HomeMy WebLinkAbout072722 - 3.1
LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE MEMORANDUM 3.1
TO: Mayor and Town Council July 27, 2022
SUBJECT: July Legislative Report
BACKGROUND
At the end of June, Governor Newsom and the Legislature announced an agreement on
the framework for the 2022-23 state budget. On June 27, the Governor signed the primary
budget framework SB 154 (Skinner) into law. Following budget trailer negotiations, AB
178 (Ting) was signed into law, making significant amendments to SB 154. AB 178
represents the 2022 Budget Act agreement. The $308 billion budget largely stayed true
to the goals of the Governor’s proposed May Revision by increasing reserves,
strengthening economic support for businesses and families, and allocating most of the
surplus to one-time investments.
The focal point of this historically large budget is a $17 billion inflation relief package,
$9.5 billion of which will go directly to Californians. Additional highlights of the budget
package include $170 billion for education, $53.9 billion to address impacts of climate
change, a $2 billion multi-year package of affordable housing and homeownership
investments, and a record $37.2 billion for the state’s rainy-day fund.
In the Legislature, policy committees had until July 1 to refer bills to fiscal committees.
Bills that failed to be referred to fiscal committees by the deadline are marked as inactive
for the remainder of the legislative session. The legislature will reconvene on August 1,
at which point fiscal committees will have until August 15 to report bills to the floor.
DISCUSSION
The Town’s Legislative Committee follows legislation that is identified as a priority by
the Danville Town Council based upon the Town’s legislative framework, and the Tri-
Valley Cities coalition.
The Tri-Valley Cities Legislative Framework identifies six focus areas for the 2022 State
Legislative session including: Transportation, Climate and Environment, Affordable
Housing, Mental Health, Economic Development and Fiscal Sustainability. The bills and
positions that are a priority for the Tri-Valley coalition are discussed in the second half of
this report.
July Legislative Update 2 July 27, 2022
The Town has identified and continues to monitor the following bills that impact
Danville.
AB 1551 (Santiago) Planning and zoning: development bonuses: mixed-use projects.
This bill would reenact current provisions regarding the granting of development
bonuses to certain projects and would require a city or county to annually submit to the
Department of Housing and Community Development information describing an
approved commercial development bonus. This bill continues to move forward in the
Senate. Vote Status: Senator Glazer: N/A; Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan: Yes
(Housing)
Position: Watch
AB 2053 (Lee) The Social Housing Act
This measure would have created the California Housing Authority as an independent
state body, the mission of which would be to produce and acquire social housing
developments for the purpose of eliminating the gap between housing production and
regional housing needs assessment targets. This bill failed to pass in the Senate and is marked
inactive for the remainder of the session. (Housing)
AB 2170 (Grayson) Residential real property: foreclosure sales.
This bill would allow for prospective owner-occupant and eligible bidders to have the
first opportunity to purchase properties that have been acquired through the foreclosure
process by an entity that annually forecloses on 175 or more residential real properties in
California. This bill continues to move forward in the Senate. Vote Status: Senator Glazer:
N/A; Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan: Yes (Housing)
Position: Watch
AB 2237 (Friedman) Transportation planning: regional transportation improvement
plan: sustainable communities strategies: alternate planning strategy: state
transportation funding.
This bill would have conditioned state and local transportation funding on a project's
consistency with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) and state
climate goal. This bill failed to pass in the Senate and is marked inactive for the remainder of the
session. (Transportation)
AB 2295 (Bloom) Local educational agencies: housing development projects.
This bill would deem a housing development project an authorized use on any real
property owned by a local educational agency (LEA) if it meets specified affordability
criteria and planning standards. This bill was heard in the Committee on Environmental
Quality and is moving forward in the Senate. This bill continues to move forward in the
Senate. Vote Status: Senator Glazer: N/A; Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan: Yes
(Housing)
Position: Watch
July Legislative Update 3 July 27, 2022
AB 2438 (Friedman) Transportation funding: guidelines and plans.
This bill requires various state transportation programs to incorporate strategies from the
Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure (CAPTI) into program guidelines.
Also requires various state agencies to establish new transparency and accountability
guidelines for certain transportation funding programs, as specified. Vote Status: Senator
Glazer: N/A; Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan: Yes (Transportation)
Position: Oppose
SB 379: (Wiener) Residential solar energy systems: permitting.
This bill would require every city and county to implement an online, automated
permitting platform that verifies code compliance and issues permits in real time for a
solar energy system. This bill continues to move forward in the Assembly. Vote Status:
Senator Glazer: Yes; Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan: Yes (Climate/Environment)
Position: Watch
SB 897: (Wieckowski) Accessory dwelling units: junior accessory dwelling units
This bill would change the height limitation applicable to an accessory dwelling unit
subject to ministerial approval to 18 feet on units detached and on a lot within ½ mile
walking distance of a major transit stop or a high-quality transit corridor, or on a lot with
existing multifamily, multi-story dwelling. The bill would change the height limitation
applicable to an accessory dwelling unit subject to ministerial approval to 25 feet if the
accessory dwelling unit is attached to a primary dwelling. This bill continues to move
forward in the Assembly. Vote Status: Senator Glazer: No; Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-
Kahan: N/A (Housing)
Position: Oppose
SB 1338: (Umberg) Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE)
Court Program.
This bill would establish a program to provide comprehensive treatment, housing and
support services to Californians with complex behavioral health care needs. This bill
continues to move forward in the Assembly. Vote Status: Senator Glazer: Yes;
Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan: Yes (Mental Health)
Position: Watch
Tri-Valley Cities Coalition
Below is the list of bills the TVC identified at the beginning of the 2021/22 Legislative
session to track.
AB 988: (Bauer-Kahan) Mental Health: mobile crisis support teams: 988 crisis hotline
This bill would require the Office of Emergency Services to take actions to implement the
hotline system, designating a 988-crisis hotline center or centers to provide crisis
intervention services and crisis care coordination to individuals accessing the 9-8-8
hotline. This bill continues to move forward in the Senate. Vote Status: Senator Glazer: N/A;
July Legislative Update 4 July 27, 2022
Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan: Yes (Mental Health)
TVC position: Support
AB 1737: (Holden) Children’s Camps: registration and inspections
This bill would require the Department of Social Services to convene a stakeholder group
to develop and implement a master plan for children’s camp safety. Additionally, this
bill requires a camp operator, camp director, staff member, counselor 18 years of age or
older, or regular volunteer of a children’s camp to complete training in child abuse and
neglect identification and reporting. All specific staff would also be required to undergo
a background check. This bill continues to move forward in the Senate. Vote Status:
Senator Glazer: N/A; Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan: Yes (Fiscal Sustainability)
TVC position: Neutral
AB 2011: (Wicks) Affordable Housing and High Roads Jobs Act of 2022
This bill would make certain housing developments that meet specified affordability and
site criteria and objective development standards a use by right within a zone where
office, retail, or parking are a principally permitted use, and would subject these
development projects to one of 2 streamlined, ministerial review processes. The bill
would require that development projects meet certain wage and labor standards
including prevailing wage. This bill continues to move forward in the Senate. Vote Status:
Senator Glazer: N/A; Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan: Yes (Affordable Housing)
TVC position: Oppose with Comments
AB 2016: (Bauer-Kahan) State Water Resources Control Board: desalination plant:
feasibility study.
This bill would request the California Council on Science and Technology, in consultation
with the department and state board, to undertake and complete a study of the potential
for drought-resilient water supplies to meet the current and future water demands in the
San Francisco Bay Area. Vote Status: Senator Glazer: N/A; Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-
Kahan: Yes (Climate/Environmental)
TVC position: Support
AB 2374: (Bauer-Kahan) Crimes against public health and safety: illegal dumping
This bill would increase the maximum fine for the dumping of commercial quantities of
waste to $5000 for the first conviction, $10,000 for the second conviction, and up to $20,000
for the third and any subsequent convictions. This bill continues to move forward in the
Senate. Vote Status: Senator Glazer: N/A; Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan: Yes
(Climate/Environment)
TVC position: Support
SB 6: (Caballero) The Neighborhood Homes Act
This bill authorizes residential development on existing lots currently zoned for
commercial office and retail space, such as strip malls or large “big box” retail spaces,
that are not adjacent to industrial use zones. The bill would require the density for a
July Legislative Update 5 July 27, 2022
housing development under these provisions to meet or exceed densities deemed
appropriate to accommodate housing for lower income households, including a
minimum density of at least 20 du/ac for a suburban jurisdiction and 30 du/ac for an
urban jurisdiction. Vote Status: Senator Glazer: NVR; Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan:
N/A (Housing)
TVC Position: Oppose
SB 45: (Portantino) Short-lived climate pollutants: organic waste reduction goals:
local jurisdiction assistance
This bill would require the Department of Resource Recycling and Recovery to provide
assistance to local jurisdictions, including, but not limited to, any funding appropriated
by the Legislature for purposes of assisting local agencies to comply with Short Lived
Climate Pollutant goals. This bill continues to move forward in the Assembly. Vote Status:
Senator Glazer: Yes; Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan: N/A (Climate/Environment)
TVC position: Support
SB 490: (Caballero) Community Anti-Displacement and Preservation Program:
technical assistance
This bill would create a program to support qualified entities, including local
governments, in navigating the requirements and process to acquire and preserve
unsubsidized housing units and attached long-term affordability restrictions on the
housing units. This bill continues to move forward in the Assembly. Vote Status: Senator
Glazer: Yes; Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan: N/A (Affordable Housing)
TVC position: Support
SB 852: (Dodd) Climate resilience districts: formation: funding mechanisms
This bill would authorize a city, county, special district, or a combination of any of those
entities to form a climate resilience district for the purposes of raising and allocating
funding for eligible projects and the operating expenses of eligible projects. This bill
continues to move forward in the Assembly. Vote Status: Senator Glazer: Yes;
Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan: N/A (Climate/Environment)
TVC position: Support
SB 932: (Portantino) General plans: circulation element: bicycle and pedestrian plans
and traffic calming plans.
This bill would require a city or county, upon any substantive revision of the circulation
element, to develop or update the plan for a balanced, multimodal, transportation
network. Failure to comply with the requirements would allow a person injured in a
right-of-way, in a collision with a motor vehicle, to have a cause of action. This bill
continues to move forward in the Assembly. Vote Status: Senator Glazer: N/A;
Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan: Yes (Transportation)
TVC Position: Oppose
July Legislative Update 6 July 27, 2022
SB 1229: (McGuire) Mental Health Workforce Grant Program
This bill would establish a grant program to increase the number of mental health
professionals serving children and youth. This bill failed to pass in the Assembly and is marked
inactive for the remainder of the session. (Mental Health)
The Tri-Valley Cities Mayors next meeting is scheduled for September 12, 2022.
Grants Program Update
The Town was unsuccessful in securing the state funding requests made to the offices of
Senator Glazer and Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan in the amount of $500,000
for the Town’s Fiber Optic Cable Interconnect Project, which is project A – 620 in the
Town’s Capital Improvement Program.
The Tri-Valley Cities Coalition submitted a state funding request and was able to
successful secure $5 million for the Valley Link project. This was a result of a joint effort
between the TVC, the San Joaquin Valley Rail Authority team, Assemblymember Bauer-
Kahan and Senator Glazer.
Conclusion
It is recommended that the Town Council Legislative Sub-Committee accept this report
and direct any questions and/or direction to Town legislative staff.
Prepared by:
Cat Bravo
Administrative Analyst
Reviewed by:
Joseph Calabrigo
Town Manager
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE
Senator Anna M. Caballero, Chair
2021 - 2022 Regular
Bill No: AB 1551 Hearing Date: 6/22/22
Author: Santiago Tax Levy: No
Version: 1/13/22 Fiscal: Yes
Consultant: Favorini-Csorba
PLANNING AND ZONING: DEVELOPMENT BONUSES: MIXED-USE PROJECTS
Reinstates, until January 1, 2028, provisions of law that require counties and cities to grant a
development bonus for specified commercial developments that also contribute affordable
housing.
Background
Planning and zoning. The California Constitution allows cities and counties to “make and
enforce within its limits, all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in
conflict with general laws.” It is from this fundamental power (commonly called the police
power) that cities and counties derive their authority to regulate behavior to preserve the health,
safety, and welfare of the public—including land use authority.
Local governments use their police power to enact zoning ordinances that shape development,
such as setting maximum heights and densities for housing units, minimum numbers of required
parking spaces, setbacks to preserve privacy, lot coverage ratios to increase open space, and
others. These ordinances can also include conditions on development to address aesthetics,
community impacts, or other particular site-specific considerations.
Density bonus law. State law, known as density bonus law, grants certain benefits to developers
who build affordable units in order to encourage greater affordable housing production. Density
bonus law requires cities and counties to grant a density bonus when an applicant for a housing
development of five or more units seeks and agrees to construct a project that will contain at
least one of the following:
10 percent of the total units of a housing development for lower income households;
5 percent of the total units of a housing development for very low-income households;
A senior citizen housing development or mobile home park;
10 percent of the units in a common interest development (CID) for moderate-income
households;
10 percent of the total units for transitional foster youth, disabled veterans, or homeless
persons; or
20 percent of the total units for lower income students in a student housing development.
If a project meets one of these conditions, the city or county must allow an increase in density on
a sliding scale from 20 percent to 50 percent over the otherwise maximum allowable residential
density under the applicable zoning ordinance and land use element of the general plan,
depending on the percentage of affordable units. ATTACHMENT A
AB 1551 (Santiago) 1/13/22 Page 2 of 4
Density bonus law also grants certain reductions in minimum parking requirements and grants
“incentives or concessions” that can be used to waive development policies that add costs or
reduce the number of units that a developer can build on a site. The number of incentives or
concessions that a project may be eligible for is based on the percentage of affordable units
contained in the project, up to a maximum of four. Incentives and concessions can vary widely
based on the individual projects, but examples can include reduced fees, waivers of zoning
codes, or reduced parking requirements.
Commercial Development Bonus. AB 1934 (Santiago, 2016) created a commercial
“development bonus” modeled after Density Bonus Law by similarly granting a number of
incentives (including an increase in density) to a commercial developer that facilitates the
creation of affordable housing units. Specifically, AB 1934 required a city or county to grant a
commercial development bonus to a commercial developer that proposes to construct, donate
land for, or partner with an affordable housing developer to construct affordable housing that
consists of at least 30 percent low-income or 15 percent very low-income units. These housing
units must be constructed on the site of the development or on a site that is all of the following:
Within the boundaries of the local government;
In close proximity to public amenities including schools and employment centers; and
Located within one-half mile of a major transit stop
However, unlike Density Bonus Law, AB 1934 did not provide a specified formula regarding the
incentives conferred upon the developer in return for provision of affordable housing. It also did
not require the local government to provide clear guidance on the concessions and incentives
available to the developer. Instead, the program relied on the commercial developer, residential
developer, and local jurisdiction to come to mutual agreement on most of the details of the
incentives, including the amount and type of bonus received and the amount and income levels
of affordable housing developed.
AB 1934 sunset on January 1, 2022. The author wants to reenact the recently-sunset commercial
development bonus.
Proposed Law
AB 1551 reinstates the commercial development bonus program as authorized by AB 1934 until
January 1, 2028.
State Revenue Impact
No estimate.
Comments
1.Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “AB 1551 seeks to continue the progress made
from AB 1934 to address California’s affordable housing crisis. Increasing the number of
affordable units can help the thousands of people who experience homelessness in our state.
With the help of AB 1551’s extension, California will create more opportunities to create
AB 1551 (Santiago) 1/13/22 Page 3 of 4
affordable housing and allow more time for interested parties to use this law to build a housing
supply in our state.”
2. Where’s the beef? Local governments have wide latitude to relax their development standards
under current law because their land use authority stems from their police power. For example,
in 2019 the Third District Court of Appeal upheld the ability of the City of Sacramento to
approve an entitlement for a highrise apartment building that was inconsistent with the local
zoning and general plan standards because the City’s general plan contained a provision that
allowed approvals of non-conforming projects that provide significant community benefits
(Sacramentans for Fair Planning v. City of Sacramento, 37 Cal. App. 5th 698). The court ruled
that, “The City's approach may be novel, but it is not unconstitutional,” noting that a city’s land
use authority is broad and is presumed to be constitutional. AB 1551 reenacts a commercial
density bonus program that grants benefits to developers upon agreement with a local
government. Under the prior law and this bill, cities and counties must grant a bonus, but they
also must consent to the contents of that bonus. Accordingly, it is unclear what benefit this
provides to commercial developers that couldn’t be secured through the local planning process.
Indeed, there does not appear to be evidence that AB 1934 was widely used before it expired.
AB 1934 required that local governments report use of the program to HCD as part of their
annual progress reports: based on that data, only five units of affordable housing had been
created due to the program across three projects. Reauthorizing this program may not
meaningfully contribute to affordable housing in the state.
3. Charter city. The California Constitution allows cities that adopt charters to control their own
“municipal affairs.” In all other matters, charter cities must follow the general, statewide laws.
Because the Constitution doesn't define "municipal affairs," the courts determine whether a topic
is a municipal affair or whether it's an issue of statewide concern. AB 1551 says that its statutory
provisions apply to charter cities. To support this assertion, the bill includes a legislative finding
that the development of affordable housing is a matter of statewide concern.
4. Mandate. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local governments for
the costs of new or expanded state mandated local programs. Because AB 1551 adds to the
duties of local planning officials, Legislative Counsel says that the bill imposes a new state
mandate. AB 1551 disclaims the state's responsibility for providing reimbursement by citing
local governments’ authority to charge for the costs of implementing the bill's provisions.
5. Incoming! The Senate Housing Committee approved AB 1551 at its May 31st hearing on a
vote of 7-0. The Senate Governance and Finance Committee is hearing AB 1551 as the
committee of second reference.
Assembly Actions
Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee: 7-0
Assembly Local Government Committee: 8-0
Assembly Appropriations Committee: 15-0
Assembly Floor: 61-0
AB 1551 (Santiago) 1/13/22 Page 4 of 4
Support and Opposition (6/20/22)
Support: California Apartment Association
California Building Industry Association (CBIA)
California Housing Partnership Corporation
City of Santa Monica
Opposition: None submitted.
-- END --
AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 23, 2022
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 27, 2022
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 18, 2022
california legislature—2021–22 regular session
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 2170
Introduced by Assembly Member Grayson
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Cunningham, Flora, Gray, Lackey,
Mayes, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Valladares, Villapudua, and
Waldron)
(Coauthors: Senators Hurtado and Newman)
February 15, 2022
An act to add Section 2924p to the Civil Code, relating to foreclosure.
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 2170, as amended, Grayson. Residential real property: foreclosure
sales.
Existing law prescribes various requirements to be satisfied before
the exercise of a power of sale under a mortgage or deed of trust and
prescribes a procedure for the exercise of that power. Existing law, until
January 1, 2026, prescribes a process in connection with a trustee’s sale
of property under a power of sale contained in a deed of trust or
mortgage on real property containing one to 4 residential units, inclusive,
that provides specified bidding priorities to certain parties, including
prospective owner-occupants.
This bill would prescribe requirements that would apply to sales of
real property containing one to 4 residential dwelling units, inclusive,
that is acquired through foreclosure under a mortgage or deed of trust
by an institution or that is acquired at a foreclosure sale by an institution,
96
as defined. The bill would require the institution, during the first 30
days after a property is listed, as specified, to only accept offers from
eligible bidders, as defined, and to respond, in writing, to all offers
received from eligible bidders. bidders before considering any other
offers.
This bill would require an eligible bidder to submit an affidavit or
declaration, as specified, with their offer to an institution. By expanding
the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local
program.
This bill would also prohibit an institution from conducting a bundled
sale, as defined.
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.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Section 2924p is added to the Civil Code, to read:
line 2 2924p. (a) For purposes of this section, it is the intent of the
line 3 Legislature to do all of the following:
line 4 (1) Allow for prospective owner-occupants and eligible bidders
line 5 to have the first opportunity to purchase properties that have been
line 6 acquired through the foreclosure process by an entity that annually
line 7 forecloses on 175 or more residential real properties in California.
line 8 (2) Promote owner occupancy by enacting legislation consistent
line 9 with the provisions of the federal First Look program that provides
line 10 owner-occupants and affordable housing providers an opportunity
line 11 for their offers to be considered on foreclosed properties prior to
line 12 other offers.
line 13 (3) Ensure that the requirements of this section are consistent
line 14 with the original stated goals of the federal First Look program,
line 15 which were to expand home ownership opportunities, strengthen
line 16 neighborhoods and communities, while also providing that sellers
line 17 are required to respond to offers received during the first look
line 18 period before accepting or considering investor offers to purchase
line 19 single-family homes.
96
— 2 — AB 2170
line 1 (b)For purpose of this section:
line 2 (1)“Bundled sale” means the sale of two or more parcels of
line 3 real property containing one to four residential dwelling units,
line 4 inclusive, at least two of which have been acquired through
line 5 foreclosure under a mortgage or deed of trust.
line 6 (2)“Eligible bidder” means any of the following:
line 7 (A)A prospective owner-occupant.
line 8 (B)A nonprofit corporation that meets all of the following
line 9 requirements:
line 10 (i)The nonprofit corporation has a determination letter from
line 11 the Internal Revenue Service affirming its tax-exempt status
line 12 pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and
line 13 is not a private foundation as that term is defined in Section 509
line 14 of the Internal Revenue Code.
line 15 (ii)The nonprofit corporation is based in California.
line 16 (iii)All of the board members of the nonprofit corporation have
line 17 their primary residence in California.
line 18 (iv)The primary activity of the nonprofit corporation is the
line 19 development and preservation of affordable rental or
line 20 homeownership home ownership housing in California.
line 21 (C)A limited partnership based in California in which the
line 22 managing general partner is a nonprofit corporation based in
line 23 California, and their primary activity is to develop and preserve
line 24 affordable housing.
line 25 (D)A limited liability company based in California in which
line 26 the managing member is a nonprofit corporation based in
line 27 California, and their primary activity is to develop and preserve
line 28 affordable housing.
line 29 (E)
line 30 (C)A community land trust based in California, as defined in
line 31 clause (ii) of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (11) of subdivision
line 32 (a) of Section 402.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
line 33 (F)
line 34 (D)A limited-equity housing cooperative, as defined in Section
line 35 817, that is based in California.
line 36 (E)The state, the Regents of the University of California, a
line 37 county, city, district, public authority, or public agency, and any
line 38 other political subdivision or public corporation in the state.
line 39 (3)“Institution” means any of the following, if that person or
line 40 entity, during its immediately preceding annual reporting period,
96
AB 2170 — 3 —
line 1 as established with its primary regulator, foreclosed on 175 or
line 2 more residential real properties, containing no more than 4 dwelling
line 3 units:
line 4 (A) A depository institution chartered under state or federal
line 5 law.
line 6 (B) A person licensed pursuant to Division 9 (commencing with
line 7 Section 22000) or Division 20 (commencing with Section 50000)
line 8 of the Financial Code.
line 9 (C) A person licensed pursuant to Part 1 (commencing with
line 10 Section 10000) of Division 4 of the Business and Professions Code.
line 11 (4) “Prospective owner-occupant” means a natural person whose
line 12 affidavit or declaration under paragraph (2) of subdivision (c)
line 13 states all of the following:
line 14 (A) They will occupy the property as their primary residence
line 15 within 60 days of the trustee’s deed being recorded.
line 16 (B) They will maintain their occupancy for at least one year.
line 17 (C) They are not any of the following:
line 18 (i) The mortgagor or trustor.
line 19 (ii) The child, spouse, or parent of the mortgagor or trustor.
line 20 (iii) The grantor of a living trust that was named in the title to
line 21 the property when the notice of default was recorded.
line 22 (iv) An employee, officer, or member of the mortgagor or
line 23 trustor.
line 24 (v) A person with an ownership interest in the mortgagor, unless
line 25 the mortgagor is a publicly traded company.
line 26 (D) They are not acting as the agent of any other person or entity
line 27 in purchasing the real property.
line 28 (c) All of the following shall apply to sales of real property
line 29 containing one to four residential dwelling units, inclusive, that is
line 30 acquired through foreclosure under a mortgage or deed of trust by
line 31 an institution or that is acquired at a foreclosure sale by an
line 32 institution:
line 33 (1) During the first 30 days after the property is listed for sale,
line 34 the institution shall only accept offers from eligible bidders in this
line 35 time period and shall respond, in writing, to all offers received
line 36 from eligible bidders.
line 37 (2) An eligible bidder shall submit with their offer to the
line 38 institution an affidavit or declaration, pursuant to Section 2015.5
line 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that states they are either of the
line 40 following:
96
— 4 — AB 2170
line 1 (A)An eligible bidder pursuant to subparagraphs (B) through
line 2 (F) (E) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b).
line 3 (B)A prospective owner-occupant purchasing the property as
line 4 a primary residence pursuant to this subdivision.
line 5 (3)Any fraudulent statements may be subject to criminal or
line 6 civil liability.
line 7 (4)The institution shall respond, in writing, to all offers received
line 8 from eligible bidders during the first 30 days after the property is
line 9 listed for sale before considering any other offers.
line 10 (4)
line 11 (5)Notwithstanding any other law, an institution shall not
line 12 conduct a bundled sale.
line 13 (d)The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision
line 14 of this section or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall
line 15 not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect
line 16 without the invalid provision or application.
line 17 SEC. 2. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
line 18 Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because
line 19 the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school
line 20 district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or
line 21 infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty
line 22 for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of
line 23 the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within
line 24 the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California
line 25 Constitution.
O
96
AB 2170 — 5 —
AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 23, 2022
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 2, 2022
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 21, 2022
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 29, 2022
california legislature—2021–22 regular session
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 2295
Introduced by Assembly Member Bloom
(Coauthor: Assembly Member Robert Rivas)
February 16, 2022
An act to add and repeal Section 65914.7 of the Government Code,
relating to housing.
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 2295, as amended, Bloom. Local educational agencies: housing
development projects.
(1)Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, requires that the
legislative body of each county and each city adopt a comprehensive,
long-term general plan for the physical development of the county and
city, and specified land outside its boundaries, that includes, among
other mandatory elements, a housing element. Existing law authorizes
the legislative body of any county or city, pursuant to specified
procedures, to adopt ordinances that, among other things, regulate the
use of buildings, structures, and land as between industry, business,
residences, open space, and other purposes. Existing law generally
requires each local agency to comply with all applicable building
ordinances and zoning ordinances of the county or city in which the
territory of the local agency is situated, but, among other things,
95
authorizes the governing board of a school district that has complied
with specified law, by a 2⁄3 vote of its members, to render a city or
county zoning ordinance inapplicable to a proposed use of property by
the school district, unless the proposed use of the property is for
nonclassroom facilities, as provided.
This bill would deem a housing development project an allowable
use on any real property owned by a local educational agency, as
defined, if the housing development satisfies certain conditions,
including other local objective zoning standards, objective subdivision
standards, and objective design review standards, as described. The bill
would deem a housing development that meets these requirements
consistent, compliant, and in conformity with local development
standards, zoning codes or maps, and the general plan. The bill, among
other things, would authorize the land used for the development of the
housing development to be jointly used or jointly occupied by the local
educational agency and any other party, subject to specified
requirements. The bill would exempt a housing development project
subject to these provisions from various requirements regarding the
disposal of surplus land. The bill would make these provisions effective
on January 1, 2024, except that the bill would require the Department
of Housing and Community Development to provide a specified notice
to the planning agency of each county and city on or before January
31, 2023. The bill would repeal its provisions on January 1, 2033.
(2) The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this
bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair
and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.
(3) By adding to the duties of local planning 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 no reimbursement is required by this act
for a specified reason.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Section 65914.7 is added to the Government
line 2 Code, to read:
95
— 2 — AB 2295
line 1 65914.7. (a) Notwithstanding any law, a housing development
line 2 project shall be deemed an allowable use on any real property
line 3 owned by a local educational agency if the housing development
line 4 satisfies all of the following:
line 5 (1) The housing development consists of at least 10 housing
line 6 units.
line 7 (2) The housing development shall have a recorded deed
line 8 restriction that ensures, for a period of at least 55 years, that the
line 9 majority of the units of the housing development shall be set at an
line 10 affordable rent to lower income or moderate-income households.
line 11 However, at least 30 percent of the units shall be affordable to
line 12 lower income households.
line 13 (3) One hundred percent of the units of the housing development
line 14 shall be rented by local educational agency employees, local public
line 15 employees, and general members of the public pursuant to the
line 16 following procedures:
line 17 (A) A local educational agency shall first offer the units to the
line 18 agency’s local educational agency employees.
line 19 (B) If the local educational agency receives an insufficient
line 20 number of local educational agency employees to apply for and
line 21 occupy the units, the unoccupied units may be offered to local
line 22 public employees who work for a local agency within the
line 23 jurisdiction of the local educational agency.
line 24 (C) If the local agency receives an insufficient number of local
line 25 public employees to apply for and occupy the units, the unoccupied
line 26 units may be offered to general members of the public.
line 27 (D) When units in the housing development become unoccupied
line 28 and available for rent, a local educational agency shall first offer
line 29 the units to the agency’s local educational agency employees.
line 30 (4) The residential density for the housing development, as
line 31 measured on the development footprint, shall be the greater of the
line 32 following:
line 33 (A) The residential density allowed on the parcel by the city or
line 34 county, as applicable.
line 35 (B) The applicable density deemed appropriate to accommodate
line 36 housing for lower income households in that jurisdiction, as
line 37 specified in paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583.2.
line 38 (5) The height limit for the housing development shall be the
line 39 greater of the following:
95
AB 2295 — 3 —
line 1 (A)The height limit allowed on the parcel by the city or county,
line 2 as applicable.
line 3 (B)Thirty feet.
line 4 (6)The property is adjacent to a property that permits residential
line 5 uses. uses as a principally permitted use.
line 6 (7)The property is located on an infill site. For purposes of this
line 7 section, “infill site” means a site in an urban area, as determined
line 8 by the 2020 United States Census, that meets either of the following
line 9 criteria:
line 10 (A)The site has not been previously developed for urban uses
line 11 and both of the following apply:
line 12 (i)The site is immediately adjacent to parcels that are developed
line 13 with qualified urban uses, or at least 75 percent of the perimeter
line 14 of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with qualified urban
line 15 uses, and the remaining 25 percent of the site adjoins parcels that
line 16 have previously been developed for qualified urban uses.
line 17 (ii)No parcel within the site has been created within the past
line 18 10 years unless the parcel was created as a result of the plan of a
line 19 redevelopment agency.
line 20 (B)The site has been previously developed for qualified urban
line 21 uses.
line 22 (7)
line 23 (8)(A) (i) The housing development shall satisfy other local
line 24 objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and
line 25 objective design review standards that do not preclude the housing
line 26 development from achieving the residential density permitted
line 27 pursuant to paragraph (4) or the height permitted pursuant to
line 28 paragraph (5).
line 29 (ii)If a local agency has not adopted objective standards as
line 30 provided in clause (i) applicable to residential development on
line 31 the parcel, the housing development shall be subject to local
line 32 zoning, parking, design, and other ordinances, local code
line 33 requirements, and procedures applicable to the processing and
line 34 permitting of a housing development on the nearest parcel in a
line 35 multifamily zone that meets or exceeds the density and height
line 36 provided in paragraphs (4) and (5).
line 37 (B)For purposes of this section, the terms “objective zoning
line 38 standards,” “objective subdivision standards,” and “objective
line 39 design review standards” mean standards that involve no personal
line 40 or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly
95
— 4 — AB 2295
line 1 verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or
line 2 criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant
line 3 or proponent and the public official prior to submittal. These
line 4 standards may be embodied in alternative objective land use
line 5 specifications adopted by the city or county, as applicable, and
line 6 may include, but are not limited to, housing overlay zones, specific
line 7 plans, inclusionary zoning ordinances, and density bonus
line 8 ordinances.
line 9 (9) Development of the subject property is consistent with any
line 10 urban limit line or urban growth boundary requirements
line 11 established by local ordinance.
line 12 (10) The housing development complies with all
line 13 infrastructure-related requirements, including impact fees that
line 14 are existing or pending at the time the application is submitted,
line 15 imposed by a city or county or a special district that provides
line 16 service to the parcel.
line 17 (b) Notwithstanding other any local law, a housing development
line 18 that meets the requirements of this section shall be deemed
line 19 consistent, compliant, and in conformity with local development
line 20 standards, zoning codes or maps, and the general plan.
line 21 (c) The local educational agency shall maintain ownership of a
line 22 housing development that meets the requirements of this section
line 23 for the length of the 55-year affordability requirement described
line 24 in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a).
line 25 (d) Subject to the requirements of Article 8 (commencing with
line 26 Section 17515) and Article 9 (commencing with Section 17527)
line 27 of Chapter 4 of Part 10.5 of Division 1 of Title 1 of the Education
line 28 Code, any land used for the development of a housing development
line 29 that meets the requirements of this section may be jointly used or
line 30 jointly occupied by the local educational agency and any other
line 31 party.
line 32 (e) Any land used for the development of a housing development
line 33 that meets the requirements of this section shall be exempt from
line 34 the requirements of all of the following:
line 35 (1) Article 8 (commencing with Section 54220) of Chapter 5
line 36 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5.
line 37 (2) Article 2 (commencing with Section 17230) of Chapter 1
line 38 of Part 10.5 of Division 1 of Title 1 of the Education Code.
line 39 (3) Article 4 (commencing with Section 17455) of Chapter 4
line 40 of Part 10.5 of Division 1 of Title 1 of the Education Code.
95
AB 2295 — 5 —
line 1 (f) For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall
line 2 apply:
line 3 (1) “Affordable rent” has the same meaning as in Section 50053
line 4 of the Health and Safety Code.
line 5 (2) “Development footprint” means the portion of the property
line 6 that is developed for the housing development, inclusive of parking
line 7 and roadways developed internal to the site to serve the housing
line 8 development, and other aboveground improvements developed to
line 9 serve the housing development.
line 10 (3) “Local agency” means a city, county, city and county, charter
line 11 city, charter county, charter city and county, special district, or
line 12 any combination thereof.
line 13 (4) “Local educational agency” means a school district or county
line 14 office of education.
line 15 (5) “Local educational agency employee” has the same meaning
line 16 as “teacher or school district employee,” as defined in subdivision
line 17 (c) of Section 53572 of the Health and Safety Code.
line 18 (6) “Local public employee” has the same meaning as defined
line 19 in subdivision (b) of Section 53572 of the Health and Safety Code.
line 20 (7) “Lower income households” has the same meaning as in
line 21 Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
line 22 (8) “Moderate-income households” has the same meaning as
line 23 in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code.
line 24 (9) “Real property owned by a local educational agency” means
line 25 real property owned by a local education agency as of January 1,
line 26 2023.
line 27 (g) (1) Except for the requirements imposed on the Department
line 28 of Housing and Community Development pursuant to paragraph
line 29 (2), this section shall become effective on January 1, 2024.
line 30 (2) On or before January 31, 2023, the Department of Housing
line 31 and Community Development shall provide written notice to the
line 32 planning agency of each county and city that this section becomes
line 33 effective on January 1, 2024.
line 34 (g)
line 35 (h) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2033,
line 36 and as of that date is repealed.
line 37 SEC. 2. The Legislature finds and declares that Section 1 of
line 38 this act adding Section 65914.7 to the Government Code addresses
line 39 a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair as that
line 40 term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California
95
— 6 — AB 2295
line 1 Constitution. Therefore, Section 1 of this act applies to all cities,
line 2 including charter cities.
line 3 SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
line 4 Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because
line 5 a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service
line 6 charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or
line 7 level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section
line 8 17556 of the Government Code.
O
95
AB 2295 — 7 —
SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Senator Lena Gonzalez, Chair
2021 - 2022 Regular
Bill No: AB 2438 Hearing Date: 6/28/2022
Author: Friedman
Version: 6/16/2022 Amended
Urgency: No Fiscal: Yes
Consultant: Melissa White
SUBJECT: Transportation funding: guidelines and plans
DIGEST: This bill requires various state transportation programs to incorporate
strategies from the Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure (CAPTI)
into program guidelines. Also requires various state agencies to establish new
transparency and accountability guidelines for certain transportation funding
programs, as specified.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) Vests the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) with the full possession and
control of all state highways and all property and rights in property acquired for
state highway purposes.
2) Creates the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) and vests it
various responsibilities including, but not limited to, the implementation and
programming of the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital (TIRCP) program, which
is a competitive program to fund transformative transit capital improvements
that will modernize California’s intercity, commuter, and urban rail systems and
bus and ferry transit systems.
3) Creates the California Transportation Commission (CTC) and vests it with
various responsibilities, including programming and allocating funds for the
construction of highway, passenger rail, transit, and active transportation
improvements through various transportation programs.
4) Requires Caltrans to prepare a State Highway System Management Plan
(SHSMP) that consists of both a 10-year state highway rehabilitation plan and a
5-year maintenance plan. Requires Caltrans to submit the draft plan to the CTC
for review and comment by February 15 of each odd-numbered year, and to
AB 2438 (Friedman) Page 2 of 17
transmit the final plan to the Governor and the Legislature by June 1 of each
odd-numbered year.
5) Requires Caltrans to develop the State Highway Operations and Protection
Program (SHOPP) based on the Transportation Asset Management Plan, to
guide expenditures of federal and state funds for major capital improvements to
preserve and maintain the state highway system. Limits SHOPP projects to
capital improvements relative to maintenance, safety, and rehabilitation of state
highways and bridges that do not add a new lane to the system.
6) Enacts the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, SB 1 (Beall), Chapter
5, Statutes of 2017, which provides roughly $5.2 billion annually to fund the
state’s highways, local streets and roads, public transportation, and active
transportation programs. SB 1 created new transportation competitive
programs, to be allocated by the CTC, including:
a) Local Partnership Program (LPP), funded at $200 million annually, for local
or regional transportation agencies that have sought and received voter
approval of taxes or that have imposed certain fees, for which those taxes or
fees are dedicated solely to transportation improvements.
b) Trade Corridor Enhancement Program (TCEP), funded at $300 million
annually, for infrastructure improvements on federally designated Trade
Corridors of National and Regional Significance, on the Primary Freight
Network, and along other corridors that have a high volume of freight
movement.
c) Solutions for Congested Corridors (SCCP), funded at $250 million annually,
for projects that implement specific transportation performance
improvements and are part of a comprehensive corridor plan, by providing
more transportation choices while preserving the character of local
communities and creating opportunities for neighborhood enhancement.
7) Provides for the funding of projects for state highway improvements, intercity
rail, and regional highway and transit improvements, through the State
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), which consists of two broad sub-
programs: the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) and the
Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP).
8) Requires Caltrans to produce, and update every five years, the California
Transportation Plan (CTP), a long-range transportation planning document
AB 2438 (Friedman) Page 3 of 17
intended to integrate state and regional transportation planning while
considering specified pertinent subject areas.
9)Requires, Caltrans to update the CTP, as specified, and requires the Strategic
Growth Council (SGC), by January 31, 2022, to submit a report to the
Legislature on interactions of the CTP and SCS/APS plans, and a review of the
potential impacts and opportunities for coordination between specified
programs.
10)Establishes the California Air Resources Board (ARB) as the air pollution
control agency in California and requires ARB, among other things, to control
emissions from a wide array of mobile sources and coordinate, encourage, and
review the efforts of all levels of government as they affect air quality.
11)Requires ARB to determine the 1990 statewide greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions level, and achieve that same level by 2020 (AB 32), and achieve a
40% reduction from that level by 2030 (SB 32).
This bill:
CalSTA
1)Requires CalSTA to, no later than January 1, 2024, to establish guidelines to
ensure transparency and accountability, including the project selection
processes, for the transportation funding programs it administers, including, but
not limited to, the TIRCP.
2)Requires the guidelines to do all of the following:
a)Ensure project nominations are publicly available for public review before a
decision to award funds.
b)Ensure the project selection process incorporates strategies established in the
CAPTI, adopted by CalSTA in July 2021 that are applicable to the
transportation funding program.
c)Require that a recommendation for a project to be funded be released in an
accessible format at least 20 days before a decision to award funds.
d)Include any other best practices identified through public input solicited, as
specified.
AB 2438 (Friedman) Page 4 of 17
3) Requires CalSTA to hold public workshops to solicit public input prior to
developing the guidelines to ensure that they will provide the public with the
information necessary for meaningful participation in CalSTA’s actions to
award funds for the transportation funding programs that it administers.
4) Stipulates that this shall not supersede any conflicting provision of an existing
guideline process or existing maintenance and rehabilitation requirements.
Caltrans
5) Requires Caltrans to, no later than January 1, 2024, to establish guidelines to
ensure transparency and accountability, including the project selection
processes, for the transportation funding programs it administers, including, but
not limited to, the ITIP and the SHOPP.
6) Requires the guidelines to do all of the following:
a) Ensure project nominations are publicly available for public review before a
decision to award funds.
b) Ensure the project selection process incorporates strategies established in the
CAPTI, adopted by CalSTA in July 2021 that are applicable to the
transportation funding programs.
c) Require that a recommendation for a project to be funded be released in an
accessible format at least 20 days before a decision to award funds.
d) Include any other best practices identified through public input solicited, as
specified.
7) Requires Caltrans to hold public workshops to solicit public input prior to
developing the guidelines to ensure that they will provide the public with the
information necessary for meaningful participation in Caltrans’ actions to award
funds for the transportation funding programs that it administers.
