Halfway through 2014, California lawmakers are a week into their summer recess.
You can probably picture it: Legislators back home, updating constituents at town hall meetings and Rotary luncheons, talking up bills they authored, stumped for and stomped down.
At the California Apartment Association, we’re as eager as anyone to talk about our continued successes during the past six months in Sacramento.
With guidance from CAA’s Legislative Steering Committee, CAA analyzed and lobbied for or against more than 70 bills that could help or hurt the rental housing industry.
As you’ll see below, we have had great success stopping the most harmful bills, while forcing dramatic changes to bills that threatened the financial well being of rental property owners and managers alike. We’ve also succeeded in keeping several business-friendly bills alive.
Highlights from the year so far:
Ellis Act legislation
As you’ve read in earlier reports at www.caanet.org, we stopped both proposed Ellis Act bills. Both proposals would have greatly limited a rental property owner’s ability to cease operation.
AB 2405 by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, would have moved all Ellis Act evictions from the expedited unlawful detainer process to the general civil court. CAA shut it down in the Assembly Judiciary Committee.
SB 1439 by Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, had a longer life. The bill would have required rental property owners to hold their property for five years before converting or going out of business. CAA finally stopped that bill in the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee.
Electric vehicle charging stations
As initially written, AB 2565 by Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi, D-Torrence, would have required property owners to install one EV charging station for every 50 parking spaces at a given property. CAA successfully negotiated amendments to require that the requesting tenant be responsible for all costs of installation, maintenance and operation of the EV charging station.
Water meters
CAA co-sponsored AB 2451 by Tom Daly, D-Anaheim, continues toward the governor’s desk. It is currently on the approval list in the Senate Appropriations Committee and is expected to make the approval of water submeters much easier in California.
AB 1983 by Assemblyman Adam Gray, D-Merced, attempted to authorize unlimited fees be imposed on tenants for water use through a submeter. It died without a hearing in the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee.
SB 750 by Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, has been alive for two years now. Among other things, the bill authorizes a landlord or a billing company to charge a tenant an administrative fee when a submeter is used to measure the tenant’s water use. It also allows for late fees when tenants do not pay their water bill. Unfortunately, we have not yet been able to come to an agreement on the wording for this legislation. We will continue working on this issue.
Housing trust fund
SB 391 by Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, would have imposed a $75 fee on the recording of various documents. The bill was unsuccessful in the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee. Shortly after its demise, the sponsors of that legislation were able to gain approval for dollars through the cap-and-trade exchange so that housing can be built near transit systems. The cap-and-trade market, where greenhouse gas emission allowances are bought and sold by entities, will provide some of the dollars necessary to produce needed affordable housing here in California.
Gardens
AB 2561 by Assemblyman Steven Bradford, D-Gardena, as originally introduced, would have required rental property owners to allow tenants to grow unlimited amounts of vegetation inside and outside the building. At CAA’s request, the bill was drastically amended to limit plants to approved containers in the backyards of single-family and duplex homes.
Taxation
CAA, along with a large coalition of interest groups, successfully stopped SB 1021 by Sen. Wolk. This bill attempted to overturn a court case that prohibited school districts from imposing different parcel tax rates on various properties. If it had become law, school districts could have assessed single family homes one, flat-rate parcel tax while charging apartment building owners a rate based on each front door at the property or on the square footage of the property. It failed passage in the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee.