(1) Existing law, the California Endangered Species Act, prohibits the taking of an endangered or threatened species, except in certain situations. Under the act, the Department of Fish and Wildlife may authorize the take of listed species pursuant to an incidental take permit if the take is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity, the impacts are minimized and fully mitigated, and the issuance of the permit would not jeopardize the continued existence of the species. The act requires the department to adopt regulations for issuance of incidental take permits. This bill would also apply the take prohibition to public agencies. The bill would require the department, commencing January 1, 2019, to post each new incidental take permit issued on the department's Internet Web site within 15 days of the effective date of the permit. (2) The California Endangered Species Act provides that if any person obtains from the United States Secretary of the Interior or the United States Secretary of Commerce an incidental take statement or incidental take permit pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 that authorizes the taking of an endangered species or threatened species listed pursuant to the federal act that is also an endangered species, threatened species, or candidate species under the California act, no further authorization or approval is necessary under the California act for that person to take that species, if that person notifies the Director of Fish and Wildlife, as specified, unless the director determines that the incidental take statement or incidental take permit is not consistent with the California act. This bill would include, with this notice requirement, a requirement that the person pay a permit application fee. (3) The California Endangered Species Act requires payment of a permit application fee for the processing of a permit application for the take of a species listed under the act, with certain exemptions. Under the act, the amount of the fee is based, in part, on the project cost, with "project cost" defined to include, among other expenses, permit and license expenses. This bill would clarify that a permit application fee is required for amendment requests, renewal requests, consistency determination requests, and concurrence determination requests, as specified. The bill would modify the definition of "project cost" to specifically exclude permit and license expenses and mitigation costs. (4) The California Endangered Species Act exempts a surface mining operation, if it has been issued a permit pursuant to the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975, is in compliance with the permit with regard to matters relating to plants, and is in compliance with any memorandum of understanding with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, from criminal prosecution pursuant to the Fish and Game Code for any take of a threatened or endangered plant species that is incidental to the surface mining operation. This bill would repeal this exemption. (5) The California Endangered Species Act permits the Fish and Game Commission to authorize, subject to terms and conditions it prescribes, the taking of any candidate species, or the taking of any fish by hook and line for sport that is listed as an endangered, threatened, or candidate species. This bill would limit this take exemption by permitting the commission to authorize the taking of a species pursuant to this provision only if the take is based on the best available scientific information and consistent with the act. The bill would authorize the Department of Fish and Wildlife to recommend to the commission that the commission authorize, or not authorize, the taking of a species pursuant to this provision. (6) The California Endangered Species Act authorizes the Department of Fish and Wildlife to design and implement actions that can be used to fully mitigate impacts resulting from certain solar thermal, photovoltaic, wind, and geothermal powerplants in the planning area of the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan, as defined. This bill would repeal this provision. (7) The California State Safe Harbor Agreement Program Act establishes a program until January 1, 2020, to encourage landowners to manage their lands voluntarily, by means of state safe harbor agreements approved by the Department of Fish and Wildlife, to benefit endangered, threatened, or candidate species without being subject to additional regulatory restrictions as a result of their conservation efforts. The California State Safe Harbor Agreement Program Act authorizes the department to authorize specified acts with respect to endangered or threatened species that are otherwise prohibited pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act by entering into a state safe harbor agreement. The California State Safe Harbor Agreement Program Act provides that, if a federal safe harbor agreement contains species that are endangered, threatened, or candidate species pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act, and the Director of Fish and Wildlife determines, as provided, that the federal agreement is consistent with the California Endangered Species Act, no further authorization or approval is necessary to take the species in accordance with the federal agreement. This bill would authorize the department to also approve a state safe harbor agreement to benefit declining or vulnerable species, as defined. The bill would clarify that the department may also authorize specified acts with respect to candidate species that may become otherwise prohibited by the California Endangered Species Act. The bill would specify that, if a species covered by an agreement is a declining or vulnerable species, and is subsequently listed as an endangered, threatened, or candidate species pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act, no further authorization or approval is required to take the species in accordance with the agreement, regardless of the species' change in status. If the majority of a property proposed to be enrolled in an agreement is forestland, the bill would require the department, to the maximum extent practicable, to prioritize the review of, and decision to approve, the agreement if the property is encumbered by a conservation easement that requires a permanent commitment to protect, restore, and maintain habitat conditions, as specified. For these prioritized properties, the bill would require the department, to the maximum extent practicable, to rely on the conservation easement to fulfill the requirements for determining an application complete. The bill would also revise the provision regarding federal safe harbor agreements to apply both to federal safe harbor agreements and to federal candidate conservation agreements with assurances. (8) The California Endangered Species Act requires the Fish and Game Commission to establish a list of endangered species and a list of threatened species and to add or remove species from either list if it finds, upon the receipt of sufficient scientific information, as specified, that the action is warranted. The act requires the Department of Fish and Wildlife to recommend, and the commission to adopt, criteria for determining if a species is endangered