8) Stipulates that this shall not supersede any conflicting provision of an existing
guideline process or existing maintenance and rehabilitation requirements.
CTC
7) Requires CTC to, no later than January 1, 2024, to establish guidelines to
ensure transparency and accountability, including the project selection
AB 2438 (Friedman) Page 5 of 17
processes, for the transportation funding programs it administers, including, but
not limited to, TCEP and SCCP.
8) Requires the guidelines to do all of the following:
a) Ensure project nominations are publicly available for public review before a
decision to award funds.
b) Ensure the project selection process incorporates strategies established in the
CAPTI, adopted by CalSTA in July 2021 that are applicable to the
transportation funding program.
c) Require that a recommendation for a project to be funded be released in an
accessible format at least 20 days before a decision to award funds.
d) Include any other best practices identified through public input solicited, as
specified.
9) Requires CTC to hold public workshops to solicit public input prior to
developing the guidelines to ensure that they will provide the public with the
information necessary for meaningful participation in CTC’s actions to award
funds for the transportation funding programs that it administers.
10) Stipulates that this shall not supersede any conflicting provision of an existing
guideline process or existing maintenance and rehabilitation requirements.
Transportation Programs
11) Requires, that no later than January 1, 2024, program guidelines include the
strategies established in CAPTI as adopted by CalSTA in July 2021, for the
following state transportation programs:
a) Interregional Transportation Improvement Program;
b) State Highway System Management Plan;
c) Local Partnership Program;
d) Trade Corridor Enhancement Program; and
e) Solutions for Congested Corridors.
AB 2438 (Friedman) Page 6 of 17
12)Clarifies that the comprehensive corridor plans required for projects to receive
funding from the SCCP be “multimodal” corridor plans.
CTP
13)Requires the CTP to include a financial element that contains:
a)A summary of the full cost of the implementation of the plan.
b)A summary of available revenues through the planning period.
c)An analysis of what is feasible within the plan if constrained by a realistic
projection of available revenues.
d)An evaluation of the feasibility of any policy assumptions or scenarios
included in the plan.
The financial element may also include a discussion of tradeoffs within the plan
considering financial constraints.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “AB 2438 requires the state’s
largest transportation funding sources to incorporate the administration’s
Climate Action Plan on Transportation Infrastructure (CAPTI) into the
guidelines process for project selection for transportation funding. The
strategies and principles of CAPTI are something we have been trying to
accomplish at the state and federal level in order to build a more connected
transportation infrastructure based on efficient land use, equity, and reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. We cannot ignore that a $30 billion sector of state
funding is directly tied to 40% of California's greenhouse gas emissions. It is
time for California to reassess our transportation funding and planning system
to put people before the car.”
2)Transportation and climate change. California’s transportation network
consists of streets, highways, railways, bicycle routes, and pedestrian pathways.
This network provides people and businesses the ability to access destinations
and move goods and services throughout the state. Construction, operations,
and maintenance responsibilities are shared amongst state, regional, tribal and
local governments. Funding for these activities comes from federal, state, and
local taxes, fees and assessments, private investments and tribal investments.
This collaborative effort results in a well-integrated transportation network that
AB 2438 (Friedman) Page 7 of 17
provides mobility for 40 million people, while helping California sustain its
position as the world’s fifth largest economy. Currently, roughly $35 billion
(federal, state, and local funds combined) is spent annually in California on
building and maintaining the transportation network. Additionally, with the
passage of the federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-
58), California is expected to receive approximately $40 billion over five years.
Emissions from the transportation sector, the state’s largest source of GHGs, are
still on the rise despite statewide GHG emission reduction efforts and
increasingly ambitious targets. According to ARB’s GHG emission inventory,
transportation sector emissions have grown to 41% of California’s total
emissions as of 2017. A 2018 Legislative Analyst’s Office report found that
roughly 90% of the transportation sector’s emissions were from on-road sources
– 69% passenger vehicles and 22% heavy-duty vehicles. Within the
transportation sector, measures to reduce GHG emissions include requiring the
use of low carbon fuels, cleaner vehicles, and strategies to promote sustainable
communities and improved transportation choices that reduce growth in the
number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). California has targeted a 22%
reduction in VMT per capita below 2019 levels by 2045 as part of its larger
strategy to reduce GHG emissions. According to the U.S. Federal Highway
Administration December 2021 Traffic Volume Trends data, after a sharp drop
in 2020, total VMT and per capita VMT surged back to pre-pandemic levels in
2021.
3) What is CAPTI? On September 20, 2019, Governor Newsom issued Executive
Order (EO) N-19-19, which called for actions from multiple state agencies to
reduce GHG emissions and mitigate the impacts of climate change. The EO
detailed the role the transportation sector must play in combating climate
change.
Specifically, the EO empowered CalSTA to leverage the more than $5 billion in
annual state transportation spending for construction, operations, and
maintenance to help reverse the trend of increased fuel consumption and reduce
GHG emissions associated with the transportation sector. The EO directed
CalSTA to work to align transportation spending with the state’s Climate
Change Scoping Plan, where feasible; direct investments to strategically
support smart growth to increase infill housing production; reduce congestion
through strategies that encourage a reduction in driving and invest further in
walking, biking, and transit; and ensure that overall transportation costs for low-
income Californians do not increase as a result of these policies.
AB 2438 (Friedman) Page 8 of 17
To that end, CalSTA adopted the CAPTI in July 2021. The CAPTI is the action
plan to implement the EO. Specifically, the CAPTI is “a framework and
statement of intent for aligning state transportation infrastructure investments
with state climate, health, and social equity goals, built on the foundation of the
‘fix-it-first’ approach established in SB1”. Additionally, CalSTA notes that
CAPTI is a living document that can “adapt, pivot, and modify approaches and
actions, as needed.” The CAPTI contains an overall transportation investment
framework and specific strategies to implement the plan through state agency
actions.
In August 2021, the CTC endorsed CAPTI's framework and strategies and
began a process of incorporating it into program guidelines for the programs
they administer.
4) AB 285 report says we need to better align traditional funding programs with
state climate goals. AB 285 (Friedman, Chapter 605, Statutes of 2019),
required the SGC to develop a report to look at various aspects of state and
regional transportation planning and funding. The California Transportation
Assessment Report was developed through work of the University of California
Institute for Transportation Studies (UCITS). Specifically, the report includes
findings and provides recommendations to help the state align transportation
funding with state climate goals.
The report focused on transportation programs funded mostly through the
state’s cap-and trade program. According to the report, these “newer” programs
only make up roughly 2% of transportation funding expenditures -- the
Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant program (STPG), Transformative
Climate Communities (TCC), Affordable Housing and Sustainable
Communities (AHSC), TIRCP, and Low-Carbon Transit Operations Program
(LCTOP). STPG, TCC, and TIRCP were all found to have a high levels of
alignment with state goals and particularly with climate adaptation goals,
reducing GHG emissions and VMT, transitioning away from fossil fuels, and
improving air quality to enable healthy vibrant communities. The report also
purported that other, more long-standing funding programs, including the
SHOPP and ITIP, tend to be in higher alignment with other state goals, such as
“fix it first” maintenance. The report states that “the state’s contemporary
commitments to values such as environmental sustainability and social justice
have attached more goals to the more recently enacted programs without
necessarily providing more funding or by providing only modest amounts.”
The report includes numerous recommendations to better align transportation
funding and the state’s climate goals. Specifically, the report suggest this could
AB 2438 (Friedman) Page 9 of 17
be done through, “the reviewing and prioritizing various state goals within
transportation funding program guidelines or statute. For example, the statute
that governs State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) and
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funding has its goals based
on rehabilitation and maintenance, safety, operations, and expansion, but no
reference to climate or equity. This revisiting of goals could also involve
ensuring that additional funds or future funds (including federal infrastructure
funds) are spent in ways that align with priority goals.”
The AB 285 process is still ongoing as SGC is in final stages of meeting with
stakeholders to discuss the findings of the report and ultimately produce
recommendations for the administration and lawmakers to fully consider.
5) SB 1 and “fix it first.” In 2017, the Legislature passed and Governor Brown
signed into law, SB 1 (Beall, Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017), which provides
roughly $5.2 billion annually for highways, local streets and roads, public
transit, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. SB1’s guiding principle was “fix it
first,” or focusing the state’s transportation spending to maintain a state of good
repair of the existing system. Specifically, SB 1 included specific performance
outcomes for Caltrans to meet for the state highway system by 2027, through
investments in the SHOPP and maintenance programs, including not less than
98 percent of pavement on the state highway system in good or fair condition;
not less than 90 percent level of service achieved for maintenance of potholes,
spalls, and cracks; not less than 90 percent of culverts in good or fair condition;
not less than 90 percent of the transportation management system units in good
condition; and to fix not less than an additional 500 bridges.
SB 1 created new competitive programs to focus on key areas, including 1)
TCEP, funded at $300 million annually, for infrastructure improvements on
federally designated Trade Corridors of National and Regional Significance, on
the Primary Freight Network, and along other corridors that have a high volume
of freight movement; 2) SCCP, funded at $250 million annually, for projects
that implement specific transportation performance improvements and are part
of a comprehensive corridor plan, by providing more transportation choices
while preserving the character of local communities and creating opportunities
for neighborhood enhancement; and 3) LPP, funded at $200 million annually,
for local or regional transportation agencies that have sought and received voter
approval of taxes or that have imposed certain fees, for which those taxes or
fees are dedicated solely to transportation improvements.
The state’s climate goals are already reflected in some of the SB 1 programs
criteria, especially the SCCP, which includes “furtherance of state and federal
AB 2438 (Friedman) Page 10 of 17
ambient air standards and GHG emissions reduction standards,” as scoring
criteria for project awards. Additionally, both the TCEP and SCCP require that
nominated projects must be included in a regional transportation plan, including
a sustainable communities strategy if in an MPO area.
6) AB 2438 codifies the CAPTI. One of the recommendations of the AB 285
report is to “align existing funding programs with state goals.” AB 2438 tries to
implement this goal by requiring numerous state funding programs, including
the ITIP, which is 25% of the STIP; the SHSMP, which informs the
development of the SHOPP; and the SB 1 competitive programs, LPP, TCEP,
and SCCP, to incorporate strategies established by the CAPTI.
As mentioned, the CAPTI details specific strategies relevant to various state
transportation programs. For example, the CAPTI recommends Caltrans,
“update the 2023 SHSMP’s SHOPP and maintenance investment strategies and
performance outcomes to align with CAPTI investment framework. The update
will include the following approaches or considerations, at a minimum: active
transportation, climate resiliency, nature-based solutions, greenhouse gas
emission reduction, and climate smart decision-making.”
Further, for TCEP, the CAPTI recommends, “pursue updated TCEP Guidelines
to prioritize projects that improve trade corridors by demonstrating a significant
benefit to improving the movement of freight and also reduce emissions by
creating or improving zero-emission vehicle charging or fueling infrastructure
either within the project itself or within the larger trade corridor.”
Additionally, some of the CAPTI strategies are cross cutting, such as, updating
SHOPP and SB 1 competitive program guidelines to incentivize climate
adaptation and climate risk assessments/strategies. Specifically, “CalSTA and
CTC will evaluate OPR/Caltrans Climate Risk Assessment Planning and
Implementation Guidance and pursue inclusion in SHOPP, TIRCP, and SB 1
Competitive Program Guidelines.”
As previous noted, the CalSTA describes the CAPTI a living document that can
“adapt, pivot, and modify approaches and actions, as needed.” It is unclear how
codifying the specific 2021 version of the CAPTI may affect the agency’s
ability to update and modify the plan and how that would be incorporated into
these programs.
7) The work has already begun. Much of the work required by AB 2438 has
already begun or been adopted. As noted, in August 2021, the CTC endorsed
CAPTI's framework and strategies. As such, it has already begun to incorporate
AB 2438 (Friedman) Page 11 of 17
CAPTI into the update for the guidelines of the SB 1 competitive programs.
For example, the guidelines now state that the CTC encourages projects that
align with the state’s climate goals. As part of the evaluation criteria for LPP,
CTC will give higher priority to projects that, among other things, “address how
a proposed project will reduce GHG emissions and criteria pollutants and
advance the state’s air quality and climate goals; and how a proposed project
will minimize VMT while maximizing person throughput.” For TCEP, CTC is
requiring each project applicant to, “communicate a project’s benefits related to
advancing climate change resilience, by identifying both the climate change
impacts that are occurring or anticipated, and the adaptive strategies.”
TCEP will also be informed by the Clean Freight Corridor Efficiency
Assessment required by SB 671 (Gonzalez, Chapter 769, Statues of 2021),
which is now being developed by the CTC. The assessment will identify
freight corridors and the infrastructure needed to support the deployment of
zero-emission medium and heavy-duty vehicles. CTC, and other relevant state
agencies, are required to then incorporate the recommendations into their
respective programs for freight infrastructure.
The CTC will give an update on its incorporation of CAPTI into the SB1
program guidelines at their upcoming meeting on June 29, 2022. In fact, over
the three programs named in the bill, SCCP, LPP, and TCEP, CTC reports they
have incorporated 11 recommended short-term implementation strategies, with
working beginning on the medium-term strategies.
Additionally, at its March 2022 CTC meeting, changes to the SHOPP
guidelines were presented, which include a requirement that, "Caltrans shall
take Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure (CAPTI) strategies
as well as the Caltrans Equity Statement into consideration in the development
and implementation of the State Highway System Management Plan.”
In fact, in the 2021 SHSMP, for the first time, Caltrans included needs
identified for the statewide expansion of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and to
address statewide sea level rise impacts associated with climate change.
Caltrans estimates the cost to operate and maintain state highways for the next
10 years will be $116.8 billion. Caltrans also estimates that only $55.3 billion
in funding will be available, leaving a deficit of $61.5 billion. The addition of
climate adaptation considerations increased the funding needed by $11.1 billion
over 10 years. Building these components into the future needs for the SHOPP
is important for a holistic look and understanding of the possible competing
priorities of the state.
AB 2438 (Friedman) Page 12 of 17
8) Increased transparency. AB 2438 also includes provisions aimed at increasing
transparency and accountability. Specifically, the bill requires CalSTA,
Caltrans, and CTC to establish guidelines to ensure transparency and
accountability for the funding programs they administer. The bill requires that
prior to the guidelines being developed each of the departments must hold
public workshops to solicit public input to ensure the guidelines will provide
the pubic with the information necessary for meaningful participation in the
department’s actions to award transportation funding.
Specifically, the guidelines would have to 1) ensure project nominations are
publicly available prior to any awards; 2) ensure project selection process
incorporates applicable CAPTI strategies; 3) require project recommendations
be released in an accessible form at least 20 days prior to award; and 4) include
any best practices identified through the public workshop process.
The CTC already conducts extensive year-long stakeholder outreach, including
numerous workshops, as part of the guidelines process for all of the programs
they administer. Additionally, they publish staff recommendations of awards
prior to adoption by the commissioners in a public meeting. The SHOPP
statute requires Caltrans to provide a draft SHOPP program to regional
transportation agencies and the CTC, and requires the CTC to hold at least one
hearing in northern California and one hearing in southern California regarding
the proposed program. Finally, the SHOPP is adopted at a public CTC meeting.
To recognize this work, the bill states that the requirements shall not supersede
any conflicting provision of existing guideline processes or existing
maintenance and rehabilitation requirements. It is unclear how this will be
interpreted by the implementing departments.
Although the bill attempts to target these guidelines, including that project
selection process incorporates CAPTI, to the programs called out in the bill,
such as TIRCP, ITIP, SHOPP, and SB 1 competitive programs, concerns have
been raised that the bill says, “including, but not limited to,” which could be
interpreted to be much more expansive and cover more programs.
According to Transportation California, “many of our concerns with the
measure have been addressed with the June 16 amendments. To remove our
opposition however, we need further amendments to reflect the compromise we
reached during negotiations with the author and her staff over the past few
months.”
“Specifically, we request that the language ‘including, but not limited to’ be
removed from Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the bill to ensure state statute references
AB 2438 (Friedman) Page 13 of 17
the specific transportation funding programs for which the appropriate
strategies within the Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure will
apply.”
9) Fiscally constrain the CTP. Approved in February of 2021, the latest update of
the California Transportation Plan, CTP 2050, is the state’s statutorily fiscally
unconstrained long-range transportation roadmap for policy change. CTP 2050
is designed to provide a unifying and foundational policy framework for
making effective, transparent, and transformational transportation decisions in
California and identify a timeline, roles, and responsibilities for each plan
recommendation. The CTP does not contain specific projects, but rather
policies and strategies to close the gap between what regional plans aim to
achieve and how much more is required to meet 2050 goals. The CTP is seen
as an aspirational document and is difficult to evaluate when compared to
regional plans are required to provide an assessment of expected future funding
to implement the plan.
One of the recommendations of the AB 285 report that is universally supported
by stakeholders is “updating and better aligning among existing state and
regional plans,” including adding a fiscal constraint analysis to the CTP. AB
2438 requires the CTP to include a financial element that summarizes the full
cost of plan implementation constrained by a realistic projection of available
revenues. Additionally, the financial element may include a discussion of
tradeoffs with the plan considering financial constraints.
10) Climate goals vs. Fix it First. According to the author, AB 2438 is attempting
to implement the recommendations of both CAPTI and the AB 285 report.
Adding CAPTI goals to existing transportation funding programs may set up a
difficult debate about state priorities for funding transportation. As noted in
the AB 285 report, some transportation funding programs are considered
“older programs” that prioritized rehabilitation and maintenance, safety,
operations, and expansion, however, most of the programs covered by the bill
were created and updated in the last few years. These programs, specifically
those created by SB 1, were debated by the Legislature with a full
understanding of the state’s climate goals at that time, which is why some of
these contain climate criteria. As discussed, Governor Newsom, through
executive actions, has amplified the state’s commitment to combat climate
change. Even with the infusion of new federal money and historic state
investment in transportation, the SHSMP shows us that there is still a great
need. Pending legislation, SB 1121 (Gonzalez), calls for the CTC develop a
needs assessment, covering a 10 year horizon, of the cost to operate, maintain,
and provide for the future growth and resiliency of the state and local
AB 2438 (Friedman) Page 14 of 17
transportation system. The assessment, which includes a look at climate
change impacts to infrastructure, will help inform the conversation.
Writing in support of the bill, a coalition of clean air advocates, such as the
American Lung Association, state, “California is home to the most difficult air
pollution challenges in the United States, and climate change impacts our clean
air progress through more extreme heat, drought and wildfire smoke impacts.
A recent report from the Strategic Growth Council found that there remains
significant misalignment between State-funded transportation projects and our
climate standards. California’s ability to reach climate standards (and clean air
standards) is significantly impacted by continued investment in land use and
transportation projects that increase our dependence on vehicle travel. We
must focus transportation investments on projects and programs that increase
affordable, clean mobility choices for all communities that clean our air and
reduce greenhouse gases.
“AB 2438 would support transportation investments that align with California
climate standards by requiring state transportation funding guidelines to be
updated to align with the California Transportation Plan (CTP), the Climate
Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure (CAPTI) and state clean air and
climate standards. The bill would also require relevant state agencies
(CalSTA, Caltrans, CTC) to include CAPTI strategies in funding program
guidelines by January 1, 2024, and ensure accountability and transparency
measures for those programs and project selection.”
Writing in opposition, the State Building and Construction Trades Council,
AFL-CIO, states, “AB 2438 subverts the fundamental purpose for which all
projects in the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP)
were authorized. At the same time, it is not clear how these maintenance,
rehabilitation, and safety programs interfere with achievement of the state’s
climate goals. Even under a scenario where vehicles are zero-emission and
significant majorities of Californians shift from single occupancy vehicles to
biking, walking, and taking transit, Californians will still need highways,
streets and roads, and bridges in a safe and well-maintained condition. And the
shift to these alternative modes of transportation are still years away,
necessitating ongoing maintenance of our existing infrastructure and creation
of new roads, bridges, and highways to handle the state’s current transportation
needs.”
RELATED/PREVIOUS LEGISLATION:
AB 2438 (Friedman) Page 15 of 17
AB 285 (Friedman, Chapter 605, Statutes, 2019) — Updated requirements of
CTP to reflect the state's recent environmental legislation and requires SGC to
review implementation of CTP.
SB 1 (Beall, Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017) – Increased several taxes and fees to
raise the equivalent of roughly $5 billion per year in new transportation revenues
and makes adjustments for inflation every year; directs the funding to be used
towards deferred maintenance on the state highways and local streets and roads,
and to improve the state's trade corridors, transit, and active transportation
facilities.
SB 150 (Allen, Chapter 646, Statutes, 2017) — Required ARB to prepare a
report to assess the progress of the state’s 18 MPOs in meeting their regional GHG
targets.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday,
June 22, 2022.)
SUPPORT:
350 Bay Area Action
Acton & Agua Dulce Democratic Club
American Lung Association in California
California Alliance for Retired Americans
California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice
Center for Climate Change & Health
Central California Asthma Collaborative
City of La Mesa
Climateplan
Communities Actively Living Independent & Free
Glendale Democratic Club
Ground Game LA
Nextgen California
People Organized for Westside Renewal
Physicians for Social Responsibility - San Francisco Bay Area Chapter
Progressive Caucus of The California Democratic Party
Public Health Institute
Sandiego350
Spur
AB 2438 (Friedman) Page 16 of 17
Streets for People Bay Area
U.S. Rep. Nanette Diaz Barragán
Unite Here Local 30
Urban Environmentalists
Yimby Action
OPPOSITION:
Auto Care Association
Building Owners and Managers Association of California
California Automotive Wholesalers' Association
California Building Industry Association
California Business Properties Association
California Business Roundtable
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
California Retailers Association
California State Council of Laborers
Chemical Industry Council of California
City of Blythe
City of Colton
City of Corona
City of Highland
City of Indian Wells
City of Lake Elsinore
City of Menifee
City of Moreno Valley
City of Palm Desert
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
Inland Empire Economic Partnership
Mono County Local Transportation Commission
Naiop of California, the Commercial Real Estate Development Association
Orange County Business Council
Orange County Transportation Authority
Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC)
San Bernardino Associated Governments
Self-help Counties Coalition
State Building & Construction Trades Council of California
Town of Yucca Valley
Western Independent Refiners Association
OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED:
AB 2438 (Friedman) Page 17 of 17
American Council of Engineering Companies
Associated General Contractors of California
California Alliance for Jobs
California State Association of Counties
International Union of Operating Engineers
League of California Cities
Madera County Transportation Commission
Rebuild Socal Partnership
Rural County Representatives of California
San Joaquin Valley Policy Council
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
Santa Barbara County Association of Governments
Southern California Contractors Association
Stanislaus Council of Governments
Town of Danville
Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC)
Transportation Authority of Marin
Transportation California
United Contractors (UCON)
Urban Counties of California
Western Regional Association for Pavement Preservation
-- END --
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 20, 2022
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 31, 2022
AMENDED IN SENATE JANUARY 12, 2022
AMENDED IN SENATE JANUARY 3, 2022
AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 4, 2021
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 8, 2021
AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 7, 2021
SENATE BILL No. 379
Introduced by Senator Wiener
(Coauthor: Assembly Member Muratsuchi)
February 10, 2021
An act to add Section 65850.52 to the Government Code, relating to
land use.
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 379, as amended, Wiener. Residential solar energy systems:
permitting.
Existing law requires a city or county to approve administratively
applications to install solar energy systems through the issuance of a
building permit or similar nondiscretionary permit. Existing law requires
every city, county, or city and county to develop a streamlined
permitting process for the installation of small residential rooftop solar
energy systems, as that term is defined. Existing law prescribes and
limits permit fees that a city or county may charge for a residential and
commercial solar energy system. Existing law creates the State Energy
Resources Conservation and Development Commission (Energy
REPRINT
Revised 6-29-22—See last page.92
Commission) in the Natural Resources Agency and prescribes its duties,
which include administering programs for the installation of solar energy
systems.
This bill would require every city, county, or city and county to
implement an online, automated permitting platform that verifies code
compliance and issues permits in real time or allows the city, county,
or city and county to issue permits in real time for a residential solar
energy system, as defined, that is no larger than 38.4 kilowatts
alternating current nameplate rating and a residential energy storage
system, as defined, paired with a residential solar energy system that
is no larger than 38.4 kilowatts alternating current nameplate rating.
The bill would require a city, county, or city and county to amend a
certain ordinance to authorize a residential solar energy system and a
residential energy storage system to use the online, automated permitting
platform.
This bill would prescribe a compliance schedule for satisfying these
requirements, which would exempt a city with a population of fewer
than 5,000 and a county with a population of fewer than 150,000,
including each city within that county. The bill would require a city
with a population of 50,000 or fewer that is not otherwise exempt to
satisfy these requirements by September 30, 2024, while cities and
counties with populations greater than 50,000 that are not otherwise
exempt would be required to satisfy the requirements by September 30,
2023. The bill would require a city, county, or city and county, or a fire
department, district, or authority, county to report to the Energy
Commission when it is in compliance with specified requirements, in
addition to other information. The bill would require cities and counties
to self-certify their compliance with the bill’s provisions when applying
for specified funds from the Energy Commission, as specified.
This bill would require the Energy Commission to set guidelines for
cities and counties to report to the commission on the number of permits
issued for residential solar energy systems and residential energy storage
systems paired with residential solar energy systems and the relevant
characteristics of those systems. The bill would make related findings
and declarations.
By increasing the duties of local officials, this 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.
92
— 2 — SB 379
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act
for a specified reason.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the
line 2 following:
line 3 (a) Permitting fees or soft costs to solar and storage projects
line 4 can add substantial time and money to the adoption of additional
line 5 solar and storage projects.
line 6 (b) To meet its clean energy goals, California may need up to
line 7 six gigawatts of new renewable and storage resources annually,
line 8 including additional rooftop solar and storage projects.
line 9 (c) Per the 2021 Senate Bill 100 Joint Agency Report, Achieving
line 10 100% Clean Electricity in California, development of rooftop solar
line 11 must increase dramatically.
line 12 (d) Because the 2021 budget included a $20 million
line 13 appropriation to the Energy Commission for grants to all
line 14 jurisdictions that adopt the SolarAPP+ or a similar program in
line 15 order to expedite permitting, local permitting jurisdictions can and
line 16 should be required to adopt SolarAPP+ or a similar program for
line 17 automated permitting in order to promote the development of solar
line 18 and storage to help meet the state’s clean energy needs.
line 19 SEC. 2. Section 65850.52 is added to the Government Code,
line 20 immediately following Section 65850.5, to read:
line 21 65850.52. (a) For purposes of this section, the following
line 22 definitions apply:
line 23 (1) “Energy Commission” means the State Energy Resources
line 24 Conservation and Development Commission.
line 25 (2) “Residential energy storage system” means commercially
line 26 available technology, located behind a customer’s residential utility
line 27 meter, that is capable of absorbing electricity generated from a
line 28 colocated electricity generator or from the electrical grid, storing
line 29 it for a period of time, and thereafter discharging it to meet the
line 30 energy or power needs of the host customer or for export.
line 31 (3) “Residential solar energy system” means any configuration
line 32 of solar energy devices that collects and distributes solar energy
line 33 for the purpose of generating electricity and that has a single
92
SB 379 — 3 —
line 1 residential interconnection with the electric utility transmission or
line 2 distribution network.
line 3 (4) “SolarAPP+” means the most recent version of a web-based
line 4 portal, developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
line 5 that automates plan review, produces code-compliant approvals,
line 6 and issues permits for residential solar energy systems and
line 7 residential energy storage systems paired with residential solar
line 8 energy systems.
line 9 (b) (1) Pursuant to the compliance schedule in subdivision (c),
line 10 a city, county, or city and county, in consultation with the local
line 11 fire department, district, or authority, shall implement an online,
line 12 automated permitting platform, such as SolarAPP+, that meets
line 13 both of the following requirements:
line 14 (A) The platform verifies code compliance and issues permits
line 15 in real time or allows the city, county, or city and county to issue
line 16 permits in real time to a licensed contractor for a residential solar
line 17 energy system that is no larger than 38.4 kilowatts alternating
line 18 current nameplate rating and a residential energy storage system
line 19 paired with a residential solar energy system that is no larger than
line 20 38.4 kilowatts alternating current nameplate rating.
line 21 (B) The platform is consistent with the system parameters and
line 22 configurations, including an inspection checklist, of SolarAPP+.
line 23 (2) Consistent with the same compliance schedule, a city,
line 24 county, or city and county shall amend its ordinance adopted
line 25 pursuant to subdivision (g) of Section 65850.5 to authorize a
line 26 residential solar energy system and a residential energy storage
line 27 system to use the online, automated permitting platform.
line 28 (3)
line 29 (2) A city, county, or city and county is not required to permit
line 30 an application for a residential solar energy system or a residential
line 31 energy storage system paired with a residential solar energy system
line 32 through the online automated permitting platform pursuant to this
line 33 section if the system configuration is not eligible for SolarAPP+
line 34 at the time the application is submitted to the jurisdiction.
line 35 (c) (1) A city with a population of fewer than 5,000 and a
line 36 county with a population of fewer than 150,000, including each
line 37 city within that county, is exempt from subdivision (b).
line 38 (2) A city with a population of 50,000 or fewer that is not
line 39 exempt pursuant to paragraph (1) shall satisfy the requirements of
line 40 subdivision (b) by September 30, 2024.
92
— 4 — SB 379
line 1 (3) A city, county, or city and county with a population of
line 2 greater than 50,000 that is not exempt pursuant to paragraph (1)
line 3 shall satisfy the requirements of subdivision (b) by September 30,
line 4 2023.
line 5 (d) A city, county, or city and county, or a fire department,
line 6 district, or authority, county shall report to the Energy Commission
line 7 when it is in compliance with subdivision (b).
line 8 (e) The Energy Commission shall set guidelines for cities,
line 9 counties, and cities and counties to report to the commission on
line 10 the number of permits issued for residential solar energy systems
line 11 and residential energy storage systems paired with residential solar
line 12 energy systems and the relevant characteristics of those systems.
line 13 A city, county, or city and county shall annually report to the
line 14 Energy Commission pursuant to those guidelines within one year
line 15 of implementing the online, automated solar permitting system
line 16 pursuant to subdivision (b).
line 17 (f) A city, county, or city and county shall self-certify its
line 18 compliance with this section when applying for funds from the
line 19 Energy Commission after the applicable date in the compliance
line 20 schedule in subdivision (c), other than (c). This subdivision shall
line 21 not apply to the twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) in funds
line 22 available, pursuant to Section 76 of Chapter 69 of the Statutes of
line 23 2021, from the Energy Commission for automated solar permitting.
line 24 (g) This section does not limit or otherwise affect the generator
line 25 interconnection requirements and approval process for a local
line 26 publicly owned electric utility, as defined in Section 224.3 of the
line 27 Public Utilities Code, or an electrical corporation, as defined in
line 28 Section 218 of the Public Utilities Code.
line 29 (h) All liabilities and immunities, including, but not limited to,
line 30 the immunities provided in Sections 818.4, 818.6, and 821.2,
line 31 applicable to cities, counties, and cities and counties shall apply
line 32 to any permits issued through an online, automated permitting
line 33 platform and any inspections conducted in connection with those
line 34 permits.
line 35 SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
line 36 Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because
line 37 a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service
line 38 charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or
line 39 level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section
line 40 17556 of the Government Code.
92
SB 379 — 5 —
line 1
line 2 REVISIONS:
line 3 Heading—Line 2.
line 4
O
92
— 6 — SB 379
SB 897
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 29, 2022
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, Chair
SB 897 (Wieckowski) – As Amended June 20, 2022
SENATE VOTE: 24-9
SUBJECT: Accessory dwelling units: junior accessory dwelling units.
SUMMARY: Makes numerous changes to the laws governing accessory dwelling units (ADUs)
and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs). Specifically, this bill:
1) Specifies that certain standards that may be imposed on ADUs must be objective.
2) Modifies the ability of local agencies to apply building code requirements to ADUs by
stating that the construction of an ADU shall not constitute a Group R occupancy change
under the local building code, as specified.
3) Specifies that the construction of an ADU shall not trigger a requirement for fire sprinklers to
be installed on the parcel’s proposed or existing primary residence.
4) Requires a local agencies agency to approve or deny, rather than to merely act, on an ADU or
JADU permit application within 60 days of receipt of a completed application, whether or
not the local agency has adopted an ordinance regulating the creation of ADUs.
5) Requires local ordinances regulating ADUs to require that a demolition permit for a detached
garage that is proposed to be replaced with an ADU be reviewed with the application for the
ADU and issued at the same time.
6) Prohibits a local ordinance regulating ADUs from requiring an applicant for an ADU permit
to provide written notice or post a placard for the demolition of a detached garage that is to
be replaced with an ADU, unless the property is located within an architecturally and
historically significant historic district.
7) Recasts an existing prohibition on imposing owner occupancy requirements on ADUs prior
to January 1, 2025 and prohibitions on the imposition of owner-occupant requirements for
any ADUs permitted between January 1, 2020 and January 1, 2025 as specified.
8) Prohibits local agencies from enforcing a zoning clearance or separate zoning review for
attached or detached dwellings that does not permit the construction of at least an 800 square
foot ADU that complies with the height requirements proposed in the bill, includes four-foot
side and rear yard setbacks, and is in compliance with all other local development standards.
9) Prohibits local agencies from imposing parking standards on an ADU when the permit
application for the ADU is submitted with a permit application to create a new single-family
dwelling on the same lot.
10) Requires local agencies that receive a permit application for ADUs concurrent with an
application to create new multifamily dwelling units to reduce the number of required
SB 897
Page 2
parking spaces for the multifamily dwelling by two parking spaces for each proposed
detached ADU on the same lot.
11) Prohibits local agencies from denying an application for a permit to create an ADU or JADU
due to the correction of nonconforming zoning conditions, or unpermitted structures that are
not affected by the construction of the ADU or the JADU.
12) Increases the 16-foot height standard local agencies may impose on an ADU on parcels with
proposed or existing single family dwellings or multifamily dwellings as follows:
a) Requires local agencies to allow detached ADUs as tall as 25 feet if the ADU is located
within one-half mile walking distance of a major transit stop or high quality transit
corridor, as defined.
b) Requires local agencies to allow an ADU that is attached to a primary residence to be 25
feet tall, or as tall as the local zoning ordinance that applies to the primary residence
allows, whichever is lower.
13) Prohibits local agencies from requiring any modification to an existing multifamily dwelling
that exceeds 25 feet in height or has a rear or side setback of less than four feet as a condition
of approving up to two ADUs on that parcel.
14) Prohibits local agencies from rejecting an application to construct up to two ADUs on a
parcel with an existing multifamily dwelling on the basis that the existing multifamily
dwelling exceeds 25 feet in height or has a rear or side setback of less than four feet.
15) Defines “objective standards” as standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment
by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform
benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or
proponent and the public official prior to submittal.
16) Expands an existing requirement to delay enforcement of building code standards against
ADUs to include the primary residence on a parcel that includes an ADU.
17) Modifies the standards that local agencies may impose on a JADU that must be approved
ministerially, specifically:
a) Modifies a requirement that a JADU may only be constructed within the walls of an
existing single family residence and allows JADUs to also be constructed:
i) Attached to a detached ADU.
ii) Within a garage that is attached to the primary residence.
b) Requires a JADU that is attached to an ADU to include a separate entrance from the main
entrance of the ADU.
c) Requires a JADU that does not include a separate bathroom to include a separate entrance
from the main entrance to the structure and an interior entry to the main living area.
SB 897
Page 3
18) Removes a provision stating that JADU law shall not be construed to prohibit local agencies
from adopting an ordinance or regulation related to parking that applies to a single-family
residence that contains a junior accessory dwelling unit, so long as that ordinance or
regulation applies uniformly to all single-family residences regardless of whether the single-
family residence includes a junior accessory dwelling unit..
19) Provides that a unless a local agency makes a finding that correcting a specified violation is
necessary to protect the health and safety of the public or occupants of the structure, or the
ADU is deemed substandard pursuant to existing law, a local agency cannot deny a permit
for a constructed, unpermitted ADU built before January 1, 2018, for any of the following
reasons:
a) The ADU is in violation of building standards.
b) The ADU does not comply with state or local ADU law.
20) Allows the owner of an ADU to request a five-year delay in enforcement of building
standard violations on their primary residence, provided that correcting the violation is not
necessary to protect healthy and safety, and the ADU was either:
a) Built before January 1, 2020.
b) Built on or after January 1, 2020, in a local jurisdiction that, at the time the ADU was
built, had a noncompliant ADU ordinance, but the ordinance is compliant at the time the
request is made.
21) States that it is the intent of the Legislature to ensure that grant programs that fund the
construction and maintenance of ADUs undertake both of the following:
a) Provide funding for predevelopment costs, such as development of plans and permitting
of ADUs.
b) Facilitate accountability and oversight, including annual reporting on outcomes to the
Legislature.
22) Provides that no reimbursement is required by this bill, pursuant to Section 6 of Article
XIII B of the California Constitution, because a local agency or school district has the
authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or
level of service mandated by this bill.
EXISTING LAW:
1) Establishes ADU and JADU law, which requires local agencies to ministerially approve an
application for a building permit within a residential or mixed-use zone to create one or more
ADUs or JADUs, as specified, including that:
a) Local agencies may impose standards on ADUs, except as specified.
b) Local agencies may apply local building code requirements that apply to detached
dwellings to ADUs.
SB 897
Page 4
c) Local agencies must ministerially approve, within 60 days, in an area zoned for
residential or mixed-use, an application for a building permit to create an ADU and a
JADU as follows.
i) Local agencies may not require a height limit for ADUs that is less than 16 feet.
ii) Local agencies not require parking in the following instances:
(1) The ADU is located within one-half mile walking distance of public transit.
(2) The ADU is located within an architecturally and historically significant historic
district.
(3) The ADU is part of the proposed or existing primary residence or an accessory
structure.
(4) When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the
ADU.
(5) When there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the ADU.
d) The installation of fire sprinklers shall not be required in an ADU if sprinklers are not
required for the primary residence.
e) A permitted JADU must be constructed within the walls of the proposed or existing
primary residence.
2) Establishes a five-year amnesty period during which the owner of an ADU that violates any
building standard, may correct the violation if the correction is not immediately necessary to
protect public health and safety, as specified.
FISCAL EFFECT: This bill is keyed fiscal and contains a state-mandated local program.
COMMENTS:
1) Bill Summary. This bill would make multiple changes to ADU and JADU law related to the
local agency approval process, the total allowable height, the application of local building
codes, and parking requirements that apply to these structures. Additionally this bill creates a
process allowing for the permitting of previously unpermitted ADUs. Specfically:
a) Local Agency Approval Process. This bill requires local agencies to approve or deny an
ADU or JADU permit application within 60 days. Currently law only requires local
agencies to “act” on a permit application within 60 days.
b) Height Requirements. This bill increases the allowable height limit for ADUs in certain
locations. Specifically, the bill allows ADUs as tall as 25 feet when the ADU is attached
to an existing home, or when the ADU is within ½ mile of major transit or high-quality
transit corridors.
c) Building Code. This bill makes several changes to the form and manner in which
building codes are applied to ADUs. Specifically, this bill:
SB 897
Page 5
i) Prohibits local agencies from reclassifying a structure within Group R of the state
building code when an ADU is built on the parcel.
ii) Prohibits local agencies from requiring the installation of fire sprinklers on a
proposed or existing primary residence when an ADU is built on the parcel.
iii) Requires local agencies to delay enforcement of building standards against the
primary residence on a parcel where the owner built an ADU, provided that
correcting the violation at the primary residence is not necessary to protect public
health and safety and the ADU was built in a specified time period.
iv) Prohibits local agencies from denying an application to create an ADU due to the
correction of nonconforming zoning conditions or unpermitted structures that are not
affected by the construction of the ADU.
d) Parking Requirements. Expands restrictions on the ability of local agencies to impose
parking requirements on parcels with ADUs as follows:
i) Prohibits local agencies from imposing any parking standards when a developer
submits concurrent permit applications to create an ADU and a new single-family
dwelling on the same lot.
ii) Requires local agencies to reduce the number of parking spaces required for new
multifamily dwellings by two parking spaces for each ADU that is proposed on the
same lot when the applications are submitted concurrently.
e) Grandfathering Unpermitted ADUs. Provides that, unless a local agency makes a
finding that correcting a specified violation is necessary to protect the health and safety of
the public or occupants of the structure, or the ADU is deemed substandard pursuant to
existing law, a local agency cannot deny a permit for a constructed, unpermitted ADU
built before January 1, 2018 for specified reasons.
This bill is sponsored by the Bay Area Council.
2) Author’s Statement. According to the author, “California was and continues to be in an
ongoing housing crisis since I introduced my first ADU bill in 2016. While California has
seen a significant increase in the amount of ADU building permit applications and ADU
construction since that time, the lack of housing, and in particular affordable housing, is one
of the most significant drivers of institutional and generational poverty cycles and will not be
resolved until more housing can be developed. With localities across the state facing large
regional housing needs allocations ADUs and JADUs represent a key instrument in our
state’s housing production.
