The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 designates the State Air Resources Board as the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of emissions of greenhouse gases. The state board is required to adopt a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit equivalent to the statewide greenhouse gas emissions level in 1990 to be achieved by 2020, and to adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum, technologically feasible, and cost-effective greenhouse gas emissions reductions. The act authorizes the state board to include the use of market-based compliance mechanisms. Existing state board regulations require specified entities to comply with a market-based compliance mechanism beginning January 1, 2013, and require additional specified entities to comply with that market-based compliance mechanism beginning January 1, 2015. This bill would instead exempt those categories of persons or entities that did not have a compliance obligation, as defined, under a market-based compliance mechanism beginning January 1, 2013, from being subject to that market-based compliance mechanism through December 31, 2020. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Sponsored bills
Existing law defines a motorized bicycle in one case as a device that has fully operative pedals for propulsion by human power and has an electric motor that meets specified requirements, including that it has a power output of not more than 1,000 watts, is incapable of propelling the device at a speed of more than 20 miles per hour on ground level, and is incapable of further increasing the speed of the device when human power is used to propel the motorized bicycle faster than 20 miles per hour. This bill would redefine this type of "motorized bicycle" by, among other things, renaming it a "low-speed electric bicycle," stating that it can have either 2 or 3 wheels, lowering the maximum power output to 750 watts, and requiring that it weigh no more than 80 pounds. The bill would exempt a low-speed electric bicycle from the prohibition on the operation of a motorized bicycle on a bicycle path or trail, bikeway, bicycle lane established as provided, equestrian trail, or hiking or recreational trail. The bill would also make conforming changes.
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 2016–17 fiscal year, would increase the homeowners' exemption from $7,000 to $25,000 of the full value of a dwelling. This bill would also require, for the 2017–18 fiscal year and for each fiscal year thereafter, 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. 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 married couples 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 would, for taxable years beginning on and after January 1, 2016, increase this credit for a qualified renter to $428 for married couples 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 $214 for other individuals if adjusted gross income is $25,000 or less, as adjusted for inflation. The bill would also require, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2017, 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 technical, nonsubstantive changes to the renters' credit. The California Constitution requires the Legislature, in each fiscal year, to reimburse local governments for the revenue losses incurred by those governments in that fiscal year as a result of the homeowners' property tax exemption. 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 these statutory provisions. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
(1) Existing law establishes the California State University, under the administration of the Trustees of the California State University, the University of California, under the administration of the Regents of the University of California, and the California Community Colleges, under the administration of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, as the 3 segments of public postsecondary education in this state. Existing law appropriates funding, in the annual Budget Act and in other statutes, from the state General Fund for the support of these segments. Existing law also authorizes these segments to require their students to pay mandatory systemwide fees and tuition, among other costs, for matriculation at these institutions. Proposition 30, known as the Schools and Local Public Safety Protection Act of 2012, was approved by the voters at the November 6, 2012, statewide general election and, among other things, increases personal income tax and sales and use tax rates and provides revenue for public elementary and secondary schools and community colleges. This bill would express a finding and declaration of the Legislature, and express the intent of the Legislature, relating to the enactment of Proposition 30 by the voters and to the provision of funding to the California State University, the University of California, and the California Community Colleges. The bill, from the 2015–16 fiscal year to the 2018–19 fiscal year, inclusive, would prohibit mandatory systemwide fees or tuition charged to students of the California State University from exceeding the level of the mandatory systemwide fees or tuition charged to students of the California State University for the 2014–15 fiscal year. The bill, from the 2015–16 fiscal year to the 2018–19 fiscal year, inclusive, would prohibit the mandatory systemwide fees charged to students of the California Community Colleges from increasing beyond the level of the mandatory systemwide fees charged to students of the California Community Colleges for the 2014–15 fiscal year. The bill, from the 2015–16 fiscal year to the 2018–19 fiscal year, inclusive, would prohibit the mandatory systemwide fees or tuition charged to students of the University of California from exceeding the level of the mandatory systemwide fees or tuition charged to students of the University of California for the 2014–15 fiscal year. (2) Existing law prohibits a campus of the California State University, or the Chancellor of the California State University, or both, from approving a student success fee before January 1, 2016. Existing law requires, during the 2014–15 fiscal year, the chancellor to conduct a review of the California State University Student Fee Policy relating to student success fees and to recommend to the Trustees of the California State University changes to the fee policy. This bill, commencing with the 2015–16 fiscal year, would prohibit the imposition of a student success fee at a campus of a segment of public postsecondary education unless the student success fee is approved by a favorable vote of 2 3 "?> a majority of those students voting at an election of the student body held at that campus within the preceding 48 months. (3) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
The Personal Income Tax Law and the Corporation Tax Law allow various credits against the taxes imposed by those laws, including a credit for a percentage of specified research expenses. These laws, in modified conformity, apply the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, relating to the election of alternative incremental credit. These laws provide that the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code relating to election of alternative simplified credit shall not apply. This bill, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2016, would not apply the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code relating to the election of alternative incremental credit. This bill, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2016, and before January 1, 2021, would apply the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code relating to election of alternative simplified credit in modified conformity, and for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2016, would apply the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, relating to the inclusion of qualified research expenses and gross receipts of an acquired person and aggregation of expenditures. This bill would include a change in state statute that would result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax within the meaning of Section 3 of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of 23 of the membership of each house of the Legislature. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
Existing law relating to redevelopment agencies provides for specified payments with respect to development project areas. This bill would make nonsubstantive changes to those provisions.
