2017 HOUSING BILLS
SB 2, , would create a permanent source of funding for affordable
housing, imposing fees of $75 to $225 on certain real-estate transactions, such
as mortgage refinancing. (Home and commercial real estate
sales would not be subject to the fee.) It would
collect $1.2 billion over the next five years — and would raise a total of $5.8
billion during that time, including federal, local and private matching funds,
according to committee estimates. Passed with a two-thirds vote. Half of the
funding will be spent on initiatives to combat homelessness and half will go to
local government during the first year. Cities and counties will receive 70
percent of the annual revenue beginning in 2019. The remaining 30 percent will
be distributed by the state.
SB 3, would place a $4 billion statewide housing bond on a
future ballot. Like SB 2, it would pay for existing
affordable-housing programs in California that used to be supported by funds
from the state’s Redevelopment Agency, a giant source of money that was slashed
during the Great Recession and never replaced. If the bond measure passes and is
approved by voters, $1 billion of the total would go to extend the CalVet Home
Loan Program, which is scheduled to expire in 2018. And $3 billion for
housing development programs. Passed
with a two-thirds vote.
Taxpayers would cover the principal and interest on the $3
billion for housing projects, with annual debt
service costing roughly $195 million over 30 years.
Debt service for the $1 billion in borrowing for veterans housing programs would
come from participating veterans’ loan payments.
SB 35, would try to tackle the state’s housing-supply shortage.
Currently, cities are told every eight years how many units they need to build
to meet their share of regional demand (RHNA)— but
they are not required to build them. This bill would make it harder to ignore
those goals. It targets
cities that fall short, requiring them to approve more housing developments
that fit the bill’s criteria until they are back on track.
SB 166, would push cities and counties to plan for their share of
low-income and moderate-income housing needed in the region. (
would allow low-income residents to bypass SB2's $75 fee)
SB 167, would strengthen the state’s 35-year-old Housing
Accountability Act, known colloquially as the “anti-NIMBY (Not In My Backyard)
Act.” Cities that don’t comply with a court order to allow development would be
hit with automatic fines of $10,000 per housing unit.
SB 540, allows cities to determine where housing needs to be built
and to create a specific plan for development in that zone, including public
hearings and environmental reviews. This is intended to speed up the approval
and construction process.
Would allow cities to borrow money from the state to plan
zones for affordable housing.
Once the planning is done, approval of such projects would be
AB 181(held)would double
the state tax credit that low- and middle-income renters receive to $240 for
married couples and $120 for single filers.
AB 53 (held)
would allow couples to save up to $20,000 tax free — $10,000 for individuals —
toward the purchase of a principal residence.
AB 71 eliminates
the state portion of that tax break for second, vacation homes and
redirect the approximately $300 million it costs the state annually toward
financing low-income housing instead.
AB 1505, 1506(in process) and 1521,
would increase low-income RENTAL housing by allowing cities to
force developers to build more low-income rentals as part of
expand rent control and
protect aging affordable housing stock from going back on the
AB 1505, allows cities to force developers to set aside a
certain number of homes in their projects for low-income residents.
Would allow the state Department of Housing and Community Development to
review proposed local ordinances to ensure that the cities don't use these
rules to block all development.
Based on a
law in Massachusetts, ( AB
1585 cancelled) would introduce an
out-of-court state appeals board for developers whose low-income housing was
72, 678 and SB
strengthen and add money to enforce a state law that prohibits cities from
denying low-income housing projects.
Housing Accountability Act
passed in 1982 prohibits cities from saying no to housing projects that meet
zoning requirements simply because they don’t like them. But such cases are hard
to prove. These Bills will beef up the existing law by making it easier for
developers to prove a city acted in bad faith when denying a project, and by
upping a city’s penalty to $10,000 per unit they rejected.
AB 352, would
force cities to permit
— as small as 150 square feet — as a way to house people more affordably. Many
cities now require units to be larger.
would make it easier for local governments to raise taxes or pass bond measures
to fund low-income housing. Her proposal
would lower the margin needed to pass such measures from a two-thirds
This would also go on the 2018 ballot.
Housing Bills Details
SB 2 (Atkins): The Building Homes and Jobs
SB 2 would create a permanent revenue stream for affordable housing funded
through a new $75 document recording fee on certain real estate transactions,
excluding home sales. The fee is capped at $225 per transaction. It is estimated
to generate $200 million - $300 million annually on a statewide basis to be
appropriated for housing-related purposes.
In the first year, 50 percent of the funds would be reserved for local agencies
to assist in planning to accelerate housing production. The Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD) would be required to allocate the other
50 percent to assist persons experiencing or at risk of homelessness.
Beginning in 2019, 70 percent of fee proceeds would be available to local
governments, distributed primarily via formula to cities and counties. Though
not identical, the specified formulas are related to the federal Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) distributions. Staff anticipates Bay Area
jurisdictions would receive approximately 20 percent of these formula dollars,
based on fiscal year 2016 CDBG allocation data from the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development. HCD would also allocate a portion of the proceeds
to small cities and counties. Funds could support a range of activities,
including preservation and creation of low- to moderate-income housing,
combatting homelessness, and homeownership support. In order to receive
allocations, local governments would be required to develop an expenditure plan
and comply with other applicable HCD reporting requirements. HCD would
administer the remaining 30 percent of revenues to fund farmworker and
mixed-income housing and fiscal incentives or matching funds for local agencies
to support more affordable housing. Additionally, 20 percent of total program
funds must be expended for affordable owner-occupied workforce housing.
Of note, a related bill, AB 166 (Salas), would exempt low-income homeowners from
paying the SB 2 document recording fee, if they meet certain “hardship”
requirements. The bill was under consideration as part of the larger housing
package, but did not pass the Assembly by the September 15th deadline.
According to the author’s office, an agreement was reached with legislative
leadership and the Governor’s office to take up the bill early next year.
ABAG has no position on SB 2. MTC has a
support position on SB 2.
SB 3 (Beall): The Affordable Housing Bond
Act of 2018
SB 3 would authorize a $4 billion general obligation bond for housing, subject
to voter approval. Similar to Proposition 46 (2002) and Proposition 1C (2006),
bond proceeds would fund a range of affordable housing preservation and
construction activities, including park and infrastructure investments to
facilitate transit- oriented development and infill development. It would also
subsidize home loans for California veterans.
Funds would be allocated to existing programs as follows:
Multifamily Housing Program ($1.5 billion)
Cal-Vet Home Loan Program ($1 billion)
Local Housing Trust Fund Matching Grant Program ($300 million)
Infill Incentive Grant Program ($300 million)
Joe Serna, Jr. Farmworker Housing Grant Fund ($300 million)
CalHome Program ($300 million)
Transit-Oriented Development Implementation Program ($150 million)
Home Purchase Assistance Program ($150 million)
The Local Housing Trust Fund Matching Grant (LHTF), Infill Incentive Grant (IIG)
and Transit-Oriented Development Implementation (TOD Housing) programs were
established more than a decade ago and funded by Proposition 1C bond proceeds.
HCD administers these programs and awards funds on a competitive basis. The LHTF
Program provides matching grants
(dollar for dollar) to local housing trust funds that are funded on an ongoing
basis from private contributions or public sources that are not otherwise
restricted in use for housing programs. The IIG Program provides gap funding to
developers and/or local governments for infrastructure improvements necessary to
facilitate new infill housing development. Project examples include development
or rehabilitation of parks or open space; water, sewer or other utility service
improvements; and transportation infrastructure improvements required as a
condition of, or approved in connection with, certain infill housing
developments. Similarly, the TOD Housing Program provides grants to local
governments, as well as other eligible applicants, for infrastructure
improvements necessary for the development of specified housing projects. The
program may also directly fund transit-oriented affordable housing development
and homeownership assistance.
