The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve 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 also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. The Jobs and Economic Improvement Through Environmental Leadership Act of 2011 (leadership act) authorizes the Governor, until January 1, 2020, to certify as environmental leadership development projects certain projects that meet specified requirements, making those projects eligible for streamlining benefits provided by that act related to compliance with CEQA and streamlining of judicial review of action taken by a public agency. The leadership act requires the project applicant to agree to pay the costs of the court of appeal in hearing and deciding any case, as specified. The leadership act requires that if the Governor determines a leadership project is eligible for streamlining, the Governor submit the determination and any supporting information to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee for concurrence or nonconcurrence, as prescribed. The leadership act provides that if a lead agency fails to approve a project certified by the Governor before January 1, 2021, the certification expires and is no longer valid. The leadership act requires a lead agency to prepare the record of proceedings for the certified project concurrent with the preparation of the environmental documents. The leadership act is repealed by its own terms on January 1, 2021. This bill would extend the authority of the Governor to certify, under the leadership act, a project as an environmental leadership development project to January 1, 2023. The bill would provide that the certification expires and is no longer valid if the lead agency fails to approve a certified project before January 1, 2024. The bill would instead repeal the leadership act on January 1, 2024. Because the bill would extend the obligation of the lead agency to prepare concurrently the record of proceedings, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would modify, and add to, the specific requirements a project must satisfy to be eligible for streamlining benefits under the leadership act, including that the project does not result in any net additional emissions of greenhouse gases, as prescribed, and achieves a 20% reduction in vehicle miles traveled per capita compared to existing development, calculated as specified. The bill would provide that an environmental leadership development project is subject to the rules and regulations of the leadership act that are in place on the date the Governor certified the project. The bill would require the project applicant to pay the costs of the superior court and the court of appeal in hearing and deciding any case. The bill would also eliminate the authority of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee to concur or nonconcur in the Governor's streamlining eligibility determinations. The bill would authorize, before a lead agency's approval of a project certified by the Governor, the Governor to, upon application of the project applicant, certify a project "Alternative," as defined, for streamlining benefits provided by the leadership act, if the Alternative complies with certain conditions in the leadership act in place at the time of the Governor's original certification. The bill would require the project applicant to supply evidence and materials that the Governor deems necessary to make a decision on the project Alternative application, and would require the evidence or materials to be made available by the Governor to the public at least 15 days before the Governor certifies a project Alternative. 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
This measure would proclaim March 15, 2020, to March 22, 2020, as California Down Syndrome Awareness Week and March 21, 2020, as California Down Syndrome Day, and would encourage all Californians to support and participate in related activities.
This measure, in accordance with specified law, would declare that the state of emergency proclaimed by the Governor on March 4, 2020, is at an end and terminate the emergency powers granted to the Governor as a result of that proclamation.
