The Southwest California Legislative Council meeting agenda covered several propositions and legislative items to be voted on. The meeting was held on September 17, 2018 at Realtor House in Murrieta and was presided over by Chair Greg Morrison. The agenda included reports on 10 California ballot propositions to be voted on in November and legislative items covering topics such as housing, homelessness prevention, water infrastructure, and independent contractor guidelines.

1. MEETING AGENDA
Monday, September 17, 2018
Realtor House, 26529 Jefferson Ave, Murrieta
Presiding: Greg Morrison, Chair
2018 Strategic Initiatives
Budget & Tax Reform / Job Creation and Retention / Healthcare / Infrastructure & the Environment/ Public Safety
Call to Order, Roll Call & Introductions: 12:00 p.m.
Chair Report
Approval of Minutes Action
Legislative Report # 9 Action
1. California Proposition 1, the Housing Programs and Veterans' Loans Bond
2. California Proposition 2, the Use Millionaire's Tax Revenue for Homelessness Prevention Housing Bonds
Measure.
3. California Proposition 3, the California Water Infrastructure and Watershed Conservation Bond Initiative.
4. California Proposition 4, the Children's Hospital Bonds Initiative.
5. California Proposition 5, the Property Tax Transfer Initiative.
6. California Proposition 6, the Voter Approval for Future Gas and Vehicle Taxes and 2017 Tax Repeal
Initiative.
7. California Proposition 7, the Permanent Daylight Saving Time Measure.
8. California Proposition 8, the Limits on Dialysis Clinics' Revenue and Required Refunds Initiative.
9. California Proposition 10, the Local Rent Control Initiative.
10. California Proposition 12, the Farm Animal Confinement Initiative.
11. Bill Tracker review
Speaker and Chamber Announcements Information
Our lunch sponsor Tyler & Bursch, LLP Thank You
Adjourn – Next Meeting October 15, 2018
Follow us on:
The Southwest California Legislative Council Thanks Our Partners:
Southwest Riverside Country
Association of Realtors
Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water
District
CR&R Waste Services
Abbott Vascular
Temecula Valley Chamber of
Commerce
Murrieta/Wildomar Chamber of
Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of
Menifee Valley Chamber of
Commerce
Perris Valley Chamber of Commerce
Canyon Lake Chamber of Commerce
Commerce Bank of Temecula Valley
California Apartment Association
Southwest Healthcare Systems
Temecula Valley Hospital
EDC of Southwest California
Paradise Chevrolet Cadillac
The Murrieta Temecula Group
Southern California Edison

2. Southwest California Legislative Council
MEETING MINUTES
Monday, August 20, 2018
Realtor House, 26529 Jefferson Ave, Murrieta
Presiding: Chairman Greg Morrison
Strategic Initiatives
Budget & Tax Reform / Job Creation and Business Retention / Healthcare / Infrastructure & The
Environment/ Public Safety
Canyon Lake Chamber of Commerce
Lake Elsinore Chamber of Commerce
Menifee Valley Chamber of Commerce
Murrieta/Wildomar Chamber of Commerce
Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce
Present Name Company
A Benoit, Ben (LE) CA Apt. Association
P Bouvet, Adam (MW) The Mill
P Braicovich, Alex (LE) CR&R, Inc.
A Cross, Eric (LE) Express Employment Professionals
P Frank, Dennis (T) D.R. Frank & Associates
A Hitzeman, Don (MW) The Law Office of Hitzeman & Evenson
A Kelliher, John (T) Grapeline Wine Tours
P McLeod, Erik (MW) Pacific Premier Bank
P Morris, Andy (MW) Farmers Insurance
P Morrison, Greg (LE) EVMWD
A Neet, Brad (MW) Southwest Healthcare Systems
P Nolta, Paul SBDC
A Phillips, Derek
A Ruiz, Adam (T) AR Homes Loans Direct
P Sparkman, Joan (T) Southwest Healthcare Systems
A Summers, Karen (MW) Rancon Real Estate
A Walker, Barry (CL) Walker Trial Lawyers
P= Present A=Absent EX= Excused
CL=Canyon Lake LE=Lake Elsinore M=Menifee MW=Murrieta/Wildomar P=Perris
T=Temecula

3. Southwest California Legislative Council
Chamber Representatives
A Cousins, Kim Lake Elsinore Chamber
P Ellis, Patrick Murrieta/Wildomar Chamber
A Estrada, Heather Murrieta/Wildomar Chamber
A LoPiccolo, Tony Menifee Chamber
P Monroe, Mike Murrieta/Wildomar Chamber
P Niebla, Kimberly Murrieta/Wildomar Chamber
P Sullivan, Alice Temecula Chamber
P Strada, Heather Murrieta/Wildomar Chamber
P Turnbow, Laura Temecula Chamber
P Wunderlich, Gene SWCLC
Guest Attendance
Present Name Company E-mail
 Ambrose, Brian City of Murrieta
 Arias, Consuelo Senator Jeff Stone consuelo.arias@sen.ca.gov
 Arlt, Patti MWD of SoCal parlt@mwdh2o.com
 Ashworth, Daneen Meridian HR daneen@mymeridianhr.com
 Balderrama, Olivia County Supervisor Washington
 Bott, Jeff The Toll Roads (TCA) jbott@thetollroads.com
 Connors, Brian Southwest Healthcare System
 Dennstedt, Brenda Rep. Ken Calvert & WMWD bdennstedt@wmwd.com
 Freese, Tim Alta Pacific Bank
 Hellweg, Opal County Supervisor Washington ohellweg@rivco.org
 Herrera, Debbie Senator Jeff Stone debbie.herren@sen.ca.gov
 Johnston, Doug Petra Geoscience djohnston@petra-inc.com
 Joyce, Jeremy Old Republic Title jjoyce@ortc.com
 Krzenski, Keith PKC Kuebler, APC keith.krzenski@pkckuebler.com
 Levasheff, Drake Azusa Pacific University dlevasheff@apu.edu
 Lopez, Al Western Water
 Lynch, Connie SRCAR ceo@srcar.org
 MacDougal, Kristy Assemblywoman Waldron kristy.macdougall@asm.ca.gov
 Myers, Morris MSJC mmyers@msjc.edu
 O'Neal, Paul Nevada Hydro pauloneal@gmail.com
 Perry, Heather Senator Morrell heather.perry@sen.ca.gov
 Ramirez, Alma EMWD ramireza@emwd.org
 Rountree, Roxanne EMWD rountrer@emwd.org
 Ruiz, Yvonne Wine Country Notary yvonne@winecountrynotary.com
 Sayles, Sundae Supervisor Washington ssayles@rivco.org
 Stilwell, Samantha Assemblywoman Melendez samantha.stilwell@asm.ca.gov
 Tate-Meyer, Carrie MSJC cmeyer@msjc.edu
 Terrell, Randy

