HomeMy WebLinkAbout092722 - 3.1
LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE MEMORANDUM 3.1
TO: Mayor and Town Council September 27, 2022
SUBJECT: September Legislative Report
BACKGROUND
The 2021-2022 Legislative Session officially ended on August 31. Of the 2,055 bills
introduced at the beginning of the year, the Legislature passed a total of 1,440. Following
the adjournment of the Legislature, the Governor has until September 30 to sign or veto
bills. As of September 16, Governor Newsom has signed 651 measures into law, and
vetoed 17.
Among legislation signed into law includes a sweeping number of climate measures to
cut pollution and accelerate the state’s transition to clean energy. SB 1338, the
Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act was also signed into
law. SB 1338 marks a massive shift toward a re-centralized system of state-sponsored
mental health care services.
Bills signed/approved by the Governor are chaptered into law by the California Secretary
of State and take effect on January 1, 2023.
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.
The Town has identified and advocated on the following bills that impact Danville.
September Legislative Update 2 September 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.
The bill also requires various state agencies to establish new transparency and
accountability guidelines for certain transportation funding programs, as specified. This
bill passed through the Legislature and has been presented to the Governor. Vote Status:
Senator Glazer: NVR; Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan: Yes (Transportation)
Position: Oppose
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 25 feet attached; 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. This bill passed
through the Legislature and has been presented to the Governor. Vote Status: Senator
Glazer: No; Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan: No (Housing)
Position: Oppose
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: 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline.
This bill would require the Office of Emergency Services to verify interoperability
between and across 911 and 988. This bill would also require the California Health and
Human Services Agency to create a set of recommendations to support a 5-year
implementation plan for a comprehensive 988 system. This bill passed through the
Legislature and has been presented to the Governor. Vote Status: Senator Glazer: Yes;
Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan: Yes (Mental Health)
TVC position: Support
AB 2011: (Wicks) Affordable Housing and High Roads Jobs Act of 2022.
This bill would create a ministerial, streamlined approval process for 100% affordable
housing projects in commercial zones and for mixed-income housing projects along
commercial corridors. This bill would also impose specified labor standards on those
projects, including requirements that contractors pay prevailing wages, participate in
apprenticeship programs, and make specified healthcare expenditures. Implementation
of this bill is delayed to July 1, 2023. This bill passed through the Legislature and has been
presented to the Governor. Vote Status: Senator Glazer: NVR; Assemblymember Rebecca
Bauer-Kahan: Yes (Affordable Housing)
TVC position: Oppose with Comments
September Legislative Update 3 September 27, 2022
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 passed through the Legislature
and has been presented to the Governor. Vote Status: Senator Glazer: Yes; Assemblymember
Rebecca Bauer-Kahan: Yes (Climate/Environment)
TVC position: Support
SB 6: (Caballero) Local planning: housing: commercial zones.
This bill, also known as the Middle Class Housing Act of 2022, would establish a housing
development project as an allowable use within a zone where office, retail, or parking are
principally permitted on the condition that at least 50% of the square footage of the
project be devoted to residential uses, density for the development meets or exceeds the
applicable density to accommodate housing for lower income households under housing
element law; and among other things, the developer certifies that the project is either a
public work or will pay prevailing wage and use a skilled and trained workforce for all
level of contractors as defined in existing law. This bill passed through the Legislature
and has been presented to the Governor. 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 assist local
jurisdictions in complying with the short-lived pollutant strategy regulations, and other
additional regulations adopted by the department. This bill passed through the
Legislature and was signed by the Governor. Vote Status: Senator Glazer: Yes;
Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan: Yes (Climate/Environment)
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
passed through the Legislature and was signed by the Governor. Vote Status: Senator
Glazer: Yes; Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan: Yes (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 incorporate the principles of the Federal Highway Administration’s Safe
System Approach, to develop bicycle plans, pedestrian plans, and traffic calming plans
September Legislative Update 4 September 27, 2022
based on the policies and goals in the circulation element and sets goals for initiation and
completion of all actions identified in the plans within 25 years of the date of adoption of
the modified circulation element. This bill passed through the Legislature and has been
presented to the Governor. Vote Status: Senator Glazer: NVR; Assemblymember Rebecca
Bauer-Kahan: Yes (Transportation)
TVC Position: Oppose
The Tri-Valley Cities Coalition met on Monday, September 12. During the meeting,
Townsend Public Affairs provided an update on the 2022 Legislative Session and the
State budget. An update was also provided regarding the contract for legislative
advocacy services and recommended to renew the contract with Townsend Public
Affairs. The next Tri-Valley Cities meeting will be held on December 5, where the agenda
for the Washington D.C. advocacy trip will be discussed.
