Existing law requires the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission to prescribe, by regulation, energy conservation and water efficiency standards for new residential and nonresidential buildings to reduce wasteful, uneconomic, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. The California Building Standards Law provides for the adoption of building standards by state agencies by requiring all state agencies that adopt or propose adoption of any building standard to submit the building standard to the California Building Standards Commission for approval or adoption. Existing law requires the commission to adopt, approve, codify, update, and publish green building standards for any occupancy for which no state agency has the authority or expertise to propose those standards. This bill would require the commission or any state agency proposing green building standards to seek the input of other state agencies and consult with representatives from specified groups, as prescribed. The bill would require any agency providing input to recommend to the commission or proposing agency whether the standard should be voluntary or mandatory. The bill would also authorize the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission to develop and adopt voluntary energy efficiency standards, as described.
Sponsored bills
Existing law provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Department of Insurance. Under existing law, a health insurer that provides maternity coverage may not restrict inpatient hospital benefits, as specified, and is required to provide notice of the maternity services coverage. This bill would require new forms for health insurance policies submitted to the department after January 1, 2010, to provide coverage for maternity services, as defined. With respect to policy forms on file with the department as of January 1, 2010, the bill would require health insurers to submit to the department, on or before March 1, 2010, revised policy forms that provide coverage for maternity services and would require insurers to include that coverage in the corresponding policies that are issued, amended, or renewed following the department's approval of the revised forms, as specified.
Existing law provides that upon the conviction of a person for a violation of a specified law regarding the failure to care for animals, the court is authorized to make an order prohibiting the defendant, as a condition of probation, from owning, possessing, caring for, or having any contact with animals of any kind and to order the convicted person to immediately deliver all animals in his or her possession to a designated public entity, as specified. Existing law requires the court, in the event of acquittal or final discharge of a person arrested pursuant to these provisions, to direct the release of the seized or impounded animals, on demand, upon a showing of proof of ownership. This bill would instead require the court to make the orders above regarding ownership and forfeiture, as specified. The bill would require the owner to make additional showings in order for the court to direct the release of seized or impounded animals. Existing law provides that the cost of seizing, caring for, and treating any animal seized pursuant to specified provisions regarding the failure to care for animals shall constitute a lien on the animal and that the animal shall not be returned to its owner until the charges are paid. Existing law provides that no animal properly seized pursuant to these provisions shall be returned to its owner until, in the determination of the seizing agency or hearing officer, the animal is physically fit, or the owner can demonstrate that the owner can and will provide the necessary care. This bill would additionally apply these provisions to animals seized pursuant to a search warrant. The bill would, in the event that the owner has satisfied the lien, provide a process for the seizing agency or prosecuting attorney to file a petition seeking forfeiture of any animal, as specified. Existing law establishes various other crimes regarding cruelty to animals and the failure to care for animals. This bill would require the court, upon conviction of a person for certain of these crimes, in addition to any other sentence or penalty, to enter an order enjoining the person from owning, possessing, maintaining, having custody of, residing with, or caring for any animal within a specified period after conviction, and would make related changes. The bill would make a violation of this order a misdemeanor, as specified. The bill would provide that the court may, in the interest of justice, reduce the duration of, or, in the case of livestock owners, exempt a defendant from, these restrictions under specified circumstances. By creating a new crime and by increasing the duties of local humane officers, 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law requires every employer, except the state, to secure the payment of workers' compensation. Existing law requires the Director of Industrial Relations to issue and serve on any employer that has failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation a stop order prohibiting the use of employee labor. Under existing law, at the time the stop order is issued and served, the director is required to issue and serve a penalty assessment order requiring the uninsured employer to pay to the director, for deposit into the State Treasury to the credit of the continuously appropriated Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund, the sum of $1,000 per employee employed at the time the order is issued and served. Existing law provides that in lieu of the aforementioned penalty assessment, at any time that the director determines that an employer has been uninsured for a period in excess of one week during the calendar year preceding the director's determination, the director may issue and serve a penalty assessment order that requires the uninsured employer to pay to the director, for deposit into the State Treasury to the credit of the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund, the greater of (1) twice the amount the employer would have paid in workers' compensation premiums during the period the employer was uninsured or (2) the sum of $1,000 per employee employed during the period the employer was uninsured. This bill would increase the penalty assessment