Existing law, the Alfred E. Alquist Hospital Facilities Seismic Safety Act of 1983, establishes a program of seismic safety building standards for certain hospitals. Existing law requires, by January 1, 2030, owners of all acute care inpatient hospitals to either seismically retrofit all acute care inpatient hospitals, or demolish, replace, or change to nonacute care use all hospital buildings not in substantial compliance with regulations and standards developed by the department in accordance with the act, as specified. This bill would authorize the Children's Hospital Los Angeles to seek approval from the Department of Health Care Access and Information for an extension to the January 1, 2030, compliance deadline described above by up to 3 years. The bill would authorize the hospital to submit a seismic compliance plan, as specified, and, if necessary, a Nonstructural Performance Category-5 evaluation report in order to seek an extension. The bill would also require the hospital and department to identify least 2 major milestones relating to the seismic compliance plan that will be used as the basis for determining whether a hospital is making adequate progress towards meeting the hospital's seismic compliance deadline. The bill would subject the submitted seismic compliance plan to departmental review for reasonableness and require the hospital seeking the extension to submit any documentation requested by the department to assist its review. The bill would require the department to approve or deny a seismic compliance plan and any extension to the seismic compliance deadline within 120 days. The bill would also authorize the department to adjust the approved extension of time, the milestones agreed upon, or both, as necessary to deal with contractor, labor, or material delays, acts of God, governmental entitlements, or other circumstances beyond the hospital's control. The bill would impose a fine of $5,000 per calendar day for the hospital's failure to comply with a revised construction schedule or to meet any major milestone established by the department until the requirements or milestones, respectively, are met. The bill would also generally prohibit these hospitals from being issued a building permit for any building in the facility except those required for seismic compliance, maintenance, and emergency repairs until the milestone is met and the hospital is adequately progressing toward meeting the hospital's seismic compliance, as determined by the department. The bill would require the department to implement the above-described provisions by regulation, as specified. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the County of Los Angeles.
Sponsored bills
Existing law requires the State Department of Education to incorporate age-appropriate materials relating to, among other things, genocide and the Holocaust into publications that provide examples of curriculum resources for teacher use, consistent with the subject frameworks on history and social science. Under existing law, the Legislature encourages the incorporation of survivor, rescuer, liberator, and witness oral testimony into the teaching of genocide and the Holocaust. This bill would establish the California Teachers Collaborative for Holocaust and Genocide Education, to be responsible for establishing a statewide teacher professional development program on genocide, including the Holocaust, for school district, county office of education, and charter school teachers. The bill would require the collaborative to consist of leading genocide and Holocaust education organizations and institutions, genocide survivors, educators, and community leaders. The bill would provide that the collaborative's mission is to ensure that genocide, including Holocaust, education is taught consistent with, among other things, the content standards, curriculum frameworks, and instructional materials adopted by the State Board of Education, in ways that are interdisciplinary and age-appropriate to pupils of different grade levels. The bill would prescribe the duties of the collaborative, including, among others, developing and providing curriculum resources on genocide and Holocaust education. The bill would authorize other duties of the collaborative, subject to available funding, including, among others, providing, as determined by the department, annual verbal or written reports to the department and the Legislature on the collaborative's achievement of its mission. The bill would make the implementation of these provisions contingent upon an appropriation.
Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district or its designee to regulate the possession or use of any electronic signaling device that operates through the transmission or receipt of radio waves, including, but not limited to, paging and signaling equipment, by pupils of the school district while the pupils are on campus, attending school-sponsored activities, or under the supervision or control of school district employees. Existing law explicitly authorizes the governing body of a school district, a county office of education, or a charter school to adopt a policy to limit or prohibit the use by its pupils of smartphones while the pupils are at a schoolsite or while the pupils are under the supervision and control of an employee or employees of that school district, county office of education, or charter school. This bill would additionally explicitly authorize the governing board of a school district, a county board of education, or the governing body of a charter school to limit or prohibit the use by its pupils of social media, as defined, while the pupils are at a schoolsite or while the pupils are under the supervision and control of an employee or employees of that school district, county office of education, or charter school, as provided.
The Donahoe Higher Education Act sets forth, among other things, the missions and functions of California's public and independent segments of higher education and their respective institutions of higher education. A provision of the act applies to the University of California only to the extent that the Regents of the University of California, by appropriate resolution, act to make the provision applicable. A portion of the Donahoe Higher Education Act, known as the Equity in Higher Education Act, provides, among other things, that all students have the right to participate fully in the educational process, free from discrimination and harassment, and that California's postsecondary educational institutions have an affirmative obligation to combat racism, sexism, and other forms of bias, and a responsibility to provide equal educational opportunity. This bill would state that the Trustees of the California State University and the Regents of the University of California have the primary responsibility to prevent and address conduct that either creates a hostile environment for students on campus or results in differential treatment of students on campus, as specified. The bill would require the trustees to, among other things, adopt rules and procedures, as specified, to prohibit violent, harassing, intimidating, or discriminatory conduct that creates a hostile environment on campus, to prohibit conduct that limits or denies a person's ability to participate in or benefit from the free exchange of ideas or the educational mission of the California State University, and to establish, and require each campus to publish on campus internet websites, reasonable content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions and, if applicable, any advance permitting requirements for protests on campus. The bill would require the trustees to develop mandatory training programs to educate students on what constitutes violent, harassing, intimidating, or discriminatory conduct that creates a hostile environment on campus, the procedures for investigating violations of the student code of conduct, when and where protests and gatherings may be held, as specified, and on how to exchange views in an atmosphere of mutual respect and civility. The bill would require the trustees to submit a report, on or before January 2, 2025, and annually thereafter, to the Legislature on the implementation and administration of the bill. The bill would request the University of California to comply with these provisions. The bill would make its provisions severable.
