirements are met. Until January 1, 2026, existing law also authorizes an association of employers to offer a large group health care service plan contract to small group employer members of the association, consistent with ERISA, if certain requirements are met, including that the association is headquartered in this state, was established before March 23, 2010, and is the sponsor of a MEWA, and that the contract includes coverage of employees of an association member in the biomedical industry. This bill would authorize an association of employers to offer a large group health care service plan contract to small group employer members of the association, consistent with ERISA, if certain requirements are met, including that the association was established before January 1, 1966, and is the sponsor of a MEWA, and that the contract includes coverage of employees of an association member in the engineering, surveying, or design industry. The bill would require an association and MEWA to annually file evidence of ongoing compliance with those requirements in a manner specified by the department. This bill would require the department, on or before June 30, 2028, to provide the health policy committees of the Legislature with the most recent filings. The bill would require the department to conduct an analysis of the impacts of MEWAs on the small employer health insurance market, as specified, authorize the department to coordinate with the Department of Insurance for the analysis, require health care service plans, health insurers, and MEWAs to comply with requests for information, and require the department to post a report summarizing its analysis on its internet website on or before July 1, 2026. The bill, on or after June 1, 2025, would prohibit a plan from marketing, issuing, amending, renewing, or delivering large employer coverage to an association or MEWA that provides a benefit to a resident in this state unless the association and MEWA have registered and are in compliance with the requirements described above, or have filed applications for registration, as specified, that are pending with the department. The bill would authorize the department to issue guidance to health care service plans regarding these requirements, as specified. Because a willful violation of these provisions by a health care service plan would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2030. 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 State Department of Public Health and sets forth its powers and duties to license and administer health facilities, as defined, including skilled nursing facilities and intermediate care facilities. Existing law requires skilled nursing facilities and intermediate care facilities to adopt certified nurse assistant training programs approved by the department. A violation of the provisions relating to those training requirements is a misdemeanor. Existing law requires the department to prepare and maintain a list of approved training programs for nurse assistant certification, including training programs conducted by skilled nursing facilities or intermediate care facilities, as well as local agencies and education programs. This bill additionally would require the department, no later than December 31, 2025, to solicit applications from vendors to provide the written and oral competency examination of a nurse assistant certification examination in Spanish. The bill also would require the department, by July 1, 2029, to publish on its internet website, and to update at least twice annually, a list of information including, but not limited to, approved training programs, as specified, competency test pass rates for the previous 2 years, aggregated by the language in which the test was taken, and the number of nurse assistants trained in the previous 2 years.

The Donahoe Higher Education Act sets forth the missions and functions of the public institutions of higher education, including the University of California, administered by the Regents of the University of California, the California State University, administered by the Trustees of the California State University, and the California Community Colleges, administered by the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges. The provisions of the Donahoe Higher Education Act apply to the University of California only to the extent that the Regents of the University of California, by appropriate resolution, make them applicable. This bill would prohibit the University of California, California State University, or California Community Colleges from disqualifying a student from being hired for an employment position due to the student's failure to provide proof of federal work authorization, except where that proof is required by federal law or where that proof is required as a condition of a grant that funds the particular employment position for which the student has applied. This bill would require the University of California, the California State University, and the California Community Colleges to treat a specified prohibition in federal law on hiring undocumented noncitizens as inapplicable because that provision does not apply to any branch of state government. The bill would further provide that, to the extent student employment is considered a "benefit" for purposes of federal law, the bill constitutes authorization to provide that benefit for purposes of specified federal law. This bill would require the University of California, the California State University, and the California Community Colleges to implement the bill by January 6, 2025. The bill's provisions would apply to the University of California, unless it is found inapplicable to the University of California and then only to the extent that the Regents of the University of California, by appropriate resolution, make them applicable. By imposing new duties on community college districts, 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, 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 the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law requires candidates for an office at a primary election to deliver their nomination documents to the county elections official no later than 5 p.m. on the 88th day before the primary election, or in specified cases, no later than 5 p.m. on the 83rd day before the primary election. Existing law prohibits a person who has delivered nomination documents to the county elections official from withdrawing their candidacy. Existing law further prohibits a person from filing nomination documents for a party nomination and an independent nomination for the same office, or for more than one office at the same election. This bill would permit a candidate for any office other than a statewide office, as defined, at a primary election to withdraw their nomination documents for that office during the applicable filing period. The bill would establish requirements for withdrawal, including that the candidate submit a statement under penalty of perjury that they are withdrawing their nomination documents and understand the withdrawal is irrevocable and that the filing fees are nonrefundable. The bill would permit a candidate who withdraws to file nomination documents for another office at that primary election during the applicable filing period. The bill would clarify that a candidate is prohibited from filing nomination documents for more than one office at the same primary election, except as specified. If an incumbent has delivered but then withdrawn their nomination documents before 5 p.m. on the 88th day before the primary election, the bill would authorize another candidate to deliver their nomination documents no later than 5 p.m. on the 83rd day before the primary election. By establishing a new crime based upon the requirement that a candidate submit a statement of withdrawal under penalty of perjury, and by establishing new duties for local elections officials, the bill would create 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.