“Further eliminating some of the unnecessary barriers to ADU production is a cost-effective
approach that will allow homeowners to make better use of their property. ADU’s can
provide additional rental availability in their communities and allow homeowners to create
more financial stability for themselves. Additionally, ADU’s provide housing options for
those homeowners who want to age in place as well as providing flexible living space for
their family, friends, or caregivers.”
SB 897
Page 6
3) 2016 ADU Laws. SB 1069 (Wieckowski), Chapter 720, Statutes of 2016, and AB 2299
(Bloom) ,Chapter 735 Statutes of 2016 revised ADU Law to address some of the barriers to
ADU creation that had been adopted by local governments. These changes to ADU law
prohibited local ordinances that entirely ban ADUs and required local agencies to, among
other provisions:
a) Designate areas within the jurisdiction where ADUs may be permitted.
b) Impose standards on ADUs, including minimum lot sizes and requiring ADUs to be set
back from the property line (“setbacks”).
c) Consider permit applications within 120 days.
d) Approve or disapprove an application for an ADU ministerially without discretionary
review if the local government does not have an ADU ordinance when it receives a
permit application.
e) Approve building permits to create an ADU ministerially if the ADU is within an existing
residence, has independent exterior access, and meets certain fire safety requirements.
These bills also limited the cases when local agencies could require new utility
connections for water and sewer, and limited the fees to be proportionate to the burden
created by the ADU. AB 2406 (Thurmond), Chapter 755, Statutes of 2016 also allowed
local agencies to adopt an ordinance regulating JADUs, which are smaller ADUs that are
under 500 square feet, are contained entirely within an existing single-family residence,
and may or may not have separate sanitation facilities.
4) 2019 Changes to ADU Law. The Legislature expanded on many aspects of ADU law
through a set of three bills: SB 13 (Wieckowski), Chapter 653, Statutes of 2019; AB 68
(Ting), Chapter 655, Statutes of 2019; and AB 881 (Bloom), Chapter 659, Statutes of 2019.
The most significant provisions of these bills:
a) Require local governments to allow at least an 800 square foot ADU of up to 16 feet on
the lot, regardless of local zoning standards.
b) Require local governments to allow one ADU and one JADU on a single-family parcel
(even if the jurisdiction has not adopted an ordinance allowing JADUs).
c) Allow up to two detached ADUs on the same site as an existing multifamily dwelling and
the ministerial creation of multiple ADUs within the portions of existing multifamily
buildings that are not used as livable space, as long as each unit complies with state
building standards for dwellings.
d) Deem approved an application for an ADU if a local government doesn’t act on it within
60 days.
e) Prohibit local governments from requiring owner occupancy, until January 1, 2025.
f) Exempt ADUs under 750 square feet from impact fees and require impact fees for larger
ADUs to be proportional to the square footage of the primary unit.
SB 897
Page 7
g) Allows, until January 1, 2030, ADU owners to request a delay of up to five years in any
enforcement actions for violations of building standards if the enforcement agency
determines that the standards are not necessary to protect public health and safety.
h) Require the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to notify local
governments if they are in violation of ADU Law and allows HCD to refer alleged
violations to the Attorney General.
5) Policy Considerations. The Committee may wish to consider the following:
a) Building Code Groups. This bill states that the construction of an ADU shall not
constitute a Group R occupancy change under the local building code. The California
Building Code establishes occupancy groups that dictate the building standards to which
various categories of structures are held. Within the California Building Code Group R
covers a variety of residential structures, broadly, Group R-1 covers transient occupancy
such as hotels and motels, Group R-2 covers multi-unit non-transient dwellings such as
apartments, Group R-3 covers buildings that contain two units or less, such as duplexes
and single family homes; and, Group R-4 covers residential structures that include some
form of ambulatory or custodial care such as assisted living facilities. Naturally, the
various groups are held to different building standards due to the intensity of their use.
In addition to Group R categories, there are a range of other occupancy classifications
such as Group A (assembly), Group B (business), Group E (educational facilities), Group
H (high-hazard) and Group U (utility and miscellaneous). Group U covers structures that
are accessory in nature such as carports, greenhouses, sheds, and private garages.
Structures that are not coded as residential under one of the Group R categories are not
held to residential building standards.
This bill would specify that construction of an ADU does not trigger a Group R
occupancy change under the local building code. This would prohibit recoding within
Group R if the number of units associated with a parcel increases as the result of building
an ADU on the lot. This would also prohibit recoding a detached garage that is converted
into an ADU as a residential Group R structure. The Committee may wish to consider if
it is appropriate to prohibit local agencies from requiring these, or any, residential
dwelling units to conform to residential code requirements.
b) Fire Sprinklers. This bill prohibits local agencies from requiring the installation of fire
sprinklers on a proposed or existing primary residence as a condition of approving an
ADU. Existing law already prohibits local agencies from requiring a developer to install
sprinklers on an ADU if the primary residence does not include sprinklers. Installing
sprinklers on an existing structure can require expensive retrofitting. However, the
challenge of retrofitting an existing structure is not an issue when the primary residence
and ADU are constructed at the same time. The Committee may wish to consider if it is
necessary or prudent to exempt proposed primary residences from residential fire
protection requirements.
c) Parking. This bill eliminates parking requirements for all ADUs that are built with new
single-family developments and requires local agencies to reduce parking requirements
for all new multifamily developments that include ADUs. Existing ADU law prohibits
local agencies from establishing parking standards for ADUs in specified settings where
SB 897
Page 8
the demand for a vehicle is lower, such as when the ADU is located within a ½ mile of
public transit. Existing parking provisions in ADU law apply whether the ADU is built
on a lot with an existing primary residence or if the ADU is built in conjunction with a
proposed primary residence. Existing law only confers the benefit of reduced parking
requirements on ADUs that are linked to transit or other factors that reduce demand for
parking.
This bill specifically eliminates parking requirements for any ADU that is built in
conjunction with a newly proposed primary residence without regard to the ADUs
proximity to transit or other factors that reduce the demand the ADU may create for
parking. New construction is precisely where it is easiest to add new parking—when the
developer is able to configure parking on an undeveloped lot without having to fit spaces
around existing structures. Given that the current parking exemptions already apply to
ADUs built with existing or proposed structures, the Committee may wish to consider
whether it is appropriate to specifically exempt new ADUs from parking requirements
when there is no link to decreased parking demand.
d) Height. This bill proposes to increase from 16 feet to 25 feet the maximum height local
agencies can impose on ADUs in specified areas. In January, this Committee approved
AB 916 (Salas), which also adjusted the maximum height for ADUs. AB 916, as
approved by this Committee, allowed a more modest height increase of two feet, and
limited the increased height allowance to parcels that already contain a multistory-
multifamily dwelling, ensuring that the taller ADUs were built adjacent to structures of a
similar height. This bill will allow for ADUs that are 25 feet tall if the ADU is located on
a parcel that is within ½ mile of a major transit stop, or if the ADU is attached to the
existing primary residence.
SB 9 (Atkins), Chapter 162, Statutes of 2021, among other provisions requires local
agencies to ministerially approve two residential units on an existing parcel zoned for
single-family developments. SB 9 specifically prohibits local agencies from imposing
objective standards that would have the effect of physically precluding the construction
of up to two 800 square-feet units on the parcel. Height requirements are an objective
zoning standard, and therefore subject to SB 9’s override provision. A local government
could impose objective height requirements on SB 9 units if the lot is large enough to
accommodate two 800 square-feet units. However if a parcel is too small, or the
developer uses SB 9s ministerial lot split provisions to create two smaller lots, the
developer could exceed the height requirement if doing so is necessary to allow two 800
square feet units on each parcel.
ADUs, by definition, are “accessory” to the primary structure, much as a garage or shed
is also accessory to the primary structure. SB 9 units are not accessory structures, and are
not subject to the same constraints as ADUs. Under SB 9, an existing single unit structure
could be converted into a duplex, an existing structure could be expanded to create a
duplex, a new structure could be built adjacent to the existing structure, or two distinct
structures could be built on the parcel. Under SB 9, an existing parcel can also be split
and two units allowed on each parcel. Under SB 9, ADUs and JADUs are also allowed
(however, SB 9 includes provisions that ultimately limit the number of units to four,
whether the units are built under SB 9 authority or ADU/JADU Law authority).
SB 897
Page 9
The Committee may wish to consider the following. After recent amendments to ADU
law, ADU construction increased from 1 percent of the state’s new housing development
prior to 2017 to 10 percent (9,600 units) of completed units in 2022. Given the rapid
increase in ADU construction, is there any evidence that the existing height requirements
are preventing sustained growth in ADU construction? ADUs are accessory structures on
the lots they are built; should 25 feet tall ADUs, which may be taller than the parcel’s
primary residence and the primary residences on adjacent parcels continue to be
considered “accessory” units? SB 9 allows developers to exceed height standards if those
standards would preclude the development of two 800 square foot units on a single
parcel. If a parcel is too small to allow for a second unit under ADU law, is it necessary
to amend height requirements in ADU law when a developer could use SB 9 authority to
disregard the height requirements and build the second unit?
e) Building Code Enforcement. This bill allows a property owner to delay code violation
enforcement on their primary residence if they build an ADU, provided that the code
violation does not present a threat to public health and safety. The Committee may wish
to clarify, that while code violations on primary residences should be enforced, they
should not delay the unrelated construction of an ADU.
f) JADU Standards. This bill allows JADUs to be attached to an ADU rather than the
primary residence on the parcel. The Committee may wish to consider whether attaching
a JADU to an ADU is essentially creating a separate duplex, which is already provided
for under SB 9.
g) Permit Timeline. This bill proposes to clarify the existing 60 day permit timeline for
ADUs and JADUs by specifying that local agencies must approve or deny a permit in 60
days. AB 2221 (Quirk-Silva) includes similar provisions that seek to clarify ADU Law.
AB 2234 (R. Rivas) seeks to require local agencies to review nondiscretionary post-
entitlement housing development permits for completeness within 15 days and approve
or deny complete permits within 30 days or 60 days depending on the size of the
development. The Committee and the author may wish to consider aligning the
competing provisions in these bills should they continue to move forward.
6) Committee Amendments. To address the policy considerations noted above as well as
several technical and clarifying issues, the Committee may wish to consider the following
amendments:
a) Occupancy Code. Amend Government Code (GC) 65852.2 (a)(1)D)(viii) to clarify that
while construction of an ADU does not trigger a code change within the Group R
occupancy code (e.g. R-3 to R-2), nothing in the law prevents a local building official
from recoding an nonresidential structure such as a garage to Group R if it is converted to
an ADU.
b) Fire Sprinklers. Amend GC 65852.2 (a)(1)(D)(xii) and GC 65852.2 (e)(3) to only
prohibit local agencies from requiring fire sprinklers for existing primary residences.
c) Parking. Amend GC 65852.2(d)(1)(F) and GC 65852.2 (d)(2) to only prohibit local
agencies from imposing parking requirements on ADUs that are constructed with a new
primary residence if the ADU or parcel otherwise meets the existing locational
SB 897
Page 10
requirements that apply in ADU law. Specifically, delete GC 65852.2 (d)(2) and amend
(d)(1)(F) to read:
65852.2(f)(2) “When a permit application for an accessory dwelling unit is submitted
with a permit application to create a new single-family dwelling or a new multifamily
dwelling on the same lot provided that the accessory dwelling unit or the parcel satisfies
any of the applicable criteria above. [GC 65852.2(d)(1)(A)-(E)]”
d) Height. Amend GC 65852.2 (c)(1)(C), and GC 65852.2 (e)(1)(B)(ii) to Allow ADUs to
be 18 feet tall if they are located on:
i) A parcel with an existing multi-story-multifamily building.
ii) A parcel within ½ mile of a major transit station, and allow theses ADUs an
additional 2 feet of height (total of 20 feet) to accommodate a roof pitch that aligns
with the roof pitch of the primary residence.
Allow ADUs to be 25 feet tall or the height limitation in the local zoning ordinance that
applies to the primary residence, whichever is lower, if the ADU is attached to a primary
residence.
e) Building Code Enforcement. Amend GC 65852.2 (n) and Health and Safety Code
Section 17980.12 to clarify that the provisions do not allow a property owner to request a
delay on correcting a building code violation of the primary unit.
f) Multifamily Dwelling Height Clarification. Amend GC 65852.2 (e)(1)(D)(ii) &(iii) to
remove the erroneous application of ADU height requirements to multifamily dwellings
and merge the two clauses to eliminate redundant text.
g) Nonconforming Zoning Conditions and Unpermitted Structures. Amend GC 65852.2
(d)(3) and GC 65852.22 (d) to include building code violations on the primary residence
that do not present a threat to public health and safety.
h) JADU Standards. Amend GC 65852.22 (a) (4) to delete provisions authorizing JADUs
to be attached to ADUS in lieu of being constructed within the footprint of the primary
residence.
i) Owner Occupancy. Amend GC 65852.2(a)(8) and GC65852.2 (e)(4) to clarify that local
agencies may continue to require rental periods of at least 30 days.
7) Related Legislation. AB 916 (Salas) restricts public hearings for certain projects and
increases the maximum allowable height of ADUs on specified parcels. AB 916 is pending in
the Senate Governance and Finance Committee.
AB 2221 (Quirk-Silva) clarifies and expands requirements for approval of ADUs and
JADUs. AB 2221 is pending in the Senate Governance and Finance Committee.
AB 2234 (Rivas) requires public agencies to post information related to post entitlement
phase permits for housing development projects, process those permits in a specified time
period depending on the size of the housing development, and establish a digital permitting
SB 897
Page 11
system if the local agency meets a specific population threshold. AB 2234 is pending in the
Senate Appropriations Committee.
8) Previous Legislation. SB 9 (Atkins), Chapter 162, Statutes of 2021, required ministerial
approval of a housing development of no more than two units in a single-family zone
(duplex), the subdivision of a parcel zoned for residential use into two parcels (lot split), or
both.
AB 68 (Ting), Chapter 655, Statutes of 2019, AB 881 (Bloom), Chapter 659, Statutes of
2019, and SB 13 (Wieckowski), Chapter 653, Statutes of 2019: Collectively, these bills made
changes to ADU and JADU laws, including narrowing the criteria by which local
jurisdictions can limit where ADUs are permitted, clarifying that ADUs must be ministerially
approved if constructed in existing garages, eliminating for five years the potential for local
agencies to place owner-occupancy requirements on the units, prohibiting an ordinance from
imposing a minimum lot size for an ADU, and eliminating impact fees on ADUs that are 750
square feet or less and capping fees on ADUs that are 750 square feet or more to twenty-five
percent.
AB 2299 (Bloom), Chapter 735, Statutes of 2016 and SB 1069 (Wieckowski), Chapter 720,
Statutes of 2016: Collectively, these bills required a local government to ministerially
approve ADUs if the unit complies with certain parking requirements, the maximum
allowable size of an attached ADU, and setback requirements.
9) Double-Referral. This bill wss double-referred to the Housing and Community
Development Committee where it passed on a 7-0 vote on June 15, 2022.
10) Arguments in Support. The Bay Area Council writes in support, “SB 897 will make it
easier for homeowners to add Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to their properties by
eliminating remaining barriers to ADU construction. Since our partnership with you in 2016
on the state’s first significant ADU reform (SB 1069, Wieckowski), ADUs have proven to be
an innovative solution to providing housing that is affordable by design. ADUs now
constitute 13 percent of all residential building permits statewide, an 841 percent increase
from 2016.”
11) Arguments in Opposition. The California State Association of Counties writes in
opposition, “Current law appropriately authorizes cities and counties to restrict ADU height
to 16 feet, thus helping ensure that these accessary units blend into the existing
neighborhood. Mandating that local jurisdictions allow essentially two-story ADUs is
completely contrary to the stated belief that ADUs are a way to increase density in a modest
fashion that is not disruptive to established communities. Shoehorning a 25-foot structure
into a backyard of a single-story ranch style home, that is within one half mile of public
transit, calls to question the idea that these are ‘accessory dwelling units.’”
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Bay Area Council [SPONSOR]
Abundant Housing LA
California Apartment Association
SB 897
Page 12
California Building Industry Association
California Community Builders
California YIMBY
Cal-RHA
Civicwell
Fieldstead & Company
Housing Action Coalition
Midpen Housing
San Francisco Bay Area Planning & Urban Research Association
Southern California Rental Housing Association
Sv@home Action Fund
The Two Hundred
Oppose Unless Amended
California Association of Realtors
Opposition
California Association of Code Enforcement Officers
California Building Officials
California Cities for Local Control
California State Association of Counties
City of Carlsbad
City of Corona
City of Cupertino
City of Los Altos
City of Paramount
City of Pleasanton
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
City of San Marcos
City of Santa Clarita
City of Torrance
League of California Cities
Marin County Council of Mayors and Council Members
New Livable California Dba Livable California
South Bay Cities Council of Governments
Rural County Representatives of California
Town of Danville
Urban Counties of California
Analysis Prepared by: Hank Brady / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 30, 2022
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 16, 2022
AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 19, 2022
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 7, 2022
AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 16, 2022
SENATE BILL No. 1338
Introduced by Senators Umberg and Eggman
(Coauthors: Senators Allen, Archuleta, Caballero, Cortese, Dodd,
Hertzberg, Newman, Portantino, Stern, and Wiener)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Aguiar-Curry, Berman, Bloom, Chen,
Cooper, Cunningham, Gipson, Haney, Irwin, O’Donnell,
Petrie-Norris, Rodriguez, Santiago, and Villapudua)
February 18, 2022
An act to add Section 1374.723 to the Health and Safety Code, to
add Section 10144.54 to the Insurance Code, to amend Section 1370.01
of the Penal Code, and to amend Sections 5801 and 5813.5 of, and to
add Part 8 (commencing with Section 5970) to Division 5 of, the
Welfare and Institutions Code, relating to mental health.
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 1338, as amended, Umberg. Community Assistance, Recovery,
and Empowerment (CARE) Court Program.
(1) Existing law, the Assisted Outpatient Treatment Demonstration
Project Act of 2002, known as Laura’s Law, requires each county to
offer specified mental health programs, unless a county or group of
counties opts out by a resolution passed by the governing body, as
specified. Existing law, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, provides for
94
short-term and longer-term involuntary treatment and conservatorships
for people who are determined to be gravely disabled.
This bill would enact the Community Assistance, Recovery, and
Empowerment (CARE) Act, which would authorize specified persons
to petition a civil court to create a voluntary CARE agreement or a
court-ordered CARE plan and implement services, to be provided by
county behavioral health agencies, to provide behavioral health care,
including stabilization medication, housing, and other enumerated
services to adults who are suffering from currently experiencing a severe
mental illness and have a diagnosis of schizophrenia spectrum and
psychotic disorders and who meet other specified criteria. The bill would
specify the process by which the petition is filed and reviewed, including
requiring the petition to be signed under penalty of perjury, and to
contain specified information, including the facts that support the
petitioner’s assertion that the respondent meets the CARE criteria. The
bill would also specify the schedule of review hearings required if the
respondent is ordered to comply with an up to one-year CARE plan by
the court. The bill would make the hearings in a CARE proceeding
confidential and not open to the public, thereby limiting public access
to a meeting of a public body. The bill would authorize the CARE plan
to be extended once, for up to one year, and would prescribe the
requirements for the graduation plan that is required upon leaving the
CARE program. plan. By expanding the crime of perjury and imposing
additional duties on the county behavioral health agencies, this bill
would impose a state-mandated local program.
This bill would require the court to appoint counsel and a CARE
supporter for the respondent, unless the respondent has retained their
own counsel or CARE supporter, or chooses not to have a CARE
supporter. counsel. The bill would authorize the respondent to have a
supporter, as defined. The bill would require the California Department
of Aging, subject to appropriation, to administer the CARE Supporter
program, which would make available a trained CARE supporter to
each respondent, who can accept, decline, or choose their own voluntary,
unpaid CARE supporter. The bill would require optional training to be
made available for volunteer CARE supporters. State Department of
Health Care Services to provide optional training and technical
resources for volunteer supporters on CARE Act proceedings,
community services and supports, supported decisionmaking, and other
topics, as prescribed.
94
— 2 — SB 1338
This bill, subject to appropriation, would require the California Health
and Human Services Agency, or a designated department within that
agency, to engage an independent, research-based entity to advise on
the development of data-driven process and outcome measures for the
CARE Act and to provide coordination and support among relevant
state and local partners and other stakeholders throughout the phases
of county implementation of the CARE Act. The bill, also subject to
appropriation, would require the State Department of Health Care
Services to provide training and technical assistance to county
behavioral health agencies to implement the act and would require the
Judicial Council and the State Department of Health Care Services to
provide training to judges and counsel regarding the CARE Act, as
specified.
This bill would authorize the court, at any time during the proceedings
if it finds the county or other local government entity not complying
with court orders, to fine the county or other local government entity
up to $1,000 per day and, if the court finds persistent noncompliance,
to appoint a receiver to secure court-ordered care for the respondent at
the county’s cost. The bill would establish the CARE Act Accountability
Fund in the State Treasury to receive the fines collected under the Act,
which would be used, upon appropriation, by the State Department of
Health Care Services, to support local government efforts that will
serve individuals who have schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders
who experience or are at risk of homelessness, criminal justice
involvement, hospitalization, or conservatorship.
This bill would require the independent, research-based entity retained
by the State Department of Health Care Services, in consultation with
various other entities, to develop an annual CARE Act report and an
independent evaluation of the effectiveness of the CARE Act, and would
require county behavioral health agencies and other local governmental
entities to provide the department with specified information for that
report. By increasing the duties of a local agency, this bill would impose
a state-mandated local program.
Existing law, the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA), an initiative
measure enacted by the voters as Proposition 63 at the November 2,
2004, statewide general election, establishes the Mental Health Services
Fund (MHSF), a continuously appropriated fund, to fund various county
mental health programs, including children’s mental health care, adult
and older adult mental health care, prevention and early intervention
programs, and innovative programs.
94
SB 1338 — 3 —
This bill would clarify that MHSA funds may be used to provide
services to individuals under a CARE agreement or a CARE plan.
(2) Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of
1975, provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service
plans by the Department of Managed Health Care. Existing law also
provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Department of
Insurance. Existing law requires health care service plans and insurers
to provide coverage for medically necessary treatment of mental health
and substance use disorders. Violation of the Knox-Keene Act by a
health care service plan is a crime.
This bill would require health care service plans and insurers to cover
the cost of developing an evaluation for CARE services and the
provision of all health care services for an enrollee or insured when
required or recommended for the person pursuant to a CARE plan, as
specified, without cost sharing, except for prescription drugs. drugs,
and regardless of whether the services are provided by an in-network
or out-of-network provider. Because a violation of this requirement by
a health care service plan would be a crime, this bill would impose a
state-mandated local program.
(3) Existing law prohibits a person from being tried or adjudged to
punishment while that person is mentally incompetent. Existing law
establishes a process by which a defendant’s mental competency is
evaluated and by which the defendant receives treatment, with the goal
of returning the defendant to competency. Existing law suspends a
criminal action pending restoration to competency.
This bill, for a misdemeanor defendant who has been determined to
be incompetent to stand trial, would authorize the court to refer the
defendant to the CARE program.
(4) Existing constitutional 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.
(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 with regard to certain mandates no
reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
94
— 4 — SB 1338
With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the
Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs
so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made
pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the
line 2 following:
line 3 (a) Thousands of Californians are suffering from untreated
line 4 schizophrenia spectrum and psychotic disorders, leading to risks
line 5 to their health and safety and increased homelessness, incarceration,
line 6 hospitalization, conservatorship, and premature death. These
line 7 individuals, families, and communities deserve a path to care and
line 8 wellness.
line 9 (b) With advancements in behavioral health treatments, many
line 10 people with untreated schizophrenia spectrum and psychotic
line 11 disorders can stabilize, begin healing, and thrive in
line 12 community-based settings, with the support of behavioral health
line 13 services, stabilizing medications, and housing. But too often this
line 14 comprehensive care is only provided after arrest, conservatorship,
line 15 or institutionalization.
line 16 (c) A new approach is needed to act earlier and to provide
line 17 support and accountability, both to individuals with these untreated
line 18 severe mental illnesses and to local governments with the
line 19 responsibility to provide behavioral health services. California’s
line 20 civil courts will provide a new process for earlier action, support,
line 21 and accountability, through a new Community Assistance,
line 22 Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Court Program.
line 23 (d) California has made unprecedented investments in
line 24 behavioral health, housing, and combating homelessness, and
line 25 CARE Court helps those with the greatest needs access these
line 26 resources and services. CARE Court provides a framework to
line 27 ensure counties and other local governments focus their efforts to
line 28 provide comprehensive treatment, housing, and supportive services
line 29 to Californians with complex behavioral health care needs so they
line 30 can stabilize and find a path to wellness and recovery.
line 31 (d)
94
SB 1338 — 5 —
line 1 (e) Self-determination and civil liberties are important California
line 2 values that can be advanced and protected for individuals with
line 3 these untreated severe mental illnesses with the establishment of
line 4 a new CARE Supporter role, in addition to legal counsel, provision
line 5 of legal counsel for CARE proceedings. proceedings, agreements,
line 6 and plans, as well as the promotion of supported decisionmaking.
line 7 (e)
line 8 (f) California continues to act with urgency to expand behavioral
line 9 health services and to increase housing choices and end
line 10 homelessness for all Californians. CARE provides a vital solution
line 11 to ensure access to comprehensive services and supports for some
line 12 of the most ill and most vulnerable Californians.
line 13 SEC. 2. Section 1374.723 is added to the Health and Safety
line 14 Code, to read:
line 15 1374.723. (a) A health care service plan contract issued,
line 16 amended, renewed, or delivered on or after July 1, 2023, that covers
line 17 hospital, medical, or surgical expenses shall cover the cost of
line 18 developing an evaluation pursuant to Section 5977 of the Welfare
line 19 and Institutions Code and the provision of all health care services
line 20 for an enrollee when required or recommended for the enrollee
line 21 pursuant to a CARE agreement or a CARE plan approved by a
line 22 court in accordance with the court’s authority under Sections 5977
line 23 and 5982 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. Code, regardless
line 24 of whether the service is provided by an in-network or
line 25 out-of-network provider.
line 26 (b) (1) A health care service plan shall not require prior
line 27 authorization for services services, other than prescription drugs,
line 28 provided pursuant to a CARE agreement or CARE plan approved
line 29 by a court pursuant to Part 8 (commencing with Section 5970) of
line 30 Division 5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
line 31 (2) A health care service plan may conduct a postclaim review
line 32 to determine appropriate payment of a claim. Payment for services
line 33 subject to this section may be denied only if the health care service
line 34 plan reasonably determines the enrollee was not enrolled with the
line 35 plan at the time the services were rendered, the services were never
line 36 performed, or the services were not provided by a health care
line 37 provider appropriately licensed or authorized to provide the
line 38 services.
94
— 6 — SB 1338
line 1 (3) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a health care service plan
line 2 may require prior authorization for services as permitted by the
line 3 department pursuant to subdivision (e).
line 4 (c) (1) A health care service plan shall provide for
line 5 reimbursement of services provided to an enrollee pursuant to this
line 6 section, other than prescription drugs, at the greater of either of
line 7 the following amounts:
line 8 (A) The health plan’s contracted rate with the provider.
line 9 (B) The fee-for-service or case reimbursement rate paid in the
line 10 Medi-Cal program for the same or similar services as identified
line 11 by the State Department of Health Care Services.
line 12 (2) A health care service plan shall provide for reimbursement
line 13 of prescription drugs provided to an enrollee pursuant to this
line 14 section at the health care service plan’s contracted rate.
line 15 (3) A health care service plan shall provide reimbursement for
line 16 services provided pursuant to this section in compliance with the
line 17 requirements for timely payment of claims, as required by this
line 18 chapter.
line 19 (d) Services provided to an enrollee pursuant to a CARE
line 20 agreement or CARE plan, excluding prescription drugs, shall not
line 21 be subject to copayment, coinsurance, deductible, or any other
line 22 form of cost sharing. An individual or entity shall not bill the
line 23 enrollee or subscriber, nor seek reimbursement from the enrollee
line 24 or subscriber, for services provided pursuant to a CARE agreement
line 25 or CARE plan. plan, regardless of whether the service is delivered
line 26 by an in-network or out-of-network provider.
line 27 (e) No later than July 1, 2023, the department may issue
line 28 guidance to health care service plans regarding compliance with
line 29 this section. This guidance shall not be subject to the
line 30 Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with
line 31 Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government
line 32 Code). Guidance issued pursuant to this subdivision shall be
line 33 effective only until the department adopts regulations pursuant to
line 34 the Administrative Procedure Act.
line 35 (f) This section does not excuse a health care service plan from
line 36 complying with Section 1374.72.
line 37 (f)
line 38 (g) This section does not apply to Medi-Cal managed care
line 39 contracts entered pursuant to Chapter 7 (commencing with Section
line 40 14000), Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 14200), or Chapter
94
SB 1338 — 7 —
line 1 8.75 (commencing with Section 14591) of Part 3 of Division 9 of
line 2 the Welfare and Institutions Code, between the State Department
line 3 of Health Care Services and a health care service plan for enrolled
line 4 Medi-Cal beneficiaries.
line 5 (g)
line 6 (h) This section shall become operative on July 1, 2023.
line 7 SEC. 3. Section 10144.54 is added to the Insurance Code, to
line 8 read:
line 9 10144.54. (a) An insurance policy issued, amended, renewed,
line 10 or delivered on or after July 1, 2023, shall cover the cost of
line 11 developing an evaluation pursuant to Section 5977 of the Welfare
line 12 and Institutions Code and the provision of all health care services
line 13 for an insured when required or recommended for the insured
line 14 pursuant to a CARE agreement or CARE plan approved by a court
line 15 in accordance with the court’s authority under Sections 5977 and
line 16 5982 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. Code, regardless of
line 17 whether the service is delivered by an in-network or out-of-network
line 18 provider.
line 19 (b) (1) An insurer shall not require prior authorization for
line 20 services, other than prescription drugs, provided pursuant to a
line 21 CARE agreement or CARE plan approved by a court pursuant to
line 22 Part 8 (commencing with Section 5970) of Division 5 of the
line 23 Welfare and Institutions Code.
line 24 (2) An insurer may conduct a postclaim review to determine
line 25 appropriate payment of a claim. Payment for services subject to
line 26 this section may be denied only if the insurer reasonably determines
line 27 the insured was not insured at the time the services were rendered,
line 28 the services were never performed, or the services were not
line 29 provided by a health care provider appropriately licensed or
line 30 authorized to provide the services.
line 31 (3) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), an insurer may require prior
line 32 authorization for services as permitted by the department pursuant
line 33 to subdivision (e).
line 34 (c) (1) An insurer shall provide for reimbursement of services
line 35 provided to an insured pursuant to this section, other than
line 36 prescription drugs, at the greater of either of the following amounts:
line 37 (A) The insurer’s contracted rate with the provider.
line 38 (B) The fee-for-service or case reimbursement rate paid in the
line 39 Medi-Cal program for the same or similar services as identified
line 40 by the State Department of Health Care Services.
94
— 8 — SB 1338
line 1 (2) An insurer shall provide for reimbursement of prescription
line 2 drugs provided to an insured pursuant to this section at the insurer’s
line 3 contracted rate.
line 4 (3) An insurer shall provide reimbursement for services provided
line 5 pursuant to this section in compliance with the requirements for
line 6 timely payment of claims, as required by this chapter.
line 7 (d) Services provided to an insured pursuant to a CARE
line 8 agreement or CARE plan, excluding prescription drugs, shall not
line 9 be subject to copayment, coinsurance, deductible, or any other
line 10 form of cost sharing. An individual or entity shall not bill the
line 11 insured, nor seek reimbursement from the insured, for services
line 12 provided pursuant to a CARE agreement or CARE plan. plan,
line 13 regardless of whether the service is delivered by an in-network or
line 14 out-of-network provider.
line 15 (e) No later than July 1, 2023, the department may issue
line 16 guidance to insurers regarding compliance with this section. This
line 17 guidance shall not be subject to the Administrative Procedure Act
line 18 (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of
line 19 Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code). Guidance issued
line 20 pursuant to this subdivision shall be effective only until the
line 21 department adopts regulations pursuant to the Administrative
line 22 Procedure Act.
line 23 (f) This section does not excuse an insurer from complying with
line 24 Section 10144.5.
line 25 SEC. 4. Section 1370.01 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
line 26 1370.01. (a) If the defendant is found mentally competent, the
line 27 criminal process shall resume, and the trial on the offense charged
line 28 or hearing on the alleged violation shall proceed.
line 29 (b) If the defendant is found mentally incompetent, the trial,
line 30 judgment, or hearing on the alleged violation shall be suspended
line 31 and the court may do either of the following:
line 32 (1) (A) Conduct a hearing, pursuant to Chapter 2.8A
line 33 (commencing with Section 1001.35) of Title 6, and, if the court
line 34 deems the defendant eligible, grant diversion pursuant to Section
line 35 1001.36 for a period not to exceed one year from the date the
line 36 individual is accepted into diversion or the maximum term of
line 37 imprisonment provided by law for the most serious offense charged
line 38 in the misdemeanor complaint, whichever is shorter.
line 39 (B) If the court opts to conduct a hearing pursuant to this
line 40 paragraph, the hearing shall be held no later than 30 days after the
94
SB 1338 — 9 —
line 1 finding of incompetence. If the hearing is delayed beyond 30 days,
line 2 the court shall order the defendant to be released on their own
line 3 recognizance pending the hearing.
line 4 (C) If the defendant performs satisfactorily on diversion pursuant
line 5 to this section, at the end of the period of diversion, the court shall
line 6 dismiss the criminal charges that were the subject of the criminal
line 7 proceedings at the time of the initial diversion.
line 8 (D) If the court finds the defendant ineligible for diversion based
line 9 on the circumstances set forth in subdivision (b) or (d) of Section
line 10 1001.36, the court may, after notice to the defendant, defense
line 11 counsel, and the prosecution, hold a hearing to determine whether
line 12 to do any of the following:
line 13 (i) Order modification of the treatment plan in accordance with
line 14 a recommendation from the treatment provider.
line 15 (ii) Refer the defendant to assisted outpatient treatment pursuant
line 16 to Section 5346 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. A referral
line 17 to assisted outpatient treatment may only occur in a county where
line 18 services are available pursuant to Section 5348 of the Welfare and
line 19 Institutions Code, and the agency agrees to accept responsibility
line 20 for treatment of the defendant. A hearing to determine eligibility
line 21 for assisted outpatient treatment shall be held within 45 days after
line 22 the date of the referral. If the hearing is delayed beyond 45 days,
line 23 the court shall order the defendant, if confined in county jail, to
line 24 be released on their own recognizance pending that hearing. If the
line 25 defendant is accepted into assisted outpatient treatment, the charges
line 26 shall be dismissed pursuant to Section 1385.
line 27 (iii) Refer the defendant to the county conservatorship
line 28 investigator in the county of commitment for possible
line 29 conservatorship proceedings for the defendant pursuant to Chapter
line 30 3 (commencing with Section 5350) of Part 1 of Division 5 of the
line 31 Welfare and Institutions Code. A defendant shall only be referred
line 32 to the conservatorship investigator if, based on the opinion of a
line 33 qualified mental health expert, the defendant appears to be gravely
line 34 disabled, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of
line 35 subdivision (h) of Section 5008 of the Welfare and Institution
line 36 Code. Any hearings required in the conservatorship proceedings
line 37 shall be held in the superior court in the county of commitment.
line 38 The court shall transmit a copy of the order directing initiation of
line 39 conservatorship proceedings to the county mental health director
line 40 or the director’s designee and shall notify the county mental health
94
— 10 — SB 1338
line 1 director or their designee of the outcome of the proceedings. Before
line 2 establishing a conservatorship, the public guardian shall investigate
line 3 all available alternatives to conservatorship pursuant to Section
line 4 5354 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. If a petition is not filed
line 5 within 60 days of the referral, the court shall order the defendant,
line 6 if confined in county jail, to be released on their own recognizance
line 7 pending conservatorship proceedings. If the outcome of the
line 8 conservatorship proceedings results in the establishment of
line 9 conservatorship, the charges shall be dismissed pursuant to Section
line 10 1385.
line 11 (iv) Refer the defendant to the CARE program pursuant to
line 12 Section 5978 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. A hearing to
line 13 determine eligibility for CARE shall be held within 14 days after
line 14 the date of the referral. If the hearing is delayed beyond 14 days,
line 15 the court shall order the defendant, if confined in county jail, to
line 16 be released on their own recognizance pending that hearing. If the
line 17 defendant is accepted into CARE, the charges shall be dismissed
line 18 pursuant to Section 1385.
line 19 (2) Dismiss the charges pursuant to Section 1385. If the criminal
line 20 action is dismissed, the court shall transmit a copy of the order of
line 21 dismissal to the county behavioral health director or the director’s
line 22 designee.
line 23 (c) If the defendant is found mentally incompetent and is on a
line 24 grant of probation for a misdemeanor offense, the court shall
line 25 dismiss the pending revocation matter and may return the defendant
line 26 to supervision. If the revocation matter is dismissed pursuant to
line 27 this subdivision, the court may modify the terms and conditions
line 28 of supervision to include appropriate mental health treatment.
line 29 (d) It is the intent of the Legislature that a defendant subject to
line 30 the terms of this section receive mental health treatment in a
line 31 treatment facility and not a jail. A term of four days will be deemed
line 32 to have been served for every two days spent in actual custody
line 33 against the maximum term of diversion. A defendant not in actual
line 34 custody shall otherwise receive day for day credit against the term
line 35 of diversion from the date the defendant is accepted into diversion.
line 36 “Actual custody” has the same meaning as in Section 4019.
line 37 (e) This section shall apply only as provided in subdivision (b)
line 38 of Section 1367.
line 39 SEC. 5. Section 5801 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is
line 40 amended to read:
94
SB 1338 — 11 —
line 1 5801. (a) A system of care for adults and older adults with
line 2 severe mental illness results in the highest benefit to the client,
line 3 family, and community while ensuring that the public sector meets
line 4 its legal responsibility and fiscal liability at the lowest possible
line 5 cost.
line 6 (b) The underlying philosophy for these systems of care includes
line 7 the following:
line 8 (1) Mental health care is a basic human service.
line 9 (2) Seriously mentally disordered adults and older adults are
line 10 citizens of a community with all the rights, privileges,
line 11 opportunities, and responsibilities accorded other citizens.
line 12 (3) Seriously mentally disordered adults and older adults usually
line 13 have multiple disorders and disabling conditions and should have
line 14 the highest priority among adults for mental health services.
line 15 (4) Seriously mentally disordered adults and older adults should
line 16 have an interagency network of services with multiple points of
line 17 access and be assigned a single person or team to be responsible
line 18 for all treatment, case management, and community support
line 19 services.
line 20 (5) The client should be fully informed and volunteer for all
line 21 treatment provided, unless danger to self or others or grave
line 22 disability requires temporary involuntary treatment, or the client
line 23 is under a court order for assisted outpatient treatment pursuant to
line 24 Section 5346 and, prior to the filing of the petition for assisted
line 25 outpatient treatment pursuant to Section 5346, the client has been
line 26 offered an opportunity to participate in treatment on a voluntary
line 27 basis and has failed to engage in that treatment, or the client is
line 28 under a court order for CARE pursuant to Part 8 (commencing
line 29 with Section 5970) and, prior to the court-ordered CARE plan, the
line 30 client has been offered an opportunity to enter into a CARE
line 31 agreement on a voluntary basis and has declined to do so.
line 32 (6) Clients and families should directly participate in making
line 33 decisions about services and resource allocations that affect their
line 34 lives.
line 35 (7) People in local communities are the most knowledgeable
line 36 regarding their particular environments, issues, service gaps and
line 37 strengths, and opportunities.
line 38 (8) Mental health services should be responsive to the unique
line 39 characteristics of people with mental disorders including age,
94
— 12 — SB 1338
line 1 gender, minority and ethnic status, and the effect of multiple
line 2 disorders.
line 3 (9) For the majority of seriously mentally disordered adults and
line 4 older adults, treatment is best provided in the client’s natural setting
line 5 in the community. Treatment, case management, and community
line 6 support services should be designed to prevent inappropriate
line 7 removal from the natural environment to more restrictive and costly
line 8 placements.
line 9 (10) Mental health systems of care shall have measurable goals
line 10 and be fully accountable by providing measures of client outcomes
line 11 and cost of services.
line 12 (11) State and county government agencies each have
line 13 responsibilities and fiscal liabilities for seriously mentally
line 14 disordered adults and seniors.
line 15 SEC. 6. Section 5813.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code
line 16 is amended to read:
line 17 5813.5. Subject to the availability of funds from the Mental
line 18 Health Services Fund, the state shall distribute funds for the
line 19 provision of services under Sections 5801, 5802, and 5806 to
line 20 county mental health programs. Services shall be available to adults
line 21 and seniors with severe illnesses who meet the eligibility criteria
line 22 in subdivisions (b) and (c) of Section 5600.3. For purposes of this
line 23 act, “seniors” means older adult persons identified in Part 3
line 24 (commencing with Section 5800) of this division.
line 25 (a) Funding shall be provided at sufficient levels to ensure that
line 26 counties can provide each adult and senior served pursuant to this
line 27 part with the medically necessary mental health services,
line 28 medications, and supportive services set forth in the applicable
line 29 treatment plan.
