The Planning and Zoning Law requires the legislative body of a city or county to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan that includes various elements, including, among others, a safety element for the protection of the community from unreasonable risks associated with the effects of various geologic hazards, flooding, and wildland and urban fires. This bill would, upon the next revision of a local hazard mitigation plan on or after January 1, 2017, or, if the local jurisdiction has not adopted a local hazard mitigation plan, beginning on or before January 1, 2022, require the safety element to be reviewed and updated as necessary to address climate adaptation and resiliency strategies applicable to that city or county. The bill would require the update to include a set of goals, policies, and objectives based on a vulnerability assessment, identifying the risks that climate change poses to the local jurisdiction and the geographic areas at risk from climate change impacts, and specified information from federal, state, regional, and local agencies. By imposing new duties on cities and counties, 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Sponsored bills
(1) The Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act generally requires the administrator for oil spill response, acting at the direction of the Governor, to implement activities relating to oil spill response, including emergency drills and preparedness, and oil spill containment and cleanup. The act authorizes the administrator to use volunteer workers in response, containment, restoration, wildlife rehabilitation, and cleanup efforts for oil spills in waters of the state. Existing law requires the administrator to evaluate the feasibility of using commercial fishermen and other mariners for oil spill containment and cleanup. This bill would require the administrator, in cooperation with the United States Coast Guard, to establish a schedule of drills and exercises that are required under the federal Salvage and Marine Firefighting regulations. The bill would require the administrator, on or before January 1, 2017, to submit to the Legislature a report assessing the best achievable technology of equipment for oil spill prevention, preparedness, and response and to update regulations governing the adequacy of oil spill contingency plans before July 1, 2018. The bill would require the administrator to direct the Harbor Safety Committees for various regions to assess, among other things, the presence and capability of tugs within their respective regions of responsibility to provide emergency towing of tank and nontank vessels to arrest their drift or guide emergency transit. (2) The act requires the administrator to study the use and effects of methods used to respond to oil spills and to periodically update the study to ensure the best achievable protection from the use of those methods. This bill would require the administrator, in conducting the study and updates, to consult current peer-reviewed published scientific literature. The bill would require the administrator, by May 1, 2016, to request that the federal California Dispersant Plan be updated, as provided, and to provide support and assistance in that regard. (3) The act requires the administrator to license oil spill cleanup agents for use in response to oil spills. This bill would require the administrator, if dispersants are used in response to an oil spill, to submit to the Legislature a written notification of, and a written justification for, the use of dispersants and a report on the effectiveness of the dispersants used, as provided. (4) Existing law establishes the Oil Spill Technical Advisory Committee and requires the committee to provide recommendations to, among other entities, the administrator on the implementation of the act. This bill would require the committee to convene a taskforce to evaluate the feasibility of using vessels of opportunity for oil spill response. The bill would require the taskforce to provide recommendations to the administrator and the Legislature on whether vessels of opportunity should be included in oil spill response planning. (5) The act makes a person who causes or permits a spill or inland spill strictly liable for specified penalties for the spill on a per-gallon-released basis. The act provides that the amount of penalty is reduced by the amount of released oil that is recovered and properly disposed of. This bill would eliminate that reduction in the penalty by the amount of oil recovered and properly disposed of.
Under the Elder California Pipeline Safety Act of 1981, the State Fire Marshal exercises safety regulatory jurisdiction over intrastate pipelines used for the transportation of hazardous or highly volatile liquid substances. The act authorizes the State Fire Marshal to exercise safety regulatory jurisdiction over portions of interstate pipelines located within the state and subject to an agreement between the United States Secretary of Transportation and the State Fire Marshal. The act authorizes the State Fire Marshal to enter, inspect, and examine, at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, the records and properties of any pipeline operator that are required to be inspected and examined to determine whether the pipeline operator is in compliance with the act. This bill would require, commencing January 1, 2017, the State Fire Marshal, or an officer or employee authorized by the State Fire Marshal, to annually inspect all intrastate pipelines and operators of intrastate pipelines under the jurisdiction of the State Fire Marshal, and would require the State Fire Marshal to adopt regulations implementing this provision by that date. The bill would prohibit the State Fire Marshal from becoming an inspection agent for specified interstate pipelines unless all regulatory and enforcement authority over those pipelines is transferred to the State Fire Marshal from the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. The bill would require the State Fire Marshal to revise specified fees assessed to cover the costs associated with this measure.
