Sen. Mike McGuire

. Existing law requires $2,000,000 from the proceeds of bonds sold pursuant to the Costa-Machado Water Act of 2000 to be allocated, upon appropriation, to the State Water Resources Control Board to rehabilitate and improve the Clear Lake watershed by funding specified projects or activities. This bill would appropriate $2,400,000 from an unspecified fund to the County of Lake for the purposes of restoring Clear Lake wetlands, maintaining the water quality of Clear Lake, preventing the spread of invasive species to Clear Lake, and controlling and eradicating invasive species in Clear Lake.

The State Aeronautics Act establishes the Aeronautics Account in the State Transportation Fund, and continuously appropriates the moneys in the account for expenditure for airport purposes by the Division of Aeronautics within the Department of Transportation and the California Transportation Commission. This bill, effective December 8, 2017, would require that the revenues from the imposition of state sales and use taxes, at the rate of 4.1875%, on the sale, storage, use, or other consumption of aviation fuel, as defined, be transferred to the Aeronautics Account for allocation in specified percentages to airports and for aviation-related purposes. The bill would require the division to allocate 27% of these revenues for grants to be made available for nonhub commercial airports, as defined, with less than 300,000 enplanements annually to attract, establish, and expand air service through incentives, marketing, passenger studies, route analysis, and the acquisition of consultants, as specified. The bill would also require the division to provide at least 1% of these revenues annually in specified grants for aviation education. By increasing the sources of funding for and expanding the purposes for which money may be used from a continuously appropriated fund, the Aeronautics Account, the bill would make an appropriation.

The California Constitution authorizes a county or city to make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws. Existing law also authorizes a city, county, or city and county to impose a transient occupancy tax upon occupancies of lodgings of no more than 30 days. This bill would authorize a city, county, or city and county to adopt an ordinance that would require a transient residential hosting platform, as defined, to report specified information quarterly to the city, county, or city and county, and to establish, by ordinance, a fine or penalty on a transient residential hosting platform for failure to provide the report. The bill would make the information in the report confidential and require that it not be disclosed. The bill would authorize the city, county, or city and county receiving the report to use the report solely for transient occupancy tax and zoning administration. The bill would also authorize a city, county, or city and county to require a transient residential hosting platform to collect and remit applicable transient occupancy tax. The bill, where a specified ordinance has been adopted, would prohibit a transient residential hosting platform from facilitating occupancy of a residential unit offered for tourist or transient use in violation of any ordinance, regulation, or law of the city, county, or city and county, and would authorize a city, county, or city and county, by ordinance, to establish a civil fine or penalty on an operator of a transient residential hosting platform for a knowing violation of this provision. This bill would also require the operator of a transient residential hosting platform to disclose specified information regarding insurance coverage in the transient residential hosting platform agreement with an offeror of a residential unit. 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 local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

Existing law provides for the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services, pursuant to which medical benefits are provided to public assistance recipients and certain other low-income persons. Existing law provides that federally qualified health center (FQHC) services and rural health clinic (RHC) services, as defined, are covered benefits under the Medi-Cal program, to be reimbursed, to the extent that federal financial participation is obtained, to providers on a per-visit basis. "Visit" is defined as a face-to-face encounter between a patient of an FQHC or RHC and specified health care professionals. Existing law allows an FQHC or RHC to apply for an adjustment to its per-visit rate based on a change in the scope of services it provides. This bill would also include a marriage and family therapist within those health care professionals covered under the definition of "visit." The bill would require an FQHC or RHC that currently includes the cost of services of a marriage and family therapist for the purposes of establishing its FQHC or RHC rate to apply to the department for an adjustment to its per-visit rate, and, after the rate adjustment has been approved by the department, would require the FQHC or RHC to bill these services as a separate visit, as specified. The bill would require an FQHC or RHC that does not provide the services of a marriage and family therapist, and later elects to add these services, to process the addition of these services as a change in scope of service. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 14132.100 of the Welfare and Institutions Code made by this bill and SB 610 to take effect if both bills are enacted and this bill is enacted last.

Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission has regulatory authority over public utilities, including water corporations, as defined. Existing law authorizes the commission to fix the rates and charges for every public utility, and requires that those rates and charges be just and reasonable. Existing law requires the Public Utilities Commission to consider, and authorizes the commission to implement, programs to provide rate relief for low-income ratepayers of a water corporation. Existing law establishes the State Water Resources Control Board and the 9 California regional water quality control boards as the principal state agencies with authority over matters relating to water quality. Existing law requires the state board to formulate and adopt state policy for water quality control. This bill would require the state board, no later than January 1, 2018, in collaboration with the State Board of Equalization and relevant stakeholders, to develop a plan for the funding and implementation of the Low-Income Water Rate Assistance Program, which would include specified elements. The bill would permit the board to consider existing rate assistance programs authorized by the commission in developing the plan and would authorize the plan to include recommendations for other cost-effective methods of offering assistance to low-income water customers. The bill would require the state board, no later than February 1, 2018, to report to the Legislature on its findings regarding the feasibility, financial stability, and desired structure of the program, including any recommendations for legislative action that may need to be taken.

