Existing law requires a driver facing a steady circular red signal alone to stop at a marked limit line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection, and to remain stopped until an indication to proceed is shown, except as specified. A violation of this provision is an infraction punishable by a fine of $100. Existing law authorizes a driver who is facing a steady circular red signal, after stopping as required, to turn right or turn left from a one-way street onto a one-way street, except when a sign is in place prohibiting a turn. A violation of this provision is generally punishable by a fine of up to $100. This bill would recast these provisions. The bill would instead prohibit the driver stopped at the red signal pursuant to these provisions from proceeding straight through the intersection or making a left turn, except a left turn from a one-way street onto a one-way street, until an indication to proceed is shown, a violation of which would be punishable by a fine of $100. The bill would authorize a driver stopped at a red signal pursuant to these provisions to turn right, or turn left from a one-way street onto a one-way street, except when a sign is in place prohibiting the turn, a violation of which would be punishable by a fine of up to $100.
Sponsored bills
Existing law requires a board under the Business and Professions Code, including the Medical Board of California, to provide legal representation to any person hired or under contract who provides expertise to the board in the evaluation of an applicant or the conduct of a licensee when that person is named as a defendant in a civil action arising out of the evaluation or any opinions rendered, statements made, or testimony given to the board. Existing law also provides immunity from civil liability to any person providing testimony to the Medical Board of California, the California Board of Podiatric Medicine, or the Department of Justice indicating that a licensee may be guilty of unprofessional conduct or may be impaired because of drug or alcohol abuse or mental illness. This bill would require the Office of the Attorney General, with approval by the Medical Board of California, to provide representation to any licensed physician and surgeon who provides expertise to the board in the evaluation of the conduct of an applicant or a licensee when, as a result of providing that expertise, the physician and surgeon is subject to a disciplinary proceeding undertaken by a specialty board of which the physician and surgeon is a member. Existing law requires the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development to establish a nonprofit public benefit corporation known as the Health Professions Education Foundation to perform various duties with respect to implementing health professions scholarship and loan programs. Under existing law, the foundation is governed by 13 members, including, until January 1, 2011, 2 members of the Medical Board of California appointed by the board. This bill would extend the 2 foundation board appointments to January 1, 2016.
(1) Existing law requires a public or private hospital, clinic, or birthing center, at the time of discharge of a child who is less than 6 years of age or who weighs less than 60 pounds, to provide and discuss information on the current law requiring child passenger restraint systems with the parents or the person to whom the child is released. This bill would additionally require a public or private hospital, clinic, or birthing center, at the time the child is discharged, to provide and discuss contact information relating to obtaining, at no cost or low cost, information and assistance relating to child passenger restraint system requirements, installation, and inspection, including, among other things, the telephone number of the local office of the Department of the California Highway Patrol. The bill would provide that a public or private hospital, clinic, or birthing center does not have any additional obligation to provide patients with any assistance relating to child passenger restraint systems, other than providing the information specified. Because this bill would expand an existing crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (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 prohibits the transfer of any tissues, as defined, into the body of another person by means of transplantation, unless the donor of the tissues has been screened and found nonreactive for evidence of infection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) , agents of viral hepatitis (HBV and HCV) , human T lymphotrophic virus-1 (HTLV-1) , and syphilis, except as provided. This bill would require testing for evidence of infection with HTLV only in tissues that are rich in viable leukocytes. Existing law requires that all donors of sperm be screened and found nonreactive under the above provisions, except as provided. Under existing law, a sperm donor who has tested reactive for HIV or HTLV-1 may be used for insemination or advanced reproductive technology for a recipient who has tested negative only after processing to minimize the infectiousness of the sperm. The State Department of Public Health is required to adopt regulations by January 1, 2010, regulating facilities that perform this processing. Existing law further requires the physician providing insemination or advanced reproductive technologies to, among other things, inform the recipient that the processing may not eliminate the risk of infection, that the sperm may be tested to ensure that it is free from HIV or HTLV-1, and about the potential adverse effects of testing on the sperm. This bill would extend until January 1, 2014, the date