Existing law establishes the California Community Colleges, under the administration of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, as one of the segments of public postsecondary education in this state. Existing law requires the board of governors to appoint a chief executive officer, to be known as the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges. Existing law establishes community college districts, administered by governing boards, throughout the state, and authorizes these districts to provide instruction to students at the community college campuses maintained by the districts. Existing law requires community colleges to offer instruction through, but not beyond, the 2nd year of college and authorizes community colleges to grant associate degrees in arts and science. Existing law also authorizes the board of governors, in consultation with the California State University and the University of California, to establish a statewide baccalaureate degree pilot program at not more than 15 community college districts, subject to specified requirements and conditions. This bill would authorize the board of governors, in consultation with the California State University and the University of California, to establish a statewide baccalaureate degree cybersecurity pilot program at not more than 10 community college districts, to be determined by the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges and approved by the board of governors. The bill would require participating community college districts to submit certain items for review by the chancellor and approval by the board of governors, including the administrative plan for the program and documentation of consultation with the California State University and the University of California. The bill would require the Legislative Analyst's Office to conduct both an interim and a final evaluation of the program and report to the Legislature and Governor, in writing, the results of the interim evaluation on or before July 1, 2019, and the results of the final evaluation on or before July 1, 2024. The bill would require the board of governors, on or before March 31, 2018, to develop and adopt by regulation a funding model for the support of the program. This bill would make these provisions inoperative on July 1, 2025, and would repeal the provisions on January 1, 2026.
Sponsored bills
Existing law prohibits a person or entity, other than physicians or attorneys, from advertising, printing, displaying, publishing, distributing, or broadcasting in any manner a statement concerning services or benefits to be provided to an injured worker, which is paid for by that person or entity that is false, misleading, or deceptive. Violation of these provisions is a misdemeanor punishable by incarceration in the county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine not exceeding $10,000, or by both that imprisonment and fine. This bill would increase the maximum fine for that offense to $15,000.
Existing law requests campuses of the California Community Colleges, requires campuses of the California State University, and requires campuses of the University of California, subject to its agreement by resolution, to do both of the following: (1) give priority for housing to current and former foster youth and current and former homeless youth, and (2) as to campuses that maintain student housing facilities open for occupation during school breaks, or on a year-round basis, give first priority to current and former foster youth and current and former homeless youth for residence in housing facilities that are open for uninterrupted year-round occupation at no extra cost during academic or campus breaks, and next give priority to current and former foster youth and current and former homeless youth for housing that is open for occupation during the most days in the calendar year. This bill would require the Legislative Analyst's Office, in consultation with the California Community Colleges, the California State University, and the University of California, to conduct a study that includes specified information on the implementation of this law and report the study to the Legislature on or before January 1, 2020.
The Cal Grant Program establishes Cal Grant C awards, which may be used only for institutional fees, and other costs, as specified, for occupational or technical training in a course of not less than 4 months, under the administration of the Student Aid Commission. The program requires the commission to give priority in granting Cal Grant C awards to students pursuing occupational or technical training in areas that meet at least 2 criteria. This bill, among other things, would (1) rename these awards the Competitive Cal Grant C awards, (2) set the maximum Competitive Cal Grant C award amount at $2,462 for tuition and fees and $547 for certain other costs, (3) establish an additional Competitive Cal Grant C award in an annual amount not to exceed $2,462 for community college students for occupational and technical training to cover access costs, training-related costs, and tuition and fees, and (4) establish a Cal Grant C Entitlement award for access costs for community college students who are enrolled in a for-credit certificate or credential instructional program that is less than one academic year in length and that is an occupational or technical training program identified by the commission, as specified.
(1) Existing law, the Brady-Jared Teen Driver Safety Act of 1997, establishes a provisional licensing program and generally requires that a driver's license issued to a person at least 16 years of age but under 18 years of age be issued pursuant to that provisional licensing program. Existing law requires a person to hold an instruction permit for not less than 6 months prior to applying for a provisional license. During the first 12 months after issuance of a provisional license, existing law prohibits the licensee from driving between the hours of 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. and transporting passengers who are under 20 years of age, unless he or she is accompanied and supervised by a licensed driver, as specified, or a licensed or certified driving instructor. Existing law provides limited exceptions to these restrictions under which a licensee is authorized to drive under specified circumstances, including a school or school-authorized activity or an employment necessity, and requires the licensee to keep certain supporting documentation in his or her possession. Existing law requires a person to complete 50 hours of supervised driving practice prior to the issuance of a provisional license, as specified, and requires the person to submit to the Department of Motor Vehicles the certification of a parent, spouse, guardian, or licensed or certified driving instructor that the applicant has completed the required amount of driving practice and is prepared to take the department's driving test. Existing law allows a person without a parent, spouse, guardian, or who is an emancipated minor, to have a licensed driver 25 years of age or older or a licensed or certified driving instructor complete the certification. A violation of these provisions is punishable as an infraction. This bill would, commencing January 1, 2020, expand the scope of the provisional licensing program by extending the applicable age range for the program to 16 to under 21 years of age. The bill would exempt active duty members of the California National Guard, the State Military Reserve, or the United States Armed Forces who are at least 18 years of age from the program. The bill would also exempt a person who is at least 18 years of age and possesses an ambulance driver certificate, a certificate to drive other specified vehicles, including school buses, or a commercial driver's license from the program. The bill would, commencing January 1, 2020, apply the requirement to hold an instruction permit for not less than 6 months only to persons under 18 years of age, and would reduce that time period to not less than 60 days for persons at least 18 years of age, but under 21 years of age. The bill also would, commencing January 1, 2020, authorize persons at least 18 years of age, but under 21 years of age, to have a driving practice certification