(1) The Administrative Procedure Act governs the procedure for the adoption, amendment, or repeal of regulations by state agencies and for the review of those regulatory actions by the Office of Administrative Law. The act requires that state agencies proposing to adopt, amend, or repeal any administrative regulation assess the potential for adverse economic impact on California business enterprises and individuals, as specified. This bill would require the standardized economic assessment to consider additional factors, such as the benefits of the regulation and the extent to which it will achieve regulatory and statutory objectives. The bill would require agencies preparing the economic assessment to request a review of the assessment by the University of California, and to include any review by the university with the assessment. The bill would require the Department of Finance to adopt regulations, on or before June 30, 2013, to guide agencies in conducting the standardized economic assessments, as specified. This bill, commencing January 1, 2014, would make the standardized economic assessment requirements applicable only to a proposed regulation that the agency has concluded may have an economic impact of more than $50,000,000. (2) The act requires an agency that seeks to adopt a regulation to issue a notice of proposed action that contains prescribed information, including an informative digest that includes, among other things, a policy statement overview explaining the broad objectives of the regulation. This bill would also require the policy statement to explain the specific benefits anticipated by the regulation and evaluate whether the proposed regulation is inconsistent or incompatible with existing regulations. (3) The act requires an agency to prepare and submit to the office with an adopted regulation a final statement of reasons that includes, among other things, a determination that no alternative considered by the regulation would be more effective, or equally effective and less burdensome, than the regulation, and an explanation setting forth reasons for rejecting alternatives that would lessen the adverse economic impact of the regulation. This bill would require this determination to be based, in part, on the economic impact assessment, if an assessment is required. The bill would also require that the economic impact assessment be included in the final statement of reasons as supporting information for an explanation for rejecting alternatives that would lessen the adverse economic impact of the regulation. (4) The act establishes a procedure for a priority review of existing regulations by the office, pursuant to a request by specified committees of the Legislature, to determine if a regulation continues to meet prescribed standards. This bill would authorize any interested person to petition an agency to perform an economic analysis on an existing regulation. The bill would require the agency to conduct the analysis, except in specified circumstances. (5) The act requires the office to approve, or disapprove and return to the agency, all regulations adopted pursuant to the act using specified standards. The act requires the office to return a regulation to the agency in specified circumstances, including failure to comply with the requirement to assess the economic impact of the proposed regulation. This bill would provide, for purposes of that provision, that noncompliance includes failing to complete an economic impact assessment, if one is required, as specified. The bill would specify additional criteria that would require the return of a proposed regulation, as specified. (6) The act exempts the Public Utilities Commission, the State Water Resources Control Board, and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission from specified provisions of the act. This bill would revise the exemptions and require these entities to comply with specified requirements regarding the performance of the economic analysis. (7) Existing law authorizes the Joint Legislative Budget Committee to appoint a Legislative Analyst, who has specified duties. This bill would require the Legislative Analyst to prepare a benefit-cost analysis, as specified, of proposed legislation that he or she has identified as having a potential cost to the California economy of more than $50,000,000 in one year, or that would adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, or the public health or safety.
Sponsored bills
The California Multiple-Party Accounts Law regulates the ownership interest of parties to a multiple-party account, and provides that during the lifetime of the parties, a party's ownership interest is based on the proportion of the party's net contribution to the sums on deposit. This bill instead would base a party's ownership interest in the account on the proportion of the party's net contributions to the account. Existing law provides that rights of survivorship are eliminated for funds withdrawn by a party with a right of withdrawal during the lifetime of the party. This bill instead would eliminate those rights of survivorship with respect to funds withdrawn to the extent of the withdrawing party's net contribution to the account. The bill would also make conforming changes.
Existing law establishes the Joint Legislative Audit Committee and defines its scope and duties. This bill would make nonsubstantive changes to these provisions.
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 establishes the State Air Resources Board as the state agency responsible for monitoring and regulating sources emitting greenhouse gases. The act requires the state board to adopt a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit to be achieved by 2020, equivalent to the statewide greenhouse gas emissions levels in 1990. The act requires the state board, on or before January 1, 2011, to adopt greenhouse gas emission limits and emission reduction measures by regulation to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases, in furtherance of achieving the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit, with the regulations to become operative beginning January 1, 2012. This bill would make technical, nonsubstantive changes to the above requirements.
Existing law grants to the City of Newport Beach the right, title, and interest of the State of California in and to certain tidelands and submerged lands in trust for specified purposes. Under existing law, the City of Newport Beach is authorized to lease certain lots, as described, for specified purposes as provided in the grant to the city and for terms not to exceed 50 years. This bill would revise that grant to the City of Newport Beach to authorize the city to lease those certain lots for those specified purposes for terms not to exceed 50 years, or until January 1, 2060, whichever comes later.
Existing law, the Administrative Procedure Act, governs the procedure for the adoption, amendment, or repeal of regulations by state agencies. This bill would require each agency to review each regulation adopted prior to January 1, 2011, and to develop a report with prescribed information that shall be submitted to the Legislature on or before January 1, 2013. The bill would also require each agency, on or before January 1, 2018, and at least every 5 years thereafter, to conduct additional reviews of regulations that have been in effect for at least 20 years, as specified, and to submit an annual report to the Legislature that identifies the regulations reviewed during that year and the associated findings.
