(1) The Santa Clara Valley Water District Act establishes the Santa Clara Valley Water District and specifies its powers and purposes relating to water supply and flood management. The act requires the board of the district, until January 1, 2010, to consist of 2 directors who are appointed and 5 directors who are elected in accordance with specified procedures. The act requires the board of directors, on and after January 1, 2010, to consist of 5 directors who are elected in accordance with specified procedures. This bill would repeal certain provisions of the act relating to the board of the district. The bill would revise the composition of the board of the district by requiring the board to transition to an all-elected board that, on and after noon on December 3, 2010, consists of 7 directors who are elected pursuant to specified requirements. The board also would be required to adopt a resolution establishing the boundaries of the 7 electoral districts. By imposing requirements on the district, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) The act requires the board of the district, on or before June 15 of each year, to meet at the time and place designated by published notice, at which meeting any member of the public may appear to be heard regarding any item in the proposed budget. This bill would require the board to review its financial reserves and its reserve management policy at this meeting. The bill would require the directors who serve on the board to comply with various requirements relating to the activities of persons who lobby the district, contract bidding, severance pay, travel reimbursement, and other matters. The bill would require the district to make available to the public specified reports prepared by district staff for the board. These requirements on the district would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) The act authorizes the district to impose special taxes at minimum rates according to land use category and size. The act authorizes the district to provide an exemption from these taxes for residential parcels owned and occupied by one or more taxpayers who are at least 65 years of age and meet a specified total household income limit. This bill would extend the exemption to an otherwise qualified taxpayer who qualifies as totally disabled under the federal Social Security Act. (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.
Sponsored bills
Existing law, until January 1, 2010, provides, subject to exceptions, that every person who steals, takes, or carries away cargo of another, as defined, when the cargo taken is of a value exceeding $400, is guilty of grand theft. This bill would revise the above language to provide that every person who steals, takes, or carries away cargo of another, if the value of the cargo taken exceeds $950, except as specified, is guilty of grand theft. The measure would also make these provisions operative indefinitely. By extending the operation of an existing crime, 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.
The Corporation Tax Law, in specified conformity to federal income tax laws, imposes certain limitations on the use of built-in losses in conjunction with corporate reorganizations. This bill would clarify that a specified federal administrative notice relating to those limitations does not apply for purposes of taxes imposed under the Corporation Tax Law, as specified. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law prohibits any person with intent directly or indirectly to dispose of real or personal property or to perform services, professional or otherwise, or anything of any nature whatsoever or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating thereto, from making or disseminating or causing to be made or disseminated before the public in this state, or in any state, any statement concerning that property or those services that is untrue or misleading, and that is known to be untrue or misleading, or for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated a statement as part of a plan or scheme with the intent not to sell that property or those services so advertised at the price stated. A violation of these provisions is a crime, punishable by specified penalties, and a violation of those provisions is subject to specified civil liability. This bill would, on and after December 1, 2010, make it unlawful for any business making an automatic renewal, as defined, or continuous service, as defined, offer to a consumer in this state to, among other things, fail to present the automatic renewal or continuous service offer terms in a clear and conspicuous manner, charge the consumer for an automatic renewal or continuous service without first obtaining the consumer's affirmative consent, and to fail to provide an acknowledgment that includes the automatic renewal or continuous service offer terms, cancellation policy, and information regarding how to cancel in a manner that is capable of being retained by the consumer. In the case of a material change in the terms of the automatic renewal or continuous service offer, the bill would require the business to provide the consumer with a clear and conspicuous notice of the material change and information regarding how to cancel. The bill would declare the intent of the Legislature in this regard. The bill would provide that in any case in which a business sends any goods, wares, merchandise, or products to a consumer, under a continuous service agreement or automatic renewal of a purchase, without first obtaining the consumer's affirmative consent, the goods, wares, merchandise, or products shall for all purposes be deemed an unconditional gift to the consumer. A violation of the bill's provisions would not be a crime, but would be subject to enforcement by any available civil remedies, except as specified. The bill would exempt certain services and businesses from its provisions.