Area grant share ranged between 37 percent to 53 percent of total program
funding in each of the program’s most recent award years (2014 for the LHTF and
IGG Programs and 2015 for the TOD Housing Program).
ABAG and MTC have a “support” position on SB 3.
SB 35 (Wiener): Housing for a Growing
SB 35 would expedite approval of qualified
zoning-compliant projects in a local jurisdiction that falls short of its
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) target
until their RHNA goals are met. Specifically, the bill would allow a qualified
multifamily housing development project to be approved on the basis of a
ministerial approval, rather than a
conditional use permit if it satisfies a detailed
list of objective planning standards, as described below. The bill would also
ease parking minimums for eligible developments and make updates to HCD’s annual
housing reporting requirements for cities and counties, which would bring the
rest of the state more in line with Bay Area reporting practices.
Applicability of Streamlining Provisions and RHNA
Jurisdictions that are on track to meet RNHA housing goals within a given income
category would continue to retain full control of project approvals for projects
in that category, in contrast to Governor Brown’s 2016 “by-right” proposal,
which would have applied regardless of how a jurisdiction was performing with
respect to its RHNA goals. As a region, the Bay Area permitted 57 percent of the
total units needed to meet housing targets for the 2007-2014 RHNA cycle, but
only 26 percent of the needed low-income units.
Notably, there was significant variation within local jurisdictions and between
income categories with countywide averages ranging from 9 percent in the “very low-income” category to 109 percent in the “above moderate-income” category.
Project Eligibility – Objective Planning Standards
In order to qualify for a ministerial permit review,
a project would be required to meet a long list of conditions and objective
planning standards. The project must be located in one of the following:
A jurisdiction HCD has deemed eligible because the locality issued less
building permits than the number required to meet its
RNHA targets for a four-year reporting period; or
A jurisdiction that has not submitted the annual housing element report for
two consecutive years before the development submitted an application for
streamlined ministerial approval.
In addition, the project must be a multifamily development, the developer of the
project must certify that a prevailing wage requirement is included in all
contracts for the performance of the work, and the project must be:
located on a parcel that is zoned for residential or residential mixed-use
development, with at least two-thirds of the square footage of the development
designated for residential use;
located in an urban area or urban cluster on a site in which at least 75
percent of the perimeter adjoins parcels that are developed with urban uses;
located outside all of the 11 environmentally-sensitive areas listed in the
bill, including the California coastal zone, wetlands, prime farmland,
protected lands, and designated hazard areas;
a development that does not require the demolition of a national, state or
local historic structure, affordable housing, or rental units; and
consistent with objective zoning standards and objective design review
standards in effect at the time of the application’s submittal.
Developments that meet the above requirements and are in jurisdictions
not meeting RHNA
goals for low- income
would be required to make at least 50 percent of
new units affordable for
households earning below 80 percent area median income
Projects built in jurisdictions not meeting
market-rate RNHA development goals
would be required to, at a minimum, dedicate 10 percent
of the total number of units to housing affordable
households earning below 80 percent AMI.
To address concerns by affordable housing advocates that the bill could weaken
inclusionary zoning or
density bonus requirements in effect today, the bill conditions
eligibility for streamlining on minimum affordability standards for housing
developments in localities that do not already have such policies, but would not
preempt stronger local policies in any jurisdiction that has adopted them.
ABAG and MTC have no position on SB 35.
SB 166 (Skinner): Residential density and
SB 166 would modify the No Net Loss Zoning law to
require a local government to ensure that its housing
element inventory or housing element program make sites available that
can accommodate, at all times through the planning period, its unmet regional
housing need at all income levels, with certain exceptions.
ABAG and MTC have no position on SB 166.