4. Southwest California Legislative Council
 Valencia, Meggon Rancho CA Water District valenciam@ranchowater.com
 Wilson, Walter SRCAR walter@srcar.org
 Wunderlich, Linda Valley Business Journal publishertvbj@verizon.net
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Morrison at 12:15pm
Chairman Morrison thanked Sally Myers, Sizzler Restaurant, for providing the wonderful lunch!
ACTION ITEMS
Approval of Minutes
Meeting minutes from the July 23, 2018 SWCLC meeting were reviewed. The motion was made to approve the July 23,
2018 meeting minutes as written. The motion was seconded and carried by a unanimous vote.
AB 2455, as amended, (3) Kalra. Home care aide registry: disclosure of personal contact information.
Recommended action: OPPOSE – The SWCLC voted unanimously to OPPOSE AB 2455
AB 2463, as amended, (2) Quirk-Silva. Small Business Technical Assistance and Expansion Act of 2018.
Recommended action: SUPPORT – The SWCLC voted unanimously to SUPPORT AB 2463
AB 3075, as amended,(2) Berman. Office of Elections Cybersecurity
Recommended action: OPPOSE – The SWCLC voted unanimously to OPPOSE AB 3075
AB 3178, as amended, (5) Rubio. Integrated waste management plans: source reduction and recycling element:
diversion requirements.
Recommended action: SUPPORT – The SWCLC voted unanimously to SUPPORT AB 3178
SB 100, as amended, (9) De León. California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program: emissions of greenhouse gases.
Recommended action: OPPOSE – The SWCLC voted unanimously to OPPOSE SB 100
SB 1186, as amended, Hill. Law enforcement agencies: surveillance: policies.
Recommended action: OPPOSE – The SWCLC voted unanimously to OPPOSE SB 1186
SB 845, Water Quality: Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund
Recommended action: OPPOSE – The SWCLC voted unanimously to OPPOSE SB 845
California Proposition 11, the Ambulance Employees Paid On-Call Breaks, Training, and Mental Health Services
Initiative
The SWCLC voted unanimously to SUPPORT Proposition 11
Dynamex Independent Contractor Decision
Review of CalChamber’s request of legislators to provide clarification of the guidelines related to independent
contractors.
Assignment of 2018 Ballot Propositions
Prop 1 – $4 billion in bonds for Veteran housing programs Adam Ruiz
Prop 2 - Millionaire’s tax for $2 billion in bonds for homelessness prevention housing Dennis Frank
Prop 3 - $8.877 billion in water related infrastructure and environmental bonds Greg Morrison
Prop 4 - $1.5 billion in bonds for children’s hospital Joan Sparkman/Brad Neet
Prop 5 – Transfer tax assessments for 55+ and severely disabled Gene Wunderlich
Prop 6 – Repeal of 2017 fuel tax and future fee increase vote requirement John Kelliher
Prop 7 – Permanent Daylight Savings Time Andy Morris
Prop 8 – Dialysis refund requirements Brad Neet
Prop 10 – Rent Control Adam Bouvet
Prop 12 – Sale of meat from animals confined in spaces below a specific size Erik McLeod

5. Southwest California Legislative Council
US Chamber of Commerce
Reported by Vartan Djinaniann:
Djinaniann addressed the current trade and tariff issues and the importance of remaining competitive in the world market.
Key points:
 6 million jobs go toward manufacturing export products
 41 million manufacturing jobs in US rely on trade
 98% of manufacturing jobs are small businesses
 US Chamber feels there is the need for trade agreements rather than tariffs
 Collaboration and partnerships with other countries are needed to effectively negotiate with China
 Requested details on businesses that are being effected by tariffs
Senator Stone
Report by Debbie Herrera:
Governor Brown appointed Senator Stone to the Wildfire Committee. The committee will address vegetation
management. An audit of DMV processes was proposed but failed to pass.
Senator Morrell
Report by Heather Perry:
SB 174 was amended from an emission reduction bill to eligibility to serve on commissions to be expanded to all
Californians regardless of immigration status.
An event to recognize first responders will be held on September 22nd
in Rancho Cucamonga.
Assemblymember Melissa Melendez
Reported by Samantha Stilwell:
Assemblymember Melendez is co-author of AB3162 – Additional oversight for sober living homes. Melendez opposes
SB1172 which would require less accountability related to high-speed rail cost overruns.
Assemblymember Marie Waldron
Report by Kristy MacDougal:
Bad Bill: SB 439 – Most crimes committed by a child less than 11 years of age cannot be prosecuted.
County Supervisor Chuck Washington
State of the County is scheduled for Thursday, September 6th
at Pechanga
Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce
Reported by Alice Sullivan:
 Women In Business, Thursday, August 30, 2018 at Pechanga Resort & Casino
 Professional Development – August 24th
– Topic: Leadership & Critical Thinking
 Monte Carlo – Wednesday, September 19th
at Wilson Creek Winery
Murrieta/Wildomar Chamber of Commerce
Reported by Patrick Ellis
 Ellis thanked all for attending the Murrieta Chamber’s Awards event
 Get Shamrocked – end of September
 November 14th
– Economic Outlook and launching of Explore Murrieta
SWCLC thanked Sizzler Restaurant for their generous donation of lunch for today’s meeting.
Adjournment: 1:25 pm
Next meeting Monday, September 17, 2018