Existing law creates within the state government the Commission on the Status of Women and Girls that consists of 17 members, and specifies that one member is the Chief of the Division of Industrial Welfare in the Department of Industrial Relations. Existing law abolished the Division of Industrial Welfare and transferred the duties, purposes, responsibilities, and jurisdiction of the Chief of the Division of Industrial Welfare to the Labor Commissioner, who is the Chief of the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement. This bill would specify that the Labor Commissioner instead of the Chief of the Division of Industrial Welfare is a member of the Commission on the Status of Women and Girls. Existing law also provides the Commission on the Status of Women and Girls with the powers and authority necessary to carry out its duties imposed by law, including, but not limited to, to accept any gifts, donations, grants, or bequests for all or any of the purposes of that law. Existing law creates the Women and Girls Fund in the State Treasury to carry out the law in support of the commission upon appropriation by the Legislature. Existing law, the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act (Bagley-Keene Act) , generally requires, with specified exceptions for authorized closed sessions, that the meetings of state bodies be open and public and that all persons be permitted to attend. This bill would specify that the commission may also conduct fundraising activities that may require a payment or purchase to attend, and would exempt from the Bagley-Keene Act the commission at a fundraising event held or organized by the commission, provided that a majority of members do not discuss among themselves any item of business of a specific nature that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission, and any meetings conducted solely for purposes of raising funds for the Women and Girls Fund, provided that no other item of business that is within the subject matter of the commission is discussed, deliberated, or acted upon.
Existing law regulates the payment of compensation to employees by employers and prohibits an employer from conditioning employment on requiring an employee to refrain from disclosing the amount of his or her wages, signing a waiver of the right to disclose the amount of those wages, or discriminating against an employee for making such a disclosure. Existing law generally prohibits an employer from paying an employee at wage rates less than the rates paid to employees of the opposite sex in the same establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions. Existing law establishes exceptions to that prohibition where the payment is made pursuant to a seniority system, a merit system, a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production, or a differential based on any bona fide factor other than sex. Existing law makes it a misdemeanor for an employer or other person acting either individually or as an officer, agent, or employee of another person to pay or cause to be paid to any employee a wage less than the rate paid to an employee of the opposite sex as required by these provisions, or who reduces the wages of any employee in order to comply with these provisions. This bill would revise that prohibition to eliminate the requirement that the wage differential be within the same establishment, and instead would prohibit an employer from paying any of its employees at wage rates less than those paid to employees of the opposite sex for substantially similar work, when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility, as specified. The bill would revise and recast the exceptions to require the employer to affirmatively demonstrate that a wage differential is based upon one or more specified factors, including a seniority system, a merit system, a system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production, or a bona fide factor other than sex, as specified. The bill would also require the employer to demonstrate that each factor relied upon is applied reasonably, and that the one or more factors relied upon account for the entire differential. The bill would prohibit an employer from discharging, or in any manner discriminating or retaliating against, any employee by reason of any action taken by the employee to invoke or assist in any manner the enforcement of these provisions. The bill would authorize an employee who has been discharged or discriminated or retaliated against, in the terms and conditions of his or her employment because the employee engaged in any conduct delineated in these provisions, to recover in a civil action reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits caused by the acts of the employer, including interest thereon, as well as appropriate equitable relief. The bill would prohibit an employer from prohibiting an employee from disclosing the employee's own wages, discussing the wages of others, inquiring about another employee's wages, or aiding or encouraging any other employee to exercise his or her rights under these provisions. The bill would also increase the duration of employer recordkeeping requirements from 2 years to 3 years. By changing 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law, the State Bar Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of attorneys by the State Bar of California, a public corporation. The State Bar is governed by a board of trustees. Existing law authorizes the board, among other duties, to aid in all matters pertaining to the improvement of the administration of justice, including all matters that may advance the professional interests of the members of the State Bar. Existing law requires the State Bar to issue an Annual Discipline Report describing the