SB 167 (Skinner)/AB
678 (Bocanegra): Housing
SB 167 and AB 678 are identical bills which would each amend the Housing
Accountability Act (HAA) by increasing the legal standard
of proof required for a local agency to justify a denial
of an affordable housing development project from “substantial evidence”
to “preponderance of evidence” and imposing a minimum
$10,000 per unit fine if the court finds a violation of the HAA, among other
changes. ABAG has an “oppose”
position on SB 167. MTC has no position on SB 167.
SB 540 (Roth): Workforce Opportunity Zone
SB 540 (Roth) would authorize local governments to establish “workforce housing opportunity zones” by adopting a
specific plan for the area covered by the zone. Environmental review and public
engagement would occur up front during the establishment of the workforce
housing opportunity zone. After
specific plan adoption, a local agency would be
denying a development
proposal meeting certain criteria within the area, including affordability and
prevailing wage requirements. The bill would also authorize the state to
provide financial assistance, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to local
governments to support the creation of specific plans. SB 540 is sponsored by
the League of California Cities.
of the total units in the zone will be sold or rented to persons and families
income, or persons and families of
of the total units will be sold or rented to
income households ; and
will be restricted for a term of 55 years for
No more than
shall be sold or rented to persons and families of above
ABAG and MTC have no position on SB 540.
AB 72 (Santiago)
AB 72 would provide HCD new authority to review any action by a city, county, or
city and county that it determines is inconsistent with an adopted housing
element, allows HCD to find a housing element out
of substantial compliance, and permits HCD to notify the
Attorney General of violations of the law.
ABAG and MTC have no position on AB 72.
AB 73 (Chiu): Housing Sustainability
AB 73 would provide incentive funding to local governments that voluntarily
establish "housing sustainability districts" (HSD)
in which housing projects are subject to a ministerial, or “by-right” approval
process and subject to prevailing wage requirements. Specifically, the bill
would authorize a city or county to adopt an ordinance establishing an HSD, upon
approval from HCD and after conducting upfront zoning and environmental review.
The HSD must meet minimum density, affordability, and relocation assistance
requirements and be located in an area well-suited for residential or mixed-use
development. Incentive payments would be issued in
two stages: first, following the creation of a new district and second, once the
city permits new housing units.
ABAG and MTC have no position on AB 73.
AB 571 (E. Garcia): Farmworker housing
AB 571 would make changes to the farmworker housing set-aside from the state
low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) program, the state’s complement to the
federal LIHTC program. Since 1996, $500,000 in LIHTC allocations have been
reserved for farmworker housing. According to the Assembly Housing and Community
Development Committee bill analysis, the farmworker housing set-aside has been
underutilized in recent years; there is currently $5.5 million available, yet
since 2008 only one applicant has successfully sought the credit. AB 571 would
make several changes intended to make projects more feasible and increase the
supply of farmworker housing, including increased flexibility related to
occupancy requirements and expanded eligibility for state credits.
ABAG and MTC have no position on AB 571.
AB 879 (Grayson): Planning and zoning
– housing element
AB 879 would make changes to housing element law to require a city, in its
analysis of governmental constraints, to include an analysis of any
currently-authorized, locally-adopted ordinances that directly impact the cost
and supply of residential development. Additionally, the bill would provide HCD
new authority to evaluate the reasonableness of
local fees charged to new developments. The League
of California Cities is the bill sponsor.
ABAG and MTC have no position on AB 879.
AB 1397 (Low): Inventory of land for
AB 1397 would make a number of changes to housing element law by revising what
may be included in a jurisdiction’s inventory of land suitable for residential
development. The changes would require parcels on a jurisdiction's Housing
Element site list to have “realistic and demonstrated potential” for development
during the planning period. For example, parcels in the inventory would be
required to have sufficient water, sewer, and
dry utilities infrastructure to support housing
development or be included in a jurisdiction’s existing general plan program or
other mandatory plan – including a public or private utility provider’s plan –
to secure sufficient infrastructure to support housing development.
ABAG and MTC have no position on AB 1397.