line 30 (b) The funding shall only cover the portions of those costs of
line 31 services that cannot be paid for with other funds, including other
line 32 mental health funds, public and private insurance, and other local,
line 33 state, and federal funds.
line 34 (c) Each county mental health program’s plan shall provide for
line 35 services in accordance with the system of care for adults and
line 36 seniors who meet the eligibility criteria in subdivisions (b) and (c)
line 37 of Section 5600.3.
line 38 (d) Planning for services shall be consistent with the philosophy,
line 39 principles, and practices of the Recovery Vision for mental health
line 40 consumers:
94
SB 1338 — 13 —
line 1 (1) To promote concepts key to the recovery for individuals
line 2 who have mental illness: hope, personal empowerment, respect,
line 3 social connections, self-responsibility, and self-determination.
line 4 (2) To promote consumer-operated services as a way to support
line 5 recovery.
line 6 (3) To reflect the cultural, ethnic, and racial diversity of mental
line 7 health consumers.
line 8 (4) To plan for each consumer’s individual needs.
line 9 (e) The plan for each county mental health program shall
line 10 indicate, subject to the availability of funds as determined by Part
line 11 4.5 (commencing with Section 5890) of this division, and other
line 12 funds available for mental health services, adults and seniors with
line 13 a severe mental illness being served by this program are either
line 14 receiving services from this program or have a mental illness that
line 15 is not sufficiently severe to require the level of services required
line 16 of this program.
line 17 (f) Each county plan and annual update pursuant to Section
line 18 5847 shall consider ways to provide services similar to those
line 19 established pursuant to the Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction
line 20 Grant Program. Funds shall not be used to pay for persons
line 21 incarcerated in state prison. Funds may be used to provide services
line 22 to persons who are participating in a presentencing or
line 23 postsentencing diversion program or who are on parole, probation,
line 24 postrelease community supervision, or mandatory supervision.
line 25 When included in county plans pursuant to Section 5847, funds
line 26 may be used for the provision of mental health services under
line 27 Sections 5347 and 5348 in counties that elect to participate in the
line 28 Assisted Outpatient Treatment Demonstration Project Act of 2002
line 29 (Article 9 (commencing with Section 5345) of Chapter 2 of Part
line 30 1), and for the provision of services to clients pursuant to Part 8
line 31 (commencing with Section 5970).
line 32 (g) The department shall contract for services with county
line 33 mental health programs pursuant to Section 5897. After November
line 34 2, 2004, the term “grants,” as used in Sections 5814 and 5814.5,
line 35 shall refer to those contracts.
line 36 SEC. 7. Part 8 (commencing with Section 5970) is added to
line 37 Division 5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, to read:
94
— 14 — SB 1338
line 1 PART 8. THE COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE, RECOVERY,
line 2 AND EMPOWERMENT ACT
line 3
line 4 Chapter 1. General Provisions
line 5
line 6 5970. This part shall be known, and may be cited, as
line 7 Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE)
line 8 Act.
line 9 5970.5. It is the intent of the Legislature that this part be
line 10 implemented in a manner that ensures it is effective. This part
line 11 shall be implemented as follows, with technical assistance and
line 12 continuous quality improvement, pursuant to Section 5983:
line 13 (a) A first cohort of counties, representing at least one-half of
line 14 the population of the state, shall begin no later than July 1, 2023,
line 15 with additional funding provided to support the earlier
line 16 implementation date.
line 17 (b) A second cohort of counties, representing the remaining
line 18 population of the state, shall begin no later than July 1, 2024.
line 19 5971. Unless the context otherwise requires, the following
line 20 definitions shall govern the construction of this part.
line 21 (a) “CARE agreement” means a voluntary settlement agreement
line 22 entered into by the parties. A CARE agreement includes the same
line 23 elements as a CARE plan to support the respondent in accessing
line 24 community-based services and supports.
line 25 (b) “CARE plan” means an individualized, appropriate range
line 26 of community-based services and supports consisting of supports,
line 27 as set forth in this part, which include clinically appropriate
line 28 behavioral health care, care and stabilization medications, housing,
line 29 and enumerated services, other supportive services, as appropriate,
line 30 pursuant to Section 5982.
line 31 (c) “CARE supporter” means an adult, designated pursuant to
line 32 Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 5980), who assists the person
line 33 who is the subject of the petition, which may include supporting
line 34 the person to understand, make, communicate, implement, or act
line 35 on their own life decisions during the CARE Act court process,
line 36 including a CARE agreement, a CARE plan, and a graduation
line 37 plan. A CARE supporter shall not act independently.
line 38 (c) “Counsel” means the attorney representing the respondent,
line 39 provided pursuant to Section 5980, or chosen by the respondent,
94
SB 1338 — 15 —
line 1 in CARE proceedings and matters related to CARE agreements
line 2 and CARE plans.
line 3 (d) “County behavioral health agency” means the local director
line 4 of mental health services described in Section 5607, the local
line 5 behavioral health director, or both as applicable, or their designee.
line 6 (e) “Court-ordered evaluation” means an evaluation ordered by
line 7 a superior court pursuant to Section 5977.
line 8 (f) “Graduation plan” means a voluntary agreement entered into
line 9 by the parties at the end of the CARE program that includes a
line 10 strategy to support a successful transition out of court jurisdiction
line 11 and that may include a psychiatric advance directive. A graduation
line 12 plan includes the same elements as a CARE plan to support the
line 13 respondent in accessing community-based services and supports.
line 14 The graduation plan shall not place additional requirements on the
line 15 counties local government entities and is not enforceable by the
line 16 court.
line 17 (g) “Indian health care provider” means a health care program
line 18 operated by the Indian Health Service, an Indian tribe, a tribal
line 19 organization, or urban Indian organization (I/T/U) as those terms
line 20 are defined in Section 4 of the Indian Health Care Improvement
line 21 Act (25 U.S.C. Sec. 1603).
line 22 (h) “Licensed behavioral health professional” means either of
line 23 the following:
line 24 (1) A licensed mental health professional, as defined in
line 25 subdivision (j) of Section 4096.
line 26 (2) A person who has been granted a waiver of licensure
line 27 requirements by the State Department of Health Care Services
line 28 pursuant to Section 5751.2.
line 29 (i) “Parties” means the respondent, the county behavioral health
line 30 agency in the county where proceedings under this part are pending,
line 31 and other parties added by the court pursuant to clause (ii) of
line 32 subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (d) of Section
line 33 5977.
line 34 (j) “Psychiatric advance directive” means a legal document,
line 35 executed on a voluntary basis by a person who has the capacity to
line 36 make medical decisions, that allows a person with mental illness
line 37 to protect their autonomy and ability to self-direct care by
line 38 documenting their preferences for treatment in advance of a mental
line 39 health crisis.
94
— 16 — SB 1338
line 1 (k) “Respondent” means the person who is subject to the petition
line 2 for CARE Act court proceedings.
line 3 (l) “Stabilization medications” means medications included in
line 4 the CARE plan that primarily consist of antipsychotic medications,
line 5 to reduce symptoms of hallucinations, delusions, and disorganized
line 6 thinking. Stabilization medications may be administered as
line 7 long-acting injections if clinically indicated. Stabilization
line 8 medications shall not be forcibly administered.
line 9 (m) “Supporter” means an adult, designated pursuant to
line 10 Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 5980), who assists the person
line 11 who is the subject of the petition, which may include supporting
line 12 the person to understand, make, communicate, implement, or act
line 13 on their own life decisions during the CARE Act court process,
line 14 including a CARE agreement, a CARE plan, and developing a
line 15 graduation plan. A supporter shall not act independently.
line 16 (n) “Trauma-informed care” means practices that recognize
line 17 and respond to the signs, symptoms, and risks of trauma to better
line 18 support the health needs of patients who have experienced Adverse
line 19 Childhood Experiences (ACEs) and toxic stress.
line 20
line 21 Chapter 2. Process
line 22
line 23 5972. An individual shall qualify for CARE proceedings only
line 24 if all of the following criteria are met:
line 25 (a) The person is 18 years of age or older.
line 26 (b) The person is currently suffering from experiencing a severe
line 27 mental illness, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of
line 28 Section 5600.3 and has a diagnosis of schizophrenia spectrum or
line 29 other psychotic disorder, as defined in the most current version of
line 30 the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. This
line 31 section does not establish respondent eligibility based upon a
line 32 psychotic disorder that is due to a medical condition or is not
line 33 primarily psychiatric in nature, including, but not limited to,
line 34 physical health conditions such as traumatic brain injury, autism,
line 35 dementia, or neurologic conditions. A person who has a current
line 36 diagnosis of substance use disorder as defined in paragraph (2) of
line 37 subdivision (a) of Section 1374.72 of the Health and Safety Code,
line 38 but who does not meet the required criteria in this section shall
line 39 not qualify for CARE proceedings.
94
SB 1338 — 17 —
line 1 (c) The person is not clinically stabilized in on-going voluntary
line 2 treatment.
line 3 (d) At least one of the following is true:
line 4 (1) The person is unlikely to survive safely in the community
line 5 without supervision and the person’s condition is substantially
line 6 deteriorating.
line 7 (2) The person is in need of services and supports in order to
line 8 prevent a relapse or deterioration that would be likely to result in
line 9 grave disability or serious harm to the person or others, as defined
line 10 in Section 5150.
line 11 (e) Participation in the CARE Act services would be the least
line 12 restrictive alternative necessary to ensure the person’s recovery
line 13 and stability.
line 14 (f) It is likely that the person will benefit from CARE Act
line 15 services. the CARE Act.
line 16 5973. (a) Proceedings under this part may be commenced in
line 17 any of the following:
line 18 (a)
line 19 (1) The county in which the respondent resides.
line 20 (b)
line 21 (2) The county where the respondent is found.
line 22 (c)
line 23 (3) The county where the respondent is facing criminal or civil
line 24 proceedings.
line 25 (b) If the respondent does not reside in the county in which
line 26 proceedings are initiated under this subdivision, as determined in
line 27 accordance with Section 244 of the Government Code, except as
line 28 provided in subdivision (e) of Section 5982, and this part is
line 29 operative in the respondent’s county of residence, the proceeding
line 30 shall, with the respondent’s consent, be transferred to the county
line 31 of residence as soon as reasonably feasible. Should the respondent
line 32 not consent to the transfer, the proceedings shall continue in the
line 33 county where the respondent was found.
line 34 5974. The following persons may file a petition to initiate
line 35 CARE proceedings:
line 36 (a) A person 18 years of age or older with whom the respondent
line 37 resides.
line 38 (b) A spouse, parent, adult sibling, adult child, or grandparent
line 39 or other adult who stands in loco parentis to the respondent.
94
— 18 — SB 1338
line 1 (c) The director of a hospital, or their designee, in which the
line 2 respondent is hospitalized, including hospitalization pursuant to
line 3 Section 5150 or 5250.
line 4 (d) The director of a public or charitable organization, agency,
line 5 or home, or their designee, who has, within the previous 30 days,
line 6 provided or who is currently providing behavioral health services
line 7 to the respondent or in whose institution the respondent resides.
line 8 (e) A licensed behavioral health professional, or their designee,
line 9 who is, or has been within the previous 30 days, either supervising
line 10 the treatment of, or treating the respondent for a mental illness.
line 11 (f) A first responder, including a peace officer, firefighter,
line 12 paramedic, emergency medical technician, mobile crisis response
line 13 worker, or homeless outreach worker, who has had repeated
line 14 interactions with the respondent in the form of multiple arrests,
line 15 multiple detentions and transportation pursuant to Section 5150,
line 16 multiple attempts to engage the respondent in voluntary treatment,
line 17 or other repeated efforts to aid the respondent in obtaining
line 18 professional assistance.
line 19 (g) The public guardian or public conservator, or their designee,
line 20 of the county in which the respondent is present or reasonably
line 21 believed to be present.
line 22 (h) The director of a county behavioral health agency, or their
line 23 designee, of the county in which the respondent is present or
line 24 reasonably believed to be present. resides or is found.
line 25 (i) The director of county adult protective services, or their
line 26 designee, of the county in which the respondent is present or is
line 27 reasonably believed to be present. resides or is found.
line 28 (j) The director of a California Indian health services program,
line 29 California tribal behavioral health department, or their designee.
line 30 (k) The judge of a tribal court that is located in California, or
line 31 their designee.
line 32 (l) A prosecuting attorney, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section
line 33 5978.
line 34 (m) The respondent.
line 35 5975. The petition shall be signed under the penalty of perjury
line 36 and contain all of the following:
line 37 (a) The name of the respondent and, if known, the respondent’s
line 38 address.
line 39 (b) The petitioner’s relationship to the respondent.
94
SB 1338 — 19 —
line 1 (c) Facts that support the petitioner’s assertion that the
line 2 respondent meets the CARE criteria in Section 5972.
line 3 (d) Either of the following:
line 4 (1) An affidavit of a licensed behavioral health professional,
line 5 stating that the licensed behavioral health professional or their
line 6 designee has examined the respondent within 60 days of the
line 7 submission of the petition, or has made multiple attempts to
line 8 examine, but has not been successful in eliciting the cooperation
line 9 of the respondent to submit to an examination, within 60 days of
line 10 the petition, and that the licensed behavioral health professional
line 11 had determined that the respondent meets, or has reason to believe,
line 12 explained with specificity in the affidavit, that the respondent meets
line 13 the diagnostic criteria for CARE proceedings.
line 14 (2) Evidence that the respondent was detained for a minimum
line 15 of two intensive treatments pursuant to Article 4 (commencing
line 16 with Section 5250) of Chapter 2 of Part 1, the most recent one
line 17 within the previous 60 days.
line 18 5975.1. Notwithstanding Section 391 of the Code of Civil
line 19 Procedure, if a person other than the respondent files a petition for
line 20 CARE Act proceedings that is without merit or is intended to harass
line 21 or annoy the respondent, and the person has previously filed
line 22 pleadings a pleading in CARE Act proceedings that were was
line 23 without merit or were was intended to harass or annoy the
line 24 respondent, the petition shall be grounds for the court to determine
line 25 that the person is a vexatious litigant for the purposes of Title 3A
line 26 (commencing with Section 391) of Part 2 of the Code of Civil
line 27 Procedure.
line 28 5976. The respondent shall:
line 29 (a) Receive notice of the hearings.
line 30 (b) Receive a copy of the court-ordered evaluation.
line 31 (c) Be represented by counsel at all stages of a proceeding
line 32 commenced under this chapter, regardless of the ability to pay.
line 33 (d) Be offered a CARE allowed to have a supporter, as described
line 34 in Section 5982.
line 35 (e) Be present at the hearing unless the respondent waives the
line 36 right to be present.
line 37 (f) Have the right to present evidence.
line 38 (g) Have the right to call witnesses.
line 39 (h) Have the right to cross-examine witnesses.
94
— 20 — SB 1338
line 1 (i) Have the right to appeal decisions, and to be informed of the
line 2 right to appeal.
line 3 5976.5. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, and except as
line 4 otherwise provided in this section, a hearing held under this part
line 5 is presumptively closed to the public.
line 6 (b) The respondent may demand that the hearing be public and
line 7 be held in a place suitable for attendance by the public.
line 8 (c) The respondent may request the presence of any family
line 9 member or friend without waiving the right to keep the hearing
line 10 closed to the rest of the public.
line 11 (d) A request by any other party to the proceeding to make the
line 12 hearing public may be granted if the judge, hearing officer, or other
line 13 person judge conducting the hearing finds that the public interest
line 14 in an open hearing clearly outweighs the respondent’s interest in
line 15 privacy.
line 16 (e) Before commencing a hearing, the judge shall inform the
line 17 respondent of their rights under this section.
line 18 5977. (a) (1) The court shall promptly review the petition to
line 19 determine if the petition may contain the information required by
line 20 Section 5975.
line 21 (2) If the court finds that the petition does not contain the
line 22 information required by Section 5975, the court shall dismiss the
line 23 case without prejudice subject to consideration of Section 5975.1.
line 24 (3) If, based upon the information in the petition, the court finds
line 25 that the petition may contain the information required by Section
line 26 5975, the court shall order a county agency, or their designee, as
line 27 determined by the presiding judge, to investigate, as necessary,
line 28 and file a written report with the court within 21 days that includes
line 29 a determination as to whether the respondent meets, or is likely to
line 30 meet, the criteria for CARE proceedings and the outcome of efforts
line 31 made to voluntarily engage the respondent during the 21-day report
line 32 period. The court shall provide notice to the respondent and
line 33 petitioner that a report has been ordered.
line 34 (4) The county agency shall submit a written report to the court
line 35 with the findings and conclusions of the investigation, along with
line 36 any recommendations. If the county agency is making progress to
line 37 engage the respondent, it may request up to an additional 30 days
line 38 to continue to engage and enroll the individual in treatment and
line 39 services.
94
SB 1338 — 21 —
line 1 (5) The court shall, within five days of receipt of the report,
line 2 review the report and take one of the following actions:
line 3 (A) If the court determines that the respondent meets, or likely
line 4 meets the criteria, and engagement is not effective, the court shall
line 5 do all of the following:
line 6 (i) Set an initial hearing within 14 days.
line 7 (ii) (I) Appoint counsel, unless the respondent has retained
line 8 their own counsel.
line 9 (II) If the respondent has not retained legal counsel and does
line 10 not plan to retain legal counsel, whether or not the respondent
line 11 lacks or appears to lack legal capacity, the court shall, before the
line 12 time of the initial hearing, appoint a qualified legal services
line 13 project, as defined in Sections 6213 to 6214.5, inclusive, of the
line 14 Business and Professions Code or, if no legal services project has
line 15 agreed to accept these appointments, a public defender to represent
line 16 the respondent for all purposes related to this part, including
line 17 appeals.
line 18 (III) Counsel appointed in this case shall have the authority to
line 19 represent the individual in any proceeding under this part, and
line 20 shall have the authority to represent the individual, as needed, in
line 21 matters related to CARE agreements and CARE plans.
line 22 (iii) Appoint a CARE Allow the respondent to select a supporter,
line 23 unless the respondent chooses their own CARE supporter or
line 24 chooses not to have a CARE supporter.
line 25 (iv) Provide notice of the hearing to the petitioner, the
line 26 respondent, the appointed counsel and CARE counsel, the
line 27 supporter, and the county behavioral health agency in the county
line 28 where the respondent resides. resides, and, if different, the county
line 29 where the CARE court proceedings have commenced.
line 30 (B) If the court determines that the respondent meets, or likely
line 31 meets, the criteria, voluntary engagement is effective, and that the
line 32 individual has enrolled in behavioral health treatment, the court
line 33 shall dismiss the matter.
line 34 (C) If the court determines that the individual does not meet, or
line 35 is likely not to meet, the criteria, the court shall dismiss the matter.
line 36 This section shall not prevent county behavioral health from
line 37 voluntarily engaging with individuals who do not meet CARE
line 38 criteria but who are in need of services and supports.
line 39 (6) If the court dismisses the matter pursuant to subparagraph
line 40 (B) or (C) of paragraph (5), the court shall notify the petitioner
94
— 22 — SB 1338
line 1 and the respondent of the dismissal and the reason for dismissal.
line 2 The petitioner shall have the ability to request reconsideration of
line 3 the dismissal within 10 days. Should the court grant
line 4 reconsideration, the court may set an initial hearing as outlined in
line 5 subparagraph (A) of paragraph (5).
line 6 (b) At the initial hearing, the court shall permit the respondent
line 7 to substitute their own counsel for appointed counsel and substitute
line 8 their own CARE supporter for the appointed CARE supporter or
line 9 elect to proceed without a CARE supporter. counsel.
line 10 (c) All of the following apply for the initial hearing:
line 11 (1) The petitioner shall be present. If the petitioner is not present,
line 12 the matter may be dismissed.
line 13 (2) The respondent may waive their appearance and appear
line 14 through their counsel. If the respondent does not waive their
line 15 appearance and does not appear at the hearing, and appropriate
line 16 attempts to elicit the attendance of the respondent have failed, the
line 17 court may conduct the hearing in the respondent’s absence. If the
line 18 hearing is conducted without the respondent present, the court
line 19 shall set forth the factual basis for doing so and the reasons the
line 20 proceedings will be successful without the respondent’s presence.
line 21 (3) A representative from the county behavioral health agency
line 22 shall be present.
line 23 (4) The CARE supporter shall supporter may be present, subject
line 24 to the consent of the respondent.
line 25 (5) If the respondent is enrolled in a federally recognized Indian
line 26 tribe or is otherwise receiving services from an Indian health care
line 27 provider, a tribal court, or a tribal organization, a representative
line 28 from the program, the tribe, or the tribal court shall be allowed to
line 29 be present, subject to the consent of the respondent.
line 30 (d) (1) At the initial hearing, the court shall determine if the
line 31 petitioner has presented prima facie evidence that the respondent
line 32 meets the CARE criteria. In making this determination, the court
line 33 shall consider all evidence properly before it, including the report
line 34 from the county required pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision
line 35 (a) and any additional evidence presented by the parties.
line 36 (2) If the court finds there is no reason to believe that the facts
line 37 stated in the petition are true, the court shall dismiss the case
line 38 without prejudice, unless the court makes a finding, on the record,
line 39 that the petitioner’s filing was not in good faith. Any new petition
94
SB 1338 — 23 —
line 1 shall be based on changed circumstances that warrant a new
line 2 petition.
line 3 (3) If the court finds that there is reason to believe that the facts
line 4 stated in the petition appear to be true, the court shall order the
line 5 county behavioral health agency to work with the respondent, the
line 6 respondent’s counsel, and the CARE supporter to engage in
line 7 behavioral health treatment. The court shall set a case management
line 8 hearing within 14 days.
line 9 (4) If the respondent is enrolled in a federally recognized Indian
line 10 tribe, the court shall provide notice of the case management hearing
line 11 to the tribe, subject to the consent of the respondent.
line 12 5977.1. (a) (1) At the case management hearing, the court
line 13 shall determine whether the parties may enter into a CARE
line 14 agreement.
line 15 (2) The court’s findings that the parties may enter into a CARE
line 16 agreement shall require a recitation of all terms and conditions on
line 17 the record.
line 18 (3) If the court finds that the parties have agreed to a CARE
line 19 agreement, and the court agrees with the terms of the CARE
line 20 agreement, the court shall stay the matter and set a progress hearing
line 21 for 60 days.
line 22 (b) (1) If the court finds that the parties have not reached, and
line 23 are not likely to reach, a CARE agreement, the court shall order a
line 24 clinical evaluation of the respondent. The evaluation shall address
line 25 the clinical diagnosis and shall address the issue of whether the
line 26 defendant has capacity to give informed consent regarding
line 27 psychotropic medication.
line 28 (2) The court shall order the county behavioral health agency,
line 29 through a licensed behavioral health professional, to conduct the
line 30 evaluation unless there is an existing clinical evaluation of the
line 31 respondent completed within the last 30 days and the parties
line 32 stipulate to the use of that evaluation.
line 33 (c) (1) The court shall set a clinical evaluation hearing to review
line 34 the evaluation within 14 days.
line 35 (2) At the clinical evaluation review hearing, the court shall
line 36 review the evaluation and any other evidence from the petitioner,
line 37 the county behavioral health agency, the respondent, and, if
line 38 requested by the respondent, the CARE and the supporter. The
line 39 petitioner and the respondent may present evidence and call
line 40 witnesses, including the person who conducted the evaluation.
94
— 24 — SB 1338
line 1 Only relevant and admissible evidence that fully complies with
line 2 the rules of evidence may be considered by the court.
line 3 (3) The clinical evaluation hearing may be continued for a
line 4 maximum of 14 days upon stipulation of the respondent and the
line 5 county behavioral health agency, unless there is good cause for a
line 6 longer extension.
line 7 (4) (A) If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence,
line 8 after review of the evaluation and other evidence, that the
line 9 respondent meets the CARE criteria, the court shall order the
line 10 county behavioral health agency, the respondent, and the
line 11 respondent’s counsel and CARE supporter to jointly develop a
line 12 CARE plan.
line 13 (B) The respondent and the county behavioral health agency
line 14 may request appellate review of the order to develop a CARE plan.
line 15 (5) If the court finds, in reviewing the evaluation, that clear and
line 16 convincing evidence does not support that the respondent meets
line 17 the CARE criteria, the court shall dismiss the petition.
line 18 (6) The evaluation and all reports, documents, and filings
line 19 submitted to the court shall be confidential.
line 20 (d) (1) The CARE plan shall be developed by the respondent,
line 21 in consultation with their CARE supporter and counsel, and the
line 22 county behavioral health agency.
line 23 (2) If the proposed CARE plan includes services and supports,
line 24 such as housing, provided directly or indirectly through another
line 25 local governmental entity, that local entity may agree to provide
line 26 the service or support or the court may consider a motion by either
line 27 of the parties to add the local entity as a party to the CARE
line 28 proceeding.
line 29 (3) If the respondent is an American Indian or Alaska Native
line 30 individual, as defined in Sections 1603(13), 1603(28), and 1679(a)
line 31 of Title 25 of the United States Code, has been determined eligible
line 32 as an Indian under Section 136.12 of Title 42 of the Code of
line 33 Federal Regulations, or is otherwise receiving services from an
line 34 Indian health care provider or tribal court, the county behavioral
line 35 health agency shall use best efforts to meaningfully consult with
line 36 and incorporate the Indian health care provider or tribal court
line 37 available to the respondent to develop the CARE plan.
line 38 (4) The date for the hearing to review and consider approval of
line 39 the proposed CARE plan shall be set not more than 14 days from
94
SB 1338 — 25 —
line 1 the date of the order to develop a CARE plan, unless there is good
line 2 cause for an extension.
line 3 (e) (1) The county behavioral health agency or the respondent,
line 4 or both, may present a proposed CARE plan.
line 5 (2) After reviewing the proposed CARE plan and hearing from
line 6 the parties, the court may issue any orders necessary to support
line 7 the respondent in accessing appropriate services and supports,
line 8 including prioritization for those services and supports, subject to
line 9 applicable laws and available funding pursuant to Section 5982.
line 10 (3) A court may only order medication if it finds, upon review
line 11 of the court-ordered evaluation and hearing from the parties that,
line 12 by clear and convincing evidence, the respondent lacks the capacity
line 13 to give informed consent to the administration of medically
line 14 necessary medication, including antipsychotic medication. To the
line 15 extent the court orders medically necessary stabilization
line 16 medication, the medication shall not be forcibly administered and
line 17 the respondent’s failure to comply with a medication order shall
line 18 not result in a penalty, including, but not limited to, contempt or
line 19 Section 5979.
line 20 (4) If the court determines that additional information is needed,
line 21 including from a licensed behavioral health professional, the court
line 22 shall order a supplemental report to be filed and the court may
line 23 grant a continuance for no more than 14 days, unless there is good
line 24 cause for an extension.
line 25 (5) If there is no CARE plan because the parties have not had
line 26 sufficient time to complete it, the court may grant a continuance
line 27 for no more than 14 days, unless there is good cause for an
line 28 extension.
line 29 (f) The issuance of the order approving the CARE plan begins
line 30 the up-to-one-year CARE program timeline.
line 31 5977.2. (a) (1) At intervals of not less than 60 days during
line 32 the CARE plan implementation, the court shall have a status review
line 33 hearing. The county behavioral health worker agency assigned to
line 34 the respondent’s case shall file with the court and serve on the
line 35 respondent, and the respondent’s counsel and CARE supporter, a
line 36 report not less than seven days prior to the review hearing with
line 37 the following information:
line 38 (A) Progress the respondent has made on the CARE plan.
line 39 (B) What services and supports in the CARE plan were
line 40 provided, and what services and supports were not provided.
94
— 26 — SB 1338
line 1 (C) Any issues the respondent expressed or exhibited in adhering
line 2 to the CARE plan.
line 3 (D) Recommendations for changes to the services and supports
line 4 to make the CARE plan more successful.
line 5 (2) Subject to applicable law, intermittent lapses or setbacks
line 6 described in this section of the report shall not impact access to
line 7 services, treatment, or housing.
line 8 (3) A status review hearing shall occur unless waived by all
line 9 parties and approved by the court.
line 10 (b) The county behavioral health agency or the respondent may
line 11 request, or the court upon its own motion may set, a hearing to
line 12 occur at any time during the CARE Act proceedings to address a
line 13 change of circumstances.
line 14 5977.3. (a) (1) In the 11th month of the program timeline, the
line 15 court shall hold a one-year status hearing. At that hearing, the court
line 16 shall determine whether to graduate the respondent from the
line 17 program with a graduation plan or reappoint the respondent to the
line 18 program for another term, not to exceed one year.
line 19 (2) The one-year status hearing shall be an evidentiary hearing.
line 20 At least seven days prior to the one-year status hearing, the county
line 21 behavioral health agency shall submit to the court and to the
line 22 respondent, the respondent’s counsel, and the respondent’s CARE
line 23 supporter, a report on the progress the respondent has made on the
line 24 CARE plan, what services and supports in the CARE plan were
line 25 provided, what services and supports were not provided, any issues
line 26 the respondent had in adhering to the plan, and any
line 27 recommendations for completion and graduation or continuation
line 28 in CARE Act programming. The respondent shall have the right
line 29 at the hearing to call witnesses and present evidence information
line 30 as to whether or not the respondent agrees with the report.
line 31 (b) (1) If the respondent has successfully completed
line 32 participation in the one-year CARE program, the respondent shall
line 33 not be reappointed to the program. The court shall review with the
line 34 parties the voluntary agreement for a graduation plan to support a
line 35 successful transition out of court jurisdiction and may include a
line 36 psychiatric advance directive. The graduation plan shall not place
line 37 additional requirements on the counties local government entities
line 38 and is not enforceable by the court.
line 39 (2) At the one-year status hearing, the respondent may request
line 40 reappointment to the CARE program. Act. If the respondent elects
94
SB 1338 — 27 —
line 1 to accept voluntary reappointment to the program, reappointment,
line 2 the respondent may request any amount of time, up to and including
line 3 one additional year, to be reappointed to the CARE program. Act.
line 4 A respondent may only be reappointed to the CARE program once,
line 5 for up to one additional year. The respondent may be voluntarily
line 6 reappointed to the program if the court finds by clear and
line 7 convincing evidence that all both of the following conditions apply:
line 8 (A) The respondent did not successfully complete the program.
line 9 CARE Act.
line 10 (B) The respondent would benefit from continuation of the
line 11 CARE program. in the CARE Act.
line 12 (C) The court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the
line 13 respondent currently meets the requirements in Section 5972.
line 14 (3) If the courts finds that the respondent has not successfully
line 15 completed the program and that the respondent would benefit from
line 16 continuation of the program, and the court cannot find, by clear
line 17 and convincing evidence, that the respondent currently meets the
line 18 requirements in Section 5972, but the respondent voluntarily
line 19 requests to continue the program, the court may require that the
line 20 county continue to provide the services and supports required in
line 21 the CARE plan for another year.
line 22 (c) The respondent may be involuntarily reappointed to the
line 23 program only if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence,
line 24 that all of the following conditions apply:
line 25 (1) The respondent did not successfully complete the program.
line 26 CARE Act.
line 27 (2) All services and supports required by through the CARE
line 28 plan Act proceedings were provided to the respondent.
line 29 (3) The respondent would benefit from continuation in the
line 30 CARE program. Act.
line 31 (4) The respondent currently meets the requirements in Section
line 32 5972.
line 33 (d) A respondent may only be reappointed to the CARE program
line 34 Act once, for up to one additional year.
line 35 5977.4. (a) The judge shall control all proceedings during the
line 36 hearings with a view to the expeditious and effective ascertainment
line 37 of the jurisdictional facts and the ascertainment of all information
line 38 relative to the present condition and future welfare of the
line 39 respondent. Except when there is a contested issue of fact or law,
line 40 the proceedings shall be conducted in an informal nonadversarial
94
— 28 — SB 1338
line 1 atmosphere with a view to obtaining the maximum cooperation of
line 2 the respondent, all persons interested in the respondent’s welfare,
line 3 and all other parties, with any provisions that the court may make
line 4 for the disposition and care of the respondent. All evaluations and
line 5 reports, documents, and filings submitted to the court pursuant to
line 6 CARE Act proceedings shall be confidential.
line 7 (b) The hearings described in this chapter shall occur in person
line 8 unless the court, in its discretion, allows a party or witness to
line 9 appear remotely through the use of remote technology. The
line 10 respondent shall have the right to be in person for all hearings.
line 11 (c) Consistent with its constitutional rulemaking authority, the
line 12 Judicial Council shall adopt rules to implement the policies and
line 13 provisions in this section and in Sections 5977, 5977.1, 5977.2,
line 14 and 5977.3 to promote statewide consistency, including, but not
line 15 limited to, what is included in the petition form packet, the clerk’s
line 16 review of the petition, and the process by which counsel and CARE
line 17 supporter will be appointed.
line 18 5978. (a) A court may refer an individual from assisted
line 19 outpatient treatment and conservatorship proceedings to CARE
line 20 proceedings. If the individual is being referred from assisted
line 21 outpatient treatment, the county behavioral health director or their
line 22 designee may be the petitioner. If the individual is being referred
line 23 from conservatorship proceedings, the conservator may be the
line 24 petitioner.
line 25 (b) A court may refer an individual from misdemeanor
line 26 proceedings pursuant to Section 1370.01 of the Penal Code, in
line 27 which case the prosecuting attorney may be the petitioner.
line 28
line 29 Chapter 3. Accountability
line 30
line 31 5979. (a) (1) If, at any time during the proceedings, the court
line 32 determines by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent
line 33 is not participating in CARE proceedings, after the respondent
line 34 receives notice, or is not adhering to their CARE plan, after the
line 35 respondent receives notice, the court may terminate the
line 36 respondent’s participation in the CARE program.
line 37 (2) To ensure the respondent’s safety, the court may utilize
line 38 existing legal authority pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with
line 39 Section 5200) of Chapter 2 of Part 1. The court shall provide notice
94
SB 1338 — 29 —
line 1 to the county behavioral health agency and the Office of the Public
line 2 Conservator and Guardian if the court utilizes that authority.
line 3 (3) If the respondent was timely provided with all of the services
line 4 and supports required by the CARE plan, the fact that the
line 5 respondent failed to successfully complete their CARE plan,
line 6 including reasons for that failure, shall be a fact considered by the
line 7 court in a subsequent hearing under the Lanterman-Petris-Short
line 8 Act (Part 1 (commencing with Section 5000)), provided that the
line 9 hearing occurs withing six months of the termination of the CARE
line 10 plan and shall create a presumption at that hearing that the
line 11 respondent needs additional intervention beyond the supports and
line 12 services provided by the CARE plan.
line 13 (b) If, at any time during the proceedings, the court finds that
line 14 the county or other local government entity is not complying with
line 15 court orders, the court may fine the county or other local
line 16 government entity up to one thousand dollars ($1,000) per day for
line 17 noncompliance. If a county or other local government entity is
line 18 found to be persistently noncompliant, the court may appoint a
line 19 receiver to secure court-ordered care for the respondent at the
line 20 county’s cost. In determining the application of the remedies
line 21 available, the court shall consider whether there are any mitigating
line 22 circumstances impairing the ability of the county or other local
line 23 government entity to fully comply with the requirements of this
line 24 part. Funds collected pursuant to this subdivision shall be deposited
line 25 in a special fund and used to support county activities serving
line 26 individuals with serious mental illness. the CARE Act
line 27 Accountability Fund, which is hereby created in the State Treasury.
line 28 All moneys in the fund shall be used, upon appropriation, by the
line 29 State Department of Health Care Services to support local
line 30 government efforts that will serve individuals who have
line 31 schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders and who experience,
line 32 or are at risk of, homelessness, criminal justice involvement,
line 33 hospitalization, or conservatorship.
line 34 (c) Either the respondent or the county behavioral health agency
line 35 may appeal an adverse court determination.
line 36
line 37 Chapter 4. The CARE Supporter and Counsel
line 38
line 39 5980. (a) Subject to appropriation, the California Department
line 40 of Aging shall administer the CARE Supporter program, which
94
— 30 — SB 1338
line 1 shall make available a trained CARE supporter to the respondent,
line 2 who may accept, decline, or choose their own CARE supporter.
line 3 The department shall train CARE supporters on supported
line 4 decisionmaking with individuals who have behavioral health
line 5 conditions, with support and input from peers, family members,
line 6 disability groups, providers, the County Behavioral Health
line 7 Directors Association, and other relevant stakeholders, and on the
line 8 use of psychiatric advance directives. The department may enter
line 9 into a technical assistance and training agreement to provide
line 10 training directly to either CARE supporters or to the contracted
line 11 entities who will be responsible for hiring and matching CARE
line 12 supporters to respondents. The CARE Supporter program contracts
line 13 shall include labor standards under state and federal law. the State
line 14 Department of Health Care Services, with support and input from
line 15 relevant stakeholders, shall provide optional training and technical
line 16 resources for volunteer supporters on CARE Act proceedings,
line 17 community services and supports, supported decisionmaking, and
line 18 people with behavioral health conditions, trauma-informed care,
line 19 and psychiatric advance directives. The department may enter into
line 20 a technical assistance and training agreement for this purpose,
line 21 pursuant to Section 5984.
line 22 (b) The CARE Supporter program shall be designed to supporter
line 23 shall do all of the following:
line 24 (1) Offer the respondent a flexible and culturally responsive
line 25 way to maintain autonomy and decisionmaking authority over
line 26 their own life by developing and maintaining voluntary supports
line 27 to assist them in understanding, making, communicating, and
line 28 implementing their own informed choices.
line 29 (2) Strengthen the respondent’s capacity to engage in and
line 30 exercise autonomous decisionmaking and prevent or remove the
line 31 need to use more restrictive protective mechanisms, such as
line 32 conservatorship.
line 33 (3) Assist the respondent with understanding, making, and
line 34 communicating decisions and expressing preferences throughout
line 35 the CARE court process.
line 36 (c) If the respondent chooses to have a CARE supporter outside
line 37 of the CARE Supporter program, that person may serve as a
line 38 volunteer CARE supporter without compensation. Optional training
line 39 shall be made available and strongly encouraged for volunteer
line 40 CARE supporters.
94
SB 1338 — 31 —
line 1 5981. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, the
line 2 respondent may have their CARE a supporter present in any
line 3 meeting, judicial proceeding, status hearing, or communication
line 4 related to any of the following:
line 5 (1) An evaluation.
line 6 (2) Development of a CARE agreement or CARE plan.
line 7 (3) Establishing a psychiatric advance directive.
line 8 (4) Development of a graduation plan.
line 9 (b) A CARE supporter shall supporter is intended to do all the
line 10 following:
line 11 (1) Support the will and preferences of the respondent to the
line 12 best of their ability and to the extent reasonably possible.
line 13 (2) Respect the values, beliefs, and preferences of the
line 14 respondent.
line 15 (3) Act honestly, diligently, and in good faith.
line 16 (4) Avoid, to the greatest extent possible, and disclose to the
line 17 court, the respondent, and the respondent’s counsel, minimize, and
line 18 manage, conflicts of interest. A court may remove a CARE
line 19 supporter because of any conflict of interest with the respondent,
line 20 and shall remove the CARE supporter if the conflict cannot be
line 21 managed in such a way to avoid any possible harm to the
line 22 respondent.
line 23 (c) Unless explicitly authorized by the respondent with capacity
line 24 to make that authorization, a CARE supporter shall not do either
line 25 of the following:
line 26 (1) Make decisions for, or on behalf of, the respondent, except
line 27 when necessary to prevent imminent bodily harm or injury.
line 28 (2) Sign documents on behalf of the respondent.
line 29 (d) In addition to the obligations in this section, a CARE
line 30 supporter shall be bound by all existing obligations and prohibitions
line 31 otherwise applicable by law that protect people with disabilities
line 32 and the elderly from fraud, abuse, neglect, coercion, or
line 33 mistreatment. This section does not limit a CARE supporter’s civil
line 34 or criminal liability for prohibited conduct against the respondent,
line 35 including liability for fraud, abuse, neglect, coercion, or
line 36 mistreatment, including liability under the Elder Abuse and
line 37 Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (Chapter 11 (commencing
line 38 with Section 15600) of Part 3 of Division 9), including, but not
line 39 limited to, Sections 15656 and 15657.