(1) Existing law, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, an initiative measure enacted by the approval of Proposition 215 at the November 6, 1996, statewide general election, authorizes the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Existing law enacted by the Legislature requires the establishment of a program for the issuance of identification cards to qualified patients so that they may lawfully use marijuana for medical purposes, and requires the establishment of guidelines for the lawful cultivation of marijuana grown for medical use. Existing law provides for the licensure of various professions by the Department of Consumer Affairs. Existing law, the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, provides for the regulation of food, drugs, devices, and cosmetics, as specified. A violation of that law is a crime. This bill would, among other things, set forth standards for a physician and surgeon prescribing medical cannabis and require the Medical Board of California to prioritize its investigative and prosecutorial resources to identify and discipline physicians and surgeons that have repeatedly recommended excessive cannabis to patients for medical purposes or repeatedly recommended cannabis to patients for medical purposes without a good faith examination, as specified. The bill would require the Bureau of Medical Marijuana to require an applicant to furnish a full set of fingerprints for the purposes of conducting criminal history record checks. The bill would prohibit a physician and surgeon who recommends cannabis to a patient for a medical purpose from accepting, soliciting, or offering any form of remuneration from a facility licensed under the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act. The bill would make a violation of this prohibition a misdemeanor, and by creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would require the Governor, under the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act, to appoint, subject to confirmation by the Senate, a chief of the Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation. The act would require the Department of Consumer Affairs to have the sole authority to create, issue, renew, discipline, suspend, or revoke licenses for the transportation and storage, unrelated to manufacturing, of medical marijuana, and would authorize the department to collect fees for its regulatory activities and impose specified duties on this department in this regard. The act would require the Department of Food and Agriculture to administer the provisions of the act related to, and associated with, the cultivation, and transportation of, medical cannabis and would impose specified duties on this department in this regard. The act would require the State Department of Public Health to administer the provisions of the act related to, and associated with, the manufacturing and testing of medical cannabis and would impose specified duties on this department in this regard. This bill would authorize counties to impose a tax upon specified cannabis-related activity. This bill would require an applicant for a state license pursuant to the act to provide a statement signed by the applicant under penalty of perjury, thereby changing the scope of a crime and imposing a state-mandated local program. This bill would set forth standards for the licensed cultivation of medical cannabis, including, but not limited to, establishing duties relating to the environmental impact of cannabis and cannabis products. The bill would also establish state cultivator license types, as specified. (2) This bill would provide that its provisions are severable. (3) 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. (4) Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meeting of public bodies or the writings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with finding demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. The bill would make legislative findings to that effect. (5) The bill would become operative only if AB 266 and AB 243 of the 2015–16 Regular Session are enacted and take effect on or before January 1, 2016.

(1) Existing law provides that a search warrant may only be issued upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, naming or describing the person to be searched or searched for, and particularly describing the property, thing, or things and the place to be searched. Existing law also states the grounds upon which a search warrant may be issued, including, among other grounds, when the property or things to be seized consist of any item or constitute any evidence that tends to show a felony has been committed, or tends to show that a particular person has committed a felony, or when there is a warrant to arrest a person. This bill would prohibit a government entity from compelling the production of or access to electronic communication information or electronic device information, as defined, without a search warrant, wiretap order, order for electronic reader records, or subpoena issued pursuant under specified conditions, except for emergency situations, as defined. The bill would also specify the conditions under which a government entity may access electronic device information by means of physical interaction or electronic communication with the device, such as pursuant to a search warrant, wiretap order, or consent of the owner of the device. The bill would define a number of terms for those purposes, including, among others, "electronic communication information" and "electronic device information," which the bill defines collectively as "electronic information." The bill would require a search warrant for electronic information to describe with particularity the information to be seized and would impose other conditions on the use of the search warrant or wiretap order and the information obtained, including retention, sealing, and disclosure. The bill would require a warrant directed to a service provider to be accompanied by an order requiring the service provider to verify by affidavit the authenticity of electronic information that it produces, as specified. The bill would authorize a service provider to voluntarily disclose, when not otherwise prohibited by state or federal law, electronic communication information or subscriber information, and would require a government entity to destroy information so provided within 90 days, subject to specified exceptions. The bill would, subject to exceptions, require a government entity that executes a search warrant pursuant to these provisions to contemporaneously provide notice, as specified, to the identified target, that informs the recipient that information about the recipient has been compelled or requested, and that states the nature of the government investigation under which the information is sought. The bill would authorize a delay of 90 days, subject to renewal, for providing the notice under specified conditions that constitute an emergency. The bill would require the notice to include a copy of the warrant or statement describing the emergency under which the notice was delayed. The bill would provide that any person in a trial, hearing, or proceeding may move to suppress any electronic information obtained or retained in violation of its provisions, according to specified procedures. The bill would provide that a California or foreign corporation, and its officers, employees, and agents, are not subject to any cause of action for providing records, information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with the terms of a warrant, wiretap order, or other order issued pursuant to these provisions. (2) The California Constitution provides for the Right to Truth in Evidence, which requires a 23 vote of the Legislature to exclude any relevant evidence from any criminal proceeding, as specified. Because this bill would exclude evidence obtained or retained in violation of its provisions in a criminal proceeding, it requires a 23 vote of the Legislature.

Existing law provides for the construction and operation of various toll bridges by the state, the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District, and private entities that have entered into a franchise agreement with the state. This bill would, until January 1, 2021, prohibit a toll from being imposed on the passage of a pedestrian or bicycle over these various toll bridges.

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.

Existing law creates the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District, within the Counties of Sonoma and Marin, governed by a 12-member board of directors. Existing law requires the district to work with specified authorities to achieve a safe, efficient, and compatible system of passenger and freight rail service and authorizes the district to own, operate, manage, and maintain a passenger rail system within the territory of the district. Existing law requires the board to appoint a general manager for the district and authorizes the general manager to, among other things, appoint, supervise, suspend, or remove district officers, other than members of the board and officers appointed by the board. This bill would authorize the board to establish the position of chief of police, subject to specified requirements. If the board determines that more than one peace officer is needed, the bill would require the board to contract with law enforcement agencies located within the County of Marin or the County of Sonoma for the additional law enforcement services of one or more peace officers.