to $1,500 per employee employed during the period the employer was uninsured. Because the money from the increased penalty assessment is deposited into the continuously appropriated Uninsured Employers Fund, this bill would make an appropriation. The bill would also clarify that the director is required to issue and serve either of the above-mentioned penalty assessments. Existing law provides that if the employer is currently insured, or becomes insured during the period during which the above penalty is being determined, the amount an employer would have paid in workers' compensation premiums shall be calculated by prorating the current premium for the number of weeks the employer was uninsured. Existing law provides that if the employer is uninsured at the time the above penalty is being determined, the amount an employer would have paid in workers' compensation premiums shall be calculated by applying the weekly premium per employee on file with the Insurance Commissioner to the number of weeks the employer was uninsured. Existing law provides that each employee of the uninsured employer shall be assumed to be assigned to the governing classification for that employer as determined by the director after consultation with the Insurance Commissioner. Existing law provides that if the employer contends that the assignment of the governing classification is incorrect, or that any employee should be assigned to a different classification, the employer has the burden to prove that the different classification should be utilized. This bill would require that, if the employer is currently insured, or becomes insured during the period during which the above penalty is being determined, the amount an employer would have paid in workers' compensation premiums shall be calculated by prorating the current premium for the number of weeks the employer was uninsured within the 3-year period immediately prior to the date the above penalty assessment is issued. This bill would also provide that if the employer is uninsured at the time the above penalty is being determined, the amount an employer would have paid in workers' compensation premiums shall be the product of the employer's payroll for all periods of time the employer was uninsured within the 3-year period immediately prior to the date the above penalty assessment is issued multiplied by a rate determined in accordance with regulations that may be adopted by the director or, if none have been adopted, the manual rate or rates of the State Compensation Insurance Fund for the employer's governing classification, as determined by the director, pursuant to the standard classification system approved by the Insurance Commissioner. This bill would provide that, unless the amount of the employer's payroll for all periods during which the employer was uninsured within the 3-year period is otherwise proven by a preponderance of evidence, the employer's payroll for each week the employer was uninsured shall be presumed to be the state average weekly wage, as defined, multiplied by the number of persons employed by the employer at the time the penalty assessment is issued.
Under existing law, unemployment compensation benefits are based on wages paid in a base period that is calculated according to the month within which the benefit year begins. This bill would, for new claims filed on or after January 1, 2010, for which a valid claim or benefit year cannot be established under the currently defined base periods, establish alternative base periods, as provided. This bill would also require a claimant to submit specified information regarding wages to the Employment Development Department via an affidavit, under specified conditions. Because this measure would increase the amount of unemployment compensation paid, it would make an additional amount payable from the Unemployment Fund, a continuously appropriated special fund, and thereby would make an appropriation. Because this measure would require specified information to be submitted to the Employment Development Department on an affidavit, the submission of which, if false, is a misdemeanor under existing law, it would impose a state-mandated 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. The California Constitution authorizes the Governor to declare a fiscal emergency and to call the Legislature into special session for that purpose. The Governor issued a proclamation declaring a fiscal emergency, and calling a special session for this purpose, on December 19, 2008. This bill would state that it addresses the fiscal emergency declared by the Governor by proclamation issued on December 19, 2008, pursuant to the California Constitution.
Existing workers' compensation law generally requires employers to secure the payment of workers' compensation, including medical treatment, for injuries incurred by their employees that arise out of, or in the course of, employment. Existing law, until December 31, 2009, provides an employee with the right to be treated by his or her personal physician from the date of injury if specified requirements are met, including a requirement that the physician agrees to be predesignated. This bill would delete the December 31, 2009, repeal date for those provisions pertaining to an employee's predesignation of a personal physician.
Existing law requires a local agency to adopt a specified updated model ordinance regarding water-efficient landscapes or a water-efficient landscape ordinance that is at least as effective in conserving water as the updated model ordinance. Existing law allows certain water providers to take specified actions regarding water conservation. The Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act provides for the creation and regulation of common interest developments. The act provides that the architectural guidelines of a common interest development shall not prohibit or include conditions that have the effect of prohibiting the use of low water-using plants as a group. This bill would, instead, provide that a provision of any of the governing documents of a common interest development shall be void and unenforceable if it prohibits, or includes conditions that have the effect of prohibiting, the use of low water-using plants as a group, or if it has the effect of prohibiting or restricting compliance with a local water-efficient landscape ordinance or water conservation measure described above.