The Personal Income Tax Law imposes a tax on individual taxpayers measured by the taxpayer's taxable income for the taxable year, but excludes certain items of income from the computation of tax, including an exclusion for combat-related special compensation. This bill, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2021, and before January 1, 2031, would exclude from gross income specified amounts of retirement pay received by a taxpayer from the federal government for service performed in the uniformed services, as defined, during the taxable year. Existing law requires any bill authorizing a new tax expenditure to contain, among other things, specific goals, purposes, and objectives that the tax expenditure with achieve, detailed performance indicators, and data collection requirements. The bill also would include additional information required for any bill authorizing a new income tax credit. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
Existing law, the Trial Jury Selection and Management Act, requires that persons selected for jury service be selected at random and from sources inclusive of a representative cross section of the population of the area served by the court, including, but not limited to, the list of registered voters. Existing law provides that if a jury commissioner requires a prospective juror to complete a questionnaire the information provided in the questionnaire shall be used solely for qualifying prospective jurors and the management of the jury system. Existing law requires the Secretary of State and county elections officials to post on their internet websites specified information on permissible uses of personal information supplied by a voter when completing a voter registration affidavit. This bill would require jury commissioners to share with the county elections official of the county information provided in prospective juror questionnaires for the purpose of the county elections official conducting voter roll maintenance activities, such as removing persons from the voter rolls who are deceased, admitted noncitizens, or otherwise ineligible to register to vote. The bill would require county elections officials to share with the jury commissioner of the county the current list of registered voters residing in the county for the jury commissioner's use in creating source lists for prospective jurors. The bill would make conforming changes to the information on permissible uses of personal information obtained from voter registration required to be posted by the Secretary of State and county elections officials on their internet websites. By expanding the duties of jury commissioners and county elections officials, 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law requires a 3-part test, commonly known as the "ABC" test, to determine if workers are employees or independent contractors for purposes of the Labor Code, the Unemployment Insurance Code, and the wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission. Under the ABC test, a person providing labor or services for remuneration is considered an employee rather than an independent contractor unless the hiring entity demonstrates that the person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, the person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business, and the person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business. Existing law charges the Labor Commissioner with the enforcement of labor laws, including worker classification. Existing law exempts specified occupations and business relationships from the application of the ABC test described above. Existing law, instead, provides that these exempt relationships are governed by the multifactor test previously established in the case of S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341. On March 4, 2020, the Governor declared a State of Emergency in accordance with the powers vested in the Governor under the California Constitution and statutes in order to preserve public health and safety throughout the state due to the threat of COVID-19. This bill would, during the timeframe in which a state of emergency is in effect due to COVID-19 and 90 days thereafter, prohibit the application of the ABC test for respiratory therapists and other medical personnel not otherwise covered by an existing exemption from the ABC test, and would instead require that the multifactor test set forth in the case of Borello apply.
(1) The Dairy Council of California Law (dairy law) , establishes the Dairy Council of California within the state government and prescribes the membership of the council to be appointed by the Secretary of Food and Agriculture as including 12 members that are producers and 12 members that are handlers or producer-handlers, as defined. The dairy law also sets forth various requirements applicable to producers, handlers, and producer-handlers, including the payment of certain assessments on milk and participating in certain referendum procedures. This bill would remove producer-handlers from operation of the provisions of the dairy law by revising the provisions of the dairy law to delete the definition of, and all references to, producer-handlers. (2) Existing law makes the payment by a handler of less than the minimum producer price established under the applicable stabilization and marketing plan an unlawful trade practice. This bill would delete this provision. (3) Existing law requires the secretary to collect, as prescribed, from each producer $0.0033 per hundredweight of all eligible milk to defray the reasonable costs of administering the law relating to milk, as specified. This bill would instead require the secretary to collect $0.0033 per hundredweight of all milk. (4) Existing law establishes labeling and quality standards for milk and milk products, makes it a crime to violate those provisions, and authorizes the secretary to enforce those provisions. This bill would authorize the secretary to adopt, by regulation, official final action methods of testing for the determination of the components of milk and products of milk for purposes of compliance with these laws. The bill would provide that the secretary's authority to enforce federal milk labeling requirements shall not be construed to supersede or negate certain state-imposed standards of identity or compositional requirements for milk fat, milk solids-not-fat, or total milk solids for milk products. By authorizing the secretary to adopt regulations establishing official final action methods of testing for milk quality, the violation of which would be a crime, this bill would create new crimes or expand the definition of existing crimes and thereby impose a state-mandated local program. (5) Existing law makes it an unlawful practice for a retailer, wholesale customer, manufacturer, or distributor, as defined, to sell milk, cream, or any dairy product at less than cost. This bill would revise the definition of "total consideration paid or exchanged for raw product" in the case of market milk or market cream for purposes of application of this prohibition. (6) 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 requires a 3-part test, commonly known as the "ABC" test, to determine if workers are employees or independent contractors for purposes of the Labor Code, the Unemployment Insurance Code, and the wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission. Under the ABC test, a person providing labor or services for remuneration is considered an employee rather than an independent contractor unless the hiring entity demonstrates that the person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, the person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business, and the person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business. Existing law charges the Labor Commissioner with the enforcement of labor laws, including worker classification. Existing law exempts specified occupations and business relationships from the application of Dynamex and the provisions described above. Existing law instead provides that these exempt relationships are governed by the test adopted in S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341. This bill would expand these exemptions to include an individual providing services as a licensed clinical social worker, a licensed education psychologist, a licensed professional clinical counselor, or a licensed marriage and family therapist.