Under existing law, the segments of the public postsecondary education system in the state include the University of California, which is administered by the Regents of the University of California, the California State University, which is administered by the Trustees of the California State University, and the California Community Colleges, which are administered by the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges. Existing law authorizes these educational institutions to award various types of degrees. This bill would require the Trustees of the California State University and the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, and would request the Regents of the University of California, to work with their respective colleges and universities to confer an honorary degree upon each person, living or deceased, who was forced to leave his or her postsecondary studies as a result of federal Executive Order 9066 which caused the incarceration of individuals of Japanese ancestry during World War II.
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. Existing law establishes the California State University, under the administration of the Trustees of the California State University as one of the segments of public postsecondary education in this state. A provision of the act requires the California State University to establish model academic standards for high school courses, including career technical courses, for pupils who wish to attend the California State University. The act requires the California State University to recognize the completion of all high school career technical education courses that meet model curriculum standards established by the Superintendent of Public Instruction as satisfying the completion of a general elective course requirement for the purposes of admission to that university, if, by July 1, 2008, the university has not adopted model uniform academic standards for career technical education courses that will satisfy the completion of a general elective course requirement for the purposes of admission to the university. Existing law requires the Superintendent to coordinate the development, on a cyclical basis, of model curriculum standards for a high school career technical course of study. Existing law also requires the Superintendent to develop a career technical curriculum framework based on prescribed criteria. This bill, notwithstanding any other provision of law, on or before January 1, 2014, would require the trustees to develop and implement a procedure for allowing a student to satisfy the completion of a general elective course requirement for the purposes of admission to the university by completing a high school career technical education course that meets either (1) specified criteria that the bill would require the trustees to establish, or (2) model academic standards for high school courses adopted by the California State University pursuant to existing law. The bill would require the university to recognize the completion of all high school career technical education courses that meet model curriculum standards established by the Superintendent as satisfying the completion of a general elective course requirement for the purposes of admission to the university, if, by January 1, 2014, the university has not developed that procedure. The bill would require the trustees to adopt related requirements based on the recommendations and judgment of the Academic Senate of the California State University.
Existing law provides that the crime of being a spectator at a dog fight is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding 6 months, or by a fine not to exceed $1,000, or by both that imprisonment and fine. This bill would increase the penalty for the crime of being a spectator at a dog fight to imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or a fine not to exceed $5,000, or both that imprisonment and fine. Because it would impose local incarceration costs 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.
The Personal Income Tax Law allows taxpayers, until January 1, 2010, to contribute amounts in excess of their tax liability for the support of the California Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Research Fund. This bill would extend the operation of those contribution provisions to January 1, 2015.
(1) 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 who is addicted to the use of any drug. Existing law 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 a certified ignition interlock device on the person's vehicle. 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 of specified driving-under-the-influence offenses, be punished by his or her driving privilege being suspended for 2 years. The Department of Motor Vehicles is required to advise the person that he or she may apply for a restricted driver's license after completion of 12 months of the suspension period, which may include credit for a specified concurrent suspension, subject to certain conditions, including, among other things, submitting proof of installation of a certified ignition interlock device, agreeing to maintain the ignition interlock device, and paying certain fees, including, but not limited to, all administrative fees or reissue fees. This bill would instead require the department 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 of the suspension period, under certain circumstances. (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 2 separate violations of specified driving-under-the-influence offenses, be punished by his or her driving privilege being revoked for 3 years. The department is required to advise the person that he or she may apply for a restricted driver's license after completion of 12 months of the revocation period, which may include credit for a specified concurrent suspension, subject to certain conditions, including, among other things, satisfactory completion of 12 months of an 18-month or 30-month driving-under-the-influence program, submitting proof of installation of a certified ignition interlock device, agreeing to maintain the ignition interlock device, and paying