Existing law authorizes a city or county in which a planned transportation facility was to be located on State Highway Route 238 in Alameda County to develop and file with the California Transportation Commission a local alternative transportation improvement program that addresses transportation problems and opportunities, and provides for the use of revenues from the sales of excess properties acquired for the planned state facility in order to fund the local alternative transportation improvement program, but limits the use of revenues from excess property sales to state highway purposes. Existing law provides that the commission may not approve a local alternative transportation improvement program under these provisions after July 1, 2010. Similar provisions apply to State Highway Route 84 in the Cities of Fremont and Union City, except that the use of revenues from excess property sales in that corridor are limited to state highway purposes or projects in the local voter-approved transportation sales tax measure. This bill would modify the restriction limiting use of revenues from excess property sales to state highway purposes applicable to State Highway Route 238 by authorizing those revenues to be used for any highway purpose. This bill would require revenues from excess property sales for State Highway Route 238 and State Highway Route 84 to be deposited into separate accounts in the Special Deposit Fund, a continuously appropriated fund, to be available for expenditure by local agencies for purposes of an approved local alternative transportation improvement program for the applicable corridor route. The bill would thereby make an appropriation. This bill would also authorize local agencies to advance projects in the local alternative transportation improvement program with local funds, to be repaid when revenues from excess property sales become available, as specified. This bill would require the California Transportation Commission to adopt guidelines in that regard. Existing law requires a local alternative transportation improvement program for State Highway Route 238 to provide, among other things, relocation assistance and replacement housing units for persons displaced as a result of the sale of excess properties to fund the local alternative transportation improvement program. This bill would make these provisions inoperative, and would enact new provisions to become operative, on the date on which the superior court issues the final approval order for the settlement agreement related to the disposition of excess properties acquired for the State Route 238 Hayward Bypass Project signed by the department, the City of Hayward, and representatives for members of the class of residents, or on January 1, 2010, whichever comes later. The new provisions would, among other things, require monetary assistance to eligible tenant households and provision of 237 additional new low-income housing units. The new provisions would also require the department to offer the direct sale of eligible excess single-family residences on an as-is, fair market value basis, to current tenants meeting specified requirements and would enact other related provisions in that regard. The bill would authorize proceeds from the sale of excess properties to be used for the cost of selling the properties and various administrative, commercial, or legal costs, including program administration costs to develop and administer the home purchase program and an administrative hearing process for tenants. Existing law provides for state highways to be constructed, as determined by the California Transportation Commission, on routes authorized by law. Existing law provides for relinquishment by the commission of state highways to local agencies under certain conditions. This bill would authorize the commission to relinquish portions of State Highway Routes 92, 185, and 238 in the City of Hayward to that city subject to various conditions.
Sponsored bills
Existing law, the Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act, provides that foreign-country judgments that grant or deny recovery of a sum of money and that are final and conclusive are enforceable in California, with specified exceptions. The act excepts foreign-country judgments from its provisions in certain instances, including when the judgment was rendered under a system that does not provide impartial tribunals or the court lacked jurisdiction. The act prohibits nonrecognition of a foreign judgment based on a lack of personal jurisdiction if certain bases of personal jurisdiction are present. This bill would additionally except from recognition under the act a foreign-country judgment if the judgment includes recovery for a claim of defamation unless the court determines that the defamation law applied by the foreign court provided at least as much protection for freedom of speech and the press as provided by both the United States and California Constitutions. The bill would provide, if a judgment was rendered in an action for defamation in a foreign country against a person who is a resident of California or a person or entity amenable to jurisdiction in California, and declaratory relief with respect to liability for the judgment or a determination is sought that the judgment is not recognizable in California under the act, that a court has jurisdiction to determine the declaratory relief action as well as personal jurisdiction over the person or entity who obtained the foreign-country judgment if the publication at issue was published in California, and the defendant has assets in California that might be subject to an enforcement proceeding to satisfy the foreign-country defamation judgment or may have to take actions in California to comply with the foreign-country defamation judgment.
Existing law requires a court, with respect to an action involving a construction-related accessibility claim, to issue an order that, among other things, grants a 90-day stay of the proceedings with respect to that claim, schedules an early evaluation conference, and directs the defendant to file with the court under seal and serve on the plaintiff a copy of any relevant Certified Access Specialist inspection report, which shall be subject to a protective court order, as specified, if the defendant has satisfied certain requirements relating to inspection of the site at issue. Existing law requires the early evaluation conferences be conducted by a superior court judge or commissioner, or a court early evaluation conference officer, as defined. This bill would instead require the Certified Access Specialist inspection report to remain confidential and would allow disclosure only to the parties to the action, the parties' attorneys, and others involved in the evaluation and settlement of the case, as specified. The bill would also require the report to remain confidential until the conclusion of the claim, unless there is a showing of good cause by any party. This bill would make conforming and related technical changes.
