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 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. CEQA establishes a procedure by which a person may seek judicial review of the decision of the lead agency made pursuant to CEQA. This bill would, until January 1, 2025, establish specified procedures for the administrative and judicial review of the environmental review and approvals granted for an environmental leadership transit project, as defined, proposed by a public or private entity or its affiliates that is located wholly within the County of Los Angeles or connects to an existing transit project wholly located in that county and that is approved by the lead agency on or before January 1, 2024. The bill would require the project applicant of the environmental leadership transit project to take certain actions in order for those specified procedures to apply to the project. The bill would require the Judicial Council, on or before January 1, 2023, to adopt rules of court establishing procedures requiring actions or proceedings seeking judicial review of the certification of an environmental impact report for an environmental leadership transit project or the granting of any project approval, including any appeals to the court of appeal or the Supreme Court, to be resolved, to the extent feasible, within 365 calendar days of the filing of the certified record of proceedings with the court to an action or proceeding seeking judicial review of the lead agency's action related to an environmental leadership transit project. The bill would require the environmental leadership transit project to meet certain labor requirements. The bill would require the lead agency to prepare the EIR for an environmental leadership transit project in a specified manner and would require the concurrent preparation of the record of proceedings. The bill would specify that these requirements would only apply to the first 7 environmental leadership transit projects obtaining a certified environmental impact report. Because the bill would impose additional duties on the lead agency, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the County of Los Angeles. 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 makes it unlawful to produce, process, sell, offer to sell, or possess olive oil that indicates on its label "California Olive Oil," or uses similar words to indicate that California is the source of the oil, unless 100% of that oil is derived from olives grown in California. Existing law also requires that olive oil produced, processed, sold, offered for sale, given away, or possessed in California, that indicates on its label that it is from a specific region of California, be made of oil at least 85% of which, by weight, is derived from olives grown in that region. Existing law makes a violation of the requirements relating to the manufacture and marketing of olive oil a misdemeanor. This bill would also require a container of olive oil produced, processed, sold, offered for sale, given away, or possessed in California that includes "California" in any form on its principal display panel and contains olive oil derived from olives grown outside California to disclose the minimum percentage of olive oil in the container derived from olives grown in California. The bill would prescribe specific language to make the disclosure and require that it be in a font size that is no less than the largest used in the word "California." Because a violation of this requirement would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law, the California Marketing Act of 1937, authorizes the Department of Food and Agriculture to regulate the quality of commodities produced and handled in California by prohibiting the production and handling of commodities that fall below its minimum standards. Existing law makes a violation of a marketing order duly issued by the Secretary of Food and Agriculture pursuant to the act a misdemeanor. This bill would require any olive oil produced, processed, sold, offered for sale, given away, or possessed in California with a principal display panel that uses "California" to comply with the quality and purity standards published by the Department of Food and Agriculture, as specified. The bill would specify that this requirement is declaratory of existing law. 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.
(1) Existing law imposes a penalty of $4 until July 1, 2021, upon every conviction for a violation of the Vehicle Code or a local ordinance adopted pursuant to the Vehicle Code, other than a parking offense. The act requires the county or court that imposed the fine to transfer the revenues collected to the Treasurer for deposit into the Emergency Medical Air Transportation and Children's Coverage Fund. Existing law requires the assessed penalty to continue to be collected, administered, and distributed until exhausted or until December 31, 2022, whichever occurs first. These provisions remain in effect until January 1, 2024, and are repealed effective January 1, 2025. This bill would extend the assessment of penalties pursuant to the above-described provisions until December 31, 2022, and would extend the collection and transfer of penalties until December 31, 2023. By extending the length of time a county is required to collect and transfer the fines imposed, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law establishes the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services and under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services. The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid program provisions. Existing law authorizes an eligible provider to receive increased reimbursement, by application of an add-on increase to the associated Medi-Cal fee-for-service payment schedule, for emergency medical transports provided to applicable Medi-Cal beneficiaries, and excludes air ambulances from that increased reimbursement. Effective January 1, 2023, subject to appropriation by the Legislature, this bill would require the department to design and implement a supplemental payment program for emergency medical air transportation services to increase the Medi-Cal reimbursement in an amount not to exceed normal and customary charges charged by qualified emergency medical air transportation providers. The bill would require the department to seek any necessary federal approvals to implement these provisions and would make these provisions inoperative if the federal Centers for Medicare or Medicaid Services denies approval for the implementation of these provisions, if the Legislature fails to appropriate funds, as specified, or if a lawsuit related to this implementation is filed against the state and a preliminary injunction or other order is issued that results in a financial disadvantage to the state, including, but not limited to, a loss of federal financial participation. The bill would authorize the department to implement, interpret, or make specific these provisions, in whole or in part, and any applicable federal waivers and state plan amendments by means of plan letters, plan or provider bulletins, or similar instructions without taking any further regulatory action. (3) 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. (4) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