94
— 32 — SB 1338
line 1 (e) The CARE supporter shall not be subpoenaed or called to
line 2 testify against the respondent in any proceeding relating to this
line 3 part, and the supporter’s presence at any meeting, proceeding, or
line 4 communication shall not waive confidentiality or any privilege.
line 5 5981.5. Subject to appropriation for this purpose, the Judicial
line 6 Council shall provide funding to qualified legal services projects,
line 7 as defined in Sections 6213 to 6214.5, inclusive, of the Business
line 8 and Professions Code, to be used to provide legal counsel
line 9 appointed pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 5976, for
line 10 representation in CARE proceedings, matters related to CARE
line 11 agreements and CARE plans, and to qualified support centers, as
line 12 defined in subdivision (b) of Section 6213 of, and Section 6215 of,
line 13 the Business and Professions Code, for training, support, and
line 14 coordination.
line 15
line 16 Chapter 5. CARE Plan
line 17
line 18 5982. (a) The CARE plan may only include the following:
line 19 (1) Behavioral health services funded through the 1991 and
line 20 2011 Realignment, Medi-Cal behavioral health, non-Medi-Cal
line 21 behavioral health, commercial plans, health care plans and
line 22 insurers, services provided pursuant to Part 5 (commencing with
line 23 Section 17000) of Division 9, and services supported by the Mental
line 24 Health Services Act pursuant to Part 3 (commencing with Section
line 25 5800).
line 26 (2) Medically necessary stabilization medications, to the extent
line 27 not described in paragraph (1).
line 28 (3) Housing resources funded through the No Place Like Home
line 29 Program (Part 3.9 (commencing with Section 5849.1) of Division
line 30 5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code); California Housing
line 31 Accelerator (Chapter 6.6 (commencing with Section 50672) of
line 32 Part 2 of Division 31 of the Health and Safety Code); the
line 33 Multifamily Housing Program (Chapter 6.7 (commencing with
line 34 Section 50675) of Part 2 of Division 31 of the Health and Safety
line 35 Code); the Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention Program
line 36 (Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 50216) of Part 1 of Division
line 37 31 of the Health and Safety Code); the Encampment Resolution
line 38 Funding Program (Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 50250)
line 39 of Part 1 of Division 31 of the Health and Safety Code); the Project
line 40 Roomkey and Rehousing Program pursuant to Provision 22 of
94
SB 1338 — 33 —
line 1 Item 5180-151-0001 of the Budget Act of 2021 (Ch. 21, Stats.
line 2 2021); the Community Care Expansion Program (Chapter 20
line 3 (commencing with Section 18999.97) of Part 6 of Division 9 of
line 4 the Welfare and Institutions Code); the CalWORKs Housing
line 5 Support Program (Article 3.3 (commencing with Section 11330)
line 6 of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions
line 7 Code); the CalWORKs Homeless Assistance pursuant to clause
line 8 (i) of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (f) of
line 9 Section 11450 of Article 6 of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9 of
line 10 the Welfare and Institutions Code; the Housing and Disability
line 11 Advocacy Program (Chapter 17 (commencing with Section 18999)
line 12 of Part 6 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code); the
line 13 Home Safe Program (Chapter 14 (commencing with Section 15770)
line 14 of Part 3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code); the
line 15 Bringing Families Home Program (Article 6 (commencing with
line 16 Section 16523) of Chapter 5 of Part 4 of Division 9 of the Welfare
line 17 and Institutions Code); the Transitional Housing Placement
line 18 program for nonminor dependents (Article 4 (commencing with
line 19 Section 16522) of Chapter 5 of Part 4 of Division 9 of the Welfare
line 20 and Institutions Code); the Transitional Housing Program-Plus
line 21 pursuant to subdivision (s) of Section 11400 and paragraph (2) of
line 22 subdivision (a) of Section 11403.2 of Article 5 of Chapter 2 of
line 23 Part 3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and
line 24 Article 4 (commencing with Section 16522) of Chapter 5 of Part
line 25 4 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code; the Behavioral
line 26 Health Continuum Infrastructure Program (Chapter 1 (commencing
line 27 with Section 5960) of Part 7 of Division 5 of the Welfare and
line 28 Institutions Code); the Behavioral Health Bridge Housing Program;
line 29 HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Program (Section
line 30 8(o)(19) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 [42 U.S.C.
line 31 Section 1437f(o)(19)]); Supportive Services for Veteran Families
line 32 (Section 604 of the Veterans’ Mental Health and Other Care
line 33 Improvements Act of 2008 [38 U.S.C. Sec. 2044]); HUD
line 34 Continuum of Care program (Section 103 of the McKinney-Vento
line 35 Homeless Assistance Act [42 U.S.C. Sec. 11302]); the Emergency
line 36 Solutions Grant (Subtitle B of Title IV of the McKinney-Vento
line 37 Homeless Assistance Act [42 U.S.C. Secs. 11371-11378]); HUD
line 38 Housing Choice Voucher program (Section 8 of the United States
line 39 Housing Act of 1937 [42 U.S.C. Sec. 1437f]); the Emergency
line 40 Housing Vouchers (Section 3202 of the American Rescue Plan
94
— 34 — SB 1338
line 1 Act of 2021 [Public Law 117-2]; Section 8(o) of the United States
line 2 Housing Act of 1937 [42 U.S.C. Sec. 1437f(o)]); HOME
line 3 Investment Partnerships Program (Title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez
line 4 National Affordable Housing Act [42 U.S.C. Sec. 12721 et seq.]);
line 5 the Community Development Block Grant Program (Title 1 of the
line 6 Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 [42 U.S.C.
line 7 Sec. 5301 et seq.]); housing supported by the Mental Health
line 8 Services Act pursuant to Part 3 (commencing with Section 5800);
line 9 community development block grants; and other state and federal
line 10 housing resources.
line 11 (4) Social services funded through Supplemental Security
line 12 Income/State Supplementary Payment (SSI/SSP), Cash Assistance
line 13 Program for Immigrants (CAPI), CalWORKs, California Food
line 14 Assistance Program, In-Home Supportive Services program, and
line 15 CalFresh.
line 16 (5) Services provided pursuant to Part 5 (commencing with
line 17 Section 17000) of Division 9.
line 18 (b) Individuals who are CARE program participants shall be
line 19 prioritized for any appropriate bridge housing funded by the
line 20 Behavioral Health Bridge Housing program.
line 21 (c) All CARE plan services and supports ordered by the court
line 22 are subject to all applicable federal and state statutes and
line 23 regulations, contractual provisions, and policy guidance governing
line 24 program eligibility and available funding, including, but not limited
line 25 to, the following: funding. In addition to the resources funded
line 26 through programs listed in subdivision (a), the State Department
line 27 of Health Care Services may identify other adjacent covered
line 28 Medi-Cal services, including, but not limited to, enhanced care
line 29 management and available community supports, which may be
line 30 provided, although not ordered, by the court, subject to all
line 31 applicable federal and state statutes, regulations, contractual
line 32 provisions, and policy guidance.
line 33 (1) Medically necessary behavioral health treatment and
line 34 stabilization medications covered under the Medi-Cal program,
line 35 including, but not limited to, treatment authorized pursuant to
line 36 Article 3.2 (commencing with Section 14124.20) of Chapter 7 of
line 37 Part 3 of Division 9 of, Section 14184.400 of, or Chapter 8.9
line 38 (commencing with Section 14700) of Part 3 of Division 9 of, this
line 39 code or Section 11758.20 of the Health and Safety Code.
94
SB 1338 — 35 —
line 1 (2) Housing resources funded through the programs listed in
line 2 paragraph (3) of subdivision (a).
line 3 (3) SSI/SSP, CAPI, CalWORKs, and CalFresh.
line 4 (4) Other adjacent covered Medi-Cal services identified by the
line 5 State Department of Health Care Services, including, but not
line 6 limited to, enhanced care management and available community
line 7 supports.
line 8 (d) This section does not prevent a county or other local
line 9 government entity from recommending their own services that are
line 10 their own responsibility not listed in subdivision (a) or (c). Any
line 11 such recommendation is not required by this section and shall be
line 12 made at the request of the county for the purposes of Section 6 of
line 13 Article XIII B, and Sections 6 and 36 of Article XIII of the
line 14 California Constitution.
line 15 (e) (1) For respondents who are Medi-Cal beneficiaries, the
line 16 county in which the respondent resides is the county of
line 17 responsibility as defined in Section 1810.228 of Title 9 of the
line 18 California Code of Regulations.
line 19 (2) If a proceeding commences in a county where the respondent
line 20 is found or is facing criminal or civil proceedings that is different
line 21 than the county in which the respondent resides, the county in
line 22 which the respondent is found or is facing criminal or civil
line 23 proceedings shall not delay proceedings under this part and is the
line 24 responsible county behavioral health agency for providing or
line 25 coordinating all components of the CARE agreement or CARE
line 26 plan.
line 27 (3) The county in which the respondent resides, as defined in
line 28 paragraph (1), shall be responsible for the costs of providing all
line 29 CARE agreement or CARE plan behavioral health services, as
line 30 defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a).
line 31 (4) In the event of a dispute over responsibility for any costs of
line 32 providing components of the CARE agreement or CARE plan, the
line 33 impacted counties shall resolve the dispute in accordance with the
line 34 arbitration process established in Section 1850.405 of Title 9 of
line 35 the California Code of Regulations for county mental health plans,
line 36 including for respondents who are not Medi-Cal beneficiaries, and
line 37 pursuant to any related guidance issued pursuant to subdivision
line 38 (b) of Section 5984.
94
— 36 — SB 1338
line 1 Chapter 6. Technical Assistance and Administration
line 2
line 3 5983. (a) Subject to appropriation for this purpose, the
line 4 California Health and Human Services Agency, or a designated
line 5 department within the agency, shall do both of the following:
line 6 (1) Engage an independent, research-based entity, as described
line 7 in Section 5986, to advise on the development of data-driven
line 8 process and outcome measures to guide the planning,
line 9 collaboration, reporting, and evaluation of the CARE Act pursuant
line 10 to this part.
line 11 (2) Provide coordination and on-going engagement with, and
line 12 support collaboration among, relevant state and local partners
line 13 and other stakeholders throughout the phases of county
line 14 implementation to support the successful implementation of the
line 15 CARE Act.
line 16 (b) Subject to appropriation, appropriation for this purpose, the
line 17 State Department of Health Care Services shall provide training
line 18 and technical assistance to county behavioral health agencies to
line 19 support the implementation of this part, including training
line 20 regarding the CARE statute, CARE plan services and supports,
line 21 supported decisionmaking, the supporter role, trauma-informed
line 22 care, elimination of bias, psychiatric advance directives, and data
line 23 collection.
line 24 (b)
line 25 (c) Subject to appropriation, the Judicial Council, in consultation
line 26 with the State Department of Health Care Services, other relevant
line 27 state entities, and the County Behavioral Health Directors
line 28 Association, shall provide training and technical assistance to
line 29 judges to support the implementation of this part, including training
line 30 regarding the CARE statutes, CARE plan services and supports,
line 31 working with the CARE supporter, supported decisionmaking, the
line 32 supporter role, trauma-informed care, elimination of bias, best
line 33 practices, and evidence-based models of care for people with severe
line 34 behavioral health conditions.
line 35 (c)
line 36 (d) Subject to appropriation, the State Department of Health
line 37 Care Services, in consultation with other relevant state departments
line 38 and the California Interagency Council on Homelessness, shall
line 39 provide training to counsel regarding the CARE statute and CARE
line 40 plan services and supports.
94
SB 1338 — 37 —
line 1 5984. (a) For purposes of implementing this part, the California
line 2 Health and Human Services Agency, Agency and the State
line 3 Department of Health Care Services, and the California Department
line 4 of Aging Services may enter into exclusive or nonexclusive
line 5 contracts, or amend existing contracts, on a bid or negotiated basis.
line 6 Contracts entered into or amended pursuant to this part shall be
line 7 exempt from Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 14825) of Part
line 8 5.5 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code, Section 19130
line 9 of the Government Code, Part 2 (commencing with Section 10100)
line 10 of Division 2 of the Public Contract Code, and the State
line 11 Administrative Manual, and shall be exempt from the review or
line 12 approval of any division of the Department of General Services.
line 13 (b) Notwithstanding Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section
line 14 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code,
line 15 the California Health and Human Services Agency, Agency and
line 16 the State Department of Health Care Services, and the California
line 17 Department of Aging Services may implement, interpret, or make
line 18 specific this part, in whole or in part, by means of plan letters,
line 19 information notices, provider bulletins, or other similar instructions,
line 20 without taking any further regulatory action.
line 21 5985. (a) The State Department of Health Care Services shall
line 22 develop, in consultation with county behavioral health agencies,
line 23 CARE supporters, other relevant state or local government entities,
line 24 disability rights groups, individuals with lived experience, families,
line 25 counsel, and other appropriate stakeholders, an annual CARE Act
line 26 report. The department shall post the annual report on its internet
line 27 website.
line 28 (b) County behavioral health agencies and any other state or
line 29 local governmental entity, as determined identified by the
line 30 department, shall provide data related to the CARE Act
line 31 participants, services, and supports to the department. The
line 32 department shall determine the data measures and specifications,
line 33 and notwithstanding Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340)
line 34 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code, the
line 35 department may implement, interpret, or make specific this part,
line 36 in whole or in part, by means of plan letters, information notices,
line 37 provider bulletins, or other similar instructions, without taking any
line 38 further regulatory action. and shall publish them via guidance
line 39 issues pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 5984.
94
— 38 — SB 1338
line 1 (c) Each county behavioral health department and any other
line 2 state and local governmental entity, as determined identified by
line 3 the department, shall provide the required data to the department,
line 4 in a format and frequency as directed by the department.
line 5 (d) The department shall provide information on the populations
line 6 served and demographic data, stratified by age, sex, race, ethnicity,
line 7 languages spoken, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity,
line 8 and county, to the extent statistically relevant data is available.
line 9 (e) The report shall include, at a minimum, information on the
line 10 effectiveness of the CARE Act model in improving outcomes and
line 11 reducing homelessness, criminal justice involvement,
line 12 conservatorships, and hospitalization of participants. The annual
line 13 report shall include process measures to examine the scope of
line 14 impact and monitor the performance of CARE Act model
line 15 implementation, such as the number and source of petitions filed
line 16 for CARE Court; the number, rates, and trends of petitions
line 17 resulting in dismissal and hearings; the number, rates, and trends
line 18 of supporters; the number, rates, and trends of voluntary CARE
line 19 agreements; the number, rates, and trends of ordered and
line 20 completed CARE plans; the services and supports included in
line 21 CARE plans, including court orders for stabilizing medications;
line 22 the rates of adherence to medication; the number, rates, and trends
line 23 of psychiatric advance directives; and the number, rates, and
line 24 trends of developed graduation plans. The report shall include
line 25 outcome measures to assess the effectiveness of the CARE Act
line 26 model, such as improvement in housing status, including gaining
line 27 and maintaining housing; reductions in emergency department
line 28 visits and inpatient hospitalizations; reductions in law enforcement
line 29 encounters and incarceration; reductions in involuntary treatment
line 30 and conservatorship; and reductions in substance use. The annual
line 31 report shall examine these data through the lens of health equity
line 32 to identify racial, ethnic, and other demographic disparities and
line 33 inform disparity reduction efforts.
line 34 (f) The outcomes shall be presented to relevant state oversight
line 35 bodies, including, but not limited to, the California Interagency
line 36 Council on Homelessness.
line 37 5986. (a) The An independent, research-based entity shall be
line 38 retained by the State Department of Health Care Services shall to
line 39 develop, in consultation with county behavioral health agencies,
line 40 county CARE courts, and other appropriate stakeholders, an
94
SB 1338 — 39 —
line 1 independent evaluation of the effectiveness of the CARE Act. The
line 2 independent evaluation shall employ statistical research
line 3 methodology and include a logic model, hypotheses, comparative
line 4 or quasi-experimental analyses, and conclusions regarding the
line 5 extent to which the CARE Act model is associated, correlated, and
line 6 causally related with the performance of the outcome measures
line 7 included in the annual reports. The independent evaluation shall
line 8 highlight racial, ethnic, and other demographic disparities, and
line 9 include causal inference or descriptive analyses regarding the
line 10 impact of the CARE Act on disparity reduction efforts.
line 11 (b) The department shall provide a preliminary report to the
line 12 Legislature three years after the implementation date of the CARE
line 13 Act and a final report to the Legislature five years after the
line 14 implementation date of CARE Act. The department shall post the
line 15 preliminary and final reports on its internet website.
line 16 (c) Each county behavioral health department, each county
line 17 CARE court, and any other state or local governmental entity, as
line 18 determined by the department, shall provide the required data to
line 19 the department, in a format and frequency as directed by the
line 20 department.
line 21 (d) A report to be submitted pursuant to this section shall be
line 22 submitted in compliance with Section 9795 of the Government
line 23 Code.
line 24 SEC. 8. The Legislature finds and declares that Section 7 of
line 25 this act, which adds Sections 5973.5, 5977.1 and 5977.4 to the
line 26 Welfare and Institutions Code, imposes a limitation on the public’s
line 27 right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of
line 28 public officials and agencies within the meaning of Section 3 of
line 29 Article I of the California Constitution. Pursuant to that
line 30 constitutional provision, the Legislature makes the following
line 31 findings to demonstrate the interest protected by this limitation
line 32 and the need for protecting that interest:
line 33 This act protects the sensitive medical information of the
line 34 respondent in a CARE court proceeding, including medical and
line 35 psychological records.
line 36 SEC. 9. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
line 37 Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution for certain
line 38 costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district
line 39 because, in that regard, this act creates a new crime or infraction,
line 40 eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime
94
— 40 — SB 1338
line 1 or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the
line 2 Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the
line 3 meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
line 4 Constitution.
line 5 However, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that
line 6 this act contains other costs mandated by the state, reimbursement
line 7 to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made
line 8 pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division
line 9 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
O
94
SB 1338 — 41 —
SENATE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH
Senator Dr. Richard Pan, Chair
BILL NO: AB 988
AUTHOR: Bauer-Kahan et al.
VERSION: June 16, 2022
HEARING DATE: June 29, 2022
CONSULTANT: Reyes Diaz
SUBJECT: Mental health: 988 crisis hotline
SUMMARY: Requires the California Health and Human Services Agency (CHHSA), no later
than July 16, 2022, to designate a 988 center or centers to provide crisis intervention services and
crisis care coordination to individuals accessing 988. Requires CHHSA to appoint a 988 crisis
services director to provide direction and oversight of the implementation and administration of
services accessed through 988; and appoint and convene a state 988 policy advisory group for
purposes of advising CHHSA on the implementation and administration of mental health crisis
services accessible through 988. Requires the California Office of Emergency Services to
appoint a director and convene an advisory board to guide how 988 gets implemented and made
interoperable with 911, including the creation of a new surcharge for 988 to fund the crisis
services.
Existing law:
1) Establishes the Bronzan-McCorquodale Act (BMA) to organize and finance community
mental health (MH) services for those with MH disorders in every county through locally
administered and controlled community MH programs. [WIC §5600, et seq.]
2) Specifies that community MH services should be organized to provide an array of treatment
options in the following areas, to the extent resources are available: precrisis and crisis
services; comprehensive evaluation and assessment; individual service plans; medication
education and management; case management; 24-hour treatment services; rehabilitation and
support services; vocational rehabilitation; residential services; services for the homeless;
and, group services. [WIC §5600.4]
3) Establishes the Emergency Telephone Users Surcharge (ETUS) Act that imposes a
surcharge, as determined by the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), on each
access line for wireline communications services and wireless communications service lines,
as specified, for the operation of the 911 emergency services number. Requires Cal OES to
prepare a summary of its calculations of the proposed surcharge and to make it available to
the public, the Legislature, the 911 Advisory Board, and on its website. [RTC §41001, et
seq.]
4) Requires surcharges paid to the state to be paid to the Department of Tax and Fee
Administration to be deposited in the State Treasury to the credit of the State Emergency
Telephone Number Account in the General Fund, as specified. Sets forth requirements for
the uses of these monies. [RTC §41135 and §41136]
This bill:
1) Requires CHHSA, no later than July 16, 2022, to designate a 988 center or centers to provide
crisis intervention services and crisis care coordination to individuals accessing 988.
Requires each designated 988 center to meet federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health
AB 988 (Bauer-Kahan et al.) Page 2 of 7
Services Administration (SAMHSA) requirements and national best practices guidelines for
operational and clinical standards, including training requirements and policies for
transferring callers to an appropriate specialized center, or subnetworks, within or external to,
the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline (NSPL) network; maintain an active agreement with
the administrator of the NSPL for participation within the network; and, comply with state
technology requirements or guidelines for the operation of 988.
2) Requires CHHSA, no later than 90 days after the passage of this bill, to appoint a 988 crisis
services director to provide direction and oversight of the implementation and administration
of behavioral health crisis services accessed through 988; and appoint and convene a state
988 policy advisory group for purposes of advising the agency on the implementation and
administration of mental health crisis services accessible through 988, including advising on
the agency on the creation of the five-year implementation plan required under this bill.
Requires the advisory group to meet no less than quarterly until December 31, 2028, after
which the advisory group may be disbanded at the discretion of CHHSA.
3) Requires CHHSA, no later than December 31, 2023, to create a five-year implementation
plan for a comprehensive 988 system that includes the following components:
a) Access to crisis counselors through telephone call, text, and chat, 24 hours per day, seven
days per week;
b) Mobile crisis teams that operate statewide 24 hours per day, seven days per week, and
can respond to individuals in crisis in a timely manner; and be able to respond to clearly
articulated suicidal or behavioral health contracts made or routed to 988 as an alternative
to law enforcement unless there is a medical emergency, someone is in immediate
danger, or there is a reported crime where law enforcement is mandated to respond by
state or federal law; and,
c) Access to crisis receiving and stabilization services.
4) Requires the five-year implementation plan to include all of the following:
a) A state governance structure of the 988 system;
b) Standards of care for call centers, mobile crisis teams, and behavioral health crisis
services, including examples of models across the state that are in accordance with the
National Suicide Hotline Designation Act of 2020, SAMHSA National Guidelines for
Behavioral Health Crisis Care, and existing parity laws;
c) Metrics for evaluating the 988 system;
d) A framework for local implementation of statewide 988 policies, regulations, and
guidelines for the coordination of the 988 crisis response system across 988 call centers,
911, county behavioral health, public health, first responders, law enforcement agencies,
and other relevant entities. Requires the framework to stipulate that any local plans
developed must be approved by the state governing authority and include guidelines on
establishing regional agreements and contracts that appropriately link call centers, mobile
crisis teams, crisis receiving and stabilization centers, and other relevant county services
such as additional call lines and services;
e) Procedures for determining the annual operating budget for the purposes of establishing
the rate of the 988 surcharge and how revenue will be dispersed to fund the 988 system,
as specified;
AB 988 (Bauer-Kahan et al.) Page 3 of 7
f) Strategies for ensuring that the 988 crisis response system is adequately funded, including
mechanisms for reimbursement of behavioral health emergency or crisis response, as
specified, including, but not limited to:
i) Seeking to maximize all available federal funding sources for the purposes of 988
implementation, including federal Medicaid reimbursement for services; federal
Medicaid reimbursement for administrative expenses, including the development and
maintenance of information technology to support the 988 system and crisis services;
and federal grants, including the funding of mental health crisis services; and,
ii) Coordinating with the Department of Insurance and Department of Managed Health
Care to ensure efficient and timely reimbursement to counties for medically necessary
crisis intervention, mobile crisis, crisis receiving and stabilization, and crisis
residential services by health care service plans and disability insurers, as specified.
5) Requires Cal OES, no later than July 16, 2022, to ensure that designated 988 centers utilize
technology that allows for transfers between 988 centers, as well as between 988 centers and
911 public safety answering points. Requires Cal OES, no later than 90 days after the
passage of this bill, to appoint a 988 crisis hotline system director to implement and oversee
the administration coordinating the emergency mental health crisis response with emergency
crisis lines and establish and convene the State 988 Technical Advisory Board for purposes
of advising Cal OES on the development of technical and operational standards for the 988
system that allow for coexistence with California’s 911 system and the creation of standards
for 988 operators to process and dispatch the necessary mental health response and when to
transfer into the 911 public answering points or points, and vice versa. Requires the board to
meet no less than quarterly until December 31, 2028, and permits the board to be disbanded
at the discretion of Cal OES.
6) Establishes the 988 State Mental Health and Crisis Services Special Fund in the State
Treasury and sets forth requires uses, including to be used solely for the operations of the 988
center and mobile crisis teams; prohibiting funds from reverting at the end of any fiscal year
and requiring them to remain available for the purposes of the fund in subsequent state fiscal
years; and prohibiting funds from being subject to transfer to any other fund or to transfer,
assignment, or reassignment for any other use or purpose outside of those specified under
this bill.
7) Permits Cal OES to develop a surcharge for 988, with the surcharge being set at $0.08 per
access line per month for the 2023 and 2024 calendar years, and beginning January 1, 2025,
at a rate determined by Cal OES, as specified, but not to exceed $0.30 per access line per
month. Requires Cal OES to make its summary of the calculation of the proposed surcharge,
in addition to the entities required in existing law, to the Mental Health Services Oversight
and Accountability Commission and the Department of Public Health.
8) Permits Cal OES to adopt regulations regarding the process for counties to receive funds.
9) Requires Cal OES to require an entity seeking funds available through the 988 State Mental
Health and Crisis Services Special Fund to annually file an expenditure and outcomes report
with information applicable to each modality, including call center, mobile crisis services,
and crisis receiving and stabilization services, as specified.
10) Makes various conforming changes throughout the ETUS Act to provide authority for Cal
OES to implement the surcharge for 988 in addition to 911.
AB 988 (Bauer-Kahan et al.) Page 4 of 7
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, this bill references
legislative intent to implement the 988 system. Cal OES estimates costs of $3.4 million to
manage the technological aspects of the 988 infrastructure and $22.2 million for local assistance
for this purpose. Implementing enhanced service levels to further build out the 988 system would
result in additional costs.
PRIOR VOTES:
Assembly Floor: 70 - 0
Assembly Appropriations Committee:
Assembly Communications and Conveyance
Committee:
12 - 4
10 - 0
Assembly Health Committee: 11 - 2
COMMENTS:
1) Author’s statement. According to the author, this bill implements the new national alternative
to 911 for behavioral health crises. 988 will provide suicide prevention and immediate,
localized emergency response for individuals in behavioral health crisis by trained behavioral
health professionals. Our current system relies on law enforcement and confinement and puts
people suffering from mental illness through an expensive and traumatizing revolving door
as they shuttle between jails, emergency rooms, and the street. A comprehensive crisis
response system can help prevent avoidable tragedies, save money, and increase access to the
right kind of care. We must make significant changes in how we respond to those suffering
from a mental health crisis.
2) Federal National Suicide Hotline Designation Act of 2020 (NSHD). The NSHD designates
988 as the new three-digit number for the national suicide prevention and mental health crisis
hotline. The NSHD provides for the following:
a) Phone number and services: Specifically, NSHD requires the Federal Communications
Commission to designate 988 as the universal telephone number for a national suicide
prevention and mental health crisis hotline, which operates through the National
Suicide Prevention Lifeline (NSPL). The NSHD legislation declares that “to prevent
future suicides, it is critical to transition the cumbersome, existing 10-digit National
Suicide Designation Hotline to a universal, easy-to-remember, three-digit phone
number and connect people in crisis with lifesaving resources.”
b) Funding: To adequately and sustainably fund the 988 system, NSHD authorized states
to impose a fee on access lines for providing 988 related services. In the California
Emergency Telephone User Surcharge Act, an access line is defined as a wireline
communications service (landline), a wireless communication service line (cell
phones), and Voice Over Internet Protocol.
c) Health equity: The United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
and the Department of Veterans Affairs must, within 180 days of the enactment of the
NSHD jointly report on how to make the use of 988 operational and effective across the
country, and HHS must develop a strategy to provide access to competent, specialized
services for high-risk populations such as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer youth,
minorities, and rural individuals. In December 2021, HHS announced $282 million to
help transition the existing 10-digit NSPL to 988. With funds from the Biden-Harris
Administration’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 budget and additional funds from the
American Rescue Plan, HHS’s $282 million investment will support 988 efforts across
AB 988 (Bauer-Kahan et al.) Page 5 of 7
the country to shore up, scale up, and staff up, including $177 million to strengthen and
expand the existing NSPL network operations and telephone infrastructure, including
centralized chat/text response, backup center capacity, and special services (e.g., a sub-
network for Spanish language-speakers), and $105 million to build up staffing across
states’ local crisis call centers.
3) NSPL. The NSPL is a national network of approximately 180 local crisis centers that provide
free and confidential support 24/7/365 for people in suicidal crisis or emotional distress.
There are 13 NSPL affiliated centers currently operating in California. Call centers in
California set the hours and coverage areas for when they will take calls, based on funding
and staffing levels. When an individual calls the national number, (800)-273-TALK, they are
routed to the local crisis center that is closest to them. If a crisis center is unable to respond to
all callers at any time, calls are diverted to backup centers. When calls are re-routed to
centers out of state, California callers in crisis often wait two to three times longer, receive
fewer linkages to effective local care, and are more likely to abandon their calls. Between
January and March 2022, 68,023 calls were received by California’s NSPL centers. Of those
calls, 58,066 were answered by in-state call centers, and 246 were answered by out-of-state
call centers, totaling an 85% in-state answer rate. (However, these calls do not include calls
offered to or answered by the Veterans Crisis Line or the NSPL’s Spanish-language
subnetworks.) Since 2016, California’s NSPL call volume has increased 60% and this is
expected to rise even higher given the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the resultant
increase in mental health and substance use disorder crisis needs. The 2022-23 Budget Act
includes $8 million one-time to the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS), under the
umbrella of CHHSA, to support the 13 NSPL call centers in the state for 988 start-up costs.
This is in addition to the $20 million investment in federal grant funds, announced on
September 3, 2021, by DHCS in California’s network of emergency call centers to support
the launch of a new 988 hotline, an alternative to 911 for people seeking help during a mental
health crisis.
4) Triple referral. This bill is triple referred. It is set to be heard in the Senate Governmental
Organization Committee on June 28, 2022.
5) Prior legislation. AB 270 (Ramos of 2021) would have created the Core Behavioral Health
Crisis Services System, using the digits 988 for the 988 Suicide Prevention and Behavioral
Health Crisis Hotline. AB 270 would have required the Office of Suicide Prevention to take
specified actions to implement the hotline system; required the charging of a fee on each
resident of the state that is a subscriber of commercial mobile or IP-enabled voice services to
pay for the costs of the program; and, created the 988 Fund, a new continuously appropriated
fund. AB 270 was not heard in the Assembly Health Committee.
6) Support. The Kennedy Forum and Steinberg Institute, cosponsors of this bill, state that before
July 16, 2022, when 988 goes live, states must create a framework to receive and respond to
calls. This new emergency response system, which would be implemented in California
through this bill, will connect callers with around-the-clock intervention, including mobile
crisis support teams staffed by behavioral health professionals and trained peers instead of
police officers. Supporters argue that the disjointed behavioral health crisis response system
relies on law enforcement and confinement and puts people suffering from behavioral illness
through an expensive and traumatizing revolving-door as they shuttle between jails,
emergency rooms, and the streets. The sponsors and other supporters of this bill argue that it
creates a comprehensive crisis response system that can help break this cycle, save money,
AB 988 (Bauer-Kahan et al.) Page 6 of 7
and increase access to the right kind of care. A proven tool in diverting people in crisis from
psychiatric hospitalization, mobile crisis units are effective at linking suicidal individuals
discharged from the emergency department to services, and better than hospitalization at
linking people in crisis to outpatient services. Mobile crisis services are also cost-effective,
resulting in a 23% lower average cost per case than regular police intervention. California is
currently in the process of transforming its technology infrastructure through NextGen911.
Implementing 988 now will allow the state to leverage 911’s new technology. Supporters
argue that first and foremost this will allow for critical interoperability between 911 and 988.
Building out the 988 system in parallel to NextGen911 will also allow the state to avoid
paying for two separate infrastructures to receive calls, saving local governments significant
costs that they would otherwise incur from upgrading their local call centers to comply with
the federal 988 law. Didi Hirsch Mental Health Services writes in support of this bill as the
lead for California’s 988 scaling plan on behalf of DHCS, overseeing all coordination and
implementation efforts of the state’s thirteen 988 crisis centers as they prepare for the July
16, 2022 “go live” of 988.
7) Policy concern. This bill includes timelines for both CHHSA and Cal OES that appear to be
unfeasible, requiring CHHSA to designate a 988 call center or centers, and Cal OES to
ensure the call centers utilize technology that allows for transfers between the 988 centers
and interoperability with the 911 emergency system—both by July 16, 2022. While
California has 13 NSPL call centers currently and those will likely be designated by CHHSA,
as this bill requires, it is unclear whether Cal OES has also made similar investments in order
to ensure that the call centers have the capability to transfer calls between themselves and
with the 911 emergency system by the required date.
SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION:
Support: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors (co-sponsor)
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (co-sponsor)
NAMI California (co-sponsor)
NAMI Contra Costa County (co-sponsor)
Steinberg Institute (co-sponsor)
The Kennedy Forum (co-sponsor)
The Miles Hall Foundation (co-sponsor)
American Academy of Pediatrics, California
American Foundation for Suicide Prevention
Association of Regional Center Agencies
Board of Behavioral Sciences
Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco
Cal Voices
California Alliance of Child and Family Services
California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists
California Association of Social Rehabilitation Agencies
California Clubhouse
California Commission on Aging
California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls
California Council of Community Behavioral Health Agencies
California Psychological Association
California State Association of Psychiatrists
California State PTA
Casa Pacifica Centers for Children & Families
AB 988 (Bauer-Kahan et al.) Page 7 of 7
CHE Behavioral Services
City of Brentwood
City of Concord
City of Danville
City of Dublin
City of Lafayette
City of Livermore
City of Pittsburg
City of Pleasant Hill
City of Pleasanton
City of Sacramento
City of San Diego
City of San Pablo
City of San Ramon
Contra Costa County
Crisis Support Services of Alameda County
Democrats of Rossmoor
Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance
Didi Hirsch Mental Health Services
Everytown for Gun Safety
Fountain House
Greater Oxnard Organization of Democrats
Hathaway-Sycamores
Interfaith Council of Contra Costa County
Kings View
Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office
Mental Health America of California
NAMI Greater Los Angeles County
NAMI Mt. San Jacinto
NAMI Santa Barbara
NAMI Westside LA
National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter
NeverAgainCA
Occupational Therapists Association of California
Orange County Board of Supervisors
Peace Officers’ Research Association of California
Penninsula Temple Sholom
Place Clubhouse
Putnam Clubhouse
San Diego District Attorney’s Office
Southern California Psychiatric Society
WellSpace Health
Two individuals
Oppose: None received
-- END --
AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 30, 2022
AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 21, 2022
AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 8, 2022
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 19, 2022
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 20, 2022
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 28, 2022
california legislature—2021–22 regular session
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 1737
Introduced by Assembly Member Holden
January 31, 2022
An act to amend Section 18897 of, and to add Division 40
(commencing with Section 60000) to, the Health and Safety Code, and
to amend Section 11165.7 of the Penal Code, relating to children’s
camps.
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 1737, as amended, Holden. Children’s camps: safety.
Existing law requires the State Public Health Officer to establish rules
and regulations establishing minimum standards for organized camps.
Existing law requires the State Fire Marshal to adopt minimum fire
safety regulations for organized camps. Existing law requires local
health officers to enforce building standards relating to organized camps
and the other rules and regulations adopted by the State Public Health
Officer. Existing law defines “organized camp,” for these purposes, as
a site with a program and facilities established for the primary purposes
of providing an outdoor group living experience with social, spiritual,
93
educational, or recreational objectives, for 5 days or more during one
or more seasons of the year, except as specified.
This bill additionally would define “children’s camp” as a camp that
offers daytime or overnight experiences administered by adults who
provide social, cultural, educational, recreational, or artistic
programming to more than 5 children between 3 and 17 years of age
for 5 days or longer, except as specified. The bill would exempt youth
sports leagues and teams, and camps owned or operated by local
education agencies, from the definition of a children’s camp.
This bill would require a camp operator, camp director, staff member,
counselor 18 years of age or older, or regular volunteer of a children’s
camp to complete training in child abuse and neglect identification and
training in child abuse and neglect reporting, as specified, and to undergo
a background check pursuant to a specified provision.
This bill would require the Secretary of the California Health and
Human Services Agency, in coordination with the Director of Social
Services, to lead the development and implementation of a master plan
for children’s camp safety, to serve as a blueprint for state government,
local government, and the private sector to implement strategies and
partnerships that promote health and safety in children’s camps across
California. The bill would require the secretary and director to convene
an agency workgroup for camp safety, with specified membership, to
advise the secretary and director in developing and issuing the master
plan, and a children’s camp safety stakeholder advisory committee to
provide advice and input to the administration on the development of
the master plan. The bill would require the State Department of Social
Services to submit a report to the Governor and the Legislature by
January 31, 2024, identifying the recommendations of the workgroup
and advisory committee and outlining the master plan.
Existing law requires a mandated reporter to report whenever they,
in their professional capacity or within the scope of their employment,
have knowledge of or observed a child who the mandated reporter
knows or reasonably suspects has been the victim of child abuse or
neglect. Under existing law, failure by a mandated reporter to report an
incident of known or reasonably suspected child abuse or neglect is a
misdemeanor punishable by up to 6 months of confinement in a county
jail, by a fine of $1,000, or by both that imprisonment and fine. Existing
law includes an administrator of a public or private day camp as a
mandated reporter.
93
— 2 — AB 1737
This bill would instead make a camp director, camp operator, staff
member, or counselor 18 years of age or older of a children’s camp a
mandated reporter. By expanding the scope of individuals classified as
mandated reporters, the bill would expand the scope of a crime and
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.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this
line 2 act that a master plan for children’s camp safety be developed to
line 3 ensure that all children attending camp in California are protected
line 4 from abuse and harm, and for a clear regulatory framework to be
line 5 established for children’s camps in the state.
line 6 SEC. 2. Section 18897 of the Health and Safety Code is
line 7 amended to read:
line 8 18897. (a) “Organized camp” means a site with a program and
line 9 facilities established for the primary purposes of providing an
line 10 outdoor group living experience with social, spiritual, educational,
line 11 or recreational objectives, for five days or more during one or more
line 12 seasons of the year.
line 13 (b) “Children’s camp” means a camp that offers daytime or
line 14 overnight experiences administered by adults who provide social,
line 15 cultural, educational, recreational, or artistic programming to more
line 16 than five children between 3 and 17 years of age for five days or
line 17 longer. A children’s camp does not include a youth sports league
line 18 or team, or a camp owned or operated by a local education agency.
line 19 (c) The term “organized camp” does not include a children’s
line 20 camp, motel, tourist camp, trailer park, resort, hunting camp, auto
line 21 court, labor camp, penal or correctional camp, and does not include
line 22 a childcare institution or home-finding agency.
line 23 (d) The term “organized camp” also does not include any
line 24 charitable or recreational organization that complies with the rules
line 25 and regulations for recreational trailer parks.
93
AB 1737 — 3 —
line 1 SEC. 3. Division 40 (commencing with Section 60000) is added
line 2 to the Health and Safety Code, to read:
line 3
line 4 DIVISION 40. CHILDREN’S CAMP SAFETY
line 5
line 6 60000. (a) A camp operator, camp director, staff member, or
line 7 counselor 18 years of age or older of a children’s camp shall
line 8 complete training in child abuse and neglect identification and
line 9 training in child abuse and neglect reporting, pursuant to Section
line 10 18975 of the Business and Professions Code, prior to commencing
line 11 work at the children’s camp. The training requirement may be met
line 12 by completing the online mandated reporter training provided by
line 13 the Office of Child Abuse Prevention in the State Department of
line 14 Social Services.
line 15 (b) A camp operator, camp director, staff member, counselor,
line 16 or regular volunteer of a children’s camp shall undergo a
line 17 background check pursuant to Section 11105.3 of the Penal Code
line 18 to identify and exclude any persons with a history of child abuse.
line 19 (c) A children’s camp shall develop and implement child abuse
line 20 prevention policies and procedures, including, but not limited to,
line 21 both of the following:
line 22 (1) Reporting of suspected incidents of child abuse to persons
line 23 or entities outside of the organization, including the reporting
line 24 required pursuant to Section 11165.9 of the Penal Code.
line 25 (2) Requiring, to the greatest extent possible, the presence of at
line 26 least two mandated reporters whenever administrators, employees,
line 27 or volunteers are in contact with, or supervising, children.
line 28 (d) Before writing liability insurance for a children’s camp in
line 29 this state, an insurer may request information demonstrating
line 30 compliance with this section from the children’s camp as a part of
line 31 the insurer’s loss control program.
line 32 (e) The following definitions apply for purposes of this division:
line 33 (1) “Camp director” means a person who is responsible for
line 34 day-to-day decisionmaking and supervision of children’s camp
line 35 programs and staff.
line 36 (2) “Camp operator” means an individual, partnership, joint
line 37 venture, or organization that owns, leases, rents, or operates a
line 38 children’s camp, or an individual, partnership, or joint venture that
line 39 has care, charge, or control of a children’s camp.