Existing law provides that no direct or indirect transfer of structured settlement payment rights is effective unless the transfer has been approved in advance in a final court order based on certain written court findings. This bill would specify that those provisions only apply to agreements with certain connections to California. This bill would also specify new information to be included in the written disclosure statement provided to the payee prior to executing the transfer agreement. This bill would specify circumstances the court must consider before approving the transfer. This bill would provide that every application for approval of a transfer of structured settlement payment rights shall contain specified information. This bill would also specify notice and disclosure requirements that must be complied with prior to any transfer.
(1) The Real Estate Law provides for the regulation and licensure of real estate brokers and real estate salespersons by the Real Estate Commissioner. The California Finance Lenders Law provides for the regulation and licensure of finance lenders and brokers by the Commissioner of Corporations. The California Residential Mortgage Lending Act provides for the regulation and licensure of residential mortgage lenders and servicers by the Commissioner of Corporations. The Banking Law provides for the regulation of state commercial banks by the Commissioner of Financial Institutions. The California Credit Union Law provides for the regulation of state credit unions by the Commissioner of Financial Institutions. A willful violation of specified provisions of those acts is a crime. This bill would, until January 1, 2013, prohibit any person, including a real estate licensee, who negotiates, attempts to negotiate, arranges, attempts to arrange, or otherwise offers to perform residential mortgage loan modifications or other forms of mortgage loan forbearance, as specified, for a fee or other compensation paid by a borrower, from demanding or receiving any preperformance compensation, as specified, requiring any security as collateral for final compensation, or taking a power of attorney from a borrower, and would make a violation of that prohibition a misdemeanor or subject to specified fines. By creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would also provide that these provisions do not apply to actions taken by a person who offers loan modification or other loan forbearance services for a loan owned or serviced by that person, including, but not limited to, collecting principal, interest, or other charges under the terms of a loan, before the loan is modified, including charges to establish a new payment schedule for a nondelinquent loan. This bill would also require any person, including a real estate licensee, who negotiates, attempts to negotiate, arranges, attempts to arrange, or otherwise offers to perform residential mortgage loan modifications or other forms of mortgage loan forbearance, as specified, for a fee or other compensation paid by a borrower, to provide a specified 14-point bold type statement regarding loan modification fees. The bill would make a violation of that prohibition a misdemeanor or subject to specified fines, thereby creating a new crime and imposing a state-mandated local program. The bill would also provide that a real estate licensee who fails to comply with specified provisions related to mortgages, including the loan modification provisions, would be subject to disciplinary action by the Real Estate Commissioner, and would provide that a violation of the above by an attorney may also subject him or her to disciplinary action. The bill would add to the California Finance Lenders Law a prohibition on making a materially false or misleading statement or representation to a borrower about the terms or conditions of that borrower's loan, when making or brokering a loan. Because a willful violation of these provisions by certain licensees may be punished as crimes under their respective licensing laws, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) The Real Estate Law provides for the regulation and licensure of real estate brokers and salespersons by the Real Estate Commissioner. As used in the Real Estate Law, the term "advance fee" is defined as a fee that is claimed, demanded, charged, received, collected, or contracted from a principal for a listing, advertisement, or offer to sell or lease property, and as specified. This bill would redefine the term "advance fee" to mean a fee, regardless of the form, that is claimed, demanded, charged, received, or collected by a licensee from a principal before fully completing each and every service the licensee contracted to perform, or represented would be performed, as specified. Existing law authorizes the commissioner to require that materials used in obtaining advance fee agreements, as defined, be submitted to him or her at least 10 calendar days before the materials are used and makes it a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding 6 months, or both, to use any agreement that the commissioner has ordered not to be used. This bill would increase the maximum fine for using any advance fee agreement that the commissioner has ordered not to be used from $1,000 to $2,500. (3) Existing law provides that certain persons are exempt from regulation under certain provisions of the Real Estate Law dealing with real estate loans. This bill would further exempt from those provisions specified organizations that have been approved by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development to provide counseling services, when those services are provided at no cost and in connection with residential mortgage loan modifications. (4) Existing law defines a foreclosure consultant as a person who offers, for compensation, to perform specified services for a homeowner relating to a foreclosure sale, and imposes regulations upon foreclosure consultants when servicing a foreclosure sale, as specified. Existing law excludes specified persons from the definition of a foreclosure consultant, including a person licensed under the Real Estate Law when making a direct loan or engaging in specified acts, and a person licensed to make loans as a finance lender, subject to the authority of the Commissioner of Corporations to terminate this exclusion, as specified. This bill would instead specify that a real estate licensee and a finance lender are excluded from the definition of a foreclosure consultant when acting under the authority of that person's license, and would delete the commissioner's authority to terminate the finance lender's exclusion. The bill would also delete obsolete statutory references from those provisions. (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.