6. Southwest California Legislative Council
Legislative item #1: Action
California Proposition 1, the Housing Programs and Veterans' Loans Bond
Presentation: Adam Ruiz
Recommended action:
A "yes" vote supports this measure to authorize $4 billion in general obligation bonds for housing-
related programs, loans, grants, and projects and housing loans for veterans.
A "no" vote opposes this measure to authorize $4 billion in general obligation bonds for housing-related
programs, loans, grants, and projects and housing loans for veterans.
Overview
Proposition 1 would authorize $4 billion in general obligation bonds for housing-related programs, loans,
grants, and projects and housing loans for veterans. The measure would distribute bond revenue as follows:
 $1 billion for the CalVet Home Loan Program, which offers loans to veterans for the purchase of homes,
farms, units in cooperative developments, and mobile homes;
 $1.5 billion for the Multifamily Housing Program (MHP), which offers loans for the construction,
rehabilitation, and preservation of rental housing for persons with incomes of 60 percent or below of the
area median income;
 $150 million for the Transit-Oriented Development Implementation Fund, which offers loans and grants to
local governments and developers for housing projects near transit stations;
 $300 million for the Regional Planning, Housing, and Infill Incentive Account, which offers grants for infill
infrastructure that supports high-density affordable and mixed-income housing;
 $150 million for the Home Purchase Assistance Program, which offers loans to low-income and moderate-
income homebuyers;
 $300 million for the Joe Serna, Jr. Farmworker Housing Grant Fund, which offers grants and loans for
farmworker housing;
 $300 million for the Local Housing Trust Matching Grant Program, which offers matching grants to local
housing trust funds for "pilot programs to demonstrate innovative, cost-saving approaches to creating or
preserving affordable housing;" and
 $300 million for the Self-Help Housing Fund, which provides forgivable loans for mortgage assistance, the
development of multiple home ownership units, and manufactured homes.

7. Southwest California Legislative Council
Legislative item #2: Action
California Proposition 2, the Use Millionaire's Tax Revenue for Homelessness Prevention Housing Bonds
Measure
Presentation: Dennis Frank
Recommended action:
A yes vote supports authorizing the state to use revenue from Proposition 63 (2004)—a 1 percent tax on
income above $1 million for mental health services—on $2 billion in revenue bonds for homelessness
prevention housing for persons in need of mental health services.
A no vote opposes authorizing the state to use revenue from Proposition 63 (2004) on $2 billion
in revenue bonds for homelessness prevention housing for persons in need of mental health services.

8. Southwest California Legislative Council
Overview
The California State Legislature passed legislation to spend revenue from Proposition 63 on revenue bonds for
homelessness prevention housing in 2016. The legislation, however, did not go into effect because of pending
litigation over whether revenue from the millionaire's tax could be spent on homelessness prevention
housing. Unlike general obligation bonds, revenue bonds do not require a public vote in California. Proposition
2 was referred to the ballot because the revenue for the bond would come from a tax that was created through
a ballot initiative, Proposition 63. In California, changes to ballot initiatives require a vote of the public.
Legislative item #3: Action
California Proposition 3, the California Water Infrastructure and Watershed Conservation Bond
Initiative
Presentation: Greg Morrison
Recommended action:

9. Southwest California Legislative Council
A "yes" vote supports this measure to authorize $8.877 billion in general obligation bonds for water
infrastructure, groundwater supplies and storage, surface water storage and dam repairs, watershed and
fisheries improvements, and habitat protection and restoration.
A "no" vote opposes this measure to authorize $8.877 billion in general obligation bonds for water
infrastructure, groundwater supplies and storage, surface water storage and dam repairs, watershed and
fisheries improvements, and habitat protection and restoration.
Overview
Proposition 3 would issue $8.877 billion in general obligation bonds for water-related infrastructure and
environmental projects. The state fiscal analyst said the bond would generate about $8.4 billion in interest over
a 40-year period, meaning the bond would cost the state a total of $17.3 billion.
The largest amount of bond revenue—$2.355 billion—would go toward conservancies and state parks to
restore and protect watershed lands and nonprofits and local agencies for river parkways. The measure would
also allocate $640 million to groundwater sustainability agencies to implement their plans and $500 million for
public water system infrastructure improvements to meet safe drinking water standards, including the treatment
of contaminants, or ensure affordable drinking water. The ballot initiative would require that $1.398 billion be
spent on projects benefitting what the state defines as disadvantaged communities and an additional $2.637
billion be prioritized for disadvantaged communities. California defines disadvantaged communities as
communities with an annual median household income less than 80 percent of the statewide annual median
household income. With a median household income of $63,783 in 2017, according to the U.S. Census Burea,
80 percent was $51,026.

10. Southwest California Legislative Council

11. Southwest California Legislative Council
Legislative Item #4 Action
California_Proposition_4,_Children's_Hospital_Bonds_Initiative_(2018)
Presentation: Brad Neet & Joan Sparkman
Recommended action: Support – Yes vote
A yes vote supports authorizing $1.5 billion in bonds for the construction, expansion, renovation, and
equipping of children's hospitals in California.
A no vote opposes authorizing $1.5 billion in bonds for the construction, expansion, renovation, and
equipping of children's hospitals in California.
Overview
Proposition 4 would authorize $1.5 billion in general obligation bonds to provide for the Children's Hospital
Bond Act Fund. The fund would be used to award grants to children's hospitals for construction, expansion,
renovation, and equipment projects. The initiative would allocate the $1.5 billion in bond funds as follows:
 72 percent ($1.08 billion) to seven nonprofit hospitals providing comprehensive services to high volumes of
children eligible for governmental programs and children with special health needs eligible for California
Children’s Services.
 18 percent ($270 million) to five University of California general acute hospitals, including the University of
California, Davis Children's Hospital; Mattel Children's Hospital at University of California, Los Angeles;
University Children's Hospital at University of California, Irvine; University of California, San Francisco
Children's Hospital; and University of California, San Diego Children's Hospital.
 10 percent ($150 million) to public and private hospitals that provide pediatric services to children eligible
for California Children’s Services.
The state's legislative analyst estimated that interest on the bond would be $1.4 billion over 35 years, bringing
the total cost of the bond to $2.9 billion.
Proposition review from Brad & Joan
Summary:
Proposition 4 would authorize $1.5 billion in general obligation bonds to provide for the Children's Hospital
Bond Act Fund. The fund would be used to award grants to children's hospitals for construction, expansion,
renovation, and equipment projects. The initiative
would allocate the $1.5 billion in bond funds as follows:
• providing comprehensive services to high volumes of children eligible for governmental programs and
children with special
health needs eligible for
California Children’s
Services.
• including the University of California, Davis Children's Hospital; Mattel Children's
72 percent ($1.08 billion) to seven nonprofit hospitals
18 percent ($270 million) to five University of California general acute hospitals

