Existing law prescribes the procedures by which a proposed ordinance may be submitted to the governing board of a district by an initiative measure. These procedures do not apply to specified districts, including a district formed under a law that does not provide a procedure for elections. This bill would authorize the voters of any district that has authority to impose a transactions and use tax for transportation purposes to impose a retail transactions and use tax by an initiative measure. The bill would prohibit the initiative tax from exceeding the maximum authorized rate for a tax imposed by an ordinance enacted by the governing body of the district, and the bill would require the initiative measure to contain all spending limitations and substantive accountability standards applicable to a tax imposed by an ordinance enacted by the governing body. To the extent the bill would increase the duties of county elections officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
SB 117 is a procedural bill that formally declares the Legislature's intent to later enact statutory changes to the Budget Act of 2025. It does not implement any specific budget policies, funding allocations, or changes to existing law at this time. The bill simply sets the stage for future legislative action on the state budget framework. It passed the Senate unanimously (28-10) and was referred to the Assembly's Budget Committee for further consideration.
AB 117 is a placeholder bill expressing the Legislature's intent to enact statutory changes concerning the Budget Act of 2025. This bill is an initial step in the annual state budget process, signaling that specific financial and policy adjustments will be detailed in subsequent legislation.
(1) Existing law, the Bergeson-Peace Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank Act, establishes the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (I-Bank) in the Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development. Existing law, among other things, authorizes the I-Bank to issue bonds, make loans, and provide financial assistance for various types of projects that qualify as economic development or public development facilities. This bill would enact the Community Stabilization Act. The bill would require the I-Bank to develop and administer a program to issue a security, and to cease issuing a security on January 1, 2030. The bill would specify that the purpose of the program is to help stabilize property values in disaster-affected areas by allowing qualified investors, as defined, to purchase tradable securities, with the funding allocated to qualifying investment entities that purchase and manage residential land until it can be resold at fair market value. The bill would require profits from the land investments to be shared among investors and the I-Bank according to certain percentages, with qualifying investment entities being reimbursed for their administrative costs. This bill would establish various requirements for the security, including that it be tradeable, comply with specified municipal bonding requirements, and that it be funded by investments made by qualified investors using funds available pursuant to the federal Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. The bill would require the security to repay the investment upon a liquidity event and within 7 years of the purchase of an investment property, and would describe a liquidity event as the refinance or sale of the investment property. This bill would require funds raised from the purchase of the security to be deposited in the Community Stabilization Fund, which would be created by the bill, and would require all moneys in the fund to be continuously appropriated to the I-Bank. The bill would require the I-Bank to allocate moneys in the fund to qualifying investment entities to be invested in the Counties of Los Angeles and Ventura and in those areas that are covered by a state of disaster declared by the Governor. The bill would require a qualifying investment entity to meet prescribed requirements, including that it be a specified entity, including, among others, a nonprofit organization, as provided. The bill would also impose various requirements on the qualifying investment entity relating to the purchase, maintenance, and sale of the investment property, including, among other things, limiting the purchase of property to residential property that has been damaged or destroyed by the wildfires that began on January 7, 2025, in the Counties of Los Angeles and Ventura, as specified. The bill would require the I-Bank to submit a final report on the program to the Legislature, the Governor, and the Department of Finance no later than January 1, 2034, as specified. By establishing a new continuously appropriated fund, the Community Stabilization Fund, this bill would make an appropriation. (2) This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Counties of Los Angeles and Ventura. (3) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law prohibits a person, a state or local governmental agency, or a public utility from substantially diverting or obstructing the natural flow of, or substantially changing or using any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake, or depositing or disposing of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake, unless prescribed requirements are met, including written notification to the Department of Fish and Wildlife regarding the activity. Existing law requires the department to determine whether the activity may substantially adversely affect an existing fish and wildlife resource and, if so, to provide a draft lake or streambed alteration agreement to the person, agency, or utility. Existing law prescribes various requirements for lake and streambed alteration agreements. Existing law also establishes various exemptions from these provisions. This bill would, until January 1, 2027, exempt from these provisions, subject to certain requirements, projects to repair or reconstruct a bridge 30 feet long or less or a culvert 70 feet long or less within the County of Sutter that has been damaged or destroyed as a result of fire, flood, storm, earthquake, land subsidence, gradual earth movement, or landslide, between January 1, 2022, and December 31, 2024, inclusive, except as specified. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the County of Sutter.