The Emergency Medical Services System and the Prehospital Emergency Medical Care Personnel Act, among other things, authorizes a county to develop an emergency medical services program, and requires a county developing such a program to designate a local EMS agency that is required to be the county health department, an agency established and operated by the county, an entity with which the county contracts for the purposes of local emergency medical services administration, or a particular type of joint powers agency. The act authorizes a local EMS agency to create one or more exclusive operating areas in the development of a local plan, if a competitive process is utilized to select the provider of the services pursuant to the plan, except as specified. This bill would specify that a county is authorized to contract for emergency ambulance services with a fire agency, as defined, that will provide those services, in whole or in part, through a written subcontract with a private ambulance service. The bill would further specify that a fire agency is authorized to enter into a written subcontract with a private ambulance service for these purposes. The bill would prohibit, on and after January 1, 2022, a county from entering into or renewing these contracts unless the county board of supervisors has adopted, by ordinance or resolution, a written policy setting forth issues to be considered for inclusion in the county contract for emergency ambulance services and the fire agency adopts a written policy that requires the written subcontract to be awarded pursuant to a competitive bidding process, as specified. The bill would specify certain issues that may be included in those written policies, including, for the county contract with the fire agency, employment retention requirements for the employees of the incumbent ambulance service, and, for the fire agency subcontract, whether the written request for proposals or other similar written request for bids adequately describes criteria to evaluate a bidder's demonstrated ability and commitment to providing cost-efficient and high-quality services. The bill would also require the county contract to demonstrate how the county contract will provide for the payment of comparable wages and benefits to all ambulance service employees that are generally consistent with those provided to ambulance service employees in the same geographic region and to demonstrate that the staffing levels for ambulance service employees will be comparable to the staffing levels under the county's previous contract. The bill would require a contracting fire agency to provide the ambulance service provider with reasonable advance written notice of any operational changes under the written subcontract and to use best efforts to address concerns raised by the ambulance service provider employees regarding those operational changes.
(1) Existing law establishes the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee for the purpose of implementing the volume limit for the state on private activity bonds established pursuant to federal law. The committee's duties include annually determining a state ceiling on the aggregate amount of private activity bonds that may be issued, and allocating that amount among state and local agencies. Existing law makes findings and declarations with regard to, and the purpose for, the provisions relating to the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee. This bill would revise the findings and declarations relating to the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee. (2) Existing law establishes a low-income housing tax credit program pursuant to which the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) provides procedures and requirements for the allocation, in modified conformity with federal law, of state insurance, personal income, and corporation tax credit amounts to qualified low-income housing projects that have been allocated, or qualify for, a federal low-income housing tax credit, and farmworker housing. Existing law limits the total aggregate annual amount of the state low-income housing credit to specified amounts. Existing law, for purposes of determining the amount of low-income housing tax credit allocated to a qualified low-income housing project, defines the term "applicable percentage" depending on, among other things, whether the qualified low-income building is a new building that is not federally subsidized, a new building that is federally subsidized, or is an existing building that is at risk of conversion. Existing law defines "at risk of conversion," with respect to an existing property, to mean a property that satisfies certain criteria including, among others, that the property is a multifamily rental housing development in which at least 50% of the units receive governmental assistance pursuant to specified programs, and that the restrictions on rent and income levels will terminate or the federally insured mortgage or rent subsidy contract on the property is eligible for prepayment or termination any time within 5 years before or after the date of application to the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee. This bill would revise and expand, for purposes of the definition of "at risk of conversion," the types of programs that qualify as governmental assistance. The bill would also require, for purposes of that definition, 50% of the units in the multifamily rental housing development to be restricted to initial occupancy by lower income households, if the development is subject to restrictions on rent and income levels. The bill, for purposes of that definition, would exclude from the above-described criteria relating to restrictions on rent and income levels any restrictions recorded pursuant to a certain provision under which specified entities qualify as a purchaser of an assisted housing development, contained in a regulatory agreement entered into pursuant to certain provisions, or in connection with interim or acquisition financing. Existing law provides, for calendar years beginning in 2020, for an additional state credit amount that may be allocated, up to $500,000,000, to eligible projects, which include any new building, as defined, excluding rehabilitation expenditures under a federal provision relating to rehabilitation expenditures treated as separate new building, and is federally subsidized. Existing law provides that this additional credit amount is only available for allocation pursuant to an authorization in the annual Budget Act or related legislation and specified regulatory action by CTCAC aimed at increasing production and containing costs. This bill would make projects that include the retrofitting and repurposing of existing nonresidential structures, as specified, that were converted to residential use within the previous 5 years from the date of the application eligible for allocations from the additional state credit amounts allocable for calendar years beginning in 2020, as described above. (3) 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.