certain fees. This bill would instead require the department to advise a person, who was found to be only under the influence of an alcoholic beverage at the time of the violation, of his or her ability to apply for a restricted driver's license after completion of 6 months of the revocation period, subject to certain conditions, including that if the person is convicted of a specified offense that person subsequently satisfactorily provides proof of enrollment in an 18-month or 30-month driving-under-the-influence program, as prescribed. The bill would require the person to pay a fee sufficient to cover the costs of administration, as determined by the department. (3) This bill would require that a person convicted of driving under the influence of any drug or the combined influence of any drug and an alcoholic beverage, without bodily injury to another, within 10 years of being convicted of a separate violation of one of the specified driving-under-the-influence offenses, be punished by his or her driving privilege being revoked for 2 years. This bill would authorize the department to reinstate the privilege provided certain conditions are met. This bill would require the department to advise the person that he or she may apply for a restricted driver's license after completion of 12 months of the suspended period, subject to certain conditions including, among other things, that the person provides proof of enrollment in an 18-month or 30-month driving-under-the-influence program, as prescribed. (4) This bill would also require a person convicted of driving under the influence of any drug or the combined influence of any drug and an alcoholic beverage, without bodily injury to another, within 10 years of being convicted of 2 separate violations of specified driving-under-the-influence offenses, be punished by his or her driving privilege being revoked for 3 years. This bill would authorize the department to reinstate the privilege provided certain conditions are met. This bill would require the department to advise the person that he or she may apply for a restricted driver's license after completion of 12 months of the suspended period, subject to certain conditions, including, among other things, that the person has satisfactorily completed the initial 12 months of an 18-month or 30-month driving-under-the-influence program as prescribed. (5) This bill would make other conforming changes. (6) This bill would become operative on July 1, 2010.
(1) The Real Estate Law provides for the licensure and regulation of real estate brokers and salespersons by the Real Estate Commissioner. Existing law authorizes the commissioner to suspend or revoke the license of a real estate licensee or corporation, or to deny the issuance of a license to an applicant or corporation, for specified violations. This bill would further authorize the commissioner to suspend or revoke those licenses, or to deny issuance of those licenses, upon a violation of specified federal lending laws or regulations or upon the violation or failure to comply with specified provisions of state law relating to mortgages. (2) Existing law imposes certain limitations and prohibitions on licensed persons, as defined, with respect to the making of a covered loan, defined as a consumer loan in which the original principal balance of the loan does not exceed the most current conforming loan limit for a single-family first mortgage loan established by the Federal National Mortgage Association in the case of a mortgage or deed of trust, and as specified. Existing law does not regulate or define the term "higher-priced mortgage loan." This bill would establish "higher-priced mortgage loans," as defined, as a new category of regulated loans. The bill would, among other things, limit prepayment penalties and prohibit provisions for negative amortization. The bill would prohibit a licensed person, as defined, from making false, deceptive, or misleading statements or representations in connection with higher-priced mortgage loans. The bill would also, among other things, prohibit a mortgage broker, as defined, who arranges higher-priced mortgage loans with prepayment penalties from receiving a compensation that exceeds certain amounts. The bill would provide that a violation of the provisions regulating higher-priced mortgage loans by a licensed person is also a violation of the person's licensing law. The bill would authorize a licensing agency or the Attorney General to enforce the provisions regulating higher-priced mortgage loans. The bill would authorize civil penalties in an amount up to $10,000 against a licensed person who willfully and knowingly violates the provisions regulating higher-priced mortgage loans, and would nullify prepayment penalties or yield spread premiums that violate these provisions. The bill would also establish specified duties for mortgage brokers performing mortgage brokerage services for higher-priced mortgage loans. The bill's provisions would apply to higher-priced mortgage loans originated on or after July 1, 2010. (3) Existing law imposes certain limitations and prohibitions on specified licensees, including commercial banks, credit unions, finance lenders, and residential mortgage lenders, with respect to the making of consumer loans. This bill would provide that a violation of specified federal lending laws or regulations by those licensees is also a violation of the licensing law of the licensee. The bill would also provide that a mortgage broker, as defined, providing mortgage brokerage services, as defined, to a borrower is the fiduciary of the borrower, and any violation of the broker's fiduciary duties is a violation of the mortgage broker's licensing law and specified civil penalty and liability provisions. The bill would further provide that this fiduciary duty includes a requirement that the mortgage broker place the economic interest of the borrower ahead of his or her own economic interest. (4) Because a violation of the bill's provisions by certain licensees may be punished as crimes under the licensing law of the licensees, the 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.