12. Southwest California Legislative Council
Hospital at University of California, Los Angeles; University Children's Hospital at University of
California, Irvine; University of California, San Francisco Children's Hospital; and University of
California, San Diego Children's Hospital.
• that provide pediatric services to children
eligible for California Children’s Services.
The state's legislative analyst estimated that interest on the bond would be $1.4 billion over 35 years, bringing
the total cost of the bond to $2.9 billion.
The 2018 ballot initiative is the third bond measure related to children's hospitals in California.
California Children's Hospital Association developed all three of the ballot initiatives. In 2004, 58.26 percent of
electors voted to pass Proposition 61, a $750-million bond measure for children's hospitals. In 2008, 55.26
percent of electors voted to pass California Proposition 3, a $980-million bond measure for children's hospitals.
The California Children's Hospital Association developed both of the ballot initiatives.
The California Children's Hospital Association's Yes on Children's Hospital, a ballot measure committee, had
raised $10.22 million to support the ballot initiative. Contributions were from eight children's hospitals that
would receive bond revenue from the measure. No PAC had been formed to oppose Proposition 4.
The fiscal impact statement is as follows:
“ State costs of $2.9 billion to pay off principal ($1.5 billion) and interest ($1.4 billion) on bonds over a 35-
year period. Annual payments would average $84 million. Annual payments would be lower than this
average in the initial and final few years, and somewhat higher in the intervening years.
Support
James Stein, a pediatric surgeon, Maria Minon, chief medical officer of CHOC Children's, and Roberto
Gugig, a pediatric gastroenterologist, wrote the official argument found in the state voter information guide in
support of Proposition 4:
“ There are eight California not-for-profit Children’s Hospitals and five more University of California
Children’s Hospitals. Over two million times each year, seriously ill children receive highly specialized care
in a California Children’s Hospital. No matter what a family can pay. Children with complex medical
conditions and life threatening diseases. Cancer. Sickle Cell. Cystic Fibrosis.
We perform 97% of all pediatric organ transplants, 96% of all pediatric heart surgeries, and 76% of all pediatric
cancer treatments. With each new research breakthrough, new lifesaving technology, the finest pediatric
specialists, cures happen every single day at California’s Children’s Hospitals. Today, 85% of children with
leukemia leave our hospitals cured.
As premier pediatric research centers, we are making breakthroughs that keep every California child healthy
without ever needing to walk through our doors.
Because of our success, the demand on us grows. We’ve become regional hubs, with children now referred to
us from many other hospitals in California.
Proposition 4 asks voters to consider investing less than $40 per year for each patient we see . . . money to
help us build more capacity to cure more California children. 14 years ago, Californians supported our first
bond. We have honored that trust ever since. Every dollar has been spent on building new facilities,
modernizing older ones, adding more beds and purchasing the best and most advanced medical technology
. . . curing more children.
The State Treasurer’s Office administers all state bond funds, but testified to the Senate and Assembly Health
Committees that “this program in particular has been very successful.”
We take great professional pride in what we do. As human beings we are privileged to witness the
innocent strength in children, the love in their families, the resolve in our staffs, the generosity of our
benefactors, and the triumph of the human spirit. We invite you to join the millions of California voters who
have supported Children’s Hospitals.
We can all vote Yes on Proposition 4—Building to Cure More Children.
10 percent ($150 million) to public and private hospitals

13. Southwest California Legislative Council
Opposition:
Arguments
Official arguments
Gary Wesley wrote the official argument found in the state voter information guide in opposition to Proposition
4:
“ This is another general obligation bond measure. It asks voters permission for the State of California to
borrow more money by selling “bonds” that would need to be repaid with interest (potentially through
higher property taxes) usually over many decades. I say “potentially” because sometimes bond proceeds
are used for financing but repaid by program recipients—such as homeowners under the former Cal-Vet
home-farm loan program.
Bond measures present several questions:
1. How far in debt is the government already?
2. What is the expected total cost of the measure to the public?
3. Are the proposed uses for the money specified?
4. Are the proposed uses justified—given other things that may be needed or desired? 5. Should voters
continue to finance projects through higher property taxes when California’s property tax system is so
unfair?
CALIFORNIA’S PROPERTY TAX SYSTEM IS UNFAIR
In 1978, California voters approved a voter initiative then-known as Proposition 13. The initiative added
provisions to the California Constitution that prevented the “reassessment” of real

14. Southwest California Legislative Council
Legislative item #5: Action
California Proposition 5, the Property Tax Transfer Initiative
Presentation: Gene Wunderlich
Recommended action: SUPPORT
A "yes" vote supports amending Proposition 13 (1978) to allow homebuyers who are age 55 or older or
severely disabled to transfer their tax assessments, with a possible adjustment, from their prior home to
their new home, no matter (a) the new home's market value; (b) the new home's location in the state; or
(c) the buyer's number of moves.
A "no" vote opposes amending Proposition 13 (1978) to change how tax assessments are transferred
between properties for homebuyers who are age 55 or older or severely disabled.
Overview
What changes would this ballot initiative make to state law?
Proposition 5 would amend Proposition 13 (1978) to allow homebuyers who are age 55 or older or severely
disabled to transfer the tax-assessed value from their prior home to their new home, no matter (a) the new
home's market value; (b) the new home's location in the state; or (c) the number of moves. As of 2018,

15. Southwest California Legislative Council
homebuyers over 55 years of age were eligible to transfer their tax assessments from their prior home to their
new home if the new home's market value is equal to or less than the prior home's value and once in their
lifetimes. Furthermore, counties, not the state, decide whether tax assessments can be transferred across
county lines.
If the new home is a different value than the prior home, the initiative would allow for an adjusted value
between the old and new values. If the new home has a higher market value then the prior home, the
assessed value would be adjusted upward. If the new home has a lower market value then the prior home, the
assessed value would be adjusted downward. The formulas for the adjustments would as follows:
Upward adjustment: (assessed value of their prior home) + [(the new home’s market value) - (the prior
home's market value)]
Example: An individual sold her house for $500,000. The house had a tax-assessed value of $75,000.
She bought a new house for $800,000. The tax-assessed value of the new house would be ($75,000) +
[($800,000)-($500,000)] = $375,000.
Downward adjustment: (assessed value of their prior home) × [(the new home’s market value) ÷ (the
prior home's market value)]
Example: An individual sold his house for $500,000. The house had a tax-assessed value of $75,000.
He bought a new house for $300,000. The tax-assessed value of the new house would be ($75,000) ×
[($300,000) ÷ ($500,000)] = $45,000.
What does Proposition 13 have to do with this ballot initiative?
California Proposition 13, the Tax Limitations Initiative, was on the ballot for the election on June 6, 1978.
Voters approved Proposition 13. Proposition 13 required that properties be taxed at no more than 1 percent of
their full cash value shown on the 1975-1976 assessment rolls and limited annual increases of assessed
(taxable) value to the inflation rate or 2 percent, whichever was less. When a property is sold or transferred to
new owners, however, the property is reassessed at 1 percent of its full cash value and the limit on increases
to assessed value resets.
In 1986, voters approved Proposition 60, which amended Proposition 13 to allow homeowners over the age of
55 to transfer the taxable value of their present home to a replacement home, assuming the replacement home
was of equal or lesser value, located within the same county, and purchased within two years of selling the
original home. Proposition 13 was again amended in 1988 when voters approved Proposition 90, which
allowed qualified homeowners age 55 or older to transfer the current taxable value of their original home to a
replacement home in another county, but only if the county in which the replacement home is located agrees to
participate in the program.
Support
The Homeownership for Families and Tax Savings for Seniors, a political action committee, was organized
to sponsor the ballot initiative.
The California Association of Realtors (CAR) developed the ballot initiative. Alex Creel, senior VP of
governmental affairs for CAR, filed the initiative. CAR, in a statement about the initiative, said, "It's important
because seniors, who are often on a fixed income, fear they will not be able to afford a big property tax
increase if they sell their existing home and buy another one, discouraging them from ever moving. As a result
of this 'moving penalty' almost three-quarters of homeowners 55 and older haven't moved since 2000."