Existing law establishes the State Transportation Infrastructure Climate Adaptation Program, administered by the Department of Transportation, for purposes of planning, developing, and implementing projects adapting state transportation infrastructure to climate change. Existing law requires the department, in consultation with, among others, the Transportation Agency and the California Transportation Commission, to develop a program of its top priority climate adaptation projects and to submit projects in this program to the commission for adoption. Existing law requires the department, in developing the program of projects, to consider specified criteria, including, but not limited to, the benefits of the project to preserving or enhancing regional or statewide mobility, economy, goods movement, and safety, and other benefits associated with protecting the asset. This bill would require the department, in consultation with the commission and the agency, and on or before July 1, 2026, and annually thereafter, to create a prioritized list of projects of statewide and regional significance, as defined, to better prepare the state for extreme weather-related events, with priority based on specified criteria. The bill would require the department, on or before January 1, 2027, and annually thereafter, to submit to the Legislature a report containing the prioritized list of projects.
Existing law establishes the Department of Transportation and vests it with full possession and control of the state highway system. This bill would require the department to prepare a report evaluating current efforts and potential opportunities to streamline the processes and procedures for the delivery of safety enhancement projects on the state highway system, as specified. The bill would require the department to submit the report to the Legislature on or before January 1, 2027.
(1) Existing law creates the Metropolitan Transportation Commission as a local area planning agency for the 9-county San Francisco Bay area with comprehensive regional transportation planning and other related responsibilities. Existing law creates various transit districts located in the San Francisco Bay area, with specified powers and duties relating to providing public transit services. This bill would establish the Public Transit Revenue Measure District with jurisdiction extending throughout the boundaries of the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara and the City and County of San Francisco and would require the district to be governed by the same board that governs the commission, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize a retail transactions and use tax applicable to the entire district to be imposed by the board of the district or by a qualified voter initiative for a duration of 14 years, and in an amount of 0.5% in each of the above-described counties located within the district and 1% in the City and County of San Francisco, subject to voter approval at the November 3, 2026, statewide general election. After payments are made for various administrative expenses, the bill would require the district to transfer specified portions of the proceeds of the tax to the commission for allocation to certain programs and other purposes and for allocation to the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, commonly known as Caltrain, the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, and other specified transit agencies, for transit operations expenses, and would require the district to transfer specified portions of the proceeds of the tax directly to other specified local transportation agencies, including the San Mateo County Transit District and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, for public transit expenses, as prescribed. By adding to the duties of local officials with respect to elections procedures for this bill on behalf of the district, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law requires the commission to develop regional transit service objectives, develop performance measures of efficiency and effectiveness, specify uniform data requirements to assess public transit service benefits and costs, and formulate procedures for establishing regional transportation priorities in the allocation of funds for transportation purposes. This bill would require the commission to contract with, and manage, a third-party consultant to conduct a financial efficiency review of the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, Caltrain, the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, and the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, as specified. The bill would require the review to be completed in 2 phases, with the analysis for the 2nd phase only required if the tax measure is approved by the voters of the Public Transit Revenue Measure District. The bill would require the consultant to transmit the analysis for each phase to an oversight committee, which the bill would create with a prescribed membership, for review and adoption. The bill would require a transit operator subject to the financial efficiency review to take specified actions in response to the analysis for the first phase and, subject to review of the oversight committee, to adopt an implementation plan that describes the cost-saving measures identified in the analysis for the 2nd phase that the operator plans to implement, as specified. The bill would require a transit operator subject to the financial efficiency review to verify its compliance with the requirements of the review as a condition of receiving funds from the tax measure approved by the voters of the district. The bill would require each transit operator to which the commission allocates funds to comply with a maintenance of effort requirement as a condition of receiving those funds, as provided. This bill would require the commission, if the tax measure is approved by the voters of the district and other conditions are satisfied, to establish an