93
— 4 — AB 1737
line 1 (3) “Regular volunteer” means a volunteer with the children’s
line 2 camp who is 18 years of age or older and who has direct contact
line 3 with, or supervision of, children for more than 16 hours per month
line 4 or 32 hours per year.
line 5 60001.
line 6 60000. (a) (1) The Secretary of California Health and Human
line 7 Services, in coordination with the Director of Social Services, shall
line 8 lead the development and implementation of a master plan for
line 9 children’s camp safety. The master plan shall serve as a blueprint
line 10 for state government, local government, and the private sector to
line 11 implement strategies and partnerships that promote health and
line 12 safety in children’s camps across California.
line 13 (2) For purposes of this division, “children’s camp” means the
line 14 same as defined in Section 18897.
line 15 (b) The secretary and director shall convene an agency
line 16 workgroup for camp safety to advise the secretary and director in
line 17 the developing and issuing the master plan.
line 18 (c) The secretary and director, with the assistance of the
line 19 workgroup, shall work with the following state agencies, as needed,
line 20 to identify policies, efficiencies, and strategies necessary to
line 21 implement the master plan:
line 22 (1) The State Department of Social Services.
line 23 (2) The State Department of Public Health.
line 24 (3) The State Department of Health Care Services.
line 25 (4) The State Department of Education.
line 26 (5) The Department of Parks and Recreation.
line 27 (d) The workgroup shall solicit input from stakeholders and
line 28 gather information on the impact of children’s camps on
line 29 California’s children and families, as well as the need for health
line 30 and safety-related licensure and regulation of these programs.
line 31 (e) The secretary and director shall convene a children’s camp
line 32 safety stakeholder advisory committee to provide advice and input
line 33 to the administration on the development of the master plan.
line 34 (f) The stakeholder advisory committee established pursuant to
line 35 this section shall include representation from parents, forprofit
line 36 recreational camps operated in California, nonprofit recreational
line 37 camps operated in California, children’s advocates, children’s
line 38 safety experts, local parks departments, local health departments,
line 39 emergency medical services professionals, community-based
93
AB 1737 — 5 —
line 1 organizations, academic researchers, and others as the secretary
line 2 or their designee deems appropriate.
line 3 (g) The master plan shall focus on the development of a
line 4 licensing and regulatory framework for California’s children
line 5 camps, as well as increasing access to high quality children’s camp
line 6 programming.
line 7 (h) (1) The State Department of Social Services shall submit a
line 8 report to the Governor and the Legislature by January 31, 2024,
line 9 identifying the recommendations of the workgroup and advisory
line 10 committee and outlining the master plan.
line 11 (2) A report submitted under paragraph (1) shall be submitted
line 12 pursuant to Section 9795 of the Government Code.
line 13
line 14
line 15 All matter omitted in this version of the bill
line 16 appears in the bill as amended in the
line 17 Senate, June 21, 2022. (JR11)
line 18
O
93
— 6 — AB 1737
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE
Senator Anna M. Caballero, Chair
2021 - 2022 Regular
Bill No: AB 2011 Hearing Date: 6/29/22
Author: Wicks Tax Levy: No
Version: 6/23/22 Amended Fiscal: Yes
Consultant: Favorini-Csorba
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND HIGH ROAD JOBS ACT OF 2022
Establishes certain 100 percent affordable and mixed-income residential projects as a use by
right in specified non-residential areas.
Background
Planning and approving new housing is mainly a local responsibility. The California
Constitution allows cities and counties to “make and enforce within its limits, all local, police,
sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.” It is from this
fundamental power (commonly called the police power) that cities and counties derive their
authority to regulate behavior to preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the public—including
land use authority.
Planning and Zoning Law. State law provides additional powers and duties for cities and
counties regarding land use. The Planning and Zoning Law requires every county and city to
adopt a general plan that sets out planned uses for all of the area that it covers. A general plan
must include specified mandatory “elements,” including a housing element that establishes the
locations and densities of housing, among other requirements. Cities’ and counties’ major land
use decisions—including most zoning ordinances and other aspects of development permitting—
must be consistent with their general plans.
Zoning and approval processes. Local governments use their police power to enact zoning
ordinances that establish the types of land uses that are allowed or authorized in an area. Zoning
often identifies a primary use for parcels in the area, as well as other uses that are allowed if they
meet conditions imposed by the local government. For example, an agricultural area may be
zoned to allow agricultural uses “by right”—without local discretion—but also allow
development of a single family home as an ancillary use, so that the farmer has a house to
inhabit. Zoning ordinances also contain provisions to physically shape development and impose
other requirements, such as setting maximum heights and densities for housing units, minimum
numbers of required parking spaces, setbacks, and lot coverage ratios. These ordinances can also
include conditions on development to address aesthetics, community impacts, or other particular
site-specific considerations.
Common zoning designations include different intensities of residential, commercial, and
industrial uses, and so label those as “principally permitted uses” within those zones.
The California Environmental Quality Act. The California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) requires the state and local governments to study and mitigate, to the extent feasible, the
AB 2011 (Wicks) 6/23/22 Page 2 of 14
environmental impacts of proposed projects, providing a key protection for the environment and
residents of California. CEQA requires lead agencies with the principal responsibility for
carrying out or approving a proposed project to prepare a negative declaration, mitigated
negative declaration, or environmental impact report (EIR) for this action, unless the project is
exempt from CEQA. CEQA includes several statutory exemptions, as well as categorical
exemptions in the CEQA guidelines, for housing projects.
In the housing context, CEQA applies when a development project requires discretionary
approval from a local government agency. When a local agency has the discretion to approve a
project, its CEQA evaluation begins with deciding whether an activity qualifies as a “project”
subject to CEQA review. Most housing projects that require discretionary review and approval
are subject to review under the CEQA, while projects permitted ministerially generally are not.
Retail shift. According to an April 24, 2020, brief published by McKinsey and Company, the
onset of COVID-19 has aggravated the existing challenges that the retail sector faces, including:
A shift to online purchasing over brick-and-mortar sales;
Customers seeking safe and healthy purchasing options;
Increased emphasis on value for money when purchasing goods;
Movement towards more flexible and versatile labor; and
Reduced consumer loyalty in favor of less expensive brands.
The investment firm UBS estimates that over the next five years, 40,000 to 50,000 stores in the
United States will close as online sales grow from 18 percent to 25 percent of total retail sales.
The California Conference of Carpenters and the California Housing Consortium want the
Legislature to make it easier to develop housing on sites currently zoned for office and retail use.
Proposed Law
Assembly Bill 2011 enacts the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022, which
establishes certain 100 percent affordable and mixed-income residential projects as a use by right
in specified commercial areas.
100 percent affordable housing developments in commercial zones. AB 2011 provides that,
notwithstanding any local regulations, a housing development project that has 100 percent of its
units affordable to lower-income households is a use by right in a zone where office, retail, or
parking are a principally permitted use and subject to a streamlined ministerial review if the
following apply:
It is a multifamily project;
It is a legal parcel that is either in a city where the boundaries include some portion of an
urbanized area or urban cluster, or in an unincorporated area, the parcel is wholly within
the boundaries of an urbanized area or urban cluster;
At least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with
urban uses;
It is not on a site or adjoined to any site where more than 1/3 of the square footage of the
site is dedicated to industrial use;
It is not on a specified environmentally sensitive site, excluding the coastal zone;
AB 2011 (Wicks) 6/23/22 Page 3 of 14
It is not located within 500 feet of a freeway;
It is not on a mobile home park;
For a vacant site, it does not contain tribal cultural resources that could be affected by the
development that were found prior to a tribal consultation and the effects of which cannot
be mitigated; and
The project has at least 2/3 of the square footage designated for residential use; and
If the site is within a “neighborhood plan,” meaning a specific plan or similar plans as
defined, the site must meet the following requirements:
o The plan applicable to the site was adopted prior to January 1, 2024, as specified.
o The neighborhood plan allows residential use on the site.
AB 2011 also specifies that the residential density of the 100 percent affordable project must
meet or exceed specified densities deemed dense enough for lower-income housing in existing
law, referred to as “Mullin” densities. The project must also comply with the objective zoning
standards if those standards allow housing at the density provided in the bill, or the standards that
apply to the nearest parcel that allows residential use at those densities, as specified.
Mixed-income housing developments along commercial corridors. AB 2011 makes certain
mixed income housing developments a use by right within a zone where office, retail, or parking
are a principally permitted use and subject to streamlined, ministerial review if it meets all of the
following requirements:
Includes 15 percent lower-income units for a rental project, or either 15 percent lower-
income or 30 percent moderate income units for an ownership project, or greater or with
more affordability if the local government has a policy that imposes such requirements.
The affordable units must be comparable to the market-rate units, in a specified manner;
Meets all the requirements for sites that apply to 100 percent affordable projects above;
Abuts a commercial corridor and has a frontage along the commercial corridor of a
minimum of 50 feet; and
Is located on a site not greater than 20 acres.
Additionally, the bill does not apply to projects that:
Require demolition of affordable housing, rent controlled units, or housing occupied by
tenants in the last 10 years, as specified.
Require the demolition of a historic structure that was placed on a national, state, or local
historic register.
Are located on sites that contain four or fewer dwelling units, or is vacant and zoned for
housing but not for multifamily residential use.
Additionally, the measure states the intent of the Legislature that the bill not apply in
communities where the development of mixed-income housing would increase the risk of
residential and business displacement.
Instead of meeting the Mullin densities, as applied to the 100 percent affordable units, mixed-
income projects must meet specified densities that depend on whether the city or count is a
metropolitan jurisdiction or not. The bill defines metropolitan jurisdiction consistent with
existing law, which generally designates cities and counties located within a Metropolitan
AB 2011 (Wicks) 6/23/22 Page 4 of 14
Statistical Area (MSA) with a population of more than two million, or cities in smaller MSAs
with a population of greater than 100,000. The densities the projects must meet are as follows:
In a metropolitan jurisdiction, the greater of the following:
o The residential density allowed on the parcel by the local government;
o For sites of less than one acre, 30 units per acre;
o For sites greater than one acre located on a commercial corridor of less than 100 feet,
40 units per acre;
o For sites of one acre in size or greater located on a commercial corridor of 100 feet or
greater in width, 60 units per acre; or
o For sites within ½ mile of a major transit stop, 80 units per acre.
In a nonmetropolitan jurisdiction, the greater of the following:
o The residential density allowed on the parcel by the local government;
o For sites of less than one acre, 20 units per acre;
o For sites greater than one acre located on a commercial corridor of less than 100 feet,
30 units per acre;
o For sites of one acre in size or greater located on a commercial corridor of 100 feet or
greater in width, 50 units per acre; or
o For sites within ½ mile of a major transit stop, 70 units per acre.
Mixed income projects are also only subject to the greater of the following height limits:
The height allowed on a parcel by the local government;
For sites located on a commercial corridor of less than 100 feet in width, 35 feet;
For sites located on a commercial corridor of 100 feet or greater in width, 45 feet;
For sites within ½ mile of a major transit stop and within a city with a population of
greater than 100,000, 65 feet.
These projects must also meet the following setback requirements:
For the portion that fronts a commercial corridor:
o No setbacks are required.
o All parking must be set back at least 25 feet.
o On the ground follow, a building must be within 10 feet of the property line for at
least 80 percent of the frontage.
For the portion that fronts a side street, a building or buildings must abut within 10 feet of
the property line for at least 60 percent of the frontage.
For the portion that abuts an adjoining property but also abuts the same commercial
corridor, no setbacks required unless the adjoining property contains a residential use, as
specified.
For the portion of the street line that does not abut a commercial corridor, a side street, or
an adjoining property that also abuts the same commercial corridor as the property:
o Along property lines that abut a property that contains a residential use: (1) the
ground floor must be set back at 10 feet; and (2) starting on the second floor, each
subsequent floor shall be stepped back an amount equal to seven feet multiplied by
the floor number.
AB 2011 (Wicks) 6/23/22 Page 5 of 14
o Along property lines that abut a property that does not contain a residential use, the
development must be set back 15 feet.
No parking is required except for bike parking, electrical vehicle equipment installed, or parking
spaces accessible for persons with disabilities.
Mixed income projects must also comply with the objective zoning standards if those standards
allow housing at the density provided in the bill, or the standards that apply to the nearest parcel
that allows residential use at those densities, as specified. However, the applicable standards
may include a requirement that up to one-half of the ground floor of the housing development
project be dedicated to retail use.
Labor standards. A development project approved pursuant to the bill must meet numerous
labor standards. First, the development proponent must require in contracts with construction
contractors, and must certify to the local government, that all the standards specified in the bill
will be met in project construction.
Second, a development that is not in its entirety a public work, as specified, must be subject to all
of the following wage provisions:
All construction workers employed in the execution of the development must be paid at
least the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for the type of work and geographic
area, as specified, except that apprentices registered in programs approved by the Chief
of the Division of Apprenticeship Standards may be paid at least the applicable
apprentice prevailing rate;
The development proponent must ensure that the prevailing wage requirement is included
in all contracts for the performance of the work for those portions of the development that
are not a public work; and
All contractors and subcontractors for those portions of the development that are not a
public work must maintain and verify payroll records, as specified, and make those
records available for inspection and copying. This requirement does not apply if all
contractors and subcontractors performing work on the development are subject to a
project labor agreement that requires the payment of prevailing wages to all construction
workers employed in the execution of the development and provides for enforcement of
that obligation through an arbitration procedure.
Third, the obligation of the contractors and subcontractors to pay prevailing wages pursuant to
this bill are subject to the following enforcement provisions:
They may be enforced by the Labor Commissioner, an underpaid worker, and a joint
labor-management committee through a civil action, as specified; and
These enforcement provisions do not apply if all contractors and subcontractors
performing work on the development are subject to a project labor agreement that
requires the payment of prevailing wages to all construction workers employed in the
execution of the development and provides for enforcement of that obligation through an
arbitration procedure.
AB 2011 (Wicks) 6/23/22 Page 6 of 14
However, the requirement that the employer pay prevailing wages does not apply to those
portions of development that are not a public work if otherwise provided in a bona fide collective
bargaining agreement covering the worker.
For a development of 50 or more housing units, the development proponent must require in
contracts with construction contractors, and must certify to the local government, that each
contractor of any tier who will employ construction craft employees or will let subcontracts for
at least 1,000 hours must ensure all of the following:
A contractor with construction craft employees must either participate in an
apprenticeship program approved by the State of California Division of Apprenticeship
Standards, as specified, or request the dispatch of apprentices from a state-approved
apprenticeship program, as specified. A contractor without construction craft employees
must show a contractual obligation that its subcontractors meet these requirements.
Each contractor with construction craft employees must make health care expenditures
for each employee comparable to a Covered California Platinum level plan for two 40-
year-old adults and two dependents 0 to 14 years of age for the Covered California rating
area in which the development is located. A contractor without construction craft
employees must show a contractual obligation that its subcontractors comply with this
requirement. Qualifying expenditures are credited toward compliance with prevailing
wage payment requirements.
A construction contractor is deemed in compliance with the requirements of the above bullets if
it is signatory to a valid collective bargaining agreement that requires utilization of registered
apprentices and expenditures on health care for employees and dependents.
For purposes of establishing the total number of units in a development under the bill, including
for the 50 unit requirement above, AB 2011 says that a development project includes both of the
following:
All projects developed on a site, regardless of when those developments occur; and
All projects developed on sites adjacent to a site developed pursuant to the bill if, after
January 1, 2022, the adjacent site had been subdivided from the site developed pursuant
to the bill.
The bill subjects the development proponent to monthly compliance reporting with the labor
standards above, and other reporting and disclosure requirements regarding payroll records, the
apprenticeship program participation, and health care requirements, as specified.
A development proponent that fails to provide the monthly report is subject to a civil penalty for
each month for which the report has not been provided, in the amount of 10 percent of the dollar
value of construction work performed by that contractor on the development in the month in
question, up to a maximum of ten thousand dollars ($10,000). Any contractor or subcontractor
that fails to comply with the labor standards is subject to a civil penalty of $200 per day for each
worker. Penalties may be assessed, reviewed, and deposited using existing procedures in the
Labor Code.
Other provisions. AB 2011 includes specified timelines that mirror requirements in existing law
for streamlined ministerial approval of projects (SB 35, Wiener, 2017) for local governments to:
AB 2011 (Wicks) 6/23/22 Page 7 of 14
Notify development proponents of conflicts with objective standards;
Complete their review of projects under the bill;
Issue subsequent permits for a project; and
Make public improvements.
It also requires project proponents to use or modify their entitlements in the same way as under
SB 35. Additionally, if the development is consistent with all objective subdivision standards in
the local subdivision ordinance, an application for a subdivision pursuant to the Subdivision Map
Act is explicitly exempt from the requirements of CEQA.
AB 2011 allows a local government to exempt a parcel from the bill if the agency makes written
findings establishing all of the following:
The agency has identified alternative parcels that otherwise would not be eligible for
development under the bill;
The parcels meet the standards that commercial parcels under the bill must meet;
The agency has permitted the parcels to be developed pursuant to the requirements of the
bill at a level that will result in no net loss of the total potential residential density and the
potential residential density of lower-income households in the jurisdiction.
AB 2011 also requires local agencies to include in their annual progress reports the following for
each application submitted under this bill:
The location of the project;
The status of the project, including whether it has been entitled, whether a building
permit has been issued, and whether or not it has been completed;
The number of units in the project;
The number of units in the project that are rental housing;
The number of units in the project that are for-sale housing; and
The household income category of the units.
Finally, the bill:
Allows the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to adopt
guidelines (not subject to the administrative procedures act) to carry out the bill’s housing
provisions;
Adds its provisions to the list of state housing laws that HCD must enforce;
Includes a severability clause that provides that the health care provisions of the bill are
severable from the others, but that the other labor standards are integral to the measure
and not severable;
Defines its terms; and
Includes findings and declarations to support its purposes.
State Revenue Impact
No estimate.
Comments
AB 2011 (Wicks) 6/23/22 Page 8 of 14
1. Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “This bill combines some of the best ideas
advanced in the Legislature over the last several years for promoting affordable housing
development with a requirement to create ‘high road’ jobs. To effectively take on our state’s
housing issues, I firmly believe we need to do both. This legislation gives us all the opportunity
to work together toward our shared goal: Building more affordable housing for struggling
Californians, while also growing the thriving, high-wage construction workforce every
community needs.”
2. One size fits all? California is a geographically and demographically diverse state, and that is
reflected in its 482 cities and 58 counties. Local elected officials for each of those municipalities
are charged by the California Constitution with protecting their citizens’ welfare. One chief way
local governments do this is by exercising control over what gets built in their community.
Local officials weigh the need for additional housing against the concerns and desires of their
constituents. Where appropriate, those officials enact ordinances to shape their communities
based on local conditions and desires. Moreover, these planning actions and decisions take place
within the confines of state laws that require local governments to plan and zone for new
housing, subject to approval by HCD, and under threat of fines for improper denial as a result of
recent legislation on the Housing Accountability Act. AB 2011 disregards these efforts and the
unique features of California’s communities by imposing the same zoning standards statewide.
It uniformly imposes prescriptive standards for height, setbacks, and density of buildings on
commercial corridors, regardless of the specific characteristics of the community. While the
density metrics in the bill nod to metropolitan and non-metropolitan jurisdictions, the bill treats
cities as disparate as Salinas and Los Angeles the same. In any case, AB 2011’s state-imposed
zoning standards have the potential to remake the look and feel of communities statewide.
3. Gotta keep ‘em separated. A fundamental principle of zoning since the United States Supreme
Court upheld an early zoning ordinance in 1926 (Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272
U.S. 365 (1926)) has been that allowing some uses in one area but prohibiting others can be
integral to protecting the public welfare. Local governments have historically separated uses to
avoid siting incompatible activities, such as agriculture and residential activity, near one another.
It also mitigates potential public health issues, such as air pollution impacts from heavy
industrial uses on nearby residents. AB 2011 makes housing a use by right on properties that are
zoned instead for office and retail uses, which contravenes this principle. It also undermines the
planning decisions made by local officials, who established which uses are allowed and at what
intensity. In addition, AB 2011 allows intense residential uses—70-80 units per acre—on
parcels that may have been set aside for lower intensity retail activities that don’t bring many
customers to an area. This may pose a particular challenge for jurisdictions without the
necessary infrastructure and services to meet the demands of new residents, which could
particularly impact rural jurisdictions. Finally, AB 2011 establishes housing as a use by right on
many parcels through state legislative action, which doesn’t require CEQA analysis. However, if
local agencies were to enact an ordinance accomplishing the same rezoning as in AB 2011, that
ordinance would likely be considered a project under CEQA and therefore undergo
environmental review that won’t occur under AB 2011. Should the state allow this type of
residential use in places where local governments have decided it isn’t appropriate?
4. Worker protections. Valuation of real estate is complicated, but a fundamental principle is
that property is as valuable as its highest and best use allows. Land that can only accommodate
construction of a few new units of housing is less valuable than land that can accommodate
more, all else being equal, and same goes for larger developments versus smaller ones. When
zoning rules change to allow more building, property values go up. One significant way in
AB 2011 (Wicks) 6/23/22 Page 9 of 14
which AB 2011 departs from recent streamlining or zoning-related bills is that it does not require
the use of a skilled and trained workforce in addition to paying prevailing wage. Instead, AB
2011 requires the payment of prevailing wage, various apprenticeship mandates, and payment of
certain healthcare expenditures. However, the relative benefit of these requirements are
tempered because those health care expenditures can be counted towards the payment of
prevailing wage. The State Building and Construction Trades argues that these standards are
insufficient for several reasons, including that (1) the requirement to pay for healthcare may be
preempted by federal law, (2) that the apprenticeship standards are inadequately specified, and
(3) that developers can split projects into multiple projects to stay under the threshold where
healthcare expenditures and apprenticeships are required. They argue that AB 2011 grants huge
benefits to developers of mostly market-rate housing because of the increased height and density
and the by-right process in the bill, but that the workers that build these projects will be left
behind. Are the labor standards in AB 2011 sufficient to ensure that workers and developers are
receiving a fair share of the benefits created by the bill?
5. Cain and Abel. AB 2011 is not the first bill to propose widespread rezoning of commercial
sites for housing. SB 1385 (Caballero, 2020), which the Committee approved at its May 28,
2020, hearing, would have made housing an allowable use on commercial sites. SB 1385 failed
passage in the Assembly Local Government Committee. SB 6 (Caballero), which the Committee
approved at its March 11, 2021, hearing, is substantially similar to SB 1385. SB 6 is currently
pending in the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee. Both SB 1385 and
SB 6 were part of the Senate’s housing package. Major differences between SB 6 and AB 2011
include:
By-right vs. allowable use. AB 2011 makes residential development by-right on
commercial parcels; SB 6 makes it an “allowable use,” which means that local
governments could still exercise a measure of discretionary approval over SB 6 projects.
However, SB 6 does allow by-right development on commercial parcels if the project
meets the requirements of SB 35 (Wiener, 2017), aside from that law’s requirement that
the parcel for the project be zoned for residential use.
Development potential. AB 2011 allows developers to build to significantly greater
heights and density, with smaller setbacks, than are often allowed under local zoning. SB
6, by contrast generally defers to existing local zoning that applies to nearby parcels that
allow residential use, so long as the zoning meets the relatively modest Mullin densities.
Accordingly, AB 2011 will allow many more units to be built on the same site when
compared to SB 6.
Applicability to parcels. Both AB 2011 and SB 6 apply to commercial zones.
However, AB 2011 limits the mixed income portion of the bill to commercial corridors,
requires the projects to be infill sites, and excludes specified sensitive sites. SB 6 instead
applies more uniformly to commercial parcels because it does not include those
limitations. However, SB 6 projects are subject to even greater limitations than AB 2011
if a developer uses SB 35 to gain by-right approval authority because it also excludes the
coastal zone.
Affordability requirements. Both AB 2011 and SB 6 require 15 percent affordable
units for lower-income households in rental projects. However, AB 2011 allows
additional flexibility by allowing a project to qualify with 30 percent moderate-income
units if the project is an ownership project.
AB 2011 (Wicks) 6/23/22 Page 10 of 14
Labor standards. As discussed above, AB 2011 includes less stringent labor standards
than most other bills the Legislature has seen on zoning in recent years. SB 6, requires
for the use of a skilled and trained workforce.
Commercial vacancy. In order to use the by-right provisions of SB 6, the site must have
had no commercial tenants on 50 percent or more of its space for at least three years prior
to an application being submitted. In the absence of the by-right provisions, local
governments could require ground floor retail or additional retail on the site to mitigate
the loss of commercial space. AB 2011 includes no vacancy requirements and instead
limits the commercial portion of a development to 50 percent of the ground floor.
Sunset. SB 6 includes a January 1, 2029 sunset; AB 2011 does not contain a sunset.
As currently written, developers are likely to significantly prefer using AB 2011 on sites where
they both apply because of the by-right provisions, the higher development potential, and the less
costly labor provisions. Going forward, AB 2011 and SB 6 are likely to need to be reconciled.
Such reconciliation could include limiting each bill to separate geographic areas throughout the
state, targeting each bill at different types of development (for example, market-rate versus
affordable developments), applying one bill more broadly, but with fewer benefits for
developers, or others.
6. Mandate. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local governments for
the costs of new or expanded state mandated local programs. Because AB 2011 changes the
duties of local officials and creates a new crime, Legislative Counsel says that the bill imposes a
new state mandate. AB 2011 disclaims the state's responsibility for providing reimbursement by
citing local governments’ authority to charge for the costs of implementing the bill's provisions
and because the costs are due to expanding a crime, but says that any other mandates must be
reimbursed according to existing statutory procedures.
7. Charter city. The California Constitution allows cities that adopt charters to control their own
“municipal affairs.” In all other matters, charter cities must follow the general, statewide laws.
Because the Constitution doesn't define “municipal affairs,” the courts determine whether a topic
is a municipal affair or whether it's an issue of statewide concern. AB 2011 says that it applies to
charter cities, but the bill does not include any supporting legislative findings that it addresses a
matter of statewide concern.
8. Triple referred. The Senate Rules Committee ordered a triple-referral of AB 2011, first to the
Senate Housing Committee, which approved AB 2011 at its June 13th hearing on a vote of 6-1,
second to the Senate Governance and Finance Committee, and third to the Senate Environmental
Quality Committee. However, due to the ongoing health and safety risks of the COVID-19
virus, the referral to Environmental Quality was rescinded.
Assembly Actions
Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee: 7-0
Assembly Appropriations Committee: 11-1
Assembly Floor: 48-11
AB 2011 (Wicks) 6/23/22 Page 11 of 14
Support and Opposition (6/27/22)
Support:
California Conference of Carpenters (Co-
Sponsor)
California Housing Consortium (Co-Sponsor)
Mayor Jesse Arreguín, City of Berkeley
Mayor John Bauters City of Emeryville
Mayor Libby Schaaf- City of Oakland
Mayor Rick Bonilla City of San Mateo
Mayor Ron Rowlett City of Vacaville
Councilmember Zach Hilton, City of Gilroy
Councilmember Alex Fisch, Culver City
21st Century Alliance
AARP
Abundant Housing LA
Affirmed Housing
All Home
Alta Housing
American Planning Association, California
Chapter
Bay Area Council
Black Leadership Council
Bridge Housing Corporation
Brotherhood Crusade
Burbank Housing Development Corporation
(UNREG)
California Apartment Association
California Association of Local Housing
Finance Agencies
California Association of Realtors
California Coalition for Rural Housing
California Community Builders
California Community Economic Development
Association (CCEDA)
California Forward Action Fund
California Housing Partnership Corporation
California School Employees Association
California Yimby
Carpenter Local Union 1599
Carpenters Local 152
Carpenters Local 22
Carpenters Local 562
Carpenters Local 619
Carpenters Local 661
Carpenters Local 701
Carpenters Local 714
Carpenters Local 721
Carpenters Local 909
Carpenters Local 951
Carpenters Local Union #1109
Carpenters Local Union 1789
Carpenters Local Union 2236
Carpenters Union Local 180
Carpenters Union Local 405
Carpenters Union Local 46
Carpenters Union Local 505
Carpenters Union Local 605
Carpenters Union Local 713
Carpenters Union Local 805
Carpenters Women's Auxiliary 001
Carpenters Women's Auxiliary 007
Carpenters Women's Auxiliary 101
Carpenters Women's Auxiliary 1904
Carpenters Women's Auxiliary 417
Carpenters Women's Auxiliary 66
Carpenters Women's Auxiliary 710
Carpenters Women's Auxiliary 91
Central City Association
Central Valley Urban Institute
Church World Service
City of Berkeley
City of Maywood
City of Napa
City of Seaside
Civicwell
Clinica Montsenor Oscar Romero
Clinica Romero
Community Build, INC.
Community Coalition
Community Corporation of Santa Monica
Congress for The New Urbanism
Construction Employers' Association
Council of Infill Builders
Destination: Home
Dolores Huerta Foundation
Drywall Lathers Local 9109
Drywall Local Union 9144
East Bay Asian Local Development Corpor
East Bay for Everyone
East Bay Yimby
Eden Housing
Endangered Habitats League
Enterprise Community Partners, INC.
Fieldstead and Company, INC.
Generation Housing
Govern for California
AB 2011 (Wicks) 6/23/22 Page 12 of 14
Greenbelt Alliance
Housing Action Coalition
Housing California
Icon
Icon CDC
Ikar
Innercity Struggle
John Stewart Company
Lathers Local 68l
League of Women Voters of California
Linc Housing
Lisc San Diego
Los Angeles Business Council
Los Angeles County Young Democrats
Making Housing and Community Happen
Mercy Housing California
Merritt Community Capital Corporation
Midpen Housing Corporation
Millwrights Local 102
Modular Installers Association
Monterey Bay Economic Partnership
Mountain View Yimby
New Way Homes
Non Profit Housing Association of Northern
California (NPH)
Nor Cal Carpenters Union
Northern California Carpenters Regional
Council
Novin Development Corp.
Nph Action Fund
Peninsula for Everyone
People for Housing - Orange County
Pile Drivers Local 34
Richmond Community Foundation
Salef
San Diego Housing Federation
San Francisco Bay Area Planning & Urban
Research Association (SPUR)
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
(BART)
San Francisco Housing Development
Corporation
Sand Hill Property Company
Santa Cruz Yimby
Satellite Affordable Housing Associates
Sequoia Riverlands Trust
Service Employees International Union
California
Sierra Business Council
Silicon Valley Community Foundation
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Southern California Association of Nonprofit
Housing
Southern California Contractors Association
Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters
Local 721
Sv@home Action Fund
The Central Valley Urban Institute
The Greenlining Institute
The John Stewart Company
The Kennedy Commission
The Los Angeles Coalition for The Economy
& Jobs
The Pacific Companies
The San Francisco Foundation
The Two Hundred
United Latinos Action
United Lutheran Church of Oakland
United Ways of California
Urban Environmentalists
Urban League of San Diego County
USA Properties Fund, INC.
Ventura County Clergy and Laity United for
Economic Justice
Wall and Ceiling Alliance
West Angeles Community Development
Corporation
Wildlands Network
Yimby Action
Yimby Democrats of San Diego County
Opposition:
Association of California Cities - Orange
County (ACC-OC)
California Cities for Local Control
California Labor Federation, Afl-cio
California Nurses Association
California State Association of Electrical
Workers
California State Council of Laborers
California State Pipe Trades Council
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
Calle 24 Latino Cultural District
Care Clt (a Division of Care Assn, Inc)
AB 2011 (Wicks) 6/23/22 Page 13 of 14
Catalysts for Local Control
Chinatown Community Development Center
City of Agoura Hills
City of Arcata
City of Azusa
City of Banning
City of Beverly Hills
City of Bishop
City of Brentwood
City of Buena Park
City of Burbank
City of Chino Hills
City of Clearlake
City of Clovis
City of Colton
City of Corona
City of Cupertino
City of Cypress
City of Del Mar
City of Downey
City of El Centro
City of Elk Grove
City of Fairfield
City of Fillmore
City of Fontana
City of Fort Bragg
City of Fortuna
City of Fremont
City of Glendale
City of Glendora
City of Hanford
City of Hesperia
City of Huntington Beach
City of Indian Wells
City of Inglewood City Hall
City of Kerman, CA
City of La Canada Flintridge
City of La Mirada
City of La Palma
City of La Puente
City of Laguna Beach
City of Laguna Hills
City of Laguna Niguel
City of Lakeport
City of Lakewood CA
City of Lomita
City of Los Alamitos
City of Menifee
City of Mission Viejo
City of Montclair
City of Moorpark
City of Newport Beach
City of Norco
City of Novato
City of Ontario
City of Orange
City of Palm Desert
City of Paramount
City of Placentia
City of Pleasant Hill
City of Pleasanton
City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
City of Rancho Santa Margarita
City of Redlands
City of Ripon
City of Rohnert Park
City of Rolling Hills Estates
City of Rosemead
City of San Clemente
City of San Dimas
City of Santa Maria
City of Santa Rosa
City of Signal Hill
City of Solana Beach
City of Sunnyvale
City of Thousand Oaks
City of Torrance
City of Tustin
City of Ukiah
City of Visalia
City of Vista
City of Westminster
City of Whittier
City/county Association of Governments of
San Mateo County
County of Sutter
District Council 16, International Union of
Painters and Allied Trades
District Council of Iron Workers of The State
of California and Vicinity
Elmhurst Neighborhood Association
Hills 2000 Friends of The Hills
League of California Cities
Livable California
Los Angeles County Division, League of
California Cities
Marin County Council of Mayors &
Councilmembers (MCCMC)
Mission Economic Development Agency
AB 2011 (Wicks) 6/23/22 Page 14 of 14
Mission Economic Development Agency
(MEDA)
Mission Street Neighbors
Poder
San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments
(SGVCOG)
Santa Monica Residents Cross-city (SMRX)
Save Sacramento Neighborhoods
South Bay Cities Council of Governments
State Building & Construction Trades Council
of California
Sunnyvale United Neighbors
Town of Apple Valley
Town of Fairfax
Town of Truckee
Tri-valley Cities of Dublin, Livermore,
Pleasanton, San Ramon, and Town of Danville
Ventura Council of Governments
Western States Council Sheet Metal, Air, Rail
and Transportation
Young Community Developers
Yuba County
2 Individuals
-- END --
AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 23, 2022
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 19, 2022
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2022
california legislature—2021–22 regular session
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 2016
Introduced by Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan
February 14, 2022
An act to repeal and add repeal, add, and repeal Section 12949.6 of
the Water Code, relating to water resources.
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 2016, as amended, Bauer-Kahan. State Water Resources Control
Board: desalination plant: feasibility study.
(1) Existing law requires the Department of Water Resources, not
later than July 1, 2004, to report to the Legislature on potential
opportunities and impediments for using seawater and brackish water
desalination, and to examine what role, if any, the state should play in
furthering the use of desalination technology. Existing law requires the
department to convene a Water Desalination Task Force, composed of
representatives from listed agencies and interest groups, to advise the
department in carrying out these duties and in making recommendations
to the Legislature.
This bill would repeal those provisions.
(2) Existing law establishes, within the California Environmental
Protection Agency, the State Water Resources Control Board. The state
board exercises the adjudicatory and regulatory functions of the state
in the field of water resources.
96
This bill would request the California Council on Science and
Technology, in consultation with the department, department and state
board, subject to an appropriation by the Legislature for this purpose,
to undertake and complete a comprehensive feasibility study of the
desalination of ocean water, brackish water, and groundwater and the
potential impact of desalination plants along the San Francisco Bay and
inland lakes and streams. The bill would require, if potential for
drought-resilient water supplies to meet the current and future water
demand in the San Francisco Bay area, as specified. If the California
Council on Science and Technology agrees to undertake and complete
the study, the bill would require the study to be completed by January
1, 2025, and to be transmitted to the department, the board, and the
Legislature.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Section 12949.6 of the Water Code is repealed.
line 2 SEC. 2. Section 12949.6 is added to the Water Code, to read:
line 3 12949.6. (a) The Legislature requests that the California
line 4 Council on Science and Technology, in consultation with the
line 5 department, department and the State Water Resources Control
line 6 Board, subject to an appropriation by the Legislature for this
line 7 purpose, undertake and complete a comprehensive feasibility study
line 8 of the desalination of ocean water, brackish water, and groundwater
line 9 and the potential impact of desalination plants along the San
line 10 Francisco Bay and inland lakes and streams. potential for
line 11 drought-resilient water supplies, including, but not limited to,
line 12 potable recycled water and desalination, to meet the current and
line 13 future water demand in the San Francisco Bay area. The study
line 14 shall consider the short-term and long-term history of drought
line 15 within the state and the extent to which potable recycled water
line 16 and desalination can help meet current and future water demand
line 17 in California. The study shall also include, but shall not be limited
line 18 to, the following:
line 19 (1) The potential job creation and work opportunities related to
line 20 the construction and operation of potable recycled water and
line 21 desalination plants, facilities, including the use of a skilled and
line 22 trained workforce for these purposes.
96
— 2 — AB 2016
line 1 (2) The impact of desalination plants to fish and wildlife,
line 2 including sea life, sea plants, and sea microorganisms.
line 3 (3) The shortage of chlorine and the possibility of desalination
line 4 plants alleviating that shortage.
line 5 (4) The feasibility of integrating
line 6 (2) An assessment of technologies to do both of the following:
line 7 (A) Minimize the intake and mortality of all forms of marine,
line 8 brackish, and freshwater life in the construction and operation of
line 9 desalination facilities.
line 10 (B) Minimize the adverse impacts of outfalls on marine,
line 11 brackish, and freshwater life in the construction and operation of
line 12 potable recycled water and desalination facilities.
line 13 (3) The potential for extraction of useful chemicals including
line 14 chlorine, sodium hydroxide, and hydrochloric acid from waste
line 15 brine to reduce waste volume and enhance facility efficiency
line 16 through on-site reuse.
line 17 Consideration of designs that integrate the use of renewable
line 18 energy into potable recycled water and desalination facilities to
line 19 reduce costs and any greenhouse gas emissions associated with
line 20 desalination. the construction and operation of those facilities,
line 21 including a comparison of energy demand and greenhouse gas
line 22 emissions between potable recycled water and desalination
line 23 infrastructure.
line 24 (b) If the California Council on Science and Technology agrees
line 25 to undertake and complete the study pursuant to subdivision (a),
line 26 the study shall be completed by January 1, 2025, and transmitted
line 27 to the department, the board, and the Legislature.
line 28 (c) (1) The requirement for submitting a report imposed under
line 29 subdivision (b) is inoperative on January 1, 2029, pursuant to
line 30 Section 10231.5 of the Government Code.
line 31 (2)
line 32 (c) A report to be submitted to the Legislature pursuant to
line 33 paragraph (1) this section shall be submitted in compliance with
line 34 Section 9795 of the Government Code.
line 35 (d) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2029,
line 36 and as of that date is repealed.
O
96
AB 2016 — 3 —
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
AB 2374
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2374
Author: Bauer-Kahan (D), et al.
Amended: 4/7/22 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 5-0, 6/14/22
AYES: Bradford, Ochoa Bogh, Kamlager, Skinner, Wiener
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 69-0, 5/16/22 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Crimes against public health and safety: illegal dumping
SOURCE: Contra Costa County
DIGEST: This bill increases the maximum fines for illegal dumping for persons
employing more than 10 full-time employees, and requires any person convicted of
illegal dumping to remove or pay the cost of removing the waste matter they were
convicted of illegally dumping.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) States that it is unlawful to dump or cause to be dumped waste matter in or
upon a public or private highway or road, including any portion of the right-of-
way thereof, or in or upon private property into or upon which the public is
admitted by easement or license, or upon private property without the consent
of the owner, or in or upon a public park or other public property other than
property designated or set aside for that purpose by the governing board or body
having charge of that property. (Penal Code § 374.3 (a).)
2) Provides it is unlawful to place, deposit, or dump, or cause to be placed,
deposited, or dumped, rocks, concrete, asphalt, or dirt in or upon a private
AB 2374
Page 2
highway or road, including any portion of the right-of-way of the private
highway or road, or private property, without the consent of the owner or a
contractor under contract with the owner for the materials, or in or upon a
public park or other public property, without the consent of the state or local
agency having jurisdiction over the highway, road, or property. (Penal Code §
374.3 (b).)
3) States that a person violating dumping provisions is guilty of an infraction.
Each day that waste is placed, deposited, or dumped in violation the law is a
separate violation. (Penal Code § 374.3 (c).)
4) Provides that illegal dumping prohibitions do not restrict a private owner in the
use of his or her own private property, unless the placing, depositing, or
dumping of the waste matter on the property creates a public health and safety
hazard, a public nuisance, or a fire hazard, as determined by a local health
department, local fire department or district providing fire protection services,
or the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, in which case this section
applies. (Penal Code § 374.3 (d).)
5) Provides a person convicted of dumping shall be punished by a mandatory fine
of not less than $250 nor more than $1,000 upon a first conviction, by a
mandatory fine of not less than $500 nor more than $1,500 upon a second
conviction, and by a mandatory fine of not less than $750 nor more than $3,000
upon a third or subsequent conviction. If the court finds that the waste matter
placed, deposited, or dumped was used tires, the fine prescribed in this
subdivision shall be doubled. (Penal Code § 374.3 (e).)
6) Provides that the court may require, in addition to any fine imposed upon a
conviction, that, as a condition of probation the probationer remove, or pay the
cost of removing, any waste matter which the convicted person dumped or
caused to be dumped upon public or private property. (Penal Code § 374.3 (f).)
7) States that except when the court requires the convicted person to remove waste
matter for which he or she is responsible for dumping as a condition of
probation, the court may require the probation to pick up waste matter at a time
and place within the jurisdiction of the court for not less than 12 hours. (Penal
Code § 374.3 (g).)
8) States that a person who illegally dumps waste matter in commercial quantities
is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not
more than six months and by a fine. The fine is mandatory and shall amount to
not less than $1,000 nor more than $3,000 upon a first conviction, not less than
AB 2374
Page 3
$3,000 nor more than $6,000 upon a second conviction, and not less than
$6,000 nor more than $10,000 upon a third or subsequent conviction. (Penal
Code § 374.3 (h)(1).)