Existing law authorizes any local political subdivision of this state, including, but not limited to, a city, a county, a city and county, a district, or a special district, to participate in a local traffic safety program within its jurisdiction if the local program is approved by the Governor. This bill would authorize a local political subdivision of this state, including, but not limited to, a city, a county, a city and county, a district, or a special district, to participate in a local traffic safety program that uses radio frequency identification (RFID) technology in order to aid law enforcement efforts, promote environmental initiatives, including congestion mitigation, and enhance revenue collections of unpaid fines and penalties.
Existing law authorizes public agencies, as defined, to hold liable any person who is under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, any drug, or the combination of an alcoholic beverage and any drug, whose negligent operation of a motor vehicle, a boat or vessel, or a civil aircraft caused by that influence proximately causes any incident resulting in an appropriate emergency response, and any person whose intentionally wrongful conduct proximately causes an incident resulting in an appropriate emergency response, for the expense of that emergency response. This bill would prohibit a city, including a charter city, county, district, municipal corporation, or public authority from charging a fee to any person, regardless of residency, for the expense of an emergency response, as specified, except where a fee is otherwise authorized. This bill would provide that its provisions do not apply to a special district unless that special district receives revenue from transaction and use taxes, as specified. The bill would also express a legislative finding and declaration that the availability and use of emergency response resources throughout the state is an issue of statewide concern and not a municipal affair and that, therefore, all cities, including charter cities, would be subject to the provisions of the bill.
Under existing law, the State Lands Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over all ungranted tidelands and submerged lands owned by the state. Existing law also provides that all jurisdiction and authority remaining in the state as to granted tidelands and submerged lands is vested in the commission. The commission is required to exclusively administer and control these lands. Under existing law, upon request of a littoral owner, the commission may allow the owner to construct, alter, or maintain certain structures upon, across, or over tidelands or submerged lands, and may collect a rental charge for the use of the lands upon which the structures are situated. This bill would specify the terms for a lease of structures for shore protection for private property adjacent to tidelands or submerged lands by allowing the commission to only lease these structures to a littoral owner for a term of 99 years, with the consideration for the lease adjusting no more than once for an unspecified number of years, based on any change in the California Consumer Price Index.
(1) 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 (EIR) on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant impact on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that impact. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant impact 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 impact on the environment. This bill would provide that impacts, potential impacts, or cumulative impacts on the environment of a project that is subject to an environmental regulation are deemed to be insignificant for the purposes of CEQA unless a preponderance of evidence demonstrates that the specific impact, potential impact, or cumulative impact is significant after giving full effect to the environmental regulation. (2) CEQA requires a lead agency to prepare a negative declaration if there is no substantial evidence in the administrative record that a project would have a significant environmental impact or a mitigated negative declaration if the project's environmental impacts may be avoided through a revision of the project so that there is no substantial evidence in the administrative record that the revised project would have a significant environmental impact. CEQA requires the preparation of an EIR if there is substantial evidence in the administrative record that a project may have a significant environmental impact. This bill would instead require the lead agency to prepare a negative declaration or a mitigated negative declaration if there is a preponderance of the evidence in the record that a project or a revised project would not have a significant environmental impact. The bill would require the preparation of an EIR if the lead agency finds, in light of the whole record, that a project, based on a preponderance of the evidence, will have a significant environmental impact that could not be avoided through a revision of the project. Because the bill would require a lead agency to determine whether there is a preponderance of the evidence in the record that a project would not have a significant environmental impact, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) CEQA authorizes the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency to certify and adopt guidelines to include a list of classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and are exempted from the requirements of CEQA. This bill would provide that a project's greenhouse gas emissions are not, in and of themselves, deemed to cause the exemption to be inapplicable under specified conditions. (4) CEQA prohibits a person from bringing or maintaining an action or proceeding unless the alleged grounds for noncompliance with CEQA were presented to the public agency during the public comment period or before the close of the public hearing on the project before the issuance of the notice of determination. This bill would authorize, with specified exceptions, a lead agency to not consider written materials submitted after the close of the public comment period and would prohibit the use of those materials as a basis for challenging the lead agency's action pursuant to CEQA. (5) CEQA requires the Office of Planning and Research to prepare and develop, and the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency to certify and adopt, guidelines for the implementation of CEQA that include criteria for public agencies to follow in determining whether or not a proposed project may have a "significant effect on the environment." CEQA defines "significant effect on the environment" to include, among other things, effects on the environment that are "cumulatively considerable." CEQA defines "cumulatively considerable" to mean incremental effects of an individual project that are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects. This bill would revise the definition of "cumulatively considerable" to delete reference to the effects of "probable future projects" and instead include the effects of "reasonably foreseeable future projects," which are projects that have been proposed or approved 90 days before the issuance of an EIR or 30 days prior to the circulation of a negative declaration or a mitigated negative declaration. (6) Existing law authorizes the court, upon the motion of a party, to award attorney's fees to a prevailing party in an action that has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest if 3 conditions are met. The bill would require the court to additionally consider specified factors in awarding the attorney's fees. (7) Existing law authorizes the court until January 1, 2016, to impose a sanction of up to $10,000 for the filing of a frivolous claim in an action brought pursuant to CEQA. This bill would increase the maximum amount of a sanction for such a filing to $20,000. (8) 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.