Existing law, as established in the case of Dynamex Operations W. Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903 (Dynamex) , creates a presumption that a worker who performs services for a hirer is an employee for purposes of claims for wages and benefits arising under wage orders issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission. Existing law requires a 3-part test, commonly known as the "ABC" test, to determine if workers are employees or independent contractors for purposes of specified wage orders. Existing law establishes that, for purposes of the Labor Code, the Unemployment Insurance Code, and the wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission, a person providing labor or services for remuneration is considered an employee rather than an independent contractor unless the hiring entity demonstrates that the person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, the person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business, and the person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business. This test is commonly known as the "ABC" test. Existing law charges the Labor Commissioner with the enforcement of labor laws, including worker classification. Existing law exempts specified occupations and business relationships from the application of Dynamex and these provisions. Existing law instead provides that these exempt relationships are governed by the test adopted in S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341. This bill would expand the above-described exemptions to also include individuals providing services as a sports official, as defined, for a youth or adult amateur sports event, unless the official is already exempted from the definition of employee under another statute or regulation, as specified.
(1) Existing property tax law provides, pursuant to the authority of a specified provision of the California Constitution, for a homeowners' exemption in the amount of $7,000 of the full value of a "dwelling," as defined, and authorizes the Legislature to increase this exemption. This bill, beginning with the lien date for the 2021–22 fiscal year, would increase the homeowners' exemption from $7,000 to $14,000 of the full value of a dwelling. This bill, for the 2022–23 fiscal year and for each fiscal year thereafter, would also require the county assessor to adjust the amount of the homeowners' exemption by the percentage change in the House Price Index for California for the first 3 quarters of the prior calendar year, as specified. (2) The Personal Income Tax Law imposes taxes based upon taxable income of individuals, estates, and trusts, at specified rates. This bill, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2020, would revise the personal income tax rates and the amounts of income those rates are imposed upon, as provided. (3) The California Constitution requires the Legislature, whenever it increases the homeowners' property tax exemption, to provide a comparable increase in benefits to qualified renters. The Personal Income Tax Law authorizes various credits against the taxes imposed by that law, including a credit for qualified renters in the amount of $120 for spouses filing joint returns, heads of household, and surviving spouses if adjusted gross income is $50,000 or less, and in the amount of $60 for other individuals if adjusted gross income is $25,000 or less. Existing law requires the Franchise Tax Board to annually adjust for inflation these adjusted gross income amounts. This bill, for taxable years beginning on and after January 1, 2021, would increase this credit for a qualified renter to $240 for spouses filing joint returns, heads of household, and surviving spouses if adjusted gross income is $50,000 or less, as adjusted for inflation, and to an amount equal to $120 for other individuals if adjusted gross income is $25,000 or less, as adjusted for inflation. The bill, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2022, would also require the Franchise Tax Board to annually adjust for inflation, based upon the California Consumer Price Index, the amount of these credits. The bill would also make nonsubstantive changes to the renters' credit. (4) The Corporation Tax Law generally imposes a franchise tax on corporations doing business within the limits of this state, including a minimum franchise tax on specified corporations, as provided. This bill would, for taxable years ending before January 1, 2021, eliminate the minimum franchise tax and make related technical amendments. (5) Existing law requires the state to reimburse local agencies annually for certain property tax revenues lost as a result of any exemption or classification of property for purposes of ad valorem property taxation. This bill would provide that, notwithstanding those provisions, no appropriation is made and the state shall not reimburse local agencies for property tax revenues lost by them pursuant to the bill. (6) This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.