16. Southwest California Legislative Council
Arguments
Yes on 5
Steve White, president of the California Association of Realtors, said:
“ Many seniors live in homes that no longer fit their needs because their homes are now too big or too
far away from their families. If they want to downsize or move closer to their children, they could face
property tax increases of 100 percent, 200 percent or even 300 percent. ”
The California Chamber of Commerce endorsed the ballot initiative, stating:
“ California is facing a massive housing shortage and needs at least 100,000 additional new units a
year to meet demand. The CalChamber Board voted to support this measure because it could help
ease the shortage by freeing up modest-priced and move-up housing for young families.
The change is important because seniors, who often are on a fixed income, fear they will not be able
to afford a big property tax increase if they sell their existing home and buy another one,
discouraging them from ever moving. As a result of this “moving penalty,” almost three-quarters of
homeowners 55 and older haven’t moved since 2000. In addition, a recent estimate from the
Legislative Analyst’s Office found that this initiative would increase home sales in the tens of
thousands per year.
Official arguments
Penny Lilburn, executive director of Highland Senior Center, Kyle Miles, commander of AMVETS
Department of California, and Susan Chandler, president of Californians for Disability Rights, wrote
the official argument found in the state voter information guide in support of Proposition 5:
”
PROP. 5 GIVES ALL SENIORS (55+) AND SEVERELY DISABLED THE RIGHT TO MOVE WITHOUT
PENALTY
PROP. 5, the Property Tax Fairness Initiative, eliminates the “moving penalty” that exists today in order to
protect seniors (55+) and severely disabled people who want to move to safer, more practical homes or closer
to their families. PROP. 5 limits the property tax penalties they could face if they purchase another home in any
county of the state.
PROP. 5 ELIMINATES MOVING CHALLENGES FOR SENIORS (55+)
Millions of California seniors live in homes that are inadequate for their needs—whether too big, too many
stairs, or simply too far away from their family and loved ones. Under PROP. 5, senior homeowners (age 55+)
would be able to transfer their home’s current taxable value, no matter where in the state they might choose to
move.
PROP. 5 EMPOWERS RETIREES LIVING ON FIXED INCOMES
Most retirees live on a fixed income, often from a pension and/or Social Security. PROP. 5 eliminates the
possibility of a 100%, 200%, or even 300% increase in property taxes that retired teachers, firefighters, police,
and other retirees often have to pay if they want to sell their current home to buy another one somewhere else
in California.
PROP. 5 PROTECTS AGAINST PROPERTY TAX BASE “MOVING PENALTY”

17. Southwest California Legislative Council
Under current California law, property taxes are capped at a small percentage of the value of the property
when purchased. This becomes known as the property’s “tax base.” In addition, there is a limit on how much
property taxes can increase annually. Seniors and the severely disabled are often on fixed incomes and can’t
afford large property tax increases. But if they choose to move to a new home, their “tax base” will often
increase dramatically due to the rise in home prices over the past several decades. PROP. 5 protects these
Californians from this “moving penalty” by allowing them to keep a lower, fairer tax base.
PROP. 5 EXTENDS THE BENEFITS OF PROP. 13, BRINGS TAX STABILITY AND PEACE OF MIND
PROP. 5 eliminates the “moving penalty” that exists today that is contributing to the housing shortage in
California. Just as Prop. 13 (1978) prevented millions of seniors from being taxed out of their homes, PROP. 5
will help millions more today. PROP. 5 will help alleviate the housing shortage and will bring tax stability and
peace of mind for millions of middle-class and working-class families throughout California.
PROP. 5 EMPOWERS SEVERELY DISABLED PEOPLE TRAPPED IN INADEQUATE HOMES
Many severely disabled people in California live in homes that are no longer safe or practical for them, but they
cannot afford to move because their property taxes could skyrocket if they buy a new home elsewhere in
California. This could happen even if they move to a less expensive home. Under PROP. 5, severely disabled
homeowners would be able to move to more suitable homes without being subjected to the “moving penalty.”[8]
San Diego Union-Tribune (November 28, 2017) called for more thorough study on the initiative: "The
Legislative Analyst’s Office warns that the measure could eventually lead to $2 billion or more in lost annual tax
revenue. Realtors challenge this assertion and point to the new revenue that would come in as older homes
worth $500,000 and more are finally taxed at their current value. This question needs more thorough study
because the basic concept of the Realtors’ proposal makes considerable sense — at least if it can’t be readily
gamed by wealthy people to limit their property taxes. Retirement security is a huge issue for millions of aging
Californians on fixed incomes. Protecting this growing group is a good idea."
Opposition
No on Prop 5 is leading the campaign in opposition to Proposition 5.
Opponents
 California Teachers Association
Arguments
Rep. David Chiu (D-17) said he opposed the initiative:
“ It doesn’t add housing, and it is going to make it harder for cities and counties to pay for schools,
infrastructure and public safety to the tune of $2 billion per year. We’re in the midst of the most
intense housing crisis our state has ever experienced, and this proposal does nothing to address it. ”
Laura Clark, executive director of YIMBY Action, criticized the measure, saying:
“ We’re talking about, once again, another tax giveaway to people who are wealthy. ”