for adopting regulations and would allow the department to adopt initial regulations based on the "Guidelines for Reducing Risk of Viral Transmission During Fertility Treatment" using a specified process. The bill would also require the physician to inform the recipient that she must provide documentation to the physician providing insemination or advanced reproductive technology services prior to treatment that she has established an ongoing physician relationship with another physician to provide for her medical care during and after completion of fertility services and about the medical guidelines for testing after use of sperm from an HIV or HTLV reactive spouse, partner, or designated donor. Under existing law, the physician performing insemination or advanced reproductive technology is required to provide prophylactic treatments, followup testing, and monitoring, as specified, to the recipient to minimize the risk of infection. This bill would remove those requirements but would require the physician to recommend followup testing of the recipient for HIV and HTLV, as specified. Existing law allows the use of sperm from a donor who has tested reactive for HIV or HTLV-1 if the recipient has also previously been documented with HIV or HTLV-1 and where mutual consent has been obtained. This bill would remove this provision. The bill would also make all of the provisions above applicable to donors who have tested reactive for any of the human T lymphotrophic viruses. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
(1) The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, which includes a local agency, to prepare, or cause to be prepared by contract, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project, as defined, that may have a significant effect on the environment, or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA requires a lead agency to file a notice of approval or a notice of determination containing specified information with the Office of Planning and Research or the county clerk of each county in which the project is located, as appropriate. CEQA provides a procedure by which a party may attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the determination, finding, or decision of a public agency on specified grounds. CEQA requires the party challenging the determination to name, as a real party of interest, a recipient of an approval that is the subject of the challenge and to service the petition or complaint on that real party of interest not later than 20 business days following the service of the petition or complaint on the public agency. This bill would instead require that a petitioner or plaintiff name, as a real party in interest, a recipient of approval, as identified by the public agency in its notice of determination or notice of exemption, that is the subject of an action or proceeding challenging the determination, finding, or decision of a public agency pursuant to CEQA. The bill would authorize the court to dismiss a petition or complaint if a petitioner or plaintiff fails to serve the recipient of approval identified by the public agency within the above service period. The bill would require the court to issue an order providing additional time for, and specifying the manner of, service if the petitioner or plaintiff demonstrates to the court's satisfaction that he or she has made a good faith effort to service the identified recipient of approval within the above service period. The bill would provide that the above requirement would not apply to a proceeding for judicial review filed pursuant to CEQA that is pending on or before December 31, 2009, or to actions or proceedings challenging an act or decision of a public agency for which a notice of decision or notice of exemption was filed on or before December 31, 2009. The bill would require a notice of approval or notice of determination to name the recipient of approval, if any. Because a lead agency would be required to include additional information in the notice of approval or notice of determination, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would also define "recipient of approval" for purposes of CEQA. (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, the Chiropractic Act, enacted by initiative, provides for the licensure and regulation of chiropractors by the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners. Under the act, each person practicing chiropractic, after a license has been issued, is annually required to pay the board a renewal fee not exceeding $150, as determined by the board. Existing law authorizes the Legislature to fix these fees. Existing law directs the deposit of these funds into the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners' Fund, a continuously appropriated fund. This bill would require a licensee to pay an annual renewal fee of $250. By increasing the amount deposited in the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners' Fund, the bill would make an appropriation.
Existing law authorizes the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority to levy a benefit assessment, special tax, or property-related fee consistent with Articles XIIIC and XIIID of the California Constitution, as specified. This bill would require the board of supervisors of each affected county, when the authority proposes a measure to levy a benefit assessment, special tax, or property-related fee for submission to the voters, to call a special election on the regional measure and place the regional measure on the ballot of the next regularly scheduled election, and would require the county clerk of each county to report the results of the special election to the authority.