Existing law prohibits a person from driving a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than the speed limit. Existing law also prohibits a person from driving a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed that endangers the safety of persons or property. This bill would require, commencing with the 2030 model year, every passenger vehicle, motortruck, and bus manufactured, sold as new, or leased as new in the state to be equipped with a passive intelligent speed assistance system, as specified, that would utilize a brief, one-time, visual and audio signal to alert the driver each time the speed of the vehicle is more than 10 miles per hour over the speed limit. The bill would exempt emergency vehicles, certain motortrucks, motorcycles, motorized bicycles, mopeds, and certain passenger vehicles from this requirement. The bill would require the system to be capable of being fully disabled, by the manufacturer or a franchisee, for emergency vehicles. The bill would require the system, if the system receives conflicting speed limits for the same area, to apply the higher speed limit. A violation of the above requirements would be punishable as a crime. By creating a new criminal offense, 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 Alfred E. Alquist Hospital Facilities Seismic Safety Act of 1983, establishes a program of seismic safety building standards for certain hospitals. Existing law requires hospitals that are seeking an extension for their buildings to submit an application to the Department of Health Care Access and Information by April 1, 2019, subject to certain exceptions. Existing law requires that final seismic compliance be achieved by July 1, 2022, if the compliance is based on a replacement or retrofit plan, or by January 1, 2025, if the compliance is based on a rebuild plan. Notwithstanding the above provisions, existing law authorizes the department to waive the requirements of the act for the O'Connor Hospital and Santa Clara Valley Medical Center in the City of San Jose if the hospital or medical center submits a plan for compliance by a specified date, and the department accepts the plan based on it being feasible to complete and promoting public safety. Existing law requires, if the department accepts the plan, the hospital or medical center to report to the department on its progress to timely complete the plan by specified dates. Existing law imposes penalties to a hospital that fails to meet its deadline. This bill would additionally authorize the department to waive the requirements of the act for Providence St. Joseph Hospital and Providence Eureka General Hospital in the City of Eureka, Providence St. Jude Medical Center in the City of Fullerton, and Providence Cedars-Sinai Tarzana Medical Center in the City of Tarzana. The bill would specify additional dates for the hospital or medical center to report to the department on its progress, would authorize the department to grant no more time than is necessary for the hospital to fully comply with the standards, and would impose a fine of $5,000 per calendar day if the hospital fails to comply with specified requirements or demonstrate adequate progress, as specified. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Under existing law, a notice of cancellation of an automobile insurance policy shall not be effective unless mailed or delivered by the insurer to the named insured, lienholder, or additional interest at least 20 days prior to the effective date of cancellation, and at least 10 days' notice of cancellation when the reason for cancellation is for nonpayment of premium. For purposes of this provision, nonpayment of premium means failure of the named insured to discharge when due any of their obligations in connection with the payment of premiums on a policy, or any installment of the premium, as specified. Existing case law requires the 10-day notice period for nonpayment to commence after default. This bill would require that the 10-day notice period for nonpayment commence after nonpayment of premium due by the specified due date and make a cancellation for nonpayment effective, as specified, if the insured has not cured the nonpayment of premium due identified in the notice by the end of the 10-day period.
Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, requires the legislative body of a city or county to adopt a comprehensive general plan that includes various elements, including land use, housing, and conservation elements, as specified. Existing law requires the conservation element to consider the effect of development within the jurisdiction on natural resources located on public lands. This bill would additionally require the conservation element to consider the effect of development within the jurisdiction on the movement of wildlife and habitat connectivity. The bill would require the conservation element, upon the next update of one or more elements on or after January 1, 2028, to, among other things, identify and analyze connectivity areas, permeability, and natural landscape areas within the jurisdiction, identify and analyze existing or planned wildlife passage features, and consider the impacts of development and the barriers caused by development to wildlife, as defined, and habitat connectivity. The bill would authorize a city, county, or city and county to incorporate by reference into its general plan an existing plan, including a certified local coastal plan, that meets these requirements. The bill would authorize a city, county, or city and county preparing to update its conservation element to consider incorporating appropriate standards, policies, and feasible implementation programs, consult with specified entities, and consider relevant best available science and the most appropriately scaled scientific information on linkages, corridors, and other locations that are essential to maintain landscape connectivity. The bill would authorize a city, county, or city and county to consult with other appropriate entities and meet the above-described requirements in a separate component or section of the general plan entitled a wildlife connectivity element. The bill would include related legislative findings and declarations. By adding to the duties of county and city officials in the administration of their land use planning duties, 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 authorizes, until January 1, 2032, the Cities of Los Angeles, San Jose, Oakland, Glendale, and Long Beach, and the City and County of San Francisco to establish a speed safety system pilot program if the system meets specified requirements. Existing law requires a participating city or city and county to adopt a Speed Safety System Use Policy and a Speed Safety System Impact Report before implementing the program, and requires the participating city or city and county to engage in a public information campaign at least 30 days before implementation of the program, including information relating to when the systems would begin detecting violations and where the systems would be utilized. Existing law requires a participating city or city and county to issue warning notices rather than notices of violations for violations detected within the first 60 calendar days of the program. Existing law also requires a participating city or city and county to develop uniform guidelines for, among other things, the processing and storage of confidential information. Existing law designates all photographic or administrative records, not including data about the number of violations issued or the speeds at which they were issued for, made by a system as confidential, and would only authorize public agencies to use and allow access to these records for specified purposes. This bill would authorize, until January 1, 2032, the City of Malibu to establish a similar program for speed enforcement that utilizes up to 5 speed safety systems on the Pacific Coast Highway. Existing law specifies that any violation of a speed law recorded by a speed safety system authorized by the Speed Safety System Pilot Program provisions would be subject only to the provided civil penalties. Existing law provides, among other things, for the issuance of a notice of violation, an initial review, an administrative hearing, and an appeals process, as specified, for a violation under this program. Existing law requires any program created pursuant to these provisions to offer a diversion program for indigent speed safety system violation recipients, as specified. Existing law requires a city or city and county participating in the pilot program to submit a report to evaluate the speed safety system to determine the system's impact on street safety and the economic impact on the communities where the system is utilized. Existing law requires revenues derived from any program to first be used to cover program costs, including, among other things, the construction of traffic-calming measures, as specified. This bill would require the City of Malibu to also implement the above provisions if it establishes the speed safety system program on the Pacific Coast Highway. The bill would additionally require the City of Malibu to enter into an agreement with the Department of Transportation regarding the use of any excess revenue for traffic-calming measures on the Pacific Coast Highway, in the City of Malibu. Existing law establishes a $25 filing fee for specified appeals and petitions. This bill would require a $25 filing fee for an appeal challenging a notice of violation issued as a result of the City of Malibu's speed safety system program until January 1, 2032. 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. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City of Malibu.
Existing law, the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act, requires, on or before January 1, 2025, the State Air Resources Board to develop and adopt regulations to require a reporting entity to annually disclose to the emissions reporting organization, as defined, all of the reporting entity's scope 1 emissions, scope 2 emissions, and scope 3 emissions, as defined. Existing law requires the state board to ensure that the regulations require a reporting entity, starting in 2027 and annually thereafter, to publicly disclose its scope 3 emissions no later than 180 days after its scope 1 emissions and scope 2 emissions are publicly disclosed to the emissions reporting organization. Existing law requires the reporting entities to pay an annual fee upon filing the disclosure. Existing law also requires the state board to contract with an emissions reporting organization to develop a reporting program to receive and make certain required disclosures publicly available, and sets forth other duties of the emissions reporting organization and the state board. This bill would delay the requirement that the state board adopt regulations until July 1, 2025, and would require that the regulations adopted by the state board require, among other things, a reporting entity to make the annual disclosure to either the emissions reporting organization or the state board, and that the reporting entity publicly disclose its scope 3 emissions on a schedule specified by the state board, rather than no later than 180 days after its scope 1 emissions and scope 2 emissions are publicly disclosed. The bill would authorize reports to be consolidated at the parent company level and would delete the requirement that the annual fee be paid upon filing the disclosure. The bill would authorize, rather than require, the state board to contract with an emissions reporting organization to develop a reporting program to receive and make certain required disclosures publicly available. The bill would make other related changes to the duties of the emissions reporting organization and the state board, as provided. Existing law requires, on or before January 1, 2026, and biennially thereafter, a covered entity, as defined to mean a corporation, partnership, limited liability company, or other business entity with total annual revenues in excess of $500,000,000, as specified, to prepare a climate-related financial risk report disclosing the entity's climate-related financial risk and measures adopted to reduce and adapt to climate-related financial risk. Existing law requires the state board to contract with a climate reporting organization, as defined, to prepare a biennial public report on the climate-related financial risk disclosures and requires the climate reporting organization to be contracted to take other actions, including biennially preparing a public report that includes a review of the disclosure of climate-related financial risk contained in a subset of publicly available climate-related financial risk reports and monitoring federal regulatory actions, as specified. Existing law requires, on or before January 1, 2026, and annually thereafter, a covered entity to pay a fee upon filing its disclosure to the state board for the administration and implementation of these requirements. This bill would authorize, rather than require, the state board to contract with a climate reporting organization to carry out the above-described actions that the state board deems appropriate. The bill would also delete the requirement that the entity's fee be paid upon filing its disclosure.