Existing law, as established in the case of Dynamex Operations W. Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903 (Dynamex) , creates a presumption that a worker who performs services for a hirer is an employee for purposes of claims for wages and benefits arising under wage orders issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission. Existing law requires a 3-part test, commonly known as the "ABC" test, to determine if workers are employees or independent contractors for those purposes. Existing law establishes that, for purposes of the Labor Code, the Unemployment Insurance Code, and the wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission, a person providing labor or services for remuneration is considered an employee rather than an independent contractor unless the hiring entity demonstrates that the person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, the person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business, and the person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business. This test is known as the "ABC" test, as described above. Existing law charges the Labor Commissioner with the enforcement of labor laws, including worker classification. Existing law exempts specified occupations and business relationships from the application of Dynamex and the provisions described above. These exemptions include a temporary exemption for newspaper distributors working under contract with a newspaper publisher and newspaper carriers, as those terms are defined, until January 1, 2025. Existing law, as part of that temporary exemption, requires every newspaper publisher or distributor that hires or directly contracts with newspaper carriers to submit prescribed information on carrier payroll taxes, wage rates, and wage claims to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) , on or before March 1, 2022, March 1, 2023, and March 1, 2024. This bill would extend the operation of that exemption until January 1, 2030. The bill would require the information on carrier payroll taxes, wage rates, and wage claims to be reported to the LWDA on or before March 1, 2025, March 1, 2026, March 1, 2027, March 1, 2028, and March 1, 2029.

Existing law, the Joint Exercise of Powers Act, authorizes 2 or more public agencies, if authorized by their governing bodies, by agreement to jointly exercise any power common to the contracting parties. Existing law authorizes 2 or more local public entities, or a mutual water company, as defined, and a public agency, to provide insurance, as specified, by a joint powers agreement. Existing law authorizes a mutual water company and a public agency to enter into a joint powers agreement for the purposes of risk pooling, as specified. Existing law vests the Public Utilities Commission with regulatory authority over public utilities, including water corporations. This bill would authorize a water corporation, as defined, a mutual water company, and one or more public agencies to provide insurance, as specified, by a joint powers agreement. The bill would also authorize a water corporation, a mutual water company, and one or more public agencies to enter into a joint powers agreement for the purposes of risk pooling, as specified. The bill would prohibit a joint powers agency from allowing a water corporation to join the joint powers agency, unless the joint powers agency makes a specified determination relating to insurance. If a water corporation enters into a joint powers agreement for the purposes of risk pooling, the bill would require the water corporation to submit an annual information filing to the Public Utilities Commission and the joint powers agency, as specified.