AB 1505 (Bloom): Palmer Fix
Assembly Bill 1505 would affirm the right of a local jurisdiction to establish,
as a condition of development, inclusionary housing ordinances. According to the
ABAG regional housing policy inventory, 78 Bay Area jurisdictions utilize an
inclusionary or below market rate housing policy as
an affordable housing production strategy. However, the ability of Bay Area
jurisdictions to implement inclusionary requirements specifically for rental
housing was adversely impacted in 2009 with the California Appellate Court
ruling in Palmer/Sixth
Street Properties, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (Palmer), which found that
rental inclusionary requirements conflict with state rent
control regulations. AB 1505, known as the “Palmer Fix,” would clarify
that local jurisdictions may require, as a condition of approval, inclusion of affordable units in a
multi-family residential rental development.
Recent amendments to AB 1505 would authorize HCD to assess certain new
inclusionary policies for their impact. In short, jurisdictions would need to
demonstrate that the policies will not limit new market rate development. HCD's
review authority would be triggered if both the proposed inclusionary rate is
above 15% affordable and the policy is in a
jurisdiction that is not making progress toward meeting at least 75% of the
jurisdictions’ market rate (above moderate-income) RHNA. If HCD determines the
policy would inhibit market rate housing development, the policy would need to
be revised to require no more than 15% of new
rental units in a new development meet affordability
ABAG has a “support” position on AB 1505. MTC has
no position on AB 1505.
AB 1515 (Daly): Planning and zoning -
AB 1515 would make changes to the Housing Accountability Act to require that a
housing development or emergency shelter be deemed consistent, compliant, and in
conformity with an applicable plan if there is substantial evidence that would
allow a reasonable person to conclude that to be the case.
ABAG and MTC have no position on AB 1515.
AB 1521 (Bloom): Land
use: notice of proposed change: assisted housing developments
AB 1521 would make changes to the state’s Affordable Housing Preservation Law by
requiring owners of certain expiring affordable rental properties to accept any
market-rate purchase offer from a qualified preservation entity that intends to
maintain the property’s affordability restrictions. Current state law provides
preservation purchasers limited priority to purchase affordable rental
properties, if the owner intends to sell. AB 1521 would go further by
establishing a right of first refusal for qualified
housing agencies or organizations intending to
purchase the housing developments at fair market value and maintain
affordability. The bill additionally requires HCD to monitor compliance with the
law and allows affected tenants and local governments the right to enforce the
ABAG and MTC have no position on AB 1521.
Affordable Housing -- like it or not.
precis of article by Ben
Christopher | Sept. 28, 2017 | HOUSING
“The idea is that we have to comply with these laws of the state of California
now,” said Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguín, whose
city has been defined for years by fights between pro- and slow-development
forces. “And so how can we comply…but also preserve some degree of
The tension between cities’ traditional prerogative over local land use and the
state’s broader interest in more housing for dwelling-strapped California framed
much of the housing debate in Sacramento this year. Now officials in
San Jose, San Luis Obispo, Redondo Beach and other
locales are exploring how to work within the new rules—on their own terms.
A pair of bills offer the promise of fresh dollars for affordable housing
construction via a new fee
(SB2) on real estate documents and a 2018 bond
(SB3) measure. Those proposals have earned the plaudits of local elected
leaders and governance groups across the state, including the League of
But like most local leaders, Arreguín also has his share of reservations,
especially about measures that could make it more difficult to deny new projects
they disapprove of. One would require
(SB35) cities that aren’t meeting their
for housing production to offer developers an alternative, “streamlined”
approval process. To qualify for fast-track treatment, new housing developments
would have to meet current zoning standards, set aside a certain share of
below-market units and pay their workers union wages.
How many developers will be willing to tick those boxes is unclear, but
proponents call streamlining a necessary measure to bypass NIMBY obstructionism.
Many cities call it a usurpation of local authority.