performance and condition of the State Bar discipline system. Existing law requires the report to cover the previous calendar year and to include accurate and complete descriptions of, among other things, the existing backlog of cases within the discipline system and a description of the programs at the State Bar directed at preventing acts warranting discipline. Existing law requires the board to appoint a lawyer admitted to practice in California to serve as chief trial counsel. The Office of the Chief Trial Counsel, which is responsible for reviewing charges of lawyer misconduct, investigates and prosecutes complaints about attorneys. This bill would revise the content of the information in the report. The bill would additionally require the backlog of cases to include other matters opened in the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel and pending beyond 6 months after receipt, as specified. Existing law, until January 1, 2016, requires the board to charge an annual membership fee for active members of up to $315 for 2015. This bill would, until January 1, 2017, require the board to charge that annual membership fee for 2016. Existing law requires the State Bar to review its workload standards to measure the effectiveness and efficiency of its disciplinary activities, including, but not limited to, the State Bar Court and the Client Security Fund, and to provide guidance to the State Bar and the Legislature in allocating resources, as specified. This bill would delete that requirement. The bill would, instead, require the State Bar to develop and implement a specified workforce plan for its discipline system and conduct a public sector compensation and benefits study to reassess the numbers and classifications of staff required to conduct the disciplinary activities. The bill would require the State Bar to conduct a thorough analysis of its operating costs and develop a spending plan to determine a reasonable amount for the annual membership fee, as specified. The bill would require the State Bar to report to the Legislature by May 15, 2016. Existing law requires the board to engage the services of an independent public accounting firm for an audit of its financial statement for each fiscal year. This bill would require, effective January 1, 2016, the State Bar to contract with the California State Auditor's Office to conduct an in-depth financial audit of the State Bar, including an audit of its financial statement, internal controls, and relevant management practices, as provided, and would require the office to provide a copy of the audit to the board, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and to the Assembly and Senate Committees on Judiciary. Under existing law, no law of this state restricting or prescribing a mode of procedure for the exercise of powers of state public bodies or state agencies is applicable to the State Bar, unless the Legislature expressly so declares. Except as specified, existing law requires every meeting of the board to be open to the public. Existing law, the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, requires that all meetings of a state body be open and public and that all persons be permitted to attend any meeting of a state body, subject to certain conditions and exceptions. A violation of these provisions is a misdemeanor. Existing law exempts the board from the act, but requires the board to ensure that its open meeting requirements are consistent with, and conform to, the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires state and local agencies to make public records available for inspection, subject to certain exceptions. This bill, commencing April 1, 2016, would make the State Bar subject to the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. The bill would provide that the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act does not apply to the Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission or the Committee of Bar Examiners. By expanding the scope of that crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would also make the State Bar subject to the California Public Records Act. The bill would require any identifying information submitted by an applicant to the State Bar for admission and a license to practice law and all State Bar admission records to be confidential and would prohibit disclosure pursuant to any state law, including the California Public Records Act. The bill would make other conforming changes in this regard. This bill would incorporate additional changes in Section 11121 of the Government Code proposed by AB 85 that would become operative only if AB 85 and this bill are both chaptered and become effective on or before January 1, 2016, and this bill is chaptered last. 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 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.
Under existing law, except as specified, a person is liable for physical invasion of privacy when that person knowingly enters onto the land of another person without permission or otherwise trespasses to capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of a person engaging in a private, personal, or familial activity and the invasion occurs in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person. Under existing law, a person is liable for constructive invasion of privacy for the same activity, as specified, through the use of any device, regardless of whether there is a physical trespass. Existing law subjects a person who commits physical or constructive invasion of privacy to specified damages and civil fines. This bill would expand liability for physical invasion of privacy to additionally include a person knowingly entering into the airspace above the land of another person without permission, as provided.