The Planning and Zoning Law establishes in each city and county a planning agency with the powers necessary to carry out the purposes of that law. Existing law sets forth the Legislature's findings and declarations regarding the availability of affordable housing throughout the state. This bill would make nonsubstantive changes to those findings and declarations.
(1) Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district to allow pupils whom the district has determined would benefit from advanced scholastic or vocational work to attend community college as special part-time or full-time students, subject to recommendation by the school principal and parental permission. This bill would authorize the governing board of a school district to authorize a pupil, upon recommendation of the principal of the pupil's school of attendance, and with parental consent, to attend a community college during any session or term as a special part-time or full-time student and to undertake one or more STEM courses, as defined to mean courses in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics, offered at the community college if that pupil has exhausted all opportunities to enroll in an equivalent course at the high school of attendance, or at an adult education program, continuation school, regional occupational center or program, or any other program offered by that school district. The bill also would authorize the governing board of a community college district to enter into a formal partnership with a school district or school districts located within its immediate service area to allow secondary school pupils to attend a community college if those pupils have exhausted all opportunities to enroll in an equivalent STEM course at the high school of attendance, adult education program, continuation school, regional occupational center or program, or any other program offered by that school district. The bill would require the partnership agreement to outline the terms of the partnership, as specified. The bill would require a community college district and a school district, as a condition of, and before adopting, a partnership agreement, to present the adoption of the partnership agreement as an information item at regularly scheduled open meetings of their respective governing boards, and to take testimony from the public and approve or disapprove the proposed partnership agreement at subsequent regularly scheduled open public hearings of their respective governing boards. The bill would require, for each partnership entered into under the bill, the affected community college district and school district to file an annual report, containing specified data, with the Office of the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, which would transmit this annual report to the Legislature, the Director of Finance, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the governing boards of the participating school districts and community college districts, as specified. (2) Existing law requires the governing board of a community college district to assign a low enrollment priority to a pupil attending community college pursuant to a recommendation from his or her principal or school district or a petition from his or her parents, in order to ensure that these pupils, admitted as special part-time or full-time students, do not displace regularly admitted students. This bill would authorize the governing board of a community college district to assign an enrollment priority to pupils attending community college pursuant to a partnership agreement established under the bill. The bill would require community college districts, in assigning an enrollment priority under this provision, to ensure that these pupils do not displace regularly admitted community college students. The bill would prohibit a community college district from receiving an allowance or apportionment for an instructional activity for which a school district has been, or will be, paid. (3) This bill would also make various nonsubstantive changes, and delete obsolete provisions.
This measure would proclaim the month of January 2016 as Human Trafficking Awareness Month, encourage all Californians to become educated about human trafficking and work to eradicate these criminal practices within and beyond our borders, and encourage Members of the Legislature, as well as organizations, businesses, and individuals, to host or sponsor and attend community events in order to bring visibility and support to efforts made by nongovernmental organizations to recognize and combat human trafficking.
Existing law, the Sex Offender Registration Act, requires persons convicted of specified sex offenses to register with local authorities for life while residing, located, attending school, or working in California. Existing law, as adopted by the voters by the passage of Proposition 83 at the November 7, 2006, statewide general election, prohibits a person who is required to register as a sex offender from living in specified places, including within 2,000 feet of a school or park where children regularly gather. Existing law authorizes municipal jurisdictions to enact local ordinances that further restrict the residency of the registered sex offender. Existing law makes it a misdemeanor for a person who is on parole for specified sex offenses to enter any park where children regularly gather without express permission from the person's parole agent. This bill would state that a local agency is not preempted by state law from enacting and enforcing an ordinance that restricts a registered sex offender from residing or being present at certain locations within the local agency's jurisdiction. The bill would authorize a local agency to adopt ordinances, rules, or regulations that are more restrictive than state law relating to a registered sex offender's ability to reside or be present at certain locations within the local agency's jurisdiction.