(SB167) would make it harder for cities to deny new housing projects if they
otherwise comply with local rules, and would raise the penalty for
municipalities that wrongly do so.
The city of Berkeley did not officially adopt a
position on either bill while lawmakers were considering them. But a local
response is now in the works. Arreguín said he is developing a
Berkeley-specific streamlining process that would
be available to developers in addition to the new state process. His alternative
is still in its early stages, but the mayor hopes it will steer developers
toward low- and moderate-income projects and those providing additional
community benefits that are still undefined. The city’s planning commission is
also working on tighter zoning laws that would feature new density
requirements and design standards while staying in tune with state law. “If we
set local requirements that still give the city some flexibility in shaping—not
denying—but shaping projects, we can ensure compliance with [new laws] and
still maintain some degree of control,” Arreguín said.
A similar conversation is taking place across San Francisco Bay in
Corte Madera, a small town in Marin County. Ever
since the town approved a 180-unit apartment complex along Highway 101 over the
vociferous objections of some community members, Vice Mayor Carla Condon
said the town is looking for less obtrusive ways to expand the housing stock.
One option the town is considering is to waive fees and loosen regulations on
secondary dwellings, those fashioned within or near a main home. This might make
it easier to convert a basement into an apartment or build a tiny house in a
backyard. “We’re doing our best to be compliant but also to try to maintain the
small-town character that everybody really cherishes in this community,” Condon
said. It’s not clear that secondary units will accommodate the town’s housing
needs indefinitely. But for now, Condon says, Corte Madera is producing more
housing than the state requires.
While Berkeley and Corte
Madera try to thread the needle between new state mandates and local
interests, other cities are considering blunter instruments.
Last week, Redondo Beach placed a
10-and-a-half month-long moratorium on new mixed-use
development projects. According to Nils Nehrenheim, a city council
member and local slow-growth activist, the ban has been in the works for years
but now comes in the nick of time. “Thankfully, we’re starting this this month,”
he said. The city attorney’s office and the Department of Community
Development are looking into how the various housing bills would affect planning
decisions. The goal, Nehrenheim said, is “to learn if we can mitigate some of
these issues.” City leaders have also discussed pushing back against the state’s
housing-production targets, though it isn’t yet clear how. “We’re going to have
to start having more conversations with state legislators” about adjusting those
targets, said Nehrenheim. “We’re all very concerned about the loss of local
control—no matter what side of the issue you stand on in terms of development.”
Local lawmakers often face tremendous pressure to block, stall or renegotiate
unpopular projects. Soon they won’t have as much power to respond to that
pressure—and that isn’t necessary a bad thing, said Aaron Gomez, who sits on the
City Council in San Luis Obispo. Decisions about
land use inevitably leave some constituents unhappy. Mandatory streamlining may
allow local lawmakers to blame the state if faced with angry voters. “I do like
the political cover of that,” said Gomez. “It just limits that conversation.”
Others have quietly stomached any threat to their authority over planning as the
price of the help they need.
“Philosophically, we don’t want the state to necessarily be encroaching on this
part of the work that we do as a city,” said Jacky Morales-Ferrand, Director of
Housing for the city of San Jose. But, she said,
the city “wanted to create a path forward for some of those signature housing
bills that we’ve been waiting on for a long time.”
Chief among them is one
(AB1505) that would effectively reverse a 2009 California
court decision that
barred cities from forcing rental-property developers to offer a certain
number of new units at below-market rates. Cities across the Bay Area, in
Los Angeles and even in rural communities such as
Tuolumne County are all now dusting off and reexamining their old inclusionary-housing
Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed (AB1229) a
similar bill in 2013. Even so, the city of San Jose
is already planning for his approval. Morales-Ferrand said she hopes the city
will “turn on” the policy as soon as January 1st.
On Brown's Desk Sep 2017
- Senate Bill 54 was the most closely watched immigration bill of the
session. If signed, it will tighten limitations on law enforcement’s ability
to work with and communicate with federal immigration officials.