(1) Existing law requires, if a person is convicted of a specified driving-under-the-influence (DUI) offense and the offense occurred within 10 years of 2, or 3 or more, prior specified DUI offenses that resulted in a conviction, that the person be punished by enhanced penalties, and that the person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle be revoked by the department for a period of 2, 3, 4, or 5 years, as applicable. Existing law authorizes the court to impose specified additional orders on a person when the person is convicted of a driving-under-the-influence (DUI) offense, depending on the circumstances. This bill would, beginning January 1, 2012, authorize the court to order a 10-year revocation of the driver's license of a person who has been convicted of 3 or more specified DUI offenses if the court considers certain factors, including, but not limited to, the period of time that has elapsed since his or her previous DUI convictions. The bill would also authorize a person who had his or her driver's license revoked for 10 years to apply to the Department of Motor Vehicles, 5 years from the date of the last DUI conviction, to have his or her privilege to operate a motor vehicle reinstated subject to certain conditions, including, among other things, the condition that the person was not convicted of any other drug- or alcohol-related offenses, under state law, during the driver's license revocation period. (2) Existing law requires that a person, convicted of driving under the influence, without bodily injury to another, within 10 years of being convicted of a separate violation of one or more specified DUI offenses, be punished by his or her driving privilege being suspended or revoked for a period of 2 or more years. Existing law requires, among other things, the Department of Motor Vehicles to advise a person, who was only under the influence of an alcoholic beverage at the time of the violation, that he or she may apply for a restricted driver's license after completion of 90 days, 6 months, or 12 months, of the suspension or revocation period, or if the person was under the influence of any drug or the combination of any drug and alcohol, or if the person concurrently did any act forbidden by law or neglected any duty imposed by law that proximately caused bodily injury to another person other than the driver, then after completion of 12 months of the revocation period, which may include credit for a specified concurrent suspension, subject to specified conditions. This bill would revise and recast the above provisions to make technical and nonsubstantive, as well as conforming, changes as a result of the changes made by Chapter 193 of the Statutes of 2009 (SB 598) .
(1) Existing law requires that unless the insurance contract provides otherwise, an insured person is entitled to a return of his or her premium if the policy is canceled, rejected, surrendered, or rescinded, as provided. This bill would require that any insurance policy that includes a provision to refund a premium other than on a pro rata basis, including the assessment of cancellation fees, disclose that fact in writing, including the actual or maximum fees or penalties applied, which would be permitted to be stated in the form of percentages of the premium. The disclosure would be required to be made prior to, or concurrent with, the application and prior to each renewal, as provided. The disclosure would not be required if the policy provision permits, but does not require, the insurer to refund a premium other than on a pro rata basis, and the insurer refunds the premium on a pro rata basis. If an application is made by telephone, the disclosure would be required to be mailed to the applicant or insured within 5 business days. The disclosure requirements would apply prospectively and only to policies issued or renewed on or after January 1, 2012. This bill would not require any additional disclosure of a fee or penalty for early cancellation if that disclosure is required by any other provision of law. (2) Existing law requires the Insurance Commissioner to conduct an examination of the business and affairs of insurers admitted in this state at least once every 5 years. In scheduling and determining the nature, scope, and frequency of the examinations, the commissioner is required to consider the results of financial statement analyses and ratios, changes in management or ownership, actuarial opinions, reports of independent certified public accountants, market analysis results, including consumer complaint analysis, evaluation of ongoing regulatory activities, analysis of data derived from industry surveys or interrogatories, and other criteria as set forth in the Examiner's Handbook or in the Market Regulation Handbook adopted by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners that are in effect at the time of the examination. This bill would authorize the commissioner to postpone a market conduct examination, otherwise required, for up to 3 years if information derived from a market analysis indicates that the prior examination of the insurer resulted in no significant negative findings, the number of consumer complaints received by the insurer is in the lowest quartile of complaints, on a ratio basis, for insurers in that line of business, and the market analysis identifies no other issues of significant concern.
Existing law prohibits the purchase, receipt, possession, or control of firearms for a period of 5 years by persons that have been admitted to a mental health facility on the basis of their being a threat to themselves or others or as a result of being certified for intensive treatment. Existing law requires a mental health facility that admits a person described above to immediately report specified information to the Department of Justice with respect to the person. This bill would require, commencing July 1, 2012, that those reports be submitted electronically, as specified.