9) Defines “commercial quantities” as an amount of waste matter generated in the
course of a trade, business, profession, or occupation, or an amount equal to or
in excess of one cubic yard. (Penal Code § 374.3 (h)(2).)
This bill:
1) Increases the maximum mandatory fine for illegally placing, depositing,
dumping, or causing to be placed, deposited or dumped, waste matter in
commercial quantities by a person employing more than 10 full-time
employees, as follows:
a) From not more than $3,000 for the first offense to not more than $5,000;
b) From not more than $6,000 for the second conviction to not more than
$10,000; and,
c) From not more than $10,000 for a third or subsequent conviction to not more
than $20,000.
2) Requires the court to order person convicted of illegal dumping, as specified, to
remove, or pay the cost of removing, any waste matter which the convicted
person dumped or caused to be dumped on public or private property.
3) Requires the court, if that person holds a license or permit to conduct business
that is substantially related to the conviction, to notify the applicable licensing
or permitting entity, if any, that a licensee or permittee had been convicted of
illegal dumping.
4) Requires the licensing or permitting entity to record and post the conviction on
the public profile of the licensee or permittee on the entity's website.
5) Provides that any fine shall be based on the person's ability to pay including,
but not limited to, consideration of the following:
a) The defendant's present financial position;
b) The defendant's reasonably discernible future financial position, provided
that the court shall not consider a period of more than one year from the date
of the hearing for purposes of determining the reasonably discernible future
financial position of the defendant;
AB 2374
Page 4
c) The likelihood that the defendant will be able to obtain employment within
one year from the date of the hearing; and,
d) Any other factor that may bear upon the defendant's financial capability to
pay the fine.
Comments
According to the author:
Illegal dumping has been a serious problem in California for many years.
Illegal dumping occurs when solid wastes are discarded or caused to be
dumped or placed on any property, either public or private, without proper
authorization or legitimate purpose. Illegal dumping is a crime of
convenience often by repeat offenders for economic gain. Materials illegally
dumped range from household items such as mattresses, furniture, and large
appliances to other more traditional commercial business items such as tires,
hazardous waste, rock, concrete, asphalt, and dirt.
Illegal dumping is an increasing problem that poses significant health,
social, environmental, and economic impacts on communities. Illegal
dumping contributes to a loss of community pride, discourages investment
and development, decreases property values, and increases a community’s
vulnerability to crime.
Existing law prohibits the dumping of waste matter upon a road or highway
or in other locations. A violation of this prohibition, generally, is an
infraction punishable by specific fines that escalate for subsequent
convictions. Under existing law, the court may, as a condition of probation,
order the convicted person to remove, or pay for the removal of the waste
matter. Under existing law, the dumping of commercial quantities of waste
is punishable as a misdemeanor and includes escalating fines.
Commercial businesses have been caught illegally dumping in an attempt to
“cut corners” and maximize their total profit. Violators assume little risk in
doing so because it is economically feasible, as the fines for violating illegal
dumping laws are relatively minimal.
Existing penalties do not serve as an adequate deterrent. Additionally,
district attorneys throughout California report having difficulty in
prosecuting cases.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
AB 2374
Page 5
SUPPORT: (Verified 6/27/22)
Contra Costa County (source)
California District Attorneys Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
Contractors State License Board
East Bay Municipal Utility District
Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office
Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Committee/Integrated Waste
Management Task Force
Rural County Representatives of California
OPPOSITION: (Verified 6/27/22)
None received
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 69-0, 5/16/22
AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Bigelow, Bloom,
Boerner Horvath, Mia Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chen, Choi,
Cooley, Cooper, Megan Dahle, Daly, Davies, Flora, Mike Fong, Fong,
Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gray,
Grayson, Haney, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kiley, Lackey, Lee,
Levine, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, O'Donnell,
Patterson, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas,
Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Seyarto, Smith, Stone, Valladares, Villapudua,
Voepel, Waldron, Ward, Akilah Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Rendon
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bennett, Cunningham, Low, Muratsuchi, Nazarian,
Nguyen, Quirk-Silva, Blanca Rubio, Ting
Prepared by: Mary Kennedy / PUB. S. /
6/28/22 14:30:50
**** END ****
SB 6
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 29, 2022
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Buffy Wicks, Chair
SB 6 (Caballero) – As Amended June 20, 2022
SENATE VOTE: 32-2
SUBJECT: Local planning: housing: commercial zones
SUMMARY: Established the Neighborhood Homes Act, which enables housing development
on parcels within a zone where office, retail, or parking are a principally permitted use.
Specifically, this bill:
1) Authorizes a development project that is at least 50 percent residential to be an allowable use
within a zone where office, retail, or parking are a principally permitted use if it complies
with all of the following:
a) The residential density will meet or exceed the applicable density deemed appropriate to
accommodate housing for lower income households in that jurisdiction as specified in
Housing Element Law. Generally, that density is 30 units per acre in urban areas, 20 units
per acre in suburban areas, and 10 units per acre in rural areas;
b) The development complies with local requirements and procedures, including zoning,
parking, design standards, and demolition controls, that are applicable to development
projects in the closest zoning district that allow for the densities required pursuant to (a),
except that if the existing zoning designation for the parcel allows a greater density, that
existing density must apply;
c) The development is subject to a recorded deed restriction requiring that at least 15
percent of the units have an affordable housing cost or affordable rent for lower income
households, defined as those households making under 80 percent of the area median
income (AMI);
d) The development complies with all other local requirements for the parcel, other than
those that prohibit residential use, or allow residential use at a lower density than
specified in (a);
e) The developer must certify that the project either is a public work or will pay prevailing
wage and use a skilled and trained workforce for all levels of contractors, as specified;
f) Units must be rented for longer than 30 days; and
g) The applicant for a housing development under this section has provided written notice of
the pending application to each commercial tenant on the neighborhood lot when the
application is submitted.
2) Permits a local agency to exempt a parcel from the provisions of this bill if:
SB 6
Page 2
a) The local agency makes written findings supported by substantial evidence of either of
the following:
i. The local agency concurrently reallocated the lost residential density to other lots so
that there is no net loss in residential density in the jurisdiction; or
ii. The lost residential density from each exempted parcel can be accommodated on a
site or sites allowing residential densities at or above those specified in (1)(a) and in
excess of the acreage required to accommodate the local agency’s share of housing
for lower income households.
b) The parcels to which the density is reallocated are suitable for residential development;
and
c) The local agency allows development by right on the parcels to which the density is
reallocated.
3) Provides that this bill does not alter or lessen the applicability of any housing, environmental,
or labor law, and permits an applicant for a housing development to apply for a density
bonus.
4) Requires each local agency to include the number of sites developed and the number of units
constructed pursuant to this section in its annual progress report submitted to the Department
of Housing and Community Development.
5) Prohibits a development from utilizing SB 35 (Weiner) Chapter 366 Statues of 2017
streamlining if the following conditions apply:
a) The development has previously been developed using SB 35 streamlining with a project
of 10 or fewer units; or
b) The developer of the project has previously proposed an SB 35 development with 10 or
fewer units on the same or adjacent site.
6) Amends SB 35 (Weiner) as follows:
a) Authorizes a development to be eligible for SB 35 (Weiner) streamlined approval if :
i. The site is zoned for office or retail commercial use; and
ii. The site has had no commercial tenants on 50 percent or more of its total usable net
interior square footage for a period of at least three years prior to the submission of
the application.
b) Provides that a project on a parcel that meets the criteria of (1) above must be deemed by
the local agency consistent with objective zoning standards, objective design standards,
and objective subdivision standards if the project is consistent with the provisions of this
bill and if none of the square footage in the project is designated for hotel, motel, bed and
breakfast inn, or other transient lodging use, except for a residential hotel.
SB 6
Page 3
7) Sunsets the provisions of this bill on January 1, 2029.
8) Provides that the Legislature finds and declares that ensuring access to affordable housing is
a matter of statewide concern and is not a municipal affair, and therefore the Neighborhood
Homes Act applies to all cities, including charter cities.
9) Provides that no reimbursement is required by this bill because a local agency or school
district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the
program or level of service mandated by this bill or because costs that may be incurred by a
local agency or school district will be incurred because this bill creates a new crime or
infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction,
or changes the definition of a crime.
EXISTING LAW:
1) Establishes Planning and Zoning Law, which requires every city and county to adopt a
general plan that sets out planned uses for all of the area covered by the plan, and requires the
general plan to include seven mandatory elements, including a land use element, and requires
major land use decisions by cities and counties, such as development permitting and
subdivisions of land, to be consistent with their adopted general plans (Government Code
Section 65000 through 66301).
2) Establishes Housing Element law (Government Code Section 65580 through 65589.11),
which:
a) Provides that each community’s fair share of housing to be determined through the
regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) process, which is composed of three main
stages: (a) the Department of Finance and the Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) develop regional housing needs estimates; (b) councils of
government (COGs) allocate housing within each region based on these estimates (where
a COG does not exist, HCD makes the determinations); and (c) cities and counties
incorporate their allocations into their housing elements.
b) Requires that cities and counties produce, and HCD certify, a housing element to plan for
housing in a way that helps fulfill the state’s housing goals. In all but a handful of rural
jurisdictions, these housing elements are required every eight years. Each housing
element must contain:
i. An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints
relevant to meeting those needs;
ii. A statement of the community’s goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative to
the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing;
iii. An implementation plan that identifies any particular programs or strategies being
undertaken to meet their goals and objectives, including their RHNA target; and
iv. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including
non-vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for
redevelopment during the planning period.
SB 6
Page 4
v. A determination of how the jurisidction could accommodate its share of the RHNA
by income category during the housing element planning period. A community
either must use the “default zoning densities” or “Mullin densities” to determine
whether a site is adequately zoned for lower income housing or must provide an
alternative analysis. Current Mullin densities are:
I. 10 units/acre in unincorporated areas in all non-metropolitan counties not
included in the 15 units per acre category;
II. 15 units per acre in cities within non-metropolitan counties; nonmetropolitan
counties with metropolitan areas;
III. 20 units per acre in suburban jurisdictions; and
IV. 30 units per acre in jurisdictions in metropolitan counties.
3) Establishes, pursuant to SB 35 (Wiener, Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017), a streamlined,
ministerial approval process, not subject to CEQA, for certain infill multifamily affordable
housing projects proposed in local jurisdictions that have not met their RHNA allocation.
Requires developments of 11 units or more to meet affordable housing and labor
requirements, including provision of prevailing wage for all projects, and utilization of a
skilled and trained workforce for projects that are not providing 100 percent publicly-
subsidized housing. Prohibits utilization of the streamlined, ministerial approval process in
environmentally unsafe or sensitive areas, such as a coastal zone, wetlands, a high or very
high fire severity zone unless the site has adopted fire hazard mitigation measures required
by existing building standards, a hazardous waste site, an earthquake fault zone, a flood plain
or floodway, lands identified for conservation in an adopted natural community conservation
plan, and lands under conservation easement (Government Code Section 65913.4).
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS:
Author’s Statement: According to the author, “SB 6 will allow cities to approve, through an
expedited process, the reuse of infill property zoned for retail and office space for residential
construction. Shopping malls, strip malls, and ‘big box’ retail stores face a new reality:
consumers’ needs are being met online. Many shopping centers struggle to remain viable as large
anchor stores like Sears, K-Mart, and Toys-R-Us close their doors or go out of business leaving
vacant, often-times run-down, commercial centers. The adaptive reuse of shopping malls, strip
malls, or office complexes will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and urban sprawl while
spurring economic vitality by promoting housing development where people work and shop.
While commercial vacancies are growing, California’s housing crisis continues to worsen.
According to the California Budget and Policy Center, over 50% of renters and nearly 40% of
homeowners pay more than 30% of their income on rent or a mortgage. To make matters worse,
the Public Policy Institute of California recently reported that California’s housing shortage
continues to grow as the number of residential building permits issued for 2018 and 2019 were
far below the recommended annual average of new homes needed. This bill allows for the
transformation of underperforming commercial sites into affordable and market-rate mixed-use
SB 6
Page 5
use centers significantly expanding the opportunity for new housing development throughout
California.”
California’s Housing Crisis: California is in the midst of a housing crisis. Only 24 percent of
households can afford to purchase the median priced single-family home – 50 percent less than
the national average, and 33 percent less than at the start of the pandemic.1 Over half of renters –
and 80 percent of low-income renters – are “rent burdened,” in households paying more than 30
percent of their income toward housing, which means they have less to pay for other essentials
such as food, transportation, and health care.2 In 2020, over 160,000 Californians experienced
homelessness on a given night.3 Californians rank housing affordability and homelessness as the
two most important issues for the state to address.4
A major cause of our housing crisis is the mismatch between the supply of housing and the need
for housing. While there are various estimates of the size of this mismatch, they all concur that
the deficit is in the millions of units. The Statewide Housing Plan adopted by HCD earlier this
year, determined that, to address this mismatch, in the next eight years, California needs
approximately 2.5 million units of housing, including one million units affordable to lower
income households.5 That would require production of over 300,000 units a year. According to
HCD, the state needs 180,000 units of housing built a year to keep up with demand – including
about 80,000 units of housing affordable to lower-income households. By contrast, production in
the past decade has been under 100,000 units per year – including less than 10,000 units of
affordable housing.6 This underproduction has further exacerbated our longstanding housing
crisis.
Local Restrictions on Housing Development and their Implications: Planning for and
approving new housing is mainly a local responsibility. The California Constitution allows cities
and counties to “make and enforce within its limits, all local, police, sanitary and other
ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.” It is from this fundamental power
(commonly called the police power) that cities and counties derive their authority to regulate
behavior to preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the public – including land use authority.
Cities and counties enforce this land use authority through zoning regulations that restrict and
shape development, such as where housing can occur, maximum densities of housing units,
maximum heights, minimum numbers of required parking spaces, and required setbacks. These
ordinances can also include conditions on development to address aesthetics, community
impacts, or other particular site-specific considerations.
While local governments do not build housing, the restrictions they place on new housing
production contribute to a lack of housing in the state. Historically, the provision of housing was
highly correlated to market demand. However, that shifted with the rise of local zoning, which
came to prominence just over 100 years ago. Zoning laws that limit housing to single-family
homes on larger lots are the most prominent form of zoning in California. By contrast, there are
relatively few locations to build multifamily housing: according to a 2019 Terner Center survey
1 California Association of Realtors Housing Affordability Index. Data for the 3rd quarter of 2021.
2 HCD, California Statewide Housing Plan, February 2018, Table 1.2
3 The 2020 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress (huduser.gov)
4 UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies, April 2022: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7sn293xs
5 Data from Roadmap Home 2030, California Housing Partnership Corporation and Housing California, 2021.
6 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/housing-challenges.shtml
SB 6
Page 6
of California cities and counties, only seven percent zoned over half their land for multi-family
housing, and only 35 percent zoned even 25 percent of their land for multi-family housing. The
result of this zoning is that it locks in allowable density, independent of demand for new housing,
even as the demand for new housing in California exceeds millions of units (as discussed above).
This excessive demand drives up home prices and rents.
An Increase in Developable Land: Housing element law requires local jurisdictions to
adequately plan to meet their existing and projected housing needs, including their share of the
regional housing need. The amount of housing required to be planned for is established by the
RHNA process. Upon receiving its RHNA, each jurisdiction must then demonstrate through its
housing element that the development capacity exists to accommodate, at a minimum, the
allocation for housing in each of the four income categories. The housing elements in the state’s
major metropolitan areas are due for completion between mid-2021 and early 2023 as part of the
“sixth revision” of housing elements. Each jurisdiction then has three years and 120 days to
complete any rezoning necessary to accommodate the units identified in their housing element
and in the site inventory than identifies where potential development would occur.
In the period between the fifth and sixth revisions of the housing element, changes were made to
the RHNA process to ensure that housing needs reflected not just current demand, but unmet
demand as well. As such, throughout the state, many cities and counties have been required to
plan for substantially more growth than before. Upon completion of this cycle of housing
element revisions, there is expected to be sufficiently zoned land to accommodate the housing
needed to address the deficit discussed above.
This bill would further help facilitate the production of housing by increasing the number of sites
available to be developed for residential uses beyond what is currently zoned or planned for
through local housing elements. This bill would expand the available sites to those where retail,
office, or parking are a principally permitted use. Such sites are strong candidates for multifamily
housing, for multiple reasons. They are typically located along high-capacity roadway arterials,
which are the most likely locations for transit. They are also typically not located within existing
residential neighborhoods, where larger developments often face significant pushback from
existing residents. Finally, the rise of e-commerce and the current global pandemic have both
greatly increased the vacancy rates in office and retail locations, making the sites more attractive
to be redeveloped for housing. Recognizing this opportunity, this bill also allows retail and office
sites that have at least 50 percent vacant for at least three years to benefit from the streamlined,
ministerial development process provided by SB 35 (Wiener, Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017).
Producing housing while protecting the environment: As currently written, SB 6 lacks many of
the guardrails and targets that have typically been included in state legislation to facilitate
housing production in an environmentally sensitive way. Moving forward, the author may wish
to consider amending the bill to include guardrails to prevent development from occurring on
environmentally sensitive or hazardous sites, or from subjecting new residents to nearby hazards
from adjacent industrial uses. Additionally, the author may wish to consider ways to reduce the
potential for this bill to facilitate sprawl, such as by adding in requirements that the development
be largely within existing developed areas and not on greenfield areas that may be zoned for
commercial uses but have yet to be developed.
Arguments in Support: Supporters of the bill tend to be those who support the production of
more housing as part of the solution to the state’s housing crisis. These groups argue that
SB 6
Page 7
enabling housing on more locations would facilitate the production of housing, thereby reducing
its price and making it more affordable, particularly to communities of color who are the most
burdened by housing costs. According to the California Association of Realtors, “for decades,
developers have been prevented from constructing enough units to keep up with job and
population growth in California. The result – rents and home prices continue to skyrocket.
Policies seeking to speed up the development process, stimulate housing construction, and limit
unnecessary regulatory costs will benefit both the state’s working families and economy.”
Arguments in Opposition: Opponents of the bill include cities and counties that argue that the
bill removes local control over zoning. According to the City of Huntington Beach, “while in
some instances it may make sense to repurpose underutilized retail or commercial areas for
housing, this should not be a decision that is made on a streamlined, ministerial basis. Locally
elected officials, and members of the community, should have the opportunity to weigh in on
such decisions, so that the full extent of the local impacts of the proposed project can be
considered.”
Other opponents of the bill include environmental groups who are concerned about the ability to
build housing on environmentally hazardous or sensitive sites. According to the Planning and
Conservation League, “we are concerned that the bill, as currently written, would undercut
jurisdictions’ ability to meet California greenhouse gas (GHG) and vehicle miles travelled
(VMT) reduction mandates and could still place residences on or near toxic sites.”
Related Legislation:
AB 2011 (Wicks) (2022): This bill is similar to SB 6 in that it allows housing on sites where
retail, office, and parking are principally permitted uses. AB 2011 requires the sites to be infill
and meet other environmental criteria. It also permits 100 percent affordable housing to be a use
by right in these commercial areas, and allows mixed-income housing to be a use by right along
wide commercial corridors. This bill is pending in the Senate Committee on Governance &
Finance.
AB 115 (Bloom) (2021): This bill is similar to SB 6, in that it would have made housing an
authorized use on commercially-zoned land. It required at least 20 percent of the units to be
affordable to lower income households. This bill died in the Assembly Committee on Local
Government.
AB 3107 (Bloom) (2020): This bill was substantially similar to AB 115, in that it would make
housing an authorized use on commercially-zoned land. This bill died in the Senate Committee
on Housing.
SB 1385 (Caballero) (2020): This bill is substantially similar to SB 6. It would have deemed a
housing development project, as defined, an authorized use on a neighborhood lot that is zoned
for office or retail commercial use under a local agency’s zoning code or general plan. This bill
died in the Assembly Committee on Local Government.
SB 35 (Wiener), Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017: This bill creates a streamlined, ministerial
approval process for infill developments in localities that have failed to meet their regional
housing needs assessment (RHNA) numbers.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
SB 6
Page 8
Support
AARP
Abundant Housing LA
American Planning Association, California Chapter
California Apartment Association
California Association of Realtors
California Builders Alliance
California Forward Action Fund
CivicWell
Los Angeles County Business Federation
Monterey; County of
Sacramento Regional Builders Exchange
Support If Amended
AIDS Healthcare Foundation
Associated Builders and Contractors of California
Opposition
Beverly Hills; City of
Plumbing-heating-cooling Contractors Association of California
Western Electrical Contractors Association
Oppose Unless Amended
California Coalition for Rural Housing
California Housing Consortium
California Housing Partnership
California State Association of Counties
Housing California
League of California Cities
Non Profit Housing Association of Northern California
Planning and Conservation League
Rural County Representatives of California
Southern California Association of Nonprofit Housing
Urban Counties of California
Analysis Prepared by: Steve Wertheim / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085
SB 45
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 29, 2022
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Chris Holden, Chair
SB 45 (Portantino) – As Amended January 3, 2022
Policy Committee: Natural Resources Vote: 9 - 0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill requires the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), in
consultation with the Air Resources Board (ARB), to provide assistance to local jurisdictions,
including any funding appropriated by the Legislature, to assist local jurisdictions with
complying with specified organic waste recycling programs.
FISCAL EFFECT:
1) CalRecycle estimates minimum costs of $164,000 in the first year and ongoing costs of at
least $162,000 annually thereafter (Integrated Waste Management Account) to fulfill the
requirements of the bill. CalRecycle notes that calculating a precise cost estimate is difficult
given the current scope of the bill, and the department’s estimated costs may increase.
2) Minor and absorbable costs to ARB.
COMMENTS:
1) Purpose. According to the author:
SB 45, as amended, formally directs the Cal Recycle (The Department
of Resources Recovery and Recycling within CAL-EPA) to assist
local agencies in implementing SB 1383 (Lara/Chapter 395 Statutes of
2016) which, inter alia, requires cities and counties to reduce and
eventually eliminate organic wastes from their disposal facilities to
reduce methane emissions. The bill is complementary to action taken
in the 2021-2022 Budget Act which made funding available to Cal
Recycle for these purposes but did not include express direction to the
department to expend the funds for these express purposes. SB 45
would provide that direction.
2) Background.
a) Short-Lived Climate Pollutants (SLCPs). SLCPs, such as black carbon,
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and methane, are powerful climate forcers that have a high
global warming potential and an outsized impact on climate change in the near term,
despite their relatively short atmospheric lifetimes. SB 605 (Lara), Chapter 523, Statutes
of 2014, directed ARB, in coordination with other state agencies and local air districts, to
develop a comprehensive SLCP reduction strategy. SB 1383 (Lara), Chapter 395,
SB 45
Page 2
Statutes of 2016, directed ARB to approve and begin implementing this strategy, and to
set statewide emissions reduction targets specifying a 40% reduction in methane, a 40%
reduction in HFCs, and a 50% reduction in anthropogenic black carbon below 2013
levels by 2030. SB 1383 also provided specific direction for reductions from dairy and
livestock operations and from landfills by diverting organic materials. The SLCP
Reduction Strategy approved by ARB in March 2017 outlines a range of options to
reduce SLCP emissions in California, including regulations, incentives, and other market-
supporting activities. The SLCP Strategy also informed ARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan
Update.
b) Organic Waste Recycling. According to CalRecycle, methane emissions resulting from
the decomposition of organic waste in landfills are a significant source of greenhouse gas
emissions contributing to global climate change. Organic materials, including waste that
can be readily prevented, recycled, or composted, account for a significant portion of
California’s overall waste stream. Food waste alone accounts for approximately 17% to
18% of total landfill disposal. SB 1383 established targets to achieve a 50% reduction in
the level of the statewide disposal of organic waste from 2014 levels by 2020 and a 75%
reduction by 2025. SB 1383 grants CalRecycle the regulatory authority required to
achieve the organic waste disposal reduction targets and establishes an additional target
that not less than 20% of currently disposed edible food is recovered for human
consumption by 2025. The implementing regulations, which took effect on January 1,
2022, require local jurisdictions to provide organic waste collection services, establish
edible food recovery programs, provide education and outreach to affected parties,
procure recycled organic waste products, provide access to edible food and composting
facilities, and undertake monitoring and enforcement.
c) Recent Budget Action. The fiscal year (FY) 2021-22 budget appropriated $270 million
over the next two years for a “Circular Economy Package.” Contained in this package
was $195 million to CalRecycle for organic waste infrastructure and implementation,
including $60 million in FY 2021-22 specifically for SB 1383 local jurisdiction
implementation grants. According to the author, SB 45 is complementary to action taken
in the Budget Act of 2021, which made funding available to CalRecycle for grants to
local governments to implement SB 1383 but did not include express direction to
CalRecycle. According to the author, SB 45 provide this direction.
Analysis Prepared by: Nikita Koraddi / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
SB 490
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 29, 2022
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Buffy Wicks, Chair
SB 490 (Caballero) – As Amended June 8, 2022
SENATE VOTE: 36-0
SUBJECT: Community Anti-Displacement and Preservation Program: technical assistance
SUMMARY: Creates the Community Anti-Displacement and Preservation Technical
Assistance Program (CAPP) to support qualified entities in navigating the requirements and
processes to apply for acquisition-rehabilitation project funding. Specifically, this bill:
1) Requires the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to develop,
implement, and administer CAPP.
2) Requires CAPP to provide technical assistance to community land trusts (CLTS), public
housing authorities, eligible non-profit organizations, local governments and resident
organizations to acquire and preserve unsubsidized housing units and attach long-term
affordability restrictions on the housing units, while safeguarding against the displacement of
current residents.
3) Requires HCD to do all of the following in creating and implementing CAPP:
a) Develop best practices for the development and ongoing operation of acquisition-
rehabilitation projects;
b) Support qualified entities in navigating the requirements and processes to apply for
acquisition-rehabilitation project funding;
c) Develop technical assistance tools including, but not limited to, all of the following:
i. Training modules;
ii. Acquisition-rehabilitation specific financing templates and guidance, such as
proformas and worksheets; and
iii. Best practice guides for engaging tenants before and after property acquisition,
managing safe, accessible rehabilitation of occupied buildings, facilitating
resident ownership, and any other topic deemed appropriate by the department.
4) Requires CAPP to support collaboration and peer-to-peer learning amongst qualified entities.
5) Require HCD to contract with third-party consultants to assist with the development,
implementation, and administration of the program.
SB 490
Page 2
EXISTING LAW: Establishes several housing programs that finance housing rehabilitation,
including but not limited to the following:
1) Multifamily Housing Program (MHP) – administered by HCD, assists the new
construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of permanent and transitional rental housing
for lower-income households.
2) Joe Serna Jr., Farmworker Housing Grant Program – administered by HCD, finances the
new construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition of owner-occupied and rental units for
agricultural workers, with a priority for lower-income households.
3) Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Strategies (AHSC) – administered by
the Strategic Growth Council (SGC) and implemented by the HCD, funds land-use,
housing, transportation, and land preservation projects to support infill and compact
development that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.
COMMENTS:
Author’s Statement: According to the author, “The overwhelming majority of low-income
Californians live in unsubsidized rental housing. Over the last several decades, the supply of this
housing at rents that are affordable to low-income households has sharply declined, forcing
residents out of their neighborhoods in order to find affordable housing. It has been
demonstrated that acquiring this housing, removing it from the speculative market, and
preserving it as affordable, communities are able to keep vulnerable residents housed, reduce
displacement, and grow the supply of deed-restricted affordable housing. Because this is a
relatively new and innovative strategy, many local jurisdictions and organizations lack the
necessary capacity and expertise needed to do this work effectively and equitably across the
state. SB 490 responds to this need by creating a statewide capacity building and technical
assistance (TA) program. The program will support public sector partners and mission-driven
organizations – often small, community development corporations, community land trusts, and
other organizations led by and serving people of color, to carry out this type of acquisition and
preservation. SB 490 builds off the State’s investments in TA to build the capacity of local
partners and support them to secure resources for communities across the state helping to
stabilize communities.”
Background on California’s housing crisis: California’s current housing crisis stems from an
undersupply of housing which HCD recently attributed to “decades of underproduction
underscored by exclusionary policies” in its 2022 update to the Statewide Housing Plan. Housing
affordability remains a major challenge for many of California’s most economically-vulnerable
households. According to data from the 2019 American Communities Survey, over half of the
state’s renters are considered rent-burdened, which is defined as paying more than 30 percent of
their income towards rent. California also has amongst the lowest homeownership rate
nationally.
SB 490
Page 3
The California Housing Partnership Corporation (CHPC) annually assesses the loss and the risk
of loss of affordable rental properties that receive public financing. As of February 20211,
between 1997 and 2020, California lost 18,043 affordable homes with project-based rental
assistance contracts and/or loans from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), the California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA), and HCD, or LIHTCs due to owner
decisions to opt out, sell, or allow their developments to convert to market rate. Another 30,102
affordable rental homes – or 7% of the total current supply – are at risk of conversion in the next
10 years, and 6,785 homes may no longer be affordable as soon as next year. Homes at very
high, high, and moderate risk of losing affordability have the following characteristics: 43%
serve seniors, 43% serve families, and 34% are concentrated in the counties of Los Angeles,
Orange, Santa Clara, San Francisco, and San Diego.
Existing state financing of acquisition-rehabilitation: According to one of the sponsors,
Enterprise Partners, in recent decades, most preservation efforts have focused on extending the
affordability of subsidized or income-restricted affordable housing in need of capital
improvements and/or nearing the expiration of affordability restrictions. This is primarily
accomplished through the re-syndication of LIHTCs, refinancing with special-purpose loan
funds and products, and renewing rental subsides such as Section 8 vouchers. More recently,
both housing practitioners and residents (including nonprofits, affordable housing developers,
community land trusts, and other community-based organizations and tenant associations) have
shown a growing interest in the acquisition and rehabilitation of unsubsidized affordable housing
currently on the private market as a means to create or preserve affordable housing. The
sponsors maintain that acquisition-rehabilitation in practice is a direct anti-displacement strategy
that is fast, effective, flexible, and long-term.
While several existing state programs (mostly notably the MHP program at HCD) finance the
acquisition and rehabilitation of affordable housing units, these programs are more targeted
towards the new construction and acquisition-rehabilitation of existing deed-restricted affordable
housing that is approaching the expiration of its affordability term, and not for unsubsidized
housing. According to the sponsors, some of the reasons for the narrower focus in existing state
programs is that they are limited to buildings with five or more units and specific project types,
such as large family, special needs, senior, supportive housing, and high risk. It is unlikely that a
building acquired from the private market, with existing tenants, would meet these existing
requirements.
Unique challenges for acquisition-rehabilitation projects. According to the sponsors, occupied
acquisition-rehabilitation projects present challenges. First, interested entities need to compete
on the private market against investors that have more access to capital and are less reliant on
public resources. Second, performing any rehabilitation work with tenants requires technical
expertise to identify structural needs and ongoing communication with residents. Additionally,
acquisition-rehabilitation projects are often smaller scale developments that are more difficult to
manage and sustain financially. Because this is a newer practice for even experienced
developers, acquisition-rehabilitation projects may require new skills to support tenant
engagement and property management, particularly with a scattered site model.
1 Danielle M. Mazzella, Affordable Homes At Risk: How Many of California’s Affordable Rental Homes Have
Converted to Market Rate? How Many are Still at Risk? (California Housing Partnership Corporation, February
2021) https://chpc.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Affordable-Homes-At-Risk-Report-2021.pdf
SB 490
Page 4
This bill will create CAPP at HCD specifically for unsubsidized acquisition-rehabilitation
projects. The Assembly and Senate proposed including $200 million in this year’s budget to
fund acquisition-rehabilitation of projects. At the time of this hearing, the final budget had not
been voted on and it is unclear if this funding will be included in the budget. This bill creates a
technical assistance program as a companion to that funding.
Arguments in support: According to one of the sponsors of this bill, Enterprise Foundation,
“overwhelming majority of low-income Californians live in unsubsidized rental housing. Over
the last several decades, the supply of this housing at rents that are affordable to low-income
households has sharply declined as residents are priced out of their homes or otherwise
displaced. As highlighted in a study by Enterprise Community Partners, the San Francisco Bay
Area lost an annual 32,000 unsubsidized rental homes previously affordable to low-income
households over just five short years. Similarly, The San Diego Housing Commission found that
between 2000 and 2020 the City lost 72% of its unsubsidized housing stock that was affordable
to households with low incomes….SB 490 (Caballero) authorizes California’s Department of
Housing and Community Development to create the Housing Acquisition and Rehabilitation
Technical Assistance Program to provide mission-driven organizations and public sector partners
the tools and resources they need to carry out this type of acquisition and preservation.”
Arguments in opposition: None on file.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Enterprise Community Partners (Sponsor)
Housing California (Sponsor)
Adobe Communities
Affordable Housing Network
Alameda County Democratic Party
Alta Housing
Beverly-Vermont Land Trust
Bill Sorro Housing Program (BiSHoP) of San Francisco
Brilliant Corners
California Apartment Association
California Coalition for Rural Housing
California Community Land Trust Network
California Housing Partnership Corporation
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Care CLT (a Division of Care Assn)
Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice
City of Thousand Oaks
Community HousingWorks
Cruz Strategies
East Bay Home Bridge Connect
East Bay Housing Organizations
Eden Housing
SB 490
Page 5
Eviction Defense Network
Fresno Metro Black Chamber of Commerce
EPACANDO
Generation Housing
Housing Equality & Advocacy Resource Team (HEART)
Housing Now! CA
Lanterman Housing Alliance
Legal Aid of Sonoma County
LISC Bay Area
LISC Los Angeles
LISC San Diego
Mi Familia Vota
Monterrey County Renters United
Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California
Northern California Land Trust
Public Advocates
Sacramento Community Land Trust
SCANPH
San Francisco Council of Community Housing Organizations
San Francisco Housing Accelerator Fund
Silicon Valley Community Foundation
South Bay Community Land Trust
South of Market Community Action Network
Southern California Association of Non-profit Housing
Tenderloin Neighborhood Development
Thai Community Development Center
Tri-Valley Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and Town of Danville
Western Center of Law & Poverty
Working Partnerships USA
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by: Lisa Engel / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085
SB 852
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 27, 2022
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Luz Rivas, Chair
SB 852 (Dodd) – As Amended June 6, 2022
SENATE VOTE: 29-7
SUBJECT: Climate resilience districts: formation: funding mechanisms
SUMMARY: Allows cities and counties to create climate resilience districts (districts) and
provides these districts with various financing powers.
EXISTING LAW:
1) Authorizes certain local agencies to form a community revitalization authority within a
community revitalization and investment area to carry out provisions of the Community
Redevelopment Law in that area for purposes related to, among other things, infrastructure,
affordable housing, and economic revitalization.
2) Provides for the financing of these activities by, among other things, the issuance of bonds
serviced by property tax increment revenues, and requires the authority to adopt a community
revitalization and investment plan for the community revitalization and investment area that
includes elements describing and governing revitalization activities.
3) Authorizes the legislative body of a city or a county to establish an enhanced infrastructure
financing district to finance public capital facilities or other specified projects of
communitywide significance, including projects that enable communities to adapt to the
impacts of climate change. Requires the legislative body to establish a public financing
authority, defined as the governing board of the enhanced infrastructure financing district,
prior to the adoption of a resolution to form an enhanced infrastructure district and adopt an
infrastructure financing plan.
4) Creates the Sonoma County Regional Climate Protection Authority, requires the authority to
be governed by the same board as that governing the Sonoma County Transportation
Authority, and imposes certain duties on the authority. Existing law authorizes the authority
to apply for and to receive grants of funds to carry out its functions.
THIS BILL:
1) Establishes the Climate Resilience Districts Act.
2) Defines the following terms for purposes of the bill:
a) “District” means a climate resilience district formed pursuant to this bill. A district
formed pursuant to this bill is deemed to also be an enhanced infrastructure financing
district shall be subject to statutory provisions for enhanced infrastructure financing
districts.
b) “Eligible project” means a project, including a capital project that is designed and
implemented to address climate change mitigation, adaptation, or resilience. Requires, at
SB 852
Page 2
a minimum, a district to give priority to a project that uses natural infrastructure, and/or
addresses the needs of under-resourced communities.
c) “Participating entity” means a city, county, or special district within a district that adopts
a resolution directing the county auditor or auditor-controller to allocate its share of
property tax increment within the area covered by the district to the district.
d) “Property tax increment” means that portion of the ad valorem taxes excluding any ad
valorem taxes or assessments levied.
3) Authorizes a city, county, city and county, or a combination of any of those entities to form a
district. Requires the boundaries of the district to be one of the following: coterminous with
the city, county, or city and county forming the district; within a city, county, or city and
county forming the district; across two or more cities, counties, or cities and counties that are
forming the district; or, a special district may join a district initiated by a city, county, city
and county, or a combination of cities and counties.
4) Requires a district to be formed for the purpose of raising and allocating funding for eligible
projects and the operating expenses of eligible projects. Specifies eligible operating
expenses.
5) Requires a district to use the proceeds of bonds issued by a district to finance only eligible
projects.
6) Deems a district an “agency” described in the California Constitution only for purposes of
receiving property tax increment revenues.
7) Requires the Sonoma County Regional Climate Protection Authority to be deemed a district
and is granted all of specified powers.
8) Provides that this bill shall not grant the district the power to use any tax increment revenues
unless it complies with the requirements for receiving and using tax increment revenue.
9) Requires the proceedings for the establishment of a district to be instituted by the adoption of
a resolution of intention to establish the proposed district and shall do all of the following:
a) State that a district is proposed to be established pursuant to this division and describe the
boundaries of the proposed district, which may be accomplished by reference to a map on
file in the office of the clerk of the city or in the office of the recorder of the county, as
applicable.
b) State the type of eligible projects proposed to be financed or assisted by the district.
c) State the need for the district and the goals the district proposes to achieve.
10) Prohibits the city, county, or city and county, from enacting a resolution providing for the
division of taxes of any participating entity unless it follows the procedures for the
preparation and adoption of an infrastructure financing plan described in Sections 53398.59
to 53398.74, inclusive.
SB 852
Page 3
11) Requires a district to be governed by a board that has the same membership as a public
financing authority and requires the board to have the same powers and requirements as a
public financing authority, unless otherwise specified.
12) Requires a minimum of 95% of the allocated tax increment revenues to be used to fund
eligible projects. Caps of allocated revenues for administration at 5%.
13) Provides a district the power to do all of the following:
a) Levy a benefit assessment, or property-related fee or other service charge or fee,
including, but not limited to, a benefit assessment levied.
b) Levy a benefit assessment for any of the purposes authorized by this division pursuant to
any of the following:
i) The Improvement Act of 1911.
ii) The Improvement Bond Act of 1915.
iii) The Municipal Improvement Act of 1913.
iv) The Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972.
v) Any other statutory authorization.
c) Apply for and receive grants from federal and state agencies.
d) Solicit and accept gifts, fees, grants, and allocations from public and private entities.
e) Issue revenue bonds for any of the purposes authorized by this bill pursuant to the
Revenue Bond Law of 1941, subject to any applicable constitutional requirements.
f) Incur general obligation bonded indebtedness for the acquisition or improvement of real
property or for funding or refunding of any outstanding indebtedness, subject to any
applicable constitutional requirements.
g) Receive and manage a dedicated revenue source.
h) Deposit or invest moneys of the district in banks or financial institutions in the state in
accordance with state law.
i) Sue and be sued, except as otherwise provided by law, in all actions and proceedings, in
all courts and tribunals of competent jurisdiction.
j) Engage counsel and other professional services.
k) Enter into and perform all necessary contracts.
l) Enter into joint powers agreements pursuant to the Joint Exercise of Powers Act.
m) Hire staff, define their qualifications and duties, and provide a schedule of compensation
for the performance of their duties.
n) Use interim or temporary staff provided by local agencies that are a members of the
district. A person who performs duties as interim or temporary staff shall not be
considered an employee of the district.
14) Requires a district to be deemed a district for purposes of Section 317 of the Elections Code.
A measure proposed by a district that requires voter approval shall be submitted to the voters
within the boundaries of the district in accordance with existing elections laws.
15) Requires the legal counsel for the district to prepare an impartial analysis of the measure.
16) Specifies other requirements related to the proposed ballot measure in accordance with
current elections laws.
SB 852
Page 4
17) Requires each district to prepare an annual expenditure plan that identifies and describes the
operations and eligible projects undertaken by the district.
18) Requires each district to prepare and adopt an annual operating budget and capital
improvement budget.
19) Requires a district to provide for regular audits of its accounts and records, maintain
accounting records, and report accounting transactions in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles adopted by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board of the
Financial Accounting Foundation for both public reporting purposes and for reporting of
activities to the Controller.
20) Requires all meetings of the district to be subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act.
21) Deems all records prepared, owned, used, or retained by the district as public records for
purposes of the California Public Records Act.
22) Provides the following requirements shall apply to a project that is undertaken or financed by
a district:
a) Construction, alteration, demolition, installation, and repair work on the project shall be
deemed a public work for which prevailing wages must be paid.
b) The district shall obtain an enforceable commitment from the developer or general
contractor that the developer or general contractor and all its contractors and
subcontractors at every tier will individually use a skilled and trained workforce to
perform all work on the project that falls within an apprenticeable occupation in the
building and construction trades.
23) Provides no reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of
the California Constitution.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, enactment of this bill
would result in negligible state costs.