18. Southwest California Legislative Council
Official arguments
Gerald G. Wilson, board member of the Middle Class Taxpayers Association, Shamus Roller, executive
director of the National Housing Law Project, and Gary Passmore, president of the Congress of California
Seniors, wrote the official argument found in the state voter information guide in opposition to Proposition 5:
VOTE NO ON PROP. 5
We urge a NO on Prop. 5 for one simple reason. We have a terrible affordable-housing crisis in California, and
Prop. 5 will do NOTHING to make this crisis better. What Prop. 5 will do:
 Prop. 5 will further raise the cost of housing.
 Prop. 5 will lead to hundreds of millions of dollars and potentially $1 billion in local revenue losses to our
public schools.
 Prop. 5 will cost local services, including fire, police, and health care, up to $1 billion in revenue losses.
 Prop. 5 gives a huge tax break to wealthy Californians.
 Prop. 5 gives a huge windfall to the real estate industry, the ONLY sponsor of the initiative.
We urge a No on Prop. 5 because of what it does NOT do:
 It does NOT build any new housing.
 It does NOT help first-time homebuyers.
 It does NOT bring down the cost of rent.
 It does NOT address homelessness.
Housing advocates are clear: “Prop. 5 does nothing for affordable housing, and will even make the current
situation worse,” says Shamus Roller of the National Housing Law Project, a champion for affordable housing.
For the last 30 years, older homeowners who move to a smaller and less expensive house have been able to
bring their current property tax with them, an encouragement to leave a larger and more expensive home to a
younger family. These homeowners can do this once in their lifetime. This was an extension of Prop. 13.
But Prop. 5 changes this equation. If it’s passed, a homeowner over 55 can use their tax break to keep buying
more expensive houses, over and over, anywhere in California. Meanwhile, younger, first-time home buyers with
less income will face higher housing prices, and renters will have an even harder time becoming homeowners.
The nonpartisan California Legislative Analyst says Prop. 5 will cause massive revenue losses at the local level.
That’s why firefighters, teachers, and nurses all say No on Prop. 5. This initiative will result in reductions to critical
public services including fire protection, police protection, and health care. Public school funding comes primarily
from local property taxes. Prop. 5 means less local revenue for our public schools.
“Fighting the wildfires that have plagued our communities in the past few years requires more—not less—local
resources. We just can’t afford Prop. 5,” says Brian Rice, President of California Professional Firefighters.
The real estate interests who cynically paid to put Prop. 5 on the ballot have decided to pit some homeowners
against others. Why? You’ll have to ask them. But we think it must have something to do with their profits.
We can’t afford Prop. 5. Please join us in voting No.
Committees in support of Proposition 5
Supporting committees
Cash
contributions
In-kind
services
Cash
expenditures
Totals in support
Total
raised:
$7,204,875.08
Total
spent:
$6,641,367.42

19. Southwest California Legislative Council
Homeownership for Families and Tax Savings for
Seniors, Sponsored by the California Association
of Realtors
$6,700,050.00 $504,825.08 $6,136,542.34
Total $6,700,050.00 $504,825.08 $6,136,542.34
Donors
The following were the donors who contributed to the support committee as of September 6, 2018:
Donor Cash In-kind Total
California Association of Realtors Issues
Mobilization PAC
$3,700,000.00 $504,825.08 $4,204,825.08
National Association of Realtors $3,000,000.00 $0.00
$3,000,000.00
Fiscal impact statement
“ Annual property tax losses for cities, counties, and special districts of around $150 million in the near
term, growing over time to $1 billion or more per year (in today’s dollars). Annual property tax losses
for schools of around $150 million per year in the near term, growing over time to $1 billion or more
per year (in today’s dollars). Increase in state costs for schools of an equivalent amount in most
years. ”

20. Southwest California Legislative Council
Legislative Item #6 Action
California Proposition 6, the Voter Approval for Future Gas and Vehicle Taxes and 2017 Tax Repeal
Presentation: John Kelliher
Recommended action:
A yes vote supports this initiative to:
 repeal fuel tax increases and vehicle fees that were enacted in 2017, including the Road Repair and
Accountability Act of 2017 (RRAA) and
 require voter approval (via ballot propositions) for the California State Legislature to impose, increase,
or extend fuel taxes or vehicle fees in the future.
A no vote opposes this initiative, thus:
 keeping the fuel tax increases and vehicle fees that were enacted in 2017, including the Road Repair
and Accountability Act of 2017 (RRAA), in place and
 allowing the state legislature to continue to impose, increase, or extend fuel taxes or vehicle fees
through a two-thirds vote of each chamber and without voter approval.
Overview
As of 2018, increasing a tax in California requires a two-thirds vote of each state legislative chamber and
the governor's signature. Proposition 6 would create the additional step of voter approval (via ballot
propositions), along with legislative passage and the governor's signature, to impose, increase, or extend fuel
taxes or vehicle fees. The requirement that tax increases receive voter approval would affect taxes and tax
rates enacted after January 1, 2017, meaning fuel taxes and vehicle fees that were created or increased in
2017 or 2018 would be repealed. This would have the effect of repealing the Road Repair and Accountability
Act of 2017 (RRAA), which the state legislature approved along party lines in April 2017.

21. Southwest California Legislative Council

22. Southwest California Legislative Council
Legislative Item #7 Action
California Proposition 7, the Permanent Daylight Saving Time Measure.
Presentation: Andy Morris
Recommended action:
A yes vote supports allowing the California State Legislature to establish permanent, year-round daylight
saving time (DST) in California by a two-thirds vote if federal law is changed to allow for permanent DST.
A no vote opposes allowing the California State Legislature to establish permanent, year-round daylight
saving time (DST) in California by a two-thirds vote if federal law is changed to allow for permanent DST.
Overview
Proposition 7 would allow the California State Legislature to establish permanent, year-round daylight saving
time (DST) by a two-thirds vote if the federal Uniform Time Act is changed to allow for permanent DST
As of 2018, the Uniform Time Act allows states to adopt one of two options: (a) adopt DST between the second
Sunday of March or the first Sunday of November or (b) remain on standard time all year. In 2016, the
California State Legislature asked the President and Congress to pass an act that would allow California to
adopt year-round DST. In March 2018, Florida also asked the federal government to allow the state to enact
year-round DST.
To enact Proposition 7, Proposition 12 (1949), a ballot initiative that established DST in California, would need
to be repealed. In California, a ballot initiative cannot be repealed without the consent of voters. Therefore, the
state legislature cannot take action unless voters approve Proposition 7.
Legislative Item #8 Action
California Proposition 8, the Limits on Dialysis Clinics' Revenue and Required Refunds Initiative
Presentation: Brad Neet
Recommended action: No Vote
A "yes" vote supports requiring dialysis clinics to issue refunds to patients or patients' payers for
revenue above 115 percent of the costs of direct patient care and healthcare improvements.