Existing law requires a person or business conducting business in California and any agency, as defined, that owns or licenses computerized data that includes personal information, as defined, to disclose a breach of the security of the system in the most expedient time possible and without unreasonable delay, as specified. Existing law requires a person, business, or agency that is required to issue a security breach notification to meet specific requirements, including that the notification be written in plain language. This bill would additionally require the security breach notification to be titled "Notice of Data Breach" and to present the information under prescribed headings. The bill would prescribe a model security breach notification form, as specified. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1798.29 of the Civil Code proposed by SB 34 and AB 964, that would become operative if this bill and one or both of those bills are enacted and this bill is chaptered last. This bill also would incorporate additional changes to Section 1798.82 of the Civil Code proposed by SB 34 and AB 964, that would become operative if this bill and one or both of those bills are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Existing law authorizes an adult to give an individual health care instruction and to appoint an attorney to make health care decisions for that individual in the event of his or her incapacity pursuant to a power of attorney for health care. This bill, until January 1, 2026, would enact the End of Life Option Act authorizing an adult who meets certain qualifications, and who has been determined by his or her attending physician to be suffering from a terminal disease, as defined, to make a request for a drug prescribed pursuant to these provisions for the purpose of ending his or her life. The bill would establish the procedures for making these requests. The bill would also establish specified forms to request an aid-in-dying drug, under specified circumstances, an interpreter declaration to be signed subject to penalty of perjury, thereby creating a crime and imposing a state-mandated local program, and a final attestation for an aid-in-dying drug. This bill would require specified information to be documented in the individual's medical record, including, among other things, all oral and written requests for an aid-in-dying drug. This bill would prohibit a provision in a contract, will, or other agreement from being conditioned upon, or affected by, a person making or rescinding a request for the above-described drug. The bill would prohibit the sale, procurement, or issuance of any life, health, or annuity policy, health care service plan contract, or health benefit plan, or the rate charged for any policy or plan contract, from being conditioned upon or affected by the request. The bill would prohibit an insurance carrier from providing any information in communications made to an individual about the availability of an aid-in-dying drug absent a request by the individual or his or her attending physician at the behest of the individual. The bill would also prohibit any communication from containing both the denial of treatment and information as to the availability of aid-in-dying drug coverage. This bill would provide a person, except as provided, immunity from civil or criminal liability solely because the person was present when the qualified individual self-administered the drug, or the person assisted the qualified individual by preparing the aid-in-dying drug so long as the person did not assist with the ingestion of the drug, and would specify that the immunities and prohibitions on sanctions of a health care provider are solely reserved for conduct of a health care provider provided for by the bill. The bill would make participation in activities authorized pursuant to its provisions voluntary, and would make health care providers immune from liability for refusing to engage in activities authorized pursuant to its provisions. The bill would also authorize a health care provider to prohibit its employees, independent contractors, or other persons or entities, including other health care providers, from participating in activities under the act while on the premises owned or under the management or direct control of that prohibiting health care provider, or while acting within the course and scope of any employment by, or contract with, the prohibiting health care provider. This bill would make it a felony to knowingly alter or forge a request for drugs to end an individual's life without his or her authorization or to conceal or destroy a withdrawal or rescission of a request for a drug, if it is done with the intent or effect of causing the individual's death. The bill would make it a felony to knowingly coerce or exert undue influence on an individual to request a drug for the purpose of ending his or her life, to destroy a withdrawal or rescission of a request, or to administer an aid-in-dying drug to an individual without their knowledge or consent. By creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would provide that nothing in its provisions is to be construed to authorize ending a patient's life by lethal injection, mercy killing, or active euthanasia, and would provide that action taken in accordance with the act shall not constitute, among other things, suicide or homicide. This bill would require physicians to submit specified forms and information to the State Department of Public Health after writing a prescription for an aid-in-dying drug and after the death of an individual who requested an aid-in-dying drug. The bill would authorize the Medical Board of California to update those forms and would require the State Department of Public Health to publish the forms on its Internet Web site. The bill would require the department to annually review a sample of certain information and records, make a statistical report of the information collected, and post that report to its Internet Web site. 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 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.
(1) Under existing law, the California Workforce Investment Board is responsible for assisting the Governor in the development, oversight, and continuous improvement of California's workforce investment system. Existing law requires the board to assist the Governor in targeting resources to specified industry sectors and providing guidance to ensure that services reflect the needs of those sectors. This bill would additionally require the board to assist the Governor in helping individuals with barriers to employment achieve economic security and upward mobility by implementing policies that encourage the attainment of marketable skills relevant to current labor market trends. (2) Existing law requires the California Workforce Investment Board, in consultation with the Division of Apprenticeship Standards, to identify opportunities for "earn and learn" job training opportunities that meet an industry's workforce demands and that are in high-wage, high-demand jobs, identify and develop specific requirements and qualifications for entry into "earn and learn" job training models, and establish standards for "earn and learn" job training programs that are outcome oriented and accountable, as specified. This bill would define the term "earn and learn" for the purposes of these provisions. (3) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Sections 14000, 14005, and 14013 of the Unemployment Insurance Code made by this bill and AB 1270 to take effect if both bills are chaptered and this bill is chaptered last.