Existing law establishes procedures for the formation of infrastructure financing districts, enhanced infrastructure financing districts, infrastructure and revitalization financing districts, community revitalization and investment authorities, and public-private partnerships, as specified, to undertake various economic development projects, including financing public facilities and infrastructure, affordable housing, and economic revitalization. This bill, until January 1, 2028, would authorize establishment of a Green Empowerment Zone for the Northern Waterfront area of the County of Contra Costa. The bill would authorize the Green Empowerment Zone to be composed of specified cities, upon adoption of a resolution by the city or county, and would provide for the Green Empowerment Zone to be governed by a board of directors. The bill would task the Green Empowerment Zone with various duties, including, among other things, identification of projects and programs that will best utilize public dollars and improve the economic vitality of the Northern Waterfront area of the County of Contra Costa in a coordinated effort to support the development of the clean energy economy. The bill would require the Green Empowerment Zone to create and maintain an internet website that is managed and updated by an entity designated by the board of directors, produce a report each year that includes recommendations for action by the Legislature and the progress of the zone, and post the report on its internet website, as specified. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the County of Contra Costa
(1) Existing law, the Permit Streamlining Act, which is part of the Planning and Zoning Law, requires each public agency to provide a development project applicant with a list that specifies the information that will be required from any applicant for a development project. The Mitigation Fee Act requires a local agency that establishes, increases, or imposes a fee as a condition of approval of a development project to, among other things, determine a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. Existing law requires a city, county, or special district that has an internet website to make available on its internet website certain information, as applicable, including its current schedule of fees and exactions. This bill, among other things, would require, on and after January 1, 2022, a local agency that conducts an impact fee nexus study to follow specific standards and practices, including, but not limited to, (1) that prior to the adoption of an associated development fee, an impact fee nexus study be adopted, (2) that the study identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the proposed new level of service, and include an explanation of why the new level of service is necessary, and (3) if the study is adopted after July 1, 2022, either calculate a fee levied or imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units, or make specified findings explaining why square footage is not an appropriate metric to calculate the fees. This bill would require that a local agency that calculates fees proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units be deemed to have used a valid method to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. The bill would declare that its provisions shall not be construed to relieve a local agency from the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act, the California Constitution, or applicable case law when calculating the amount of a fee. This bill would also require a city, county, or special district to post a written fee schedule or a link directly to the written fee schedule on its internet website. The bill would require a city or county to request the total amount of fees and exactions associated with a project upon the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or the final inspection, whichever occurs last, and to post this information on its internet website, as specified. By requiring a city or county to include certain information in, and follow certain standards with regard to, its impact fee nexus studies and to include certain information on its internet website, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to develop specifications for the structure, functions, and organization of a housing and community development information system for this state. Existing law requires the system to include statistical, demographic, and community development data that will be of assistance to local public entities in the planning and implementation of housing and community development programs. This bill would require the department, on or before January 1, 2024, to create an impact fee nexus study template that may be used by local jurisdictions. The bill would require that the template include a method of calculating the feasibility of housing being built with a given fee level. (3) The Mitigation Fee Act requires notice of the time and place of a meeting regarding any fee, that includes a general explanation of the matter to be considered, be mailed at least 14 days before the first meeting to an interested party who files a written request with the city or county for mailed notice of a meeting on a new or increased fee. This bill would authorize any member of the public, including an applicant for a development project, to submit evidence that the city, county, or other local agency has failed to comply with the Mitigation Fee Act. The bill would require the legislative body of the city, county, or other local agency to consider any timely submitted evidence and authorize the legislative body to change or adjust the proposed fee or fee increase, as specified. (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.