completed by a licensed driver or certified driving instructor, as specified. By expanding the scope of the provisional licensing program, the violation of which constitutes an infraction, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would, commencing January 1, 2020, authorize a licensee who is 18, 19, or 20 years of age to keep in his or her possession a copy of his or her class schedule or work schedule as documentation to satisfy the exceptions for a school or school-authorized activity and employment necessity, respectively, and would provide that a signed statement by a parent or legal guardian is not required if reasonable transportation facilities are inadequate and the operation of a vehicle by a licensee who is 18, 19, or 20 years of age is necessary to transport the licensee or the licensee's immediate family member. The bill would, commencing January 1, 2020, make other technical and conforming changes, including changes to age restriction provisions for the issuance of an M1 or M2 motorcycle license. The bill would also include specified findings and declarations. (2) Existing law generally authorizes the Department of Motor Vehicles, for good cause, to issue an instruction permit to any physically and mentally qualified person who applies to the department for an instruction permit and who meets any one of 5 specified requirements, including that the person is 17 years and 6 months of age or older. This bill would, commencing January 1, 2020, raise the age for the above requirement to 20 years and 6 months. Existing law provides that a person, while having in his or her immediate possession a valid permit issued pursuant to the above provisions, may operate a motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle, motorized scooter, or a motorized bicycle, when accompanied by, and under the immediate supervision of, a California-licensed driver with a valid license of the appropriate class, 18 years of age or over whose driving privilege is not on probation, as specified. A violation of this provision is punishable as an infraction. This bill would, commencing January 1, 2020, raise the required age of the California-licensed driver to 21 years of age. By changing the definition of an existing infraction, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) Existing law prohibits a person from owning or operating a driving school or giving driving instruction for compensation without a license issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles. This bill would require an owner or operator of a driving school or an independent driving instructor, as a condition to obtain a new license or renewed license from the department on and after January 1, 2018, to offer and accept installment payments, as specified, for the compensation to provide the instruction required by the Brady-Jared Teen Driver Safety Act of 1997. The bill would also authorize the Department of Motor Vehicles to charge a driving school, as specified, a fee not to exceed $1 for each driver education or driver training certificate of completion furnished by the department and issued to a person who has demonstrated satisfactory completion of a certified driver education and driver training course, in order to recover the department's reasonable costs in administering the provisional licensing program. The bill would prohibit a driving school from charging an applicant a fee for a certificate of completion that exceeds the fee the department charges the school. (4) 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 prescribes the duties of the State Registrar of Vital Statistics (State Registrar) and local registrars of births and deaths with respect to the registration of certificates of live birth, fetal death, or death, and marriage licenses. Existing law requires the State Registrar to prescribe and furnish all record forms for use in carrying out the provisions governing vital records and prohibits the use of any record form or format other than those prescribed by the State Registrar. Existing law requires every live birth, fetal death, death, and marriage that occurs in the state to be registered with the local registrar. Existing law requires certificates of live birth, fetal death, or death, and a marriage license to include specified information, such as the full name of the child on a certificate of live birth and the full names of the parties to be married on a marriage license. This bill would require the State Registrar to require the use of a diacritical mark on an English letter to be properly recorded, when applicable, on a certificate of live birth, fetal death, or death, and a marriage license and would require the use of a diacritical mark to be deemed an acceptable entry by the State Registrar. The bill would provide that the absence of a diacritical mark on a certificate of live birth, fetal death, or death, or a marriage license does not render the document invalid nor affect any constructive notice imparted by proper recordation of the document. The bill would authorize, if a name is not accurately recorded because of the absence of a diacritical mark on an English letter in any certificate of live birth, fetal death, death, or marriage already registered, the person asserting the omission, or the person's conservator, or if a minor, the person's parent or guardian, to submit a written request to the State Registrar for the issuance of a new certificate of birth, fetal death, death, or marriage stating the changes necessary to make the name correct. The bill would require the State Registrar to review the request and, if the request is accompanied with the payment of a specified fee, to issue a new certificate of live birth, fetal death, death, or marriage with the accurate name identified in the request.
(1) The California Constitution authorizes the electors of each city and county to exercise the powers of initiative and referendum under procedures provided by the Legislature. The Planning and Zoning Law requires a county or city to prepare and adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city. After the legislative body has adopted a general plan, that law authorizes the preparation of specific plans by the planning agency for the systematic implementation of the general plan for all or part of the area covered by the general plan. The Planning and Zoning Law provides for the adoption and administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations by counties and cities. This bill would require that the city council of a city or the board of supervisors of a county have exclusive authority to adopt or amend a general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance, that would convert any discretionary land use approval necessary for a project to ministerial approval; change the land use or zoning designation of a parcel or parcels to a more intensive designation; or authorize more intensive land uses within an existing land use designation or zoning designation. The bill would specify that it would not apply to a legislative act that meets specified conditions, would not affect the referendum powers, and would not affect the power of a city council or board of supervisors to submit a ballot measure to the voters under 2 circumstances set out in the bill. (2) Under the Planning Zone Law, a city, county, or city and county may enter into a development agreement with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property for the development of the property. Existing law prohibits a city, county, or city and county from approving a development agreement unless the legislative body of that city or county finds that the agreement is consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan. This bill would also prohibit a development agreement described above from being approved or amended by an ordinance adopted through the initiative process. The bill would state that this prohibition applies to a charter city. (3) The bill would include findings that the changes proposed by this bill addresses a matter of statewide concern, and therefore shall apply to all cities and counties, including charter cities.
This measure would recognize August 6, 2017, as the 52nd anniversary of the signing of the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965.