Existing law provides for the licensure and regulation by the State Department of Public Health of long-term health care facilities, including skilled nursing facilities. Existing law creates the State Health Facilities Citation Penalties Account in the Special Deposit Fund, with the moneys in this account to be used, upon appropriation, for prescribed purposes. This bill would, commencing January 1, 2011, require skilled nursing facilities to post, in accordance with prescribed requirements, the overall facility rating information determined by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and to inform consumers regarding information available at the department's Internet Web site. A violation of these provisions would be a class B violation, as defined, with the proceeds from fines collected to be deposited into the State Health Facilities Citation Penalties Account.
(1) Existing law requires all manufacturers of ignition interlock devices that meet specified requirements and are certified in a manner approved by the Department of Motor Vehicles, that intend to market the devices in this state, to first apply to the department on forms provided by the department and to pay an accompanying fee in an amount not to exceed the amount necessary to cover the costs incurred by the department in carrying out those provisions. This bill would require a manufacturer and a manufacturer's agent, certified by the department to provide ignition interlock devices, to provide each year to the department information on the number of false positives and the time to reset the device. The bill would also require the department to use this information in evaluating the continued certification of an ignition interlock device. (2) Existing law requires a person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle to be suspended or revoked for a specified period of time if the person has been convicted of violating specified provisions prohibiting driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or drug or the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and drug, or with 0.08% or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood or while addicted to the use of any drug, with or without bodily injury to another. Existing law also authorizes a person whose privilege is suspended or revoked in that manner to receive a restricted driver's license if specified requirements are met, including, in some instances, the installation of an ignition interlock device on the person's vehicle. This bill would require the department to establish a pilot program from July 1, 2010, to January 1, 2016, in the Counties of Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Tulare that requires, as a condition of being issued a restricted driver's license, being reissued a driver's license, or having the privilege to operate a motor vehicle reinstated subsequent to a conviction for a violation of the above offenses, a person to install for a specified period of time an ignition interlock device on all vehicles he or she owns or operates, except as provided. The amount of time the ignition interlock device would be required to be installed would be based upon the number of convictions, as prescribed. The bill would prohibit the implementation of the pilot program if the department fails to obtain, by January 31, 2010, nonstate funds for the programming costs of the pilot program. The bill would set up a statutory scheme under which the department would, with regard to the installation of an ignition interlock device described above, notify the person of the ignition interlock device installation requirements established under the bill, accept notification from the installer of the ignition interlock device of attempts to remove, bypass, or tamper with the ignition interlock device or if the person fails 3 or more times to comply with the maintenance requirements, monitor the installation and maintenance of the ignition interlock device, and keep specified records. The bill would also require that manufacturers and manufacturer's agents, certified by the department to provide ignition interlock devices, adopt a fee schedule for payment of the costs of the ignition interlock device based on the offender's ability to pay, and would require the court to adopt a similar fee schedule with regard to the fees for the county alcohol and drug problem assessment program. On or before January 1, 2015, the department would be required to report to the Legislature regarding the effectiveness of the pilot program in reducing the number of first-time driving under the influence violations and repeat offenses in those counties. (3) This bill would require that it become operative only if SB 598 of the 2009–10 Regular Session becomes operative on or before January 1, 2010. (4) Because it is a crime to operate a vehicle that is not equipped with a functioning, certified ignition interlock device by a person whose driving privilege is so restricted, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program by expanding the scope of that crime. (5) 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 California Child Day Care Facilities Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of child day care facilities by the State Department of Social Services. Under existing law, a violation of any of these provisions is punishable as a crime. Existing law requires the State Department of Social Services to establish a trustline registry and, upon submission of the trustline application and fingerprints, to enter into the trustline registry the provider's name, identification card number, and an indicator that the provider has submitted an application and fingerprints, who would be known as a "trustline applicant." This bill would, commencing January 1, 2011, define an ancillary day care center, and provide that a person who provides care or supervision in an ancillary day care center is a provider for purposes of the trustline registry provisions. The bill would, commencing January 1, 2011, require a person who provides child care or child care supervision in an ancillary day care center to register pursuant to these trustline provisions. Existing law authorizes the department to charge a fee to trustline applicants, as specified. Under existing law, moneys collected by the department to implement the trustline provisions are continuously appropriated to the department without regard to fiscal year for expenditure to implement the trustline provisions. This bill, notwithstanding the existing fee requirements, would require the department to charge a fee to each trustline applicant who provides care in an ancillary day care center, that is equal to the total amount required by the department to process applications and maintain the trustline registry for these providers. By increasing the funds appropriated to the department for purposes of the trustline registry, and creating a new purpose for their expenditure, this bill would make an appropriation. This bill would provide that no General Fund moneys would be used for the bill's implementation.