or threatened. Under the act, an interested person may petition the commission to add a species to, or remove a species from, either the list of endangered species or the list of threatened species. The act requires the commission to refer a petition to the department for initial evaluation, and permits a person to submit to the department information that relates to the petitioned species during this evaluation. The act requires the department to notify the petitioner of information submitted to the department within 10 days of submission. This bill would require a finding by the commission that an action to add or remove a species from the list of endangered species or the list of threatened species is warranted to be based solely upon the best available scientific information. The bill would require the department to notify a petitioner of information submitted to the department during the department's initial evaluation of the petition within 30 days of submission instead of 10 days. (9) The Administrative Procedure Act generally governs the procedure for the adoption, amendment, or repeal of regulations by state agencies and for the review of those regulatory actions by the Office of Administrative Law. The California Endangered Species Act requires the Fish and Game Commission, at the meeting scheduled for final consideration of a petition to add or remove a species from the list of endangered species or the list of threatened species, to make a finding that the petitioned action is warranted or not warranted. Upon a finding by the commission that a petitioned action to add or remove a species from the list of endangered species or the list of threatened species is warranted, the act requires the commission to publish a notice of that finding and a notice of proposed rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act, and requires further proceedings of the commission on the petitioned action to be made in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act. This bill would also require the commission to add or remove a species from the list of endangered species or the list of threatened species upon a finding that a petitioned action is not warranted, but that listing the species at a different status than that requested by the petitioner is warranted. The bill would require the commission, within 30 days of adopting any of these findings in writing, to publish notice of the finding. The bill would not require further proceedings under the Administrative Procedure Act upon adoption of the finding, but instead would require the commission to follow certain procedures for notice and publication of the change in status. The bill would require a finding by the commission pursuant to these provisions to be based on the best available scientific information. (10) The California Endangered Species Act requires the Department of Fish and Wildlife to review species listed as an endangered species or as a threatened species every 5 years to determine if the conditions that led to the original listing are still present. This bill would require the department to review listed species every 5 years only upon a specific appropriation, and would authorize the department to review listed species every 5 years, in the absence of a specific appropriation, if other funding is available. (11) Under existing law, the Department of Fish and Wildlife has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species. This bill would authorize the department, under the California Endangered Species Act, to develop and implement a nonregulatory recovery plan for the conservation and survival of any species listed as an endangered species or a threatened species, as provided. The bill would require the department to give priority to those species that are most likely to benefit from a recovery plan, particularly those species populations that are, or may be, significantly affected by anticipated land use changes, climate change, or changes in aquatic conditions. The bill would require recovery plans to include specified information, and would authorize the department, under specified circumstances, to adopt an existing federal recovery plan for a species that is also listed as an endangered species or a threatened species pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973. The bill would define the terms "recover" and "recovery" for purposes of the California Endangered Species Act. (12) Existing law requires the Department of Fish and Wildlife to pay the costs of administration of the California Endangered Species Act from the Endangered and Rare Fish, Wildlife, and Plant Species Conservation and Enhancement Account in the Fish and Game Preservation Fund. Existing law establishes the Renewable Energy Resources Development Fee Trust Fund as a continuously appropriated fund in the State Treasury to serve, and be managed, as an optional, voluntary method for developers or owners of eligible projects, as defined, to deposit fees sufficient to complete mitigation actions established by the department and thereby meet their requirements pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act or the certification authority of the Energy Commission. This bill would repeal those provisions. (13) This bill would also make conforming changes, delete obsolete provisions, and make nonsubstantive changes. (14) Under existing law, any violation of the Fish and Game Code, or of any rule, regulation, or order made or adopted under the code, is generally a crime. To the extent that this bill expands the definition of a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (15) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 2081 of the Fish and Game Code proposed by SB 495 to be operative only if this bill and SB 495 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (16) 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 requires each school district that has one or more pupils who are English learners, and, to the extent required by federal law, each county office of education and each charter school, to assess the English language development of each pupil in order to determine the pupil's level of proficiency, as specified, and requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to review existing assessments that assess the English language development of pupils whose primary language is a language other than English. This bill, commencing with the 2019–20 school year, would prohibit a middle school or high school pupil, as defined, who is classified as an English learner, except as specified, from being denied participation in a school's standard instructional program, as defined, by being denied enrollment in specified courses, including, among others, courses required for graduation and college admission. By imposing additional duties on local educational agencies, 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 prescribes the procedure for taking oral depositions inside the state. Existing law requires a party desiring to take the oral deposition of a person to give notice in writing that provides specified information, including the address and date of the deposition. This bill would require the deposition notice governed by this section to be written in at least 12-point type, and make a technical change.