Existing law requires a debt collector to cease collection activities until completion of a specified review if it receives a copy of a police report filed by the debtor alleging that the debtor is the victim of an identity theft crime and it receives a written statement from the debtor that the debtor claims to be the victim of identity theft, with respect to the specific debt being collected by the debt collector. This bill, instead, would require a debt collector to cease collection activities until completion of a review if it receives a copy of a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) identity theft report and a written statement from the debtor. The bill would authorize a debtor to choose to send a copy of a police report, as specified, but prohibit a debt collector from also requiring a police report if the debtor submits an FTC identity theft report. Existing law specifies that if service of a summons has not resulted in actual notice to a person in time to defend an action brought by a debt buyer and a default or default judgment has been entered against the person in the action, the person may serve and file a notice of motion and motion to set aside the default or default judgment and for leave to defend the action. Existing law requires the notice of motion to be served and filed, in the case of identity theft, within a reasonable time, but in no event exceeding 180 days of the first actual notice of the action. Existing law also requires, in the case of identity theft, that the person alleging that they are a victim of identity theft provide the court with either a copy of a Federal Trade Commission Identity Theft Affidavit or a copy of a police report. This bill, instead, would require the person alleging that they are a victim of identity theft to provide the court with either a copy of a Federal Trade Commission identity theft report or a copy of a police report. The bill would make other nonsubstantive changes. Existing law authorizes a person to bring an action against a claimant to establish that the person is a victim of identity theft, in connection with the claimant's claim against that person; if the claimant has brought an action to recover on its claim against the person, existing law authorizes the person to file a cross-complaint to establish that the person is a victim of identity theft in connection with the claimant's claim. Existing law defines a "victim of identity theft" for purposes of these provisions as a person who has filed a police report alleging a crime, as specified. In order for a person to recover actual damages or attorney's fees in an action or cross-complaint filed by a person alleging that they are a victim of identity theft, existing law requires that the person show that they provided the claimant, upon written request of claimant, a valid copy of a police report or a Department of Motor Vehicles investigative report before filing the action, or within their cross-complaint, as specified. This bill would change the definition of the phrase "victim of identity theft" for purposes of these provisions to also include a person who has submitted an FTC identity theft report. This bill would require, in order for a person to recover actual damages or attorney's fees in an action or cross-complaint filed by a person alleging that they are a victim of identity theft, that the person, upon written request of the claimant, provided the claimant a valid, signed FTC identity theft report before filing the action or within their cross-complaint, as specified. The bill would authorize a person to provide a valid copy of a police report or a Department of Motor Vehicles investigative report, as specified, but prohibit the claimant from also requiring a DMV or police report if the person submits an FTC identity theft report. Existing law authorizes a person to receive information relating to an application or account that was filed with any person or entity by an unauthorized person upon presenting the person or entity with which the application was filed or the account was opened a copy of a police report and identifying information, as specified. This bill would also authorize a person to receive this information upon presenting the person or entity with which the application was filed or the account was opened a copy of a signed and submitted FTC identity theft report and identifying information, as specified. The bill would make other conforming changes.
This measure would declare August 2021 as Valley Fever Awareness Month.
This measure would designate a specified portion of Westside Parkway on State Route 58 in the County of Kern as the Harvey L. Hall Memorial Highway. The measure would request that the Department of Transportation determine the costs of appropriate signs showing this special designation and, upon receiving donations from nonstate sources covering those costs, erect those signs.