Existing law authorizes an owner of real property to install and operate on their property an electrified security fence that has specified technical characteristics and is used to protect and secure commercial, manufacturing, or industrial property, or property zoned under another designation, but legally authorized to be used for a commercial, manufacturing, or industrial purpose. This bill would, until January 1, 2028, instead authorize an owner of real property to install and operate on their property an electrified security fence that is powered by an electrical energizer, driven by solar-charged batteries of no more than 12 volt of direct current, and used to protect and secure manufacturing or industrial property, or property zoned under another designation, but legally authorized to be used for a commercial purpose that stores, parks, services, sells, or rents vehicles and other materials, as specified. Existing law prohibits an owner of real property from installing and operating an electrified security fence if a local ordinance prohibits that installation and operation. Existing law requires, if a local ordinance allows the installation and operation of an electrified security fence, that the installation and operation of the fence meets both the requirements of that ordinance and other specified requirements. This bill would, until January 1, 2028, for manufacturing or industrial property, or property that is legally authorized to be used for specified commercial purposes, that meets specified requirements, instead prohibit a city, county, or city and county from prohibiting the installation and operation of an electrified security fence or requiring a permit or approval that is in addition to an alarm system permit issued by the city, county, or city and county. The bill would, however, authorize a city or county to require an administrative permit confirming the fence meets the statute's requirements, as provided. The bill would, until January 1, 2028, prohibit an owner of real property that is not manufacturing or industrial property, or property that is legally authorized to be used for specified commercial purposes, from installing and operating an electrified security fence if a local ordinance prohibits that installation and operation, and would authorize a local ordinance to prohibit the installation of an electrified security fence if that fence fails to meet specified requirements. Existing law requires an owner of real property who installs and operates an electrified security fence on their property to ensure that, among other things, the fence meets the 2006 international standards and specifications of the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) , as specified, and the height of the fence does not exceed 10 feet or 2 feet higher than an existing perimeter fence that is not less than 5 feet in height. This bill would, until January 1, 2028, update the IEC standards and specifications, and provide that the perimeter fence may be a perimeter wall and is nonelectrified. This bill would also require, until January 1, 2028, that the fence include a device that enables first responders to deactivate the fence in response to an emergency, if required by a city, county, or city and county. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Existing law, the Alfred E. Alquist Hospital Facilities Seismic Safety Act of 1983, establishes, under the jurisdiction of the Department of Health Care Access and Information, a program of seismic safety building standards for certain hospitals constructed on and after March 7, 1973. Existing law requires that, by January 1, 2030, owners of these hospitals must either demolish, replace, or change to nonacute care use all hospital buildings that are not in compliance with these standards or seismically retrofit all acute care inpatient hospital buildings so they are in substantial compliance with these standards, unless subject to an abeyance. This bill would authorize a hospital owner or operator to submit an application, by specified dates, to the department for additional extensions to the compliance deadline. The bill would require the department to grant or deny an extension of the deadline for substantial compliance with seismic safety regulations or standards up to January 1, 2035. The bill would require the application to contain a seismic compliance plan, a specified evaluation report, a financial plan, and an attestation to the department that the appropriate governing board of that hospital is aware that the hospital building is required to be in substantial compliance with the seismic safety regulations or standards. By imposing the above-described attestation, this bill would expand the crime of perjury and impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would require the hospital and the department to identify specified milestones that are used for determining whether the hospital is making progress towards meeting the hospital's seismic compliance deadline. The bill would require the hospital to demonstrate efforts to comply with the seismic compliance deadline by providing the department with a plan outlining how seismic construction costs and other financial responsibilities will be met and what funding sources will be used if the hospital fails to meet an agreed-upon milestone due to circumstances that were within the hospital owner's or operator's control. The bill would require the owner or operator of that hospital to submit to the department an attestation that the appropriate governing board of that hospital is aware of the hospital's responsibility to comply with the associated construction costs to meet the seismic compliance deadlines. By requiring the owner or operator of a hospital to submit to the department an attestation, this bill would expand the crime of perjury and impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would require the department, before granting an extension past January 1, 2030, to provide public notice of a hospital's request for an extension, provide copies, upon request, of any publicly available material submitted by the hospital in support of their extension to interested parties, and allow the public to submit written comments on the extension proposal, as specified. The bill would require the department, beginning January 1, 2027, to post on the department's internet website specified information, including, among other things, its decision to grant or deny any extension. The bill would require the department to notify the county board of supervisors, the city council, and the Assembly and Senate representative in writing and electronically if a hospital within their district has been granted or denied an extension. This bill would require the department, on or before January 1, 2026, to adopt regulations and standards or revise regulations and standards, or both, to extend the deadlines for meeting the structural performance and nonstructural performance requirements. The bill would specify that regulatory submissions made by the department to the California Building Standards Commission are deemed to be emergency regulations and that the adoption of these regulations are to be deemed an emergency and necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, and general welfare. Existing law requires, before January 1, 2024, the owner of an acute care inpatient hospital that includes a building that does not substantially comply with seismic safety regulations or standards to post in a lobby or waiting area generally accessible to patients or the public a notice provided by the department that the hospital is not in compliance with the seismic safety requirements the hospital is required to meet by January 1, 2030. Existing law requires, on or before January 1, 2024, and annually thereafter, the owner of an acute care inpatient hospital that includes a building that does not substantially comply with seismic safety regulations or standards to provide an annual status update on the Structural Performance Category ratings of the buildings and the services provided in each hospital building on the hospital campus to specified entities until each of the hospital buildings owned by that hospital building owner is compliant. This bill would require, before January 1, 2025, the owner or operator of an acute care inpatient hospital that includes a building that does not substantially comply with the seismic safety regulations or standards to post in any lobby or waiting area generally accessible to patients or the public the notice mentioned above. The bill would also require, on or before January 1, 2025, and annually thereafter, the owner or operator to provide an annual status update, as specified. This bill would specify that the provisions of this act 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

State law, repealed as of January 1, 2018, required a court to impose an additional term of imprisonment, as specified, on a person who takes, damages, or destroys property in the commission or attempted commission of a felony, as specified. This bill would, until January 1, 2030, create sentencing enhancements for taking, damaging, or destroying property in the commission or attempted commission of a felony, as specified. By adding new sentencing enhancements, 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

This measure would designate a specified portion of Interstate 80 in the City and County of San Francisco as the Willie Mays Highway. The measure would request the Department of Transportation to determine the cost of appropriate signs showing this special designation and, upon receiving donations from nonstate sources covering that cost, to erect those signs.