SB 29 would bar local governments from entering into new contracts to
detain immigrants facing deportation for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Eleven
municipalities already have such contracts and would be prohibited from
expanding their existing contracts as they come up for renewal. It would not
prevent private companies from having their own contracts with ICE, such as
the Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego, owned and operated by CoreCivic
(formerly CCA). If the bill is signed, it would also empower the state
attorney general to inspect conditions for immigrant detainees in jails and
private prisons in California.
SB 257 would allow the U.S. citizen children of deported parents to
continue to attend local schools.
Assembly Bill 21 is a response to the elimination of DACA.
If signed, the bill would require that California State University and
community colleges have policies to ensure that undocumented students have
access to financial aid, legal representation and their right to due process.
It also would create a framework for how institutions of higher learning
interact with ICE, such as prohibiting the disclosure of the immigration
status of undocumented students, faculty and staff.
AB 291 would prohibit landlords or property managers from disclosing, or
threatening to disclose, a tenant’s immigration status to any immigration
AB 450 would require employers to ask ICE for a warrant before a workplace
raid, and it would require employers to give employees advance notice of ICE
On Friday Sep 15th 2017, the Senate gave final passage to a trio of
high-profile housing bills that aim to increase California’s housing supply and
help more Californians afford a home. A dozen more are headed to the governor’s
desk in response to the state’s housing crisis.
SB 3 is a $4 billion bond measure aimed to go before voters in November
SB 2 would provide hundreds of millions of dollars for affordable housing
construction through a $75 fee on real estate transactions.
SB 35 aims to kick start hosing development in communities that are not
keeping up with their own housing consruction promises. It would bypass some
local reviews for developments in communities that have fallen behind on
regional housing goals.
- SB 17 aims to shed more life on one year after its authored abandoned the
bill because it had been so dramatically changed by other Democrats
SB 595 provides for a Bay Area-wide vote on a toll increase of up to $3 on
the region’s seven state-owned toll bridges. The vote, to be held sometime in
2018, would raise funds to support $4.45 billion in transit and highway
AB 544 extends a state program that allows solo drivers in electric cars
to use high-occupany vehicles (a.k.a. carpool) lanes on the state’s freeways.
SB 65 outlaws smoking pot while driving or riding in cars. The bill,
signed by Gov. Brown earlier this week, adds marijuana consumption to the law
prohibiting alcohol consumption, which is an infraction currently punishable
with a base fine of $70.
AB 1393 requires that a vehicle be impounded for 30 days if the vehicle’s
registered owner is convicted of second or subsequent offense for reckless
driving or engaging in a speed contest while operating the vehicle.
SB 182 bars cities and counties from requiring ride-service drivers, like
those working for Lyft and
Uber, to obtain more than one business license regardless of how many
jurisdiction they operate in. A local government could require business
license only for drivers who live in its jurisdiction.
- SB 190 Like the
next two below, this measure is part of a criminal justice reform package from
Sens. Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles) and Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens). The
measure ends the assessment of fees on parents with kids
in the juvenile justice system. In the last year, five Bay Area counties
(including Alameda and Santa Clara) chose to stop collecting the fees on their
- SB 393 Californians
who were arrested but not convicted of a crime would be allowed to petition the court to
seal their records, and avoid having a past arrest hurt their chances of
getting employment or housing.
- SB 395 The bill
would require that juveniles consult
with an attorney before waiving their Miranda rights and talking with law
- SB 63 A similar
effort to expand parental leave requirements to
California small businesses was vetoed by the governor last year. This year’s
version, which would require companies with between 20 and 49 workers to
provide three months of job-protected leave, is expected to be signed. The creation of a mediation
board to hear disputes between workers and employers was added to the bill to
address concerns of excessive litigation against small businesses.