This measure would designate November 2018 as Diabetes Awareness Month and would, among other things, encourage individuals to seek screening to understand their diabetes risk.
This measure would affirm the Legislature's support for science-based action to conserve, protect, restore, and effectively manage California's coastal and ocean ecosystems, which the state holds in trust for the people of California, in the face of challenges presented by climate change, ocean acidification, hypoxia, and other changing ocean conditions, and would urge federal and state government entities to take specified actions to preserve the state's ocean and coastal resources as well as protect disadvantaged and low-income communities impacted by these challenges.
Existing law establishes an action for a public nuisance, which affects an entire community or neighborhood, or a considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal. Existing law authorizes a private party or a public body to bring an action to abate a public nuisance. This bill would specifically provide that the presence of lead-based paint on or in private or public residential properties or structures, whether considered individually, collectively, or in the aggregate, is not a public nuisance. Existing law, the Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Act of 1991, requires the State Department of Public Health to adopt regulations establishing a standard of care at least as stringent as the most recent federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention screening guidelines, whereby all children are evaluated for risk of lead poisoning by health care providers during each child's periodic health assessment. The standard of care, among others, is required to provide that, upon evaluation, those children determined to be at risk for lead poisoning are required to be screened. Existing law defines "lead poisoning" to mean the disease present when the concentration of lead in whole venous blood reaches or exceeds levels constituting a health risk, as specified in the most recent federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for lead poisoning as determined by the department, or when the concentration of lead in whole venous blood reaches or exceeds levels constituting a health risk as determined by the department, as specified. Existing law creates the Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Fund, consisting of fees imposed on manufacturers and other persons formerly, presently, or both formerly and presently engaged in the stream of commerce of lead or products containing lead, or who are otherwise responsible for identifiable sources of lead that have significantly contributed historically, currently contribute, or both have significantly contributed historically and contribute currently to environmental lead contamination. The moneys in the fund are required to be expended, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for the purposes of the act. This bill would establish the Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Abatement Fund in the State Treasury. The bill would require moneys in the fund to be allocated, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for the purpose of funding the abatement of lead paint in this state, except for $300,000,000 that would be continuously and directly appropriated to specified cities and counties. The bill would impose a fee, for deposit into the fund, on each architectural coating distributor, as defined. The fee would be calculated as specified, would be initially due and payable no later than January 31, 2019, and would be payable only until January 31, 2028. The fee would be administered and collected by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. The bill would bar any action seeking to assert abatement liability against any architectural coating distributor while the distributor pays the fee. The bill would provide that the total amount of fees collected would be $475,000,000 from the commencement of the fee until January 31, 2028. The bill would also provide that the fees would be $47,500,000 in any single fiscal year. The bill would provide that its provisions would not become operative unless the Secretary of State certifies to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration prior to October 15, 2018, that the plaintiffs in People v. ConAgra Grocery Products Company (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 51 have reached a binding settlement with all defendants. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law provides for the procedure of approving and accepting bail, and issuing an order for the appearance and release of an arrested person. Existing law requires that bail be set in a fixed amount and requires, in setting, reducing, or denying bail, a judge or magistrate to take into consideration the protection of the public, the seriousness of the offense charged, the previous criminal record of the defendant, and the probability of his or her appearing at trial or at a hearing of the case. Under existing law, the magistrate or commissioner to whom the application is made is authorized to set bail in an amount that he or she deems sufficient to ensure the defendant's appearance or to ensure the protection of a victim, or family member of a victim, of domestic violence, and to set bail on the terms and conditions that he or she, in his or her discretion, deems appropriate, or he or she may authorize the defendant's release on his or her own recognizance. Existing law provides that a defendant being held for a misdemeanor offense is entitled to be released on his or her own recognizance, unless the court makes a finding on the record that an own recognizance release would compromise public safety or would not reasonably ensure the appearance of the defendant as required. This bill would, as of October 1, 2019, repeal existing laws regarding bail and require that any remaining references to bail refer to the procedures specified in the bill. This bill would require, commencing October 1, 2019, persons arrested and detained to be subject to a pretrial risk assessment conducted by Pretrial Assessment Services, which the bill would define as an entity, division, or program that is