(6) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law requires the Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health Division of the State Department of Public Health to administer a comprehensive shelter-based service grant program to battered women's shelters. Existing law also requires the Office of Emergency Services, now the California Emergency Management Agency, to conduct a comprehensive statewide domestic violence program to provide assistance to victims of domestic violence in unserved and underserved areas. Both of these programs define "domestic violence" to mean the infliction or threat of physical harm against past or present adult or adolescent female intimate partners, and shall include physical, sexual, and psychological abuse against the woman, and is a part of a pattern of assaultive, coercive, and controlling behaviors directed at achieving compliance from, or control over, that woman. This bill would change the definition of domestic violence under both of the above programs to mean the infliction or threat of physical harm against past or present adult or adolescent intimate partners, to include physical, sexual, and psychological abuse against the partner, that is a part of a pattern of assaultive, coercive, and controlling behaviors directed at achieving compliance from, or control over, that partner. The bill would also make the department's comprehensive shelter-based service grant program subject to specified antidiscrimination provisions. Existing law establishes the Office of Emergency Services Domestic Violence Advisory Council, as specified, which is repealed as of January 1, 2010. This bill would extend that repeal date until January 1, 2015. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 124250 of the Health and Safety Code proposed by AB 503 that would become operative only if AB 503 and this bill are both chaptered and become effective on or before January 1, 2010, and this bill is chaptered last.
(1) Existing law, the County Water District Law, provides for the formation and operation of county water districts, and specifies the powers and purposes of those districts. This bill would authorize the Alameda County Water District, within described areas of its jurisdiction, to establish a permit program, and to take related action, with regard to the construction, operation, decommissioning, abandonment, or destruction of wells, exploratory holes, or other excavations for the purpose of protecting groundwater. The district would be authorized to establish a procedure for the abatement as a public nuisance of any abandoned or unused well, exploratory hole, or other excavation that creates or threatens to create a water contamination hazard. The bill would declare that any costs incurred by the district to abate the public nuisance are a lien and would require the district to record with the county any notice of a lien that is prepared by the district. Any person who applies for a land development permit or approval, within the areas described by the bill, would be required to obtain specified documentation from the district with regard to the property proposed to be developed. By imposing requirements on the district in connection with the regulation of wells, exploratory holes, and other excavations, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would state the findings and declarations of the Legislature concerning the need for special legislation. (2) 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 establishes the Medi-Cal program, administered by the State Department of Health Care Services, under which basic health care services are provided to qualified low-income persons. The Adult Day Health Medi-Cal Law establishes adult day health care services as a Medi-Cal benefit for Medi-Cal beneficiaries who meet certain criteria, including, beneficiaries who meet the skilled nursing facility level of care, as specified. This bill would modify the aforementioned criteria to, instead, provide that a beneficiary shall be eligible for adult day health care services as a Medi-Cal benefit if he or she meets a specified level of care. Under existing law, participation in an adult day health care program requires prior authorization by the department. Existing law requires the department, effective August 1, 2010, to establish a reimbursement methodology and a reimbursement limit for adult day health care services on a prospective cost basis for services that are provided to each participant, pursuant to his or her individual plan of care, as specified. Existing law requires that these provisions be implemented only to the extent that federal financial participation is available. This bill would, instead, provide that the requirement that the department establish a reimbursement methodology and reimbursement limit be effective August 1, 2012, and would make other conforming changes. This bill would also make a technical, nonsubstantive change relating to adult day health care services.
This measure would make various statements regarding the importance of New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (NUMMI) to the California economy and would declare the necessity for the Legislature to utilize its vested powers to keep NUMMI in California.
This measure would make various statements regarding the importance of New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (NUMMI) to the California economy and would declare the necessity for the Legislature to utilize its vested powers to keep NUMMI in California.