- AB 168 This bill
bans employers from requesting the pay history of a job applicant, in an
effort to stop companies from basing compensation on past pay, a factor that
has been cited in the gender pay gap between men and women. The bill also
gives workers the right to
see the pay scale for a position.
- AB 1008 Statewide
‘ban-the-box’ legislation would ban most companies from asking about a
prospective employee’s criminal history on their initial application. The
measure has an exemption for small businesses.
to make the
state more relevant in primary campaigns. Prior attempts to make California a
player in primary politics ran into issues of cost, and didn’t always result
in meaningful votes.
- SB 149 In response
to the campaign of President Donald Trump, this
bill would require presidential candidates to release their
tax returns in order to appear on the
ballot in California.
- SB 568 The latest effort to change
the date of California’s presidential primary, is the latest effort
27 other Bills Into Law Sep 2017
AB 242 by
Assemblymember Joaquin Arambula (D-Fresno) – Certificates of death:
AB 395 by
Assemblymember Raul Bocanegra (D-Pacoima) – Substance use treatment
AB 400 by
Assemblymember Jim Cooper (D-Elk Grove) – Crimes: alcoholic beverages:
AB 593 by
Assemblymember Todd Gloria (D-San Diego) – Structural Fumigation
AB 711 by
Assemblymember Evan Low (D-Campbell) – Beer manufacturers: free or
AB 1108 by
Assemblymember Tom F. Daly (D-Anaheim) – Self-service storage facilities.
AB 1398 by Assemblymember Ash Kalra
(D-San Jose) – Annuities: cash surrender benefits.
AB 1487 by
Assemblymember Freddie Rodriguez (D-Pomona) – Public Employees’
Retirement System: limited term appointments.
AB 1504 by Assemblymember Ken Cooley
(D-Rancho Cordova) – State parks: concessions: contracts.
AB 1613 by
Assemblymember Kevin Mullin (D-South San Francisco) – San Mateo County
Transit District: retail transactions and use tax.
SB 65 by Senator
Jerry Hill (D-San Mateo) – Vehicles: alcohol and marijuana:
SB 157 by Senator Bob Wieckowski
(D-Fremont) – Invasion of privacy: distribution of sexually explicit materials:
protection of plaintiff’s identity.
SB 335 by Senator Anthony J. Cannella
(R-Ceres) – Nursery Advisory Board.
SB 401 by Senator Richard Pan
(D-Sacramento) – Child care facilities: state employees.
SB 407 by Senator Bob Wieckowski
(D-Fremont) – Common interest developments: noncommercial solicitation.
SB 410 by Senator Janet Nguyen
(R-Garden Grove) – Civil service: veterans’ hiring preference: active duty
SB 427 by Senator Connie M. Leyva
(D-Chino) – Public water systems: community water systems: lead user service
SB 455 by Senator Josh Newman
(D-Fullerton) – Pupil enrollment: military dependents.
SB 489 by Senator Steven Bradford
(D-Gardena) – Workers’ compensation: change of physician.
SB 525 by Senator
Richard Pan (D-Sacramento) – Public employees’ retirement.
SB 554 by Senator Jeff E. Stone
(R-Temecula) – Nurse practitioners: physician assistants: buprenorphine.
SB 628 by Senator Ricardo Lara (D-Bell
Gardens) – Local educational agencies: governing board elections: Los Angeles
Community College District.
SB 654 by Senator
Bill Dodd (D-Napa) – Local moratorium: gambling tables.
SB 666 by Senator
Andy Vidak (R-Hanford) – California Gambling Control Commission
and Department of Justice: postemployment restrictions.
SB 684 by Senator Patricia C. Bates
(R-Laguna Niguel) – Incompetence to stand trial: conservatorship: treatment.
SB 704 by Senator Cathleen Galgiani
(D-Stockton) – Division of Boating and Waterways: invasive aquatic plants
SB 764 by Senator John Moorlach
(R-Costa Mesa) – Real estate trust fund accounts: fidelity insurance.