23. Southwest California Legislative Council
A "no" vote opposes requiring dialysis clinics to issue refunds to patients or patients' payers for
revenue above 115 percent of the costs of direct patient care and healthcare improvements.
Overview
Proposition 8 would require dialysis clinics to issue refunds to patients or patients' payers, such as insurers, for
revenue above 115 percent of the costs of (a) direct patient care, such as wages and benefits of non-
managerial clinic staff who furnish direct care to patients, pharmaceuticals, medical supplies, and (b)
healthcare improvements, such as staff training and patient education and counseling. Revenue earned above
the 115 percent cap would need to be refunded to patients or the patients' payers each year. Clinics that do
not issue required refunds within 210 days after the end of the fiscal year would be fined an amount equal to 5
percent of their total required refunds, but not to exceed $100,000. The measure would also prohibit dialysis
clinics from discriminating or refusing services based on a patient's payer, including the patient himself or
herself, a private insurer, Medi-Cal, Medicaid, or Medicare. The initiative would require chronic dialysis clinics
to report to the state government information required to enforce the measure, including the costs associated
with operating a chronic dialysis clinic, treatment revenue, and the amount of each payer’s refund. The state
department of public health would enforce the initiative.
Proposition review from Brad
Ballot summary
The official ballot summary is as follows:[15]
“ • Limits the charges to 115 percent of the costs for direct patient care and quality improvement
costs, including training, patient education, and technology support.
• Requires rebates and penalties if charges exceed the limit.
• Requires annual reporting to the state regarding clinic costs, patient charges, and revenue.
• Prohibits clinics from refusing to treat patients based on the source of payment for care. ”
What do the campaigns believe would be the effects of limiting revenue and requiring refunds?
The ballot initiative itself would not require dialysis clinics to invest in equipment, staffing, and patient care.
According to Sean Wherley, a spokesperson for the SEIU-UHW West, the requirement to refund profits above
the limit would incentivize clinics to spend revenue on healthcare improvements because the revenue spent on
direct patient care services and healthcare improvements would not be limited. The concepts of direct patient
care services and healthcare improvements would be defined as follows:
• direct patient care services costs: salaries, wages, and benefits of non-managerial clinic workers
who furnish direct care to dialysis patients; staff training and development; pharmaceuticals and
medical supplies; costs associated with renting and maintaining facilities, utilities, lab testing; and
depreciation of facilities and equipment.
• healthcare improvement costs: additional health information technologies; training non-
managerial workers engaged in direct patient care; and patient education and counseling.

24. Southwest California Legislative Council
Patients and Caregivers to Protect Dialysis Patients, the committee opposed to Proposition 8, said that direct
patient care services and healthcare improvement costs would not include spending on medical directors, clinic
coordinators, professional services, regulatory compliance, or facility security. Therefore, according to the
committee, the requirement to refund profits above the limit would result in clinic closures and reduced patient
access.
Who is behind the campaigns?
Note: The campaign finance information on this page is according to the most recent scheduled reports, which
covered through June 30, 2018, and interim reports available as of July 31, 2018. The deadline for the next
scheduled reports is September 27, 2018.
Californians for Kidney Dialysis Patient Protection is leading the campaign in support of the initiative. The
SEIU-UHW West organized the campaign committee. Supporters call the initiative the Fair Pricing for Dialysis
Act. Californians for Kidney Dialysis Patient Protection had raised $6.02 million, with the SEIU-UHW West
donating 99.96 percent of the total funds.
The California Dialysis Council, a statewide association of dialysis clinics, organized the campaign committee
Patients and Caregivers to Protect Dialysis Patients. The committee had raised $18.02 million, with 51 percent
from the dialysis business Fresenius Medical Care North America and 48 percent from the dialysis business
DaVita.
Fiscal impact
Note: The fiscal impact statement for a California ballot initiative authorized for circulation is prepared
by the state's legislative analyst and director of finance.
The fiscal impact statement is as follows:
“ State administrative costs of around $1 million annually to be covered by increases in license fees on
chronic dialysis clinics. State and local government savings largely associated with reduced government
employee and retiree health benefits spending on dialysis treatment, potentially up to tens of millions of
dollars annually. ” Supporters
• California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS)
• California Labor Federation
Arguments
Californians for Kidney Dialysis Patient Protection issued an informational sheet. The following is an excerpt
“ Dialysis patient care is in crisis and it’s driving up costs for all Californians.
Patient care is suffering
Patients and caregivers report bloodstains and cockroaches in dialysis clinics. The lack of sanitation and
hygiene can contribute to high infection rates.
Overcharging drives up costs
California dialysis companies charge patients with private insurance an average $150,000 for a year of dialysis
treatment. That’s a 350% markup from the cost of providing care! Insurance companies are forced to pass the
costs to all policyholders, driving up healthcare premiums for ALL Californians. Blue Shield of California
reports that it takes 3,800 enrollees to offset the cost of one dialysis patient.
Dialysis corporation profits are out of control

25. Southwest California Legislative Council
Big dialysis corporations make billions of dollars annually, yet the largest company in California, DaVita,
spends only 73% of its revenue toward providing patient care. The average profit margin for dialysis clinics in
California is 17% — nearly five times as high as an average hospital in California.
Some patients face additional hurdles
In low income communities and communities of color clinics are often in run-down strip malls with outdated
equipment.
Opponents
• California Medical Association
• National Kidney Foundation
Arguments
Patients and Caregivers to Protect Dialysis Patients issued an informational sheet. The following is an excerpt:
“ United Healthcare Workers West (UHW) union, with a long history of pushing controversial ballot
initiatives to leverage its political agenda, is behind a deeply-flawed dialysis proposition aimed for the
November 2018 statewide ballot. The proposition limits what private health insurance companies pay for
dialysis treatment in California. In doing so, this measure would dangerously reduce access to care for
Californians with kidney failure who need dialysis treatments three days a week, three to four hours at a
time, to survive. ...
Sets artificially low limits on what insurance companies pay for dialysis treatments.
These arbitrary limits fail to cover all costs necessary to provide high quality patient care. Specifically, the
measure requires community dialysis clinics to issue annual rebates to private health insurance companies if any
fee for treatment exceeds 115% of what the initiative defines as “patient care services costs.” Nothing in the
initiative requires one dollar of these potential rebates to be passed along to consumers. ...
Reduces access for California’s most vulnerable patients.
Dialysis patients need treatment three days a week, for three to four hours at a time to survive. With demand
for dialysis growing at about five percent a year in California, patients already have difficulty finding
appointment times convenient and close to home. This proposition would result in clinic closures, and
cutbacks in services forcing patients to travel further distances or seek treatment in a hospital, increasing the
likelihood that they might miss a treatment. Research shows that missing even one dialysis appointment
increases the risk of death for dialysis patients by 30%.