COMMENTS:
1) Author’s statement.
SB 852 fills a significant gap in the framework of addressing climate
change. While important actions have been taken and resources allocated at the
state level, it is local communities and governments are on the front line of
meeting the challenge of climate change. While some local governments have
acted aggressively to meet the challenge, there is no systematic, sustained, and
predictable source of funding or staffing at the local level to tackle the planning
and implementation of projects and programs to combat the effects and impacts of
climate change. This bill will give communities and regions the means of
establishing local entities which span jurisdictional lines and focus resources on
the most urgent aspects of climate change as determined locally. This bill will
SB 852
Page 5
also create the ability to channel local, state, federal, and private funds in a
coordinated manner within a jurisdiction or across jurisdictional boundaries to
have the greatest and most effective impact possible.
2) Climate change. With the adoption of AB 32 (Nuñez, Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006),
California has aggressively adopted greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets, new policies,
and programs to reduce the state’s portfolio of climate emissions and facilitate emissions
reductions across virtually every sector and region. Despite that progress, the climate has
been changing and from our coastline to inland borders, from Calexico to Siskiyou County,
Californians are encountering a barrage of climate challenges.
According to the California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment (4th Assessment),
California is one of the most “climate-challenged” regions of North America. Peak runoff in
the Sacramento River occurs nearly a month earlier than in the first half of the last century,
glaciers in the Sierra Nevada have lost an average of 70 % of their area since the start of the
20th century, and birds are wintering further north and closer to the coast. Eight out of the
past ten years have had significantly below average precipitation. As of September 2020, the
state has experienced a degree of wildfire activity that the 4th Assessment forecasted would
not occur until 2050.
Scientists and policy makers agree that addressing climate change is on a dual track: as
humans reduce their climate emissions inventories to mitigate the impacts of climate change,
we concurrently need to be preparing for the changes via adaptation and resiliency.
Extreme heat, rising sea levels, ongoing drought, flooding, wildfires, and vector control will
have direct impacts on public health and infrastructure and affect people’s livelihoods and
local economies. Changing weather patterns and more extreme conditions will impact
tourism and rural economies in California, along with changes to agriculture and crops.
There will also be negative impacts to California’s ecosystems, both on land and in the
ocean, leading to local extinctions, migrations, and management challenges.
3) Climate adaptation at the local level. Adaptation can help safeguard against some of the
worst impacts, costs, and risks associated with climate change. While climate change is a
global issue, it is felt locally and regionally. Cities, counties, and regional agencies are at the
frontline of adaptation and resiliency. California’s local governments have begun to
undertake climate adaptation efforts, but these efforts are in early stages of development and
face a multitude of barriers, including financing and coordinating across jurisdictions to
effectively address regional impacts.
Mother Nature and climate changes don’t adhere to jurisdictional or political boundaries, so
greater coordinated efforts at the local and regional levels will strengthen regional resiliency
planning.
In 2017, the Legislature enacted Integrated Climate Adaptation and Resiliency Program
(ICARP) (SB 246, Wieckowski, Chapter 606, Statutes of 2015) to require the state Office of
Planning and Research to coordinate regional and local efforts with state climate adaptation
strategies to adapt to the impacts of climate change. The 2021-22 Budget Act provided $250
million over three years for regional climate resiliency planning. Governor Newsom’s
proposed 2022-23 Budget includes $135 million associated with the second year of those
investments for regional climate collaboratives and resilience. The funds will provide direct
SB 852
Page 6
investment in communities through capacity building grants, tribal, local and regional
adaptation planning, and implementation of resilience projects.
The Legislature also established Transformative Climate Communities Program (TCC) (AB
2722, Burke, Chapter 371, Statutes of 2016) to empower communities most impacted by
pollution to choose their own goals, strategies, and projects to reduce GHGs and local air
pollution with data-driven milestones and measureable outcomes. Since 2018, TCC has
received more than $230 million for implementation and planning grants.
4) Sonoma County Transportation Authority. In 2009, the Legislature created the Sonoma
County Regional Climate Protection Agency (AB 881, Huffman, Chapter 375, Statutes of
2009) to assist local agencies in Sonoma County to meet greenhouse gas reduction goals. The
Authority was established as a public instrumentality governed by the same board as that
governing the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA), but that authority is a
separate entity from SCTA. The Authority, in cooperation with local agencies that choose to
participate, was authorized to perform coordination and implementation activities within the
boundaries of Sonoma County to assist those participating agencies in meeting their GHG
emission reduction goals.
The Authority was the first of its kind to be established for the sole purpose of climate
planning. In a way, AB 881 chartered the path for SB 852, and SB 852 will grandfather the
Authority into the Climate Resilience Districts Act as a district.
5) Climate Resilience Districts. SB 852 would authorize local governments to form districts to
fund projects designed and implemented to address climate change mitigation, adaptation, or
resilience. Eligible projects would include those that address: sea level rise; extreme heat;
extreme cold, rain, or snow; the risk of wildfire; drought; and/or, the risk of flooding.
Districts would be required to give priority to a project that uses natural infrastructure, or
addresses the needs of under-resourced communities.
What sets districts apart from regional climate collaboratives is that the districts would be a
governmental entity. The Assembly Local Government Committee heard this bill on June 15,
where it analyzed the components of the bill related to establishing these districts as
governmental entities.
6) Insurance costs. Widespread damage may overwhelm public safety nets, a problem that
could drive even larger gaps in insurance availability and affordability. Yet, insurance
remains a cornerstone to community resilience: insurance supports rapid recovery from
climate disasters and can provide incentives for reducing risk in communities, thereby
promoting climate adaptation.
Insurance responds to risk, so if we do not reduce community risks, insurance is likely to
become less available, affordable and reliable.
The California Department of Insurance and its Climate Insurance Working Group developed
the Climate Insurance Report, which estimates less than 5% of households have flood
insurance even though every county has had a Governor declared-flood emergency in the
past 30 years. Extreme heat costs and impacts are rarely insured. And, over the past several
SB 852
Page 7
years, we have seen many devastating and tragic wildfires, causing unprecedented
losses. These losses are factored into insurance pricing.
To strengthen community resilience, the Working Group recommended establishing special
districts to invest in nature-based solutions that reduce risks to communities in ‘Cross-cutting
Recommendation 16: Catalyze new Climate Hazard Abatement Districts.’ This
recommendation pointed to special districts in existence today for geologic hazards and
perils, which provide an important example of what a special district can do to strengthen its
community.
To address these challenges, SB 852 provides a long-term tool for communities to work
together and sustain funding for community risk reduction to enable more affordable
insurance options.
7) Double referral. This bill was heard in the Assembly Local Government Committee on June
15 and was passed with a vote of 6-2.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
350 Bay Area Action
American Planning Association, California Chapter
California Department of Insurance (co-sponsor)
California Forward Action Fund
City of Encinitas
City of Thousand Oaks
Civicwell (co-sponsor)
County of Humboldt
Monterey County
Napa County Transportation and Planning Agency/Napa Valley Transportation Authority
Sonoma County Regional Climate Protection Authority
State Building & Construction Trades Council of California
The Climate Center
Opposition
California Chamber of Commerce
California Taxpayers Association
Analysis Prepared by: Paige Brokaw / NAT. RES. /
SB 932
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 27, 2022
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Laura Friedman, Chair
SB 932 (Portantino) – As Amended June 20, 2022
SENATE VOTE: 25-10
SUBJECT: General plans: circulation element: bicycle and pedestrian plans and traffic calming
plans
SUMMARY: Requires the circulation element of a general plan to include specified contents
related to bicycle plans, pedestrian plans, and traffic calming plans, and provides that failure to
implement the plans creates a cause of action for victims of traffic violence. Specifically, this
bill:
1) Requires the legislative body of a city or county, upon the next substantive revision of the
circulation element occurring on or after January 1, 2025, to develop or update the plan for a
balanced, multimodal transportation network, as specified, and to ensure that the plan
includes bicycle plans, pedestrian plans and traffic calming plans for any urbanized area, as
defined, within the scope of the county or city general plan.
2) Requires a city or county to begin implementation of the plan within two years of the date of
adoption of the modified circulation element that includes the bicycle, pedestrian and traffic
calming plans.
3) Requires the revised circulation element for any urbanized area to include the following:
a. The bicycle plans, pedestrian plans, and traffic calming plans to address all of the
following:
i. Identify safety corridors and any land or facility that generates high concentrations of
bicyclists or pedestrians, as defined.
ii. Use evidence-based strategies to develop safety measures specific to those areas that
are intended to eliminate traffic fatalities, with an emphasis on fatalities of bicyclists,
pedestrians, and users of any other form of micromobility device, as defined.
iii. Establish traffic calming measures around schools and parks, and within business
activity districts, as defined.
b. Requires a county or city to begin implementation of the modified circulation element
plan within two years of the date of adoption of the plan.
i. Requires a city or county to complete implementation of the plan for a multimodal
transportation network and the construction of any related infrastructure within 25 years
of the date of adoption of the modified circulation element.
SB 932
Page 2
ii. Provides that a city or county shall have an additional 10 years to complete
implementation if the circulation element contains measures that decrease traffic
fatalities by at least 20% within the first 5 years of its implementation period, and the
city or county implements those measures within those 5 years.
4) Provides that a city or county shall not be required to comply with the requirements of the
bill upon making a written finding based on substantial evidence that its failure to comply
with the requirements of the bill are the result of unforeseen circumstances outside of the
control of the city or county.
5) Provides that, from January 1, 2025 through January 1, 2028, the failure by a city or county
to comply with the requirements of the bill creates a cause of action for bicyclists,
pedestrians, and users of any other form of micromobility device injured as a result of a
collision with a motor vehicle within the right-of-way of safety corridors and any land or
facility that generates high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians, as defined, in the
following counties:
a. Alameda.
b. Contra Costa.
c. Los Angeles.
d. Orange.
e. Riverside.
f. Sacramento.
g. San Bernardino.
h. San Diego.
i. San Francisco.
j. Santa Clara.
6) Defines the following:
a. “Business activity district” has the same meaning as defined in Section 22358.9 of the
Vehicle Code.
b. “Land facilities that generate high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians” has the
same meaning as described in Section 22358.7 of the Vehicle Code.
c. “Micromobility device” means a bicycle, electric bicycle, or motorized scooter as those
terms are defined and described in Division 1 (commencing with Section 100) of the
Vehicle Code.
d. “Safety corridor” has the same meaning as defined in Section 22358.7 of the Vehicle
Code.
e. “Urbanized area” has the same meaning as defined in Section 21071 of the Public
Resources Code.
7) States the intent of the Legislature to create an annual grant program, and an appropriation, to
be awarded to any county or city that shows implementation of timely and effective short-
SB 932
Page 3
term efforts to mitigate bicycle, pedestrian, and other micromobility device injuries and
fatalities, in order to incentivize any county or city with few financial resources to take small,
affordable steps towards fulfilling its traffic and street safety goals.
EXISTING LAW:
1) Requires every city and county to prepare and periodically update a comprehensive, long-
range general plan to guide future planning decisions.
2) Requires the general plan to contain seven mandatory elements: land use, circulation,
housing, conservation, open-space, noise, and safety.
3) Requires the general plan to include an eighth element on environmental justice, or
incorporate environmental justice concerns throughout the other elements.
4) Requires the open space element to include an inventory of certain categories of open-space
lands and an action plan that lays out how the city or county will implement the open-space
plan through specific programs.
5) States the Legislature’s intention that a county or city general plan and the elements and parts
of that general plan comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of
policies for the adopting agency.
6) Requires the legislative body of a city or county to adopt a comprehensive general plan that
includes various elements, including a circulation element. The circulation element must
consist of the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares,
transportation routes, terminals, any military airports and ports, and other local public
utilities and facilities.
7) Requires the legislative body, upon any substantive revision of the circulation element, to
modify the circulation element to plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that
meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways for safe and convenient travel in a
manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan.
8) Defines “users of streets, roads, and highways” to mean bicyclists, children, persons with
disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, pedestrians, users of public
transportation, and seniors.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
1) Unknown significant local costs for cities and counties to update circulation elements and to
develop and implement bicycle, pedestrian, and traffic calming plans for any urbanized areas
within their jurisdiction. The bill includes “local fee disclaimer” language indicating that the
bill’s costs are not state-reimbursable because local agencies have general authority to charge
and adjust planning and permitting fees to cover their administrative expenses associated
with new planning mandates. (local funds)
SB 932
Page 4
2) Unknown court cost pressures due to increased workload for the judicial branch to adjudicate
court filings generated by the new cause of action created by this bill. (Trial Court Trust
Fund, General Fund)
3) Unknown, major cost pressures to establish, administer, and fund a grant program to provide
resources to cities and counties to offset their costs for updating circulation elements, as
specified in the bill. (General Fund)
COMMENTS: Each city and county must prepare and periodically update a comprehensive,
long-range general plan to guide future planning decisions. Seven mandatory elements comprise
the general plan: land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open-space, noise, and safety.
General plans must also either include an eighth element on environmental justice, or incorporate
environmental justice concerns throughout the other elements. Cities and counties may adopt
optional elements that address issues of their choosing, and once adopted, those elements have
the same legal force as the mandatory elements. The general plan must be “internally consistent,”
which means the various elements cannot contain conflicting information or assumptions.
Although state law spells out the plans’ minimum contents, it also specifies that local officials
can address these topics to the extent to which they exist in their cities and counties, and with a
level of detail that reflects local circumstances. Similarly, state law does not require cities and
counties to regularly revise their general plans (except for the housing element, which must
generally be revised every eight years).
The circulation element must show the general location and extent of major roads, transportation
routes, terminals, military airports and ports, and local public utilities and facilities, and it must
correlate these features with the land use element.
The California Complete Streets Act of 2008, created via AB 1358 (Leno), Chapter 657, Statutes
of 2008, required cities and counties to modify their circulation element to plan for a balanced,
multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and
highways for safe and convenient travel in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or
urban context of the general plan. For the purposes of this requirement, “users” means bicyclists,
children, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, pedestrians, users of
public transportation, and seniors. This modification must occur upon any substantive revision of
the circulation element.
This bill requires cities and counties to add or include specified contents related to bicycle plans,
pedestrian plans, and traffic calming plans upon any substantive revision of the circulation
element occurring after January 1, 2025, and to implement those plans within certain timeframes.
Planning for more biking and walking. In 2017, Caltrans published the first-ever statewide plan
for active modes of transportation, Toward an Active California State Bicycle + Pedestrian Plan,
with the following vision statement, “By 2040, people in California of all ages, abilities, and
incomes can safely, conveniently, and comfortably walk and bicycle for their transportation
needs.” Each Caltrans District (1-12) is in the process of completing a districtwide bicycle and
pedestrian plan, in order to address active transportation needs along and across the State
SB 932
Page 5
Highway System in future construction or maintenance projects. Complementary districts plans
identify challenges to people’s ability to walk, bicycle, and reach transit, which provides critical
transportation routes in towns and cities across California. This represents a crucial step in
making walking and bicycling safer, more comfortable, and more convenient.
The latest update of the California Transportation Plan, CTP 2050, states that in the months
following the outbreak of COVID-19, more Americans embraced active travel. California cities
that typically have low bicycle ridership, such as Riverside and Oxnard, experienced a 90% to
125% increase in bicycle miles traveled. The Rails-to-Trails Conservancy observed a 110%
increase in trail use compared to the same period in 2019. Looking to the future, the CTP 2050
estimates that bicycle and pedestrian travel could increase by 45% by 2050.
With active transportation on the rise, the state must ensure bicyclists and pedestrians are safe on
and around the roadways. The California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) reports that California
has the highest pedestrian death rate in the nation, nearly 25% higher than the national average.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) reports that 75% of pedestrian fatalities occur at
non-intersection locations. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) notes that in 2019 there were
1,021 pedestrians killed by vehicles statewide, similar but slightly higher than prior years, of
which 667 were the result of the pedestrian crossing against traffic controls or safety laws.
This bill requires the circulation element to develop and implement bicycle plans, pedestrian
plans, and traffic calming plans; identify safety corridors and any land or facility that generates
high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians, as defined; use evidence-based strategies to
develop safety measures specific to those areas that are intended to eliminate traffic fatalities,
with an emphasis on fatalities of bicyclists, pedestrians, and users of any other form of
micromobility device, as defined, and; establish traffic calming measures around schools and
parks, and within business activity districts, as defined.
State commitment to fund active transportation. The active transportation program (ATP) was
created by SB 99 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter 359, Statutes of 2014, to
encourage increased use of active modes of transportation, such as walking and biking, and was
originally funded at approximately $123 million a year from a combination of state and federal
funds. The goals of the ATP include, but are not limited to, increasing the proportion of trips
accomplished by walking and biking, increasing the safety and mobility of non-motorized users,
advancing efforts of regional agencies to achieve greenhouse gas reduction goals, enhancing
public health, and providing a broad spectrum of projects to benefit many types of users
including disadvantaged communities.
SB 1 (Beall), Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017, also known as the Road Repair and Accountability
Act, SB 1 directs $100 million annually from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account
to the ATP, significantly augmenting the available funding for this popular program.
Since its inception, the ATP has funded over 900 active transportation projects across the state
benefiting both urban and rural areas. More than 450 of the funded projects are Safe Routes to
Schools projects and programs that encourage a healthy and active lifestyle throughout students'
lives. In addition, every cycle has seen more than 85% of funds going towards projects that
benefit state designated disadvantaged communities.
SB 932
Page 6
While the ATP has funded projects across the state, the program is oversubscribed and lacks
follow through on how funded projects align with local land use and the general plan. Funding
from the ATP may be used for the development of community-wide bike and pedestrian
infrastructure, to increase safety and mobility for non-motorized users, build safe routes to
schools, or develop active transportation plans.
The Newsom Administration proposed $1.1 billion for ATP in the 2022-23 budget; the
Legislature proposed $1.5 billion. This bill declares the intent of the Legislature to create an
annual grant program and an appropriation thereof to be awarded to any county or city to meet
the requirements of the bill and includes additional findings and declarations to support its
purposes. However, this bill does not specify a funding source for the grant program.
Opportunity to better incentivize existing plans and programs. This bill creates a private right of
action in 10 counties, from January 1, 2025 through January 1, 2028, if the city fails to revise the
circulation element, and a user of any other form of micromobility device is injured as a result of
a collision with a motor vehicle within the right-of-way of safety corridors and any land or
facility that generates high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians.
The unintended consequence of this provision is the private cause of action only applies to a
local agency that updates its circulation element, and then fails to implement the plans by the
timelines established by this bill. While the private cause of action is intended to ensure that
local agencies implement the plans they adopt, it may actually encourage local agencies to delay
updating their circulation elements to avoid potentially costly litigation. Additionally, there is
nothing in this bill or in existing law that requires local agencies to update their circulation
elements by a certain date.
Rather than create a private right of action for failure to update the circulation element, it may be
more appropriate to require local input and planning incorporated into the state’s active
transportation plans, which are currently not required to be updated, realistic, or implementable
as outlined in state law.
For an incentive, it may be appropriate to require ATP funds to be allocated in accordance with
local priorities and state plans. This bill serves as an opportunity to better implement and
appropriately fund active transportation plans and projects.
Work done, and work to do. This bill passed the Assembly Local Government Committee on
June 15, 2022, 6-2. Committee comments not yet addressed in the bill include:
a) Aligning the legal liability created by the bill with the areas the cities and counties must
address in their updated plans.
b) Better define actions that would satisfy the requirement to “commence implementation” of a
plan, and therefore limit the potential legal liability of local agencies.
According to the author, “Despite decades of rhetoric on the need for safer streets, most
California streets have grown more dangerous in recent years. California follows a nationwide
trend; the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration saw a nearly 20% increase in traffic
SB 932
Page 7
fatalities in the first six months of 2021 compared to 2020 or 2019. Some California cities lack
data on how to address the epidemic of traffic violence, particularly regarding death and serious
injuries to pedestrians, cyclists, and other human-powered-transit users. In certain cities where
the most dangerous streets and corridors have been identified, no plan exists to remedy these
deadly situations. Even in cities that have developed plans, like Los Angeles’ Vision Zero and
Mobility Plan 2035, meaningful changes that would save lives have yet to be implemented. SB
932 requires a county or city to include in its General Plan, a map of the high injury network
within its boundaries and would further require a county or city to identify and prioritize safety
improvements. Thus saving countless lives.”
In support, Streets for All writes, “SB 932 will make meaningful changes to California law that
will align cities across the State to begin the critical work to not only save lives, but make our
streets more equitable and fight climate change.”
In opposition, the California League of Cities writes, “SB 932 creates significant new legal
liability for local jurisdictions that fail to meet the bill’s arbitrary implementation timeframes.
The new private right of action created by SB 932 will be counter-productive to making progress
on improving our local streets. Simply put, every additional dollar that goes toward defending
against litigation is one fewer dollar available for improving our local streets and roads.”
Prior legislation: SB 1425 (Stern) of 2022 requires a city or county to review and update its
local open-space plan by January 1, 2026. This bill is pending in Assembly local Government
Committee.
AB 1946 (Boerner Horvath) of 2022 requires CHP to develop statewide safety standards and
training programs based on evidence-based practices for users of e-bike. This bill is pending on
the Assembly floor.
AB 2147 (Ting) of 2022 prohibits a peace officer from stopping a pedestrian unless certain
provisions are met. This bill is pending in the Assembly Appropriations committee.
AB 1238 (Ting) of 2022 repeals provisions of law prohibiting pedestrians from entering a
roadway unless vehicles are imposing an immediate hazard and specifies that pedestrians shall
not be subject to a fine or criminal penalty for crossing or entering a roadway when no cars are
present. This bill was vetoed.
AB 1358 (Leno) Chapter 657, Statutes of 2008, enacts the Complete Streets Act of 2008 and
modify their circulation elements to plan for a balanced multi-modal transportation network that
meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways.
SB 806 (Sher) of 2003) changes the name of the circulation element to the transportation
element. This bill died on the Senate Floor’s inactive file.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
SB 932
Page 8
Active San Gabriel Valley
California Bicycle Coalition
California Walks
California Yimby
Circulate San Diego
Climate Resolve
Consumer Attorneys of California
Culver City Democratic Club
League of Women Voters of California
Motional
Oakland; City of
Streets are For Everyone
Streets for All
Oppose
City of Colton
City of Fortuna
City of Lake Forest
City of Los Alamitos
City of Menifee
City of San Marcos
City of Yreka
South Bay Cities Council of Governments
Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC)
American Planning Association California Chapter (Unless Amended)
California Association of Joint Powers Authorities (Unless Amended)
California Association of Joint Powers Authorities (CAJPA) (Unless Amended)
California State Association of Counties (CSAC) (Unless Amended)
City of Buena Park (Unless Amended)
City of Downey (Unless Amended)
City of Indian Wells (Unless Amended)
City of La Mirada (Unless Amended)
City of Lakeport (Unless Amended)
City of Lakewood CA (Unless Amended)
City of Orinda (Unless Amended)
City of Pico Rivera (Unless Amended)
City of Rancho Cucamonga (Unless Amended)
City of Rocklin (Unless Amended)
City of Thousand Oaks (Unless Amended)
City of Torrance (Unless Amended)
City of Vista (Unless Amended)
County of Santa Barbara (Unless Amended)
League of California Cities (Unless Amended)
Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC) (Unless Amended)
Safer Streets LA (Unless Amended)
Torrance; City of (Unless Amended)
Town of Apple Valley (Unless Amended)
SB 932
Page 9
Urban Counties of California (Unless Amended)
Other
Tri-valley Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and Town of Danville
Analysis Prepared by: Julia Kingsley / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
July 12, 2022
The Honorable Anna Caballero
California State Senate
1021 O Street, Suite 7620
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Senate Bill 6 (Caballero) Local planning: housing: commercial zones
Tri-Valley Cities Coalition – Letter of Opposition with Comments and Suggestions
Dear Senator Caballero:
On behalf of the Tri-Valley Cities Coalition, which includes the Cities of Dublin, Livermore,
Pleasanton, San Ramon, and the Town of Danville, we write to express our respectful opposition
to Senate Bill 6, and to provide some feedback and commentary on how this bill can be made
more reasonable for municipalities.
First, we want to acknowledge and commend your efforts to ensure that there is ample affordable
housing in California. We agree that more affordable housing is needed and are supportive of
increased development of affordable housing in places where it is contextually appropriate in each
local jurisdiction. As you know, not all cities are built the same or were planned the same, and as
such, we ask that you and your staff work with us to mitigate the impacts of how development in
certain areas may be extremely detrimental to various communities.
Here are some concerns we have with the bill as well as some suggestions which we hope to
engage with your office on:
Need for Retaining Retail and Commercial Space
The TVC coalition is committed to ensuring that affordable housing is built in California in a way
that allows local oversight. While we appreciate the desire to repurpose underutilized parcels for
housing, we also have a need to preserve those very retail and commercial spaces so that
residents have access to important resources. The conversion of retail and commercial space
into housing ultimately results in residents needing to travel increased distances to jobs, access
services and restaurants, or to go shopping, and takes away the viability of local entrepreneurship
by removing viable spaces for small businesses to open.
By allowing residential development in retail and commercial zones, SB 6 also removes the ability
of a local jurisdiction to continue to carefully zone and balance revenues generated by its land
uses. In losing retail and commercial space, cities lose the ability to draw in new business and
therefore, lose out on valuable revenue sources. Preserving some sites for strictly commercial
uses is important to economic development efforts and local revenue considerations.
Limit to Zones Best Suited for Residential Use
As written, SB 6 applies to zones where “office, retail, or parking are a principally permitted use,”
which still applies to some industrial zoned parcels. Our Coalition has concerns regarding whether
these zones are all suitable for residential developments. Oftentimes, commercial uses can vary
–particularly in low and medium density areas. This loose definition incorporates surface mining
areas, agricultural and livestock farms, and manufacturing uses. We believe that additional
protections are needed to preclude these parcels from residential developments, to ensure
residents are safe and cities and developers are free from liability concerns.
ATTACHMENT B
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
Housing affordability
SB 6 only requires that 15% of the units in the development have an affordable housing cost or
affordable rent for lower income households. We would urge you to consider requiring a more
significant level of affordability in any housing project that seeks to take advantage of such retail
and commercial property rezones, thereby providing certainty that such projects will meet the
most pressing housing needs.
Ultimately, expedited housing development processes established by SB 35 and that are utilized
by this bill have been based on consistency with locally adopted planning. SB 6 changes this
approach by extending by-right authority to non-compliant projects in areas not zoned for
residential use.
For the reasons listed above, we must respectfully oppose SB 6, but hope to work with you and
your staff on some important changes that would help address the concerns of local governments.
Sincerely,
CC: Assembly Member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Senator Steven Glazer
__________________ ____________________ ____________________
Town of Danville City of Dublin City of Livermore
Mayor Newell Arnerich Mayor Melissa Hernandez Mayor Bob Woerner
__________________________ __________________________
City of Pleasanton City of San Ramon
Mayor Karla Brown Mayor Dave Hudson
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
July 12, 2022
The Honorable Chris Holden
California State Assembly
1021 O Street, Suite 5650
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Assembly Bill 1737 (Holden) Children’s camps: safety
Tri-Valley Cities Coalition – Removal of Opposition
Dear Assemblymember Holden,
On behalf of the Tri-Valley Cities Coalition, which includes the Cities of Dublin, Livermore,
Pleasanton, San Ramon, and the Town of Danville, we write to express our thanks to your office
for engaging with us on amendments to your bill, AB 1737, and to formally remove our opposition.
We appreciate the previous inclusion of bill amendments that we had suggested related to how
local agencies who operate multiple camps could register camps and report, and those
exemptions cities were given related to paying fees and developing and maintaining operating
plans. Now, with the most recent bill text as of 6.21.2022, our concerns around various
requirements have been addressed.
Again, we appreciate your efforts and still maintain committed to ensuring the safety of and
accountability for all children’s camps, without putting a level of administrative strain on operators
that would likely result in camp closures.
For the reasons state above, we are pleased to remove our opposition to this bill and now maintain
a neutral position.
Sincerely,
CC: Senator Steve Glazer
Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
__________________ ____________________ ____________________
Town of Danville City of Dublin City of Livermore
Mayor Newell Arnerich Mayor Melissa Hernandez Mayor Bob Woerner
__________________________ __________________________
City of Pleasanton City of San Ramon
Mayor Karla Brown Mayor Dave Hudson
ATTACHMENT C
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
July 12, 2022
The Honorable Steven Glazer
California State Senate
1021 O Street, Suite 7520
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Thank You from the Tri-Valley Cities
Dear Senator Glazer
On behalf of the Tri-Valley Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and the Town of
Danville, we write to express our appreciation for your ongoing work and advocacy related to the
Valley Link Rail Project.
We are very excited about the budget allocation in this year’s Budget Bill Junior that will help the
Tri-Valley – San Joaquin Valley Regional Rail Authority complete the study and prepare technical
information for Zero Emission Vehicles for the Valley Link project and the associated maintenance
facility, while also allowing the Regional Rail Authority to complete the environmental analysis
and preliminary design/engineering.
Thank you again for your ongoing partnership and support for our coalition and region, and we
look forward to many more successes in the future!
Sincerely,
__________________ ____________________ ____________________
Town of Danville City of Dublin City of Livermore
Mayor Newell Arnerich Mayor Melissa Hernandez Mayor Bob Woerner
__________________________ __________________________
City of Pleasanton City of San Ramon
Mayor Karla Brown Mayor Dave Hudson
ATTACHMENT D
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
July 12, 2022
The Honorable Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
California State Assembly
1021 O Street, Suite 6320
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: 2022 State Budget – Thank You from the Tri-Valley Cities
Dear Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan:
On behalf of the Tri-Valley Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and the Town of
Danville, we write to express our heartfelt gratitude and thanks to you for championing the budget
request to secure funding for Valley Link Rail – Environmental Study and Preliminary Engineering.
As you know, this funding will help the Tri-Valley – San Joaquin Valley Regional Rail Authority
complete the study and prepare technical information for Zero Emission Vehicles for the Valley
Link project and the associated maintenance facility, while also allowing the Regional Rail
Authority to complete the environmental analysis and preliminary design/engineering. The dollars
you have secured will provide a tremendous benefit to the project and to the residents of the Bay
Area and San Joaquin Valley.
Thank you again for your ongoing partnership, support, and tireless advocacy for our
communities. You have been a strong champion for our coalition and region, and we look forward
to many more successes in the future!
Sincerely,
__________________ ____________________ ____________________
Town of Danville City of Dublin City of Livermore
Mayor Newell Arnerich Mayor Melissa Hernandez Mayor Bob Woerner
__________________________ __________________________
City of Pleasanton City of San Ramon
Mayor Karla Brown Mayor Dave Hudson
ATTACHMENT E
“Small Town Atmosphere
Outstanding Quality of Life”
5 1 0 L A G O N D A W A Y, D A N V I L L E , C A L I F O R N I A 9 4 5 2 6
Administration Building Engineering & Planning Transportation Maintenance Police Parks and Recreation (925) 314-3388 (925) 314-3330 (925) 314-3310 (925) 314-3320 (925) 314-3450 (925) 314-3700 (925) 314-3400
June 28, 2022
The Honorable Cecillia Aguiar-Curry
Chair, Assembly Committee on Local Government
1020 N Street, Room 157
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Senate Bill 897 (Wieckowski) Accessory Dwelling Units
Notice of Opposition (As Amended 6/20/22)
Dear Assemblymember Aguiar-Curry,
The Town of Danville must respectfully oppose SB 897 which would significantly amend
the statewide standards that apply to locally adopted ordinances concerning the
construction of accessory dwelling units (ADUs), even though the law has been
substantially amended nearly every year since 2016.
Specifically, SB 897 would require local jurisdictions to:
•Allow ADUs to be constructed with a height of up to 25 feet near transit. Current
law appropriately authorizes cities and counties to restrict ADU height to 16 feet,
thus helping ensure that these accessary units blend into the existing neighborhood.
Mandating that local jurisdictions allow essentially two-story ADUs is completely
contrary to the stated belief that ADUs are a way to increase density in a modest
fashion that is not disruptive to established communities. Shoehorning a 25-foot
structure into a backyard of a single-story ranch style home, that is within one half
mile of public transit, calls to question the idea that these are “accessory dwelling
units.”
•Permit constructed ADUs in violation of State building standards and in
violation of local zoning requirements. Current law already requires cities and
counties to approve ADUs ministerially, without discretionary review. Expanding
this to prohibit local jurisdictions from denying permits for already constructed
ADUs that fail to comply with State mandated building standards or local zoning
requirements could result in dangerous or substandard living conditions.
ATTACHMENT F
July 19, 2022
Page 2
•Allow two ADUs to be constructed on a lot if a multifamily dwelling is proposed
to be developed. SB 897 would allow a property owner to construct two ADUs on a
vacant parcel years before the proposed multifamily structure begins construction.
Additionally, there is no guarantee that the multifamily structure will ever be
constructed. It is unclear why local jurisdictions should be forced to allow ADUs to
be constructed before the originally proposed multifamily structure. Constructing an
ADU without a primary structure makes them accessory to nothing, but rather a
standalone unit.
For these reasons, the Town of Danville must oppose SB 897.
Sincerely,
_____________________________
NEWELL ARNERICH, MAYOR
cc: The Honorable Steven Glazer, George.Escutia@sen.ga.gov
The Honorable Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, John.Skoglund@asm.ca.gov
Sam Caygill East Bay Regional Public Affairs Manager, scaygill@cacities.org
League of California Cities, cityletters@calcities.org
“Small Town Atmosphere
Outstanding Quality of Life”
5 1 0 L A G O N D A W A Y, D A N V I L L E , C A L I F O R N I A 9 4 5 2 6
Administration Building Engineering & Planning Transportation Maintenance Police Parks and Recreation (925) 314-3388 (925) 314-3330 (925) 314-3310 (925) 314-3320 (925) 314-3450 (925) 314-3700 (925) 314-3400
June 28, 2022
The Honorable Alex Lee
California State Assembly
1021 O Street, Suite 6330
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Assembly Bill 2053 (Lee) Social Housing Act
Notice of Opposition (As amended 6/14/2022)
Dear Assemblymember Lee,
The Town of Danville must respectfully oppose your measure AB 2053, which would create
the California Housing Authority with a mission to produce and acquire social housing
developments for the purpose of eliminating the gap between housing production and
regional housing needs assessment targets and to preserve affordable housing.
The Town of Danville strongly supports the intent of AB 2053, which is to produce more
housing as housing affordability and homelessness are among the most critical issues facing
California cities. Affordably priced homes are out of reach for many people and housing is
not being built fast enough to meet the current or projected needs of people living in the
state. Cities lay the essential groundwork for housing production by planning and zoning
new projects in their communities based on extensive public input and engagement, state
housing laws, and the needs of the building industry. Importantly, cities are currently
updating housing plans to identify sites for more than two million additional housing units.
AB 2053 ignores this state mandated local planning effort and forces cities to allow housing
developments in nearly all areas of a city. This seriously questions the rationale for the
regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) process. If the California Housing Authority can
build housing on any parcel they own or acquire, why should cities go through the
multiyear planning process to identify sites suitable for new housing units, for those plans
to be ignored and housing built on sites never consider for new housing.
Additionally, as a state entity, the California Housing Authority would have full control
over the properties they own and would not be required to abide by local zoning, design
standards, density requirements, height limitations, parking requirements, or other
development standards.
ATTACHMENT G
July 19, 2022
Page 2
For these reasons, the Town of Danville opposes AB 2053 based on our significant concerns
with the current version of the bill.
Sincerely,
_____________________________
NEWELL ARNERICH, MAYOR
cc: The Honorable Steven Glazer, George.Escutia@sen.ga.gov
The Honorable Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, John.Skoglund@asm.ca.gov
Sam Caygill East Bay Regional Public Affairs Manager, scaygill@cacities.org
League of California Cities, cityletters@calcities.org
“Small Town Atmosphere Outstanding Quality of Life”
5 1 0 L A G O N D A W A Y , D A N V I L L E , C A L I F O R N I A 9 4 5 2 6
Administration Building Engineering & Planning Transportation Maintenance Police Parks and Recreation (925) 314-3388 (925) 314-3330 (925) 314-3310 (925) 314-3320 (925) 314-3450 (925) 314-3700 (925) 314-3400
June 23, 2022
Mr. John Hoang
Director, Planning
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
2999 Oak Road, Suite 100
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Subject: Letter of Support for the Countywide Smart Signals Project Application for
OBAG 3
Dear Mr. Hoang,
On behalf of the Town of Danville, I am writing in support of the Contra Costa
Transportation Authority’s (CCTA’s) Application for the OBAG 3 County and Local
Program for the Countywide Smart Signals Project to implement innovative upgrades
to traffic signals and intersections on the regional routes of significance and address
safety and multimodal mobility within the Town of Danville. We also appreciate the
opportunity to participate in the project and look forward to coordinating with CCTA
and the other jurisdictions.
As Contra Costa County continues to innovate, the approximately 1,500 traffic signals
within the county including the signals in our city have a critical role to play to protect
vulnerable road users such as bicyclists, pedestrians, and individuals with limited
mobility by reducing traffic congestion and emissions, addressing travel speeds, and
prioritizing transit and emergency vehicles. Many of the existing traffic signal systems
are outdated and lack communication to deploy technology, which makes traffic signal
synchronization and coordination between signals along local roads challenging.
This funding will enable the Town of Danville to continue its efforts to upgrade its
traffic signal network to a smart signal system that will enable the implementation of
improvements such as signal interconnect and synchronization to optimize traffic flow
and reduce congestion; prioritize transit and emergency vehicles; use video detection
and analytics to proactively identify “near miss” situations (for vehicles, bicycles, and
pedestrians) and report those back to a traffic management center; and facilitate the
ATTACHMENT H
July 19, 2022 Page 2
exchange of real-time information that will be essential to support future emerging
technologies included connected and automated vehicles.
For these reasons, I support the Countywide Smart Signal Project application for OBAG
3 program funds. Please reach out with any questions that you may have to Andrew
Dillard, Transportation Manager, at (925) 314-3384 or adillard@danville.ca.gov.
Thank you for considering this vital project for funding and for sponsoring the project.
We appreciate your time and your staff time in taking time to talk to us and preparing
the application.
Sincerely,
_____________________________
NEWELL ARNERICH, MAYOR
“Small Town Atmosphere Outstanding Quality of Life”
5 1 0 L A G O N D A W A Y , D A N V I L L E , C A L I F O R N I A 9 4 5 2 6
Administration Building Engineering & Planning Transportation Maintenance Police Parks and Recreation (925) 314-3388 (925) 314-3330 (925) 314-3310 (925) 314-3320 (925) 314-3450 (925) 314-3700 (925) 314-3400
July 13, 2022
Mr. John Hoang
Director, Planning
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
2999 Oak Road, Suite 100
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Subject: Letter of Support for Contra Costa Transportation Authority's Countywide
Street Smarts Contra Costa Program Application for OBAG 3
Dear Mr. Hoang,
The Town of Danville is pleased to support Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s
application for the One Bay Area Grant Cycle 3 (OBAG 3) Program Safe Routes to
School Non-Infrastructure program to provide bicycle and pedestrian health, safety,
and awareness education to all K-12 public schools in Contra Costa.
The proposed program will bring vital safety education to schools where services
are not currently available. It will also enhance current programs by expanding
beyond the classroom to engage parents and drivers. The program expects to
increase bicycle and pedestrian safety around schools, encourage more children to
walk and bike to school, decrease traffic congestion in school zones, reduce
childhood obesity, improve air quality, spark community engagement, and improve
community partnerships.
The program will encourage walking and bicycling through a blend of instructional
assemblies and encouragement activities. A united, countywide approach will
ensure that all students, regardless of socioeconomic differences, will have the
opportunity to benefit from high quality safety education and the resulting positive
health consequences of using active transportation to get to school.
We believe that funding for this program will lead to healthier families in all 20
jurisdictions in Contra Costa. The program will result in stronger communities
where families feel secure having their children walk and bike to school, where
people of all ages, abilities, means, and backgrounds can move through Contra
Costa freely, healthfully, and safely.
ATTACHMENT I
July 19, 2022 Page 2
The Town of Danville prioritizes the safety and health of its residents, and we
believe the tools and resources proposed by this program will benefit our
community.
For these reasons, the Town of Danville is in support of the Contra Costa Transportation
Authority's Countywide Street Smarts Contra Costa Program Application for OBAG 3
program funds. Please reach out with any questions that you may have to Andrew
Dillard, Transportation Manager, at (925) 314-3384 or adillard@danville.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
_____________________________
NEWELL ARNERICH, MAYOR
July Legislative Update 7 July 27, 2022
Attachment A – Bill Summary and Analysis Packet
Attachment B – TVC Letter of Oppose with Comment SB 6
Attachment C – TVC Letter of Removal of Opposition AB 1737
Attachment D – TVC Thank You Letter to Senator Glazer for 2022 State Budget Funding
Attachment E – TVC Thank You Letter to Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan for 2022 State
Budget Funding
Attachment F – Danville Letter of Oppose SB 897
Attachment G – Danville Letter of Oppose AB 2053
Attachment H – Danville Letter of Support for OBAG3 Street Smarts Application
Attachment I – Danville Letter of Support for OBAG3 CCTA Smart Signals Project
Application