assigned the responsibility to assess the risk level of persons charged with the commission of a crime, report the results of the risk determination to the court, and make recommendations for conditions of release of individuals pending adjudication of their criminal case. The bill would require the courts to establish pretrial assessment services, and would authorize the services to be performed by court employees or through a contract with a local public agency, as specified. The bill would require, if no local agency will agree to perform the pretrial assessments, and if the court elects not to perform the assessments, that the court may contract with a new local pretrial assessment services agency established specifically to perform the role. The bill would require a person arrested or detained for a misdemeanor, except as specified, to be booked and released without being required to submit to a risk assessment by Pretrial Assessment Services. The bill would authorize Pretrial Assessment Services to release a person assessed as being a low risk, as defined, on his or her own recognizance, as specified. The bill would additionally require a superior court to adopt a rule authorizing Pretrial Assessment Services to release persons assessed as being a medium risk, as defined, on his or her own recognizance. The bill would prohibit Pretrial Assessment Services from releasing persons who meet specified conditions. If a person is not released, the bill would authorize the court to conduct a prearraignment review and release the person. The bill would allow the court to detain the person pending arraignment if there is a substantial likelihood that no condition or combination of conditions of pretrial supervision will reasonably assure public safety or the appearance of the person in court. The bill would require the victim of the crime to be given notice of the arraignment by the prosecution and a chance to be heard on the matter of the defendant's custody status. By imposing additional duties on local prosecutors, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would create a presumption that the court will release the defendant on his or her own recognizance at arraignment with the least restrictive nonmonetary conditions that will reasonably assure public safety and the defendant's return to court. The bill would allow the prosecutor to file a motion seeking detention of the defendant pending trial under specified circumstances. If the court determines that there is a substantial likelihood that no conditions of pretrial supervision will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant in court or reasonably assure public safety, the bill would authorize the court to detain the defendant pending a preventive detention hearing and require the court to state the reasons for the detention on the record. The bill would prohibit the court from imposing a financial condition. In cases in which the defendant is detained in custody, the bill would require a preventive detention hearing to be held no later than 3 court days after the motion for preventive detention is filed. The bill would grant the defendant the right to be represented by counsel at the preventive detention hearing and would require the court to appoint counsel if the defendant is financially unable to obtain representation. By imposing additional duties on county public defenders, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the prosecutor to give the victim notice of the preventive detention hearing. By imposing new duties on local prosecutors, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would create a rebuttable presumption that no condition of pretrial supervision will reasonably assure public safety if, among other things, the crime was a violent felony or the defendant was convicted of a violent felony within the past 5 years. The bill would allow the court to order preventive detention of the defendant pending trial if the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions of pretrial supervision will reasonably assure public safety or the appearance of the defendant in court. If the court determines there is not a sufficient basis for detaining the defendant, the bill would require the court to release the defendant on his or her own recognizance or supervised own recognizance and impose the least restrictive nonmonetary conditions of pretrial release to reasonably assure public safety and the appearance of the defendant. The bill would require the Judicial Council to adopt Rules of Court and forms to implement these provisions as specified, and to identify specified data to be reported by each court. The bill would require the Judicial Council to, on or before January 1, 2021, and every other year thereafter, to submit a report to the Governor and the Legislature. The bill would provide that upon appropriation by the Legislature, the Judicial Council would allocate funds to local courts for pretrial assessment services and the Department of Finance would allocate funds to local probation departments for pretrial supervision services, 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, 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.
This measure would recognize the month of July 2018 as Bebe Moore Campbell National Minority Mental Health Awareness Month in California.
Existing law generally requires that not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages, as specified, be paid to workers employed on a public work, as defined. Existing law sets forth the penalties for a violation of this requirement. Existing law prohibits a charter city from receiving or using state funding or financial assistance for a construction project if the charter city has a charter that does not require, or the charter city has not required within the last 2 years, compliance with these provisions on a public works contract, as specified. This bill would exempt from the requirement to pay a prevailing wage of per diem wages, until January 1, 2024, graffiti abatement work performed pursuant to a contract between the City of Los Angeles and a nonprofit community-based organization if the work is performed by specified individuals. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City of Los Angeles.