ad hoc adjudication committee for a transit operator subject to the above-described financial efficiency review to assess and adjudicate petitions submitted by a participating county transportation entity, as defined, or a county board of supervisors with regard to the performance of the transit operator within the geographic jurisdiction of the entity submitting the petition, as provided. As part of this process, the bill would require an ad hoc adjudication committee, among other things, to determine whether to direct the commission to withhold funding from the tax measure allocated to the transit operator if the committee agrees with a claim regarding the performance of the transit operator, as specified. This bill would require the commission to submit a report to the Legislature on or before March 31, 2026, on its forecast of the impacts to ridership on the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, Caltrain, the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, and the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency from planned transportation projects and strategies included in its adopted regional transportation plan. By adding to the duties of the commission, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) The Bay Area County Traffic and Transportation Funding Act authorizes the formation of county transportation authorities in each of the 9 bay area counties, and provides for the imposition of a retail transaction and use tax in each of those counties of either 12 of 1% or 1%, subject to voter approval, with revenues to be used for various transportation purposes. This bill would instead provide that a retail transaction and use tax imposed under those provisions in the County of San Mateo or the City and County of San Francisco may be imposed in 18 of 1% increments up to 1%. (4) This bill would declare that its provisions are severable. (5) 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law, commencing January 1, 2019, made various changes to the law governing ignition interlock devices (IID) , including, among other things, requiring a person who has been convicted of driving a motor vehicle under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, as specified, to install for a specified period of time as ordered by the court, an IID on the vehicle they operate, provided however that installation of an IID is discretionary for a first offender, as specified; authorizing a person convicted of driving a motor vehicle under the influence, if all other requirements are satisfied, including the installation of an IID, to apply for a restricted driver's license without completing a period of license suspension or revocation; and requiring ignition interlock device manufacturers to be in compliance with specified provisions relating to payment for the costs of an ignition interlock device. Existing law makes these changes operative until January 1, 2026. On January 1, 2026, existing law, as it relates to these provisions, is generally reinstated to read as it read prior to January 1, 2019. Existing law makes it a crime to violate certain provisions relating to IIDs and motor vehicles equipped with IIDs. This bill would extend the operation of these provisions until January 1, 2033, and would instead reinstate the law to how it read prior to January 1, 2019, on January 1, 2033. By extending the application of a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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 authorizes the limit line, intersection, or other places where a driver is required to stop to be equipped with an automated traffic enforcement system if the governmental agency utilizing the system meets certain requirements, including identifying the system with signs and ensuring that the system meets specified criteria on minimum yellow light change intervals. Existing law authorizes, until January 1, 2032, the Cities of Los Angeles, San Jose, Oakland, Glendale, and Long Beach, and the City and County of San Francisco to establish a speed safety system pilot program for speed enforcement that utilizes a speed safety system in specified areas, if the system meets specified requirements. Existing law prescribes specified requirements for a notice of violation issued pursuant to these provisions, and requires a violation of a speed law that is recorded by a speed safety system to be subject only to a specified civil penalty. This bill would additionally authorize a city, county, or city and county to establish an automated traffic enforcement system program to use those systems to detect a violation of a traffic control signal, if the system meets specified requirements. The bill would require a violation of a traffic control signal that is recorded by an automated traffic enforcement system to be subject to escalating civil penalties, as specified. The bill would, among other things, provide for the issuance of a notice of violation, an initial review, an administrative hearing, and an appeals process, as specified, for a violation under this program. The bill would clarify that a local jurisdiction may utilize an automated traffic enforcement system pursuant to these provisions or the above-described provisions authorizing the utilization of an automated traffic enforcement system. The bill would require a local jurisdiction utilizing the above-described provisions to take into account the relative risk to traffic and pedestrian safety posed by prohibited right turns on red compared to proceeding through the intersection against a red signal. Existing law establishes a $25 filing fee for specified appeals and petitions. This bill would require a $25 filing fee for an appeal challenging a notice of violation issued as a result of an automated traffic enforcement system. Existing provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 70615 of the Government Code proposed by AB 289 to be operative only if this bill and AB 289 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
