vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Bill Text - AB-132 Postsecondary education trailer bill.
(ii) Seven thousand eight hundred ninety-eight dollars ($7,898), reflecting an expected student contribution toward cost of attendance from work earnings or other resources. Commencing with the 2024–25 award year, the commission shall annually adjust this amount based on the percentage change in the minimum wage, pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 1182.12 of the Labor Code.(iii) Notwithstanding Section 69506, for dependent students with an annual household income exceeding one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), 33 percent of the parents’ contribution from adjusted available income, as determined using the
	federal methodology established by Title IV of the federal Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1087mm et seq.), and applicable rules and regulations adopted by the commission.(3) (A) A student shall be eligible to receive an award if all of the following requirements are met, to the satisfaction of the commission, each academic year:(B) The student’s annual household income does not exceed one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000). For awards distributed for the 2016–17 academic year and subsequent academic years, the commission shall
	annually adjust the maximum income level set under this subparagraph in accordance with the percentage changes in the cost of living within the meaning of paragraph (1) of subdivision (e) of Section 8 of Article XIII  B of the California Constitution. For purposes of this article, annual household income shall be calculated in a manner that is consistent with the requirements applicable to the Ortiz-Pacheco-Poochigian-Vasconcellos Cal Grant Program (Chapter 1.7 (commencing with Section 69430)) and Section 69506.(C) Beginning with awards distributed in the 2015–16 academic year, the student’s household asset level shall not exceed one hundred
	fifty thousand dollars ($150,000). For awards distributed in the 2016–17 academic year and subsequent academic years, the commission shall annually adjust the maximum household asset level set under this subparagraph in accordance with the percentage changes in the cost of living within the meaning of paragraph (1) of subdivision (e) of Section 8 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.
Tax form changes | FTB.ca.gov
Page 3, Column 2, Whatâs New for 2021, Sixth Paragraph, Elective Tax for Pass-Through Entities (PTE) and Credit for Owners.

Whatâs New for 2021, Sixth Paragraph updated.
SB 113, chaptered on February 9, 2022, expands the pass-through entity elective tax benefits for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2021 and before January 1, 2026.

2021
Instructions for Form FTB 4197, Information on Tax Expenditure Items
03/02/2022
PDF

Page 1, Whatâs New, column 1, after paragraph 4.
Page 1, Whatâs New, column 1, Reporting Requirements paragraph.
Page 1, General Information, Who Should File, column 2, paragraph 4, Taxpayers that Benefited from the Paycheck Protection Program/Other Loan Forgiveness/Economic Injury Disaster Loan.
Page 1, Specific Line Instructions, column 2, paragraph 1.
Pages 1 – 2, Specific Line Instructions, Part I – Deductions, Credits, Exemptions, and Exclusions, Taxpayers that Benefited from the Paycheck Protection Program/Other Loan Forgiveness/Economic Injury Disaster Loan.
Page 2, Specific Line Instructions, Part I – Deductions, Credits, Exemptions, and Exclusions, column 1, Column (a) – Code, Chart and first paragraph directly below.

We added new instructions.
We modified existing instructions.
We modified existing instructions.
We modified existing instructions.
We modified existing instructions.
We modified existing instructions. 

1 – 6.
 SB 113, chaptered on February 9, 2022, conforms state tax law to the federal tax treatment for Restaurant Revitalization Grants. For taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2020, California law fully conforms to this federal provision to exclude this pandemic-related financial assistance program from gross income.
In addition, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2019, SB 113 provides conformity to the federal Shuttered Venue Operator Grant provision which allows a gross income exclusion and provides modified conformity in regards to an eligible expense deduction.
Press Releases | Senator Scott Wiener
Press Releases | Senator Scott Wiener

 Skip to main content
 

 

Main menu

Home

About

Biography

Awards & Recognitions

Committees

Legislation

News

Press Releases

In the News

Videos

Media Resources

District

District 11 Map

District Internship

Monkeypox

Events

Contact

Staff

Contact

Sign Up for Updates

Scheduling Request

Recognition Request

Press Releases

Senate Passes Landmark Senator Wiener Bill to Reduce Speeding DeathsMay 21, 2024
SACRAMENTO – The Senate passed Senator Scott Wiener’s (D-San Francisco) Senate Bill 961. The bill will help reduce traffic deaths by requiring speed warnings — called passive speed limiters — in all new cars manufactured or sold in California beginning in 2032, with a 50% phase-in by 2029. California will be the first state in the nation to enact this safety requirement.

Senate Passes Senator Wiener Bills to Boost Housing Production in the Coastal Zone and Boost LGBTQ HealthMay 21, 2024
SACRAMENTO – The Senate passed Senator Scott Wiener’s (D-San Francisco) Senate Bills 951 and 957. The bills will remove barriers to housing construction in the coastal zone, improve data collection to address LGBTQ health disparities. SB 951 passed 35-0, SB 957 passed 30-8. Both bills head next to the Assembly, where they must pass by August 31.

Senate Passes Senator Wiener Bills to Protect Freelance Workers, Boost Housing ProductionMay 20, 2024
SACRAMENTO – The Senate passed Senator Scott Wiener’s (D-San Francisco) Senate Bills 937 and 988. SB 937 will boost housing production by deferring impact fees until a project is complete, instead of at the beginning of the project, and passed the Senate 36-0. SB 988 provides basic labor protections for freelance workers and passed 33-3.

Senate Passes Nation-Leading Senator Wiener Bill to Tackle Rising Prescription Drug Prices By Reining in Pharmacy Benefit ManagersMay 20, 2024
FAQs • San Bruno, CA • CivicEngage
Each jurisdiction's housing plan needs to help ensure that there will be enough capacity and supportive policies to meet the projected need over the next 10 years. There are many laws that govern this process, and collectively they are known as Housing Element Law.By April 1st of each year, all local jurisdictions in California are required to prepare and submit an Annual Progress Report (APR) on the status and progress in implementing its Housing Element. Cities and counties with a compliant housing element and up-to-date submissions of APRs remain eligible for state grants and funding related to planning and housing. The APR evaluates the status of the implementation programs and housing production for the previous calendar year. 

3.
What is RHNA?

The Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) process is the part of Housing Element Law used to determine how many new homes, and the affordability of those homes, each local government must plan for in its Housing Element. 

4.
How Do We Know How Much Housing To Plan For?

The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) develops a state-wide housing needs determination (RHND) number, based on projected housing needs in various income categories as outlined in the table below:Regional Housing Needs Determination from HCD for the San Francisco Bay Area:                                                                                                                                                                         Income CategoryPercentHousing Unit NeedVery Low25.9%114,442 Low14.9%65,892 Moderate16.5%72,712 Above Moderate 42.6% 181,130 Total100%441,176HCD further breaks the RHND into regional assignments, and then allocates a lump number of units to each area’s regional coalition of governments (COG). The Bay Area’s COG is the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).This number is then assigned by the COG to the various jurisdictions within the region. This known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA; pronounced ree-nuh) process. The State is currently in the sixth cycle of this allocation process, known as "RHNA 6." 