26. Southwest California Legislative Council
Legislative Item #9 Action
California Proposition 10, the Local Rent Control Initiative
Presentation: Adam Bouvet
Recommended action:

27. Southwest California Legislative Council
A yes vote supports allowing local governments to adopt rent control, repealing the Costa-Hawkins
Rental Housing Act.
A no vote opposes the initiative, thus keeping the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act and continuing to
prohibit local governments from enacting rent control on certain buildings.
Overview
Proposition 10 is an initiated state statute that would repeal the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Costa-
Hawkins), thus allowing local governments to adopt rent control ordinances—regulations that govern how
much landlords can charge tenants for renting apartments and houses. Proposition 10 would also state that a
local government's rent control ordinance shall not abridge a fair rate of return for landlords.
What is the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act?
Costa-Hawkins is a state statute that limits the use of rent control in California. Costa-Hawkins provides that
cities cannot enact rent control on (a) housing first occupied after February 1, 1995, and (b) housing units
where the title is separate from connected units, such as condominiums and townhouses. Costa-Hawkins also
provided that landlords have a right to increase rent prices to market rates when a tenant moves out. Prior to
the enactment of Costa-Hawkins, local governments were permitted to enact rent control, provided that
landlords would receive just and reasonable returns on their rental properties. The California State
Legislature passed Costa-Hawkins in 1995.

28. Southwest California Legislative Council
Legislative Item #10 Action
California Proposition 11, the Ambulance Employees Paid On-Call Breaks, Training, and Mental Health
Services Initiative
Presentation: Last meeting
Adopted action: SUPPORT
A yes vote supports:
 allowing ambulance providers to require workers to remain on-call during breaks paid at their regular
rate;
 requiring employers to provide additional training for EMTs and paramedics; and
 requiring employers to provide EMTs and paramedics with some paid mental health services.
A no vote opposes:
 allowing ambulance providers to require workers to remain on-call during breaks paid at their regular
rate;
 requiring employers to provide additional training for EMTs and paramedics; and
 requiring employers to provide EMTs and paramedics with some paid mental health services.

29. Southwest California Legislative Council
Legislative Item #11 Action
California Proposition 12, the Farm Animal Confinement Initiative
Presentation: Erik McLeod
Adopted action:
A yes vote supports banning the sale of meat and eggs from calves raised for veal, breeding pigs, and
egg-laying hens confined in areas below a specific number of square feet.
A no vote opposes banning the sale of meat and eggs from calves raised for veal, breeding pigs, and
egg-laying hens confined in areas below a specific number of square feet.
Overview
In 2008, the Humane Society developed a ballot initiative, titled Proposition 2, to ban the confinement of
pregnant pigs, calves raised for veal, and egg-laying hens in a manner that did not allow them to turn around
freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs. Proposition 2 did not provide specific square feet when
defining prohibited confinement. Rather, the size restrictions were based on animal behavior. Opponents, such
as the Association of California Egg Farmers, claimed this was too vague. Voters approved Proposition 2, and
the law went into effect in 2015.

30. Southwest California Legislative Council

31. Southwest California Legislative Council
SWCLC
2018 Bill Tracker - 9/06 Legislative Final
Senate Assembly Gov Win/
Bill # Author Party Intent Stone Roth Morrell Melendez Waldron Medina Cervantes Brown Loss
AB1065
Jones-
Sawyer
D Aggregated theft Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
AB1804 Berman D
CEQA exemption
infill
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
AB1954 Patterson R Timber harvest Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y W
AB2061 Frazier D Clean trucks Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
AB2281 Irwin D Med tech's Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y W
AB2341 Mathis R CEQA aesthetics Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
AB2474 Quirk D Haz waste testing Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
AB2770 Irwin D
Privileged
communication
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y W
AB2775 Kalra D Cosmetic labels Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
AB2832 Dahle R
LiO battery
recycle
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
AB3178 Rubio D Waste diversion Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
AB3188 Thurmond D
School
accountability
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
AB3194 Daly D
Housing proj
approval
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y W
SB1080 Roth D Uber for Vets Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
AB1870 Reyes D
Discrimination
extension
N Y N N Y Y Y
AB2079
Gonzalez-
Fletcher
D Janitorial workers N Y N N N Y Y
AB2447 Reyes D
CEQA
environmental
justice
N Y N N N Y Y
AB2455 Kalra D
Healthcare
registry
N Y N N N Y Y
AB2732
Gonzalez-
Fletcher
D
Unfair
immigration
N NVR N Y N Y Y
AB3075 Berman D
Elections
cybersecurity
N Y N N N Y Y Y L
AB3080
Gonzalez-
Fletcher
D
Employment
discrimination
N Y N N N Y NVR
AB3081
Gonzalez-
Fletcher
D
Sexual
harassment
N Y N N N Y Y
AB3138 Muratsuchi D
Hazardous
materials
N Y N N N Y N
AB3232 Friedman D 0-E buildings N Y N N N Y Y
SB100 deLeon D
100% Greenhouse
gas
N NVR N N N Y NVR
SB822 Wiener D Internet access N Y N N N Y Y
SB826 Jackson D Female BOD N Y N N N NVR Y

32. Southwest California Legislative Council
SB834 Jackson D Oil & gas leases N Y N N N NVR NVR
SB937 Wiener D
Lactation
accommodation
N Y N N N Y Y
SB946 Lara D Sidewalk vendors N Y N N N Y Y
SB998 Dodd D Water shutoff N NVR N N N NVR N
SB1014 Skinner D Zero E vehicles N NVR N N N NVR Y
SB1300 Jackson D
Employment
practices
N NVR N N N Y N
Votes Cast / No Vote Recorded 33/33 14/28 33/33 32/33 32/33 7/28 17/30
Vote Record 100% 50% 100% 97% 97% 25% 57%
Supported Opposed Non-conforming votes
 During this 2018 session, the SWCLC adopted positions on 98 measures.
o The Council SUPPORTED 44 bills and
o OPPOSED 54.
 Of those, 33 bills survived the process with substantially the same intent as when the
SWCLC evaluated it.
o 14 of these were SUPPORTED and
o 19 were OPPOSED.
 The Governor has until the end of the month to render his opinion on these bills.