5.
How Does ABAG Decide How to Distribute the Regional Assessment?
Related Publications
Proposition 28: Limits on Legislators' Terms in Office (March 2012)
Proposition 23: Suspension of “Assembly Bill 32” Until California’s Unemployment Rate Is 5.5 Percent or Less for a Year (October 2010)
Proposition 19 (September 2010)
Overview of Proposition 26 (September 2010)
Overview of Proposition 24 (September 2010)
Redistricting Ballot Proposals: Propositions 20 and 27 (September 2010)
Proposition 22 (September 2010)
Proposition 99 Overview (February 2010)
Proposition 6: Police and Law Enforcement Funding. Criminal Penalties and Laws: Safe Neighborhoods Act (September 2008)
Proposition 5: Nonviolent Drug Offenses. Sentencing. Parole and Rehabilitation. Initiative Statute. (September 2008)
Proposition 9: Victim's Bill of Rights Act of 2008: Marsy's Law (September 2008)
Overview of Proposition 4: Parental Notification for Minors' Abortions (September 2008)
Proposition 10—The California Renewable Energy and Clean Alternative Fuel Act (Bond Measure) (September 2008)
Proposition 7—The Solar and Clean Energy Act of 2008 (September 2008)
LAO Alternative: Department of Water Resources—LAO Recommended Proposition 84/1E Flood Management Alternative (June 2008)
Informational: Department of Water Resources—Proposition 84/1E Integrated Regional Water Management (June 2008)
Overview of Propositions 98 and 99 (April 2008)
Proposition 1B Implementation (February 2008)
Overview of Proposition 1D: K-12 School Facilites (December 2007)
Implementation of Proposition 1B (December 2007)
Propositions 1C and 84 Bond Implementation: Issues for Legislation (March 2007)
Proposition 84 Bond Implementation:Water, Parks and Wildlife Policy/Budget Issues (March 2007)
Propositions 1E and 84: Flood Management Provisions (February 2007)
Proposition 1B Implementation: Ensuring Project Delivery and Accountability (February 2007)
Overview of Proposition 1D: K-12 School Facilities (February 2007)
The Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act: Proposition 36 Under Policy Change (February 2007)
Resources Bonds (Propositions 1E and 84) (February 2007)
Appropriating Proposition 1B Funds (February 2007)
An Update on the Implementation of Proposition 69 (February 2007)
Tax form changes | FTB.ca.gov
SB 113, chaptered on February 9, 2022, conforms state tax law to the federal tax treatment for Restaurant Revitalization Grants. For taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2020, California law fully conforms to this federal provision to exclude this pandemic-related financial assistance program from gross income.
In addition, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2019, SB 113 provides conformity to the federal Shuttered Venue Operator Grant provision which allows a gross income exclusion and provides modified conformity in regards to an eligible expense deduction.
As part of FTBâs reporting requirements, taxpayers who benefited from the Restaurant Revitalization Grant and the Shuttered Venue Operator Grant should file form FTB 4197, Information on Tax Expenditure Items.

2021
Instructions for Schedule P (541), Alternative Minimum Tax and Credit Limitations
03/02/2022
PDF

Page 1, Column 1, Whatâs New, Second Paragraph, Elective Tax for Pass-Through Entities (PTE) and Credit for Owners.
Page 7, Credit Table, Code 242, Pass-Through Entity Elective Tax, Column 4 – Offset Tax in Section.

 HTML

Under Whatâs New, Second Paragraph, Elective Tax for Pass-Through Entities (PTE) and Credit for Owners.
Credit Table, Code 242, Pass-Through Entity Elective Tax, Column 4 – Offset Tax in Section.

Whatâs New, Second Paragraph modified.
Replaced Section âA2â with âB1â in the Credit Table.

1 – 2.
 SB 113, chaptered on February 9, 2022, expands the Pass-Through Entity (PTE) elective tax benefits by:

Repealing the tentative minimum tax (TMT) limitation on the PTE elective tax credit;
Allowing partnerships/S corporations/LLCs with owners that are partnerships to make the election (although the tax canât be paid on behalf of the partnership owner);
Allowing single member limited liability companies (SMLLCs) that are PTE owners to claim the PTE elective tax credit.

2021
541 Fiduciary Income Tax Booklet
03/01/2022
PDF

Page 2, Column 2, Whatâs New, Restaurant Revitalization Grants paragraph.
Related Publications
2003-04 Budget Overview: Proposition 50 Bond Expenditures and the CALFED Bay-Delta Program (April 2003)
Proposition 46 Housing Bond (February 2003)
Proposition 50 Water-Related Proposals Need Better Definition (February 2003)
Assembly Constitutional Amendment 11 (February 2003)
Enhancing Implementation and Oversight: Proposition 40 Resources Bond (May 2002)
Evaluation of the School Facility Fee: Affordable Housing Assistance Programs (January 2001)
Implementing Proposition 36: Issues, Challenges, and Opportunities (December 2000) 
An Overview of Proposition 37 (October 2000)
Propositions 12 and 13--Parks and Water Bonds: Implementation Issues (May 2000)
Implementation of Proposition 36 (February 2000)
Proposition 10: How Does It Work? (February 1999)
Proposition 10: How Does It Work? What Role Should the Legislature Play in Its Implementation? (January 1999)
Implementation of Proposition 98 (February 1989)
A Status Report on Proposition 65--The Safe Drinking Water And Toxic Enforcement Act Of 1986 (February 1988)
Understanding Proposition 218 (December 1996) 
Handout, Overview of Proposition 218, "The Right to Vote on Taxes Initiative" (September 1996)
Background Information on AFDC, SSI/SSP, Medi-Cal Programs and Proposition 99 (March 1996)
(1) Proposition 62 Voter Approval Requirements Upheld, and (2) Economic and Revenue Developments (October 1995)
Proposition 172 How Did It Affect Spending for Public Safety? (June 1994)
California Update: Superior Court Invalidates Proposition 98 Funding Shifts (November 1993)
California Update: Per Pupil Funding Under Proposition 98: What Do the Coming Years Hold? (October 1993)
Proposition 98--A Brief Look at the Current Situation (July 1992)
Implementation of Proposition 99—An Overview (May 1991)
Proposition 98 (February 1991)
Proposition 103—One Year Later (February 1990)
Proposition 99: An Update (February 1990)

Subscribe
 | California State Legislature
 | Online Voter Registration
 | Privacy Policy
 | Accessibility

Legislative Analyst's Office | The California Legislature's Nonpartisan Fiscal and Policy Advisor
2001 Budget Analysis: Housing and Community Development (2240)
Local jurisdictions may
elect to implement the EHA on their own; otherwise, the department is responsible for enforcement.
Concern Over Timeliness of Housing Approvals. When seeking to construct, rehabilitate, or repair employee housing, the
housing owner must apply for a construction permit from the local building or health department and pay the corresponding fee for
the permit. There has been some concern that the development of housing could be delayed through the permit process by local
communities resistant to employee housing. Specifically, an entity could prevent the housing by simply not acting on the permit
application in a timely manner and by not performing the necessary check of the submitted plans for consistency with the
appropriate building and health codes.
Department Given New Responsibility in 2000. In response to this concern, Chapter 702, Statutes of 2000 (SB 1545, Costa),
provides an alternative approval procedure for any employee housing application for agricultural workers that has not been either
approved or denied by the local department within 60 days. In those instances, Chapter 702 gives HCD the authority to check the
permit plans and approve the application, if appropriate. The owner can then proceed with the project as if it had received local
approval.
Request for Funding. As a result of the new plan-checking responsibility, the budget proposes an ongoing General Fund
augmentation of $50,000. The department proposes to use these funds to contract with the Department of General Services for the
engineering services necessary to perform the plan checks. Since this is a new responsibility that depends on the actions of local
governments, the department is unsure how many plan checks it will be required to perform. The requested funds would allow
about 350 plan checks to be performed annually.
General Fund Commitment Creates Wrong Incentives. We agree with Chapter 702's intent to prevent the unnecessary delay
in the approval of farmworker housing projects. By granting the department's funding request, however, the state would create a
fiscal incentive for some communities not to act on permit applications. Under current law and with the approval of HCD's funding
Local rent control laws. [Ballot]
This would reduce expenses they can claim to lower their income tax payments (such as mortgage interest, property taxes, and depreciation). This would increase their income tax payments. The overall effect on state income tax revenue is not clear.

Overall, the measure likely would reduce state and local revenues over time. The largest effect would be on property taxes. The amount of revenue loss would depend on many factors, most importantly how communities respond to this measure. For example, if communities that already have rent control expand their rules to include newer homes and single-family homes, revenue losses could be in the high tens of millions of dollars per year. If many communities create new rent control rules, revenue losses could be larger. If few communities make changes, revenue losses would be more limited and dependent on the scope of rent control laws that automatically expanded in response to the repeal of Costa-Hawkins.
Increased Local Government Costs. If cities or counties create new rent control laws or expand existing ones, local rent boards would have increased costs. For communities where rent control laws expand automatically, costs also could increase. Depending on local government choices, these costs could range from very little to tens of millions of dollars per year. These costs likely would be paid by fees on owners of rental housing.
Summary of Fiscal Effects. We estimate that this measure would have the following major fiscal effect:

Overall, a potential reduction in state and local revenues in the high tens of millions of dollars per year over time. Depending on actions by local communities, revenue losses could be less or more.

Subscribe
 | California State Legislature 
 | Online Voter Registration
 | Privacy Policy
 | Accessibility

Legislative Analyst's Office | The California Legislature's Nonpartisan Fiscal and Policy Advisor
 
 925 L Street, Suite 1000 Sacramento, CA 95814 | (916) 445-4656 | information [at] lao.ca.gov
FAQs • San Bruno, CA • CivicEngage
The current housing element period covers 8 years from 2015 through 2023. During this period, San Bruno is allocated to issue permits for the construction of 1,155 new housing units. To date, the City has issued permits for the construction of only 119 housing units, leaving a balance of 1,036 housing units to be produced by 2023. Additionally, the City has a remaining RHNA goal of 358 "very low" income units, 136 "low" income units, and 163 "moderate" income units. To date, since no "very low" income units have been issued building permits, and only 25 "low" and 42 "moderate" income units have been issued permits (primarily ADUs), there is a significant need for additional housing in the City, especially at the very low and low income levels.Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) ProgressPermits Issued by the City of San Bruno from 2015 to 2018 plus the Proposed Mills Park Project: 

9.
Will the residential dwellings be rented or for sale units, and what will be the cost of the property?

The Property Owner has the ability to decide if they will rent or sell the units as condominiums. The Development Agreement is structured such that the Property Owner must elect to pay an additional $5M public benefit payment prior to initial occupancy, if they want the ability to sell the units as condominiums in the future. Staff anticipates the Property Owner to elect this option, even if they decide to rent the units initially. The prices for the non-affordable units will be based on market rate pricing. 

10.
How do I contact the City Council to express my opinion on the Mills Park Project?

Contact information for each member of the City Council can be found on the Elected Officials page. 

▼
Police Department	

Show All Answers

1.
When is it appropriate to call 911?

911 should be called anytime there is an immediate threat to peoples safety or property. If you need to contact the Police Department for a 'cold' incident (something that is not happening currently), or any non-emergency situation, please use our non-emergency phone number: 650-616-7100.
Local rent control laws. [Ballot]
The value of rental housing would decline because potential landlords would not want to pay as much for these properties.
Some renters would spend less on rent and some landlords would receive less rental income.
Some renters would move less often. For example, fewer renters would move because their rents increase.

The size of these effects would depend on how many communities pass new laws (or have existing rent control laws that could immediately become effective), and the type and scope of rent control adopted. If many localities enacted rent regulation that significantly limited rents, other economic effects locally and statewide (such as impacts on housing construction) could occur.
Changes in State and Local Revenues. The measure’s economic effects would affect property tax, sales tax, and income tax revenues. The largest and most likely impacts are:

Less Property Taxes Paid by Landlords. A decline in the value of rental properties would lead to a decrease in property tax payments made by owners of those properties over time. These property tax losses would be partially offset by higher property tax payments resulting from the sales of rental housing. This is because property sales often cause property tax bills to reset at a higher level. Revenue losses from lower property values would be larger than revenue gains from increased sales. Because of this, the measure would reduce overall property tax payments over time.
More Sales Taxes Paid by Renters. Renters who pay less in rent would use some of their savings to buy taxable goods.
Change in Income Taxes Paid by Landlords. Landlords’ income tax payments would change in several ways, both up and down. Some landlords would receive less rental income. This would reduce their income tax payments. On the other hand, over time, landlords would pay less to buy rental properties. This would reduce expenses they can claim to lower their income tax payments (such as mortgage interest, property taxes, and depreciation). This would increase their income tax payments. The overall effect on state income tax revenue is not clear.

Overall, the measure likely would reduce state and local revenues over time. The largest effect would be on property taxes. The amount of revenue loss would depend on many factors, most importantly how communities respond to this measure.