Grant Program Updates
In the final version of budget bill AB 179, the Town of Danville was allocated $500,000 in
state funding for the Fiber Optic Interconnect Network Project, CIP A-620. This is a result
of funding requests made to the offices of Senator Glazer and Assemblymember Rebecca
Bauer-Kahan.
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
Management Analyst
Reviewed by:
Joseph A. Calabrigo
Town Manager
Attachment A – Bill Summary and Analysis Packet
Attachment B – TVC Request for Signature AB 2247
Attachment C – TVC Request for Signature AB 988
September Legislative Update 5 September 27, 2022
Attachment D – TVC Request to Veto AB 2011
Attachment E – TVC Request to Veto SB 6
Attachment F – TVC Request for Signature AB 2374
Attachment G – TVC Request for Signature SB 45
Attachment H – Danville Legislative Framework
AB 2438
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 2438 (Friedman)
As Amended August 25, 2022
Majority vote
SUMMARY
This bill requires 1) specified state transportation programs to incorporate strategies from the
Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure (CAPTI) into program guidelines, as
provided, and 2) various state transportation entities to establish new transparency and
accountability guidelines for certain transportation funding programs, as specified.
Senate Amendments
1)Expand transparency and accountability requirements for the following state agencies and
state transportation funding programs:
a)California Transportation Agency (CalSTA)
i)Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP)
ii)State Rail Assistance Program
b)California Transportation Commission (CTC)
i)Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP)
ii)State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP)
c)California Department of Transportation
i)Local Partnership Program (LPP)
ii)Trade Corridor Enhancement Program (TCEP)
iii)Solutions for Congested Corridors Program (SCCP)
2)Refine the bill to require applicable CAPTI strategies be incorporated into the following state
transportation funding program guidelines, no later than January 1, 2024:
a)ITIP
b)Guiding document for the SHOPP, the State Highway System Management Plan
(SHSMP)
c)Competitive portion of the LPP
d)TCEP
e)SCCP ATTACHMENT A
AB 2438
Page 2
3)Clarify the financial element of the California Transportation Plan to include a summary of
available revenues through the planning period, an analysis of what is feasible within the
plan if constrained by a realistic projection of available revenues, including the feasibility of
any policy assumptions or scenarios, and a discussion of tradeoffs within the plan
considering financial constraints.
4)Make minor and technical amendments for chaptering purposes.
COMMENTS
California's transportation network consists of streets, highways, railways, bicycle routes, and
pedestrian pathways. Funding for the network comes from federal, state, and local taxes, fees
and assessments, private investments and tribal investments. 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. California has targeted a 22% reduction in vehicle miles
travelled (VMT) per capita below 2019 levels by 2045 as part of its larger strategy to reduce
GHG emissions.
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. Specifically, the EO empowered CalSTA to leverage 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.
To implement the EO, CalSTA adopted the CAPTI in July 2021. 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 SB 1". 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 it administers.
AB 285 report finds transportation funding programs need better alignment with state climate
goals. AB 285 (Friedman, Chapter 605, Statutes of 2019) required the Strategic Growth Council
to examine and report on various aspects of state and regional transportation planning and
funding. The California Transportation Assessment Report was developed through work of the
AB 2438
Page 3
University of California Institute for Transportation Studies (UCITS). The report includes
findings and recommendations to help the state align transportation funding with state climate
goals. Specifically, the report suggest this could be done through, "the reviewing and prioritizing
various state goals within transportation funding program guidelines or statute. For example, the
statute that governs 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."
Amendments taken in the Senate further limit the bill to specific funding programs, and CAPTI,
to incorporate the state's climate and land use goals into various funding programs. This is an
improved, and implementable version of the bill based on the version heard in the Assembly.
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."
Arguments in Support
The California Democratic Party writes, "California Democrats are committed to rebuilding a
State that provides every person with fair access to improve their lives through good paying jobs,
affordable housing, quality education, universal and exceptional healthcare, racial justice and
equitable protection against the impacts of climate change. AB 2438 upholds these values and
for that the California Democratic Party is proud to support this important piece of legislation."
Arguments in Opposition
The California Business Roundtable writes, "The CAPTI recommends road diets, or lane
reductions, to improve road safety and reduce climate impacts. However, lane reductions would
ensure long-term congestion and increased engine idling on already congested freeways and
surface roads. Additionally, AB 2438 would reduce the state's transportation capacity at a time
when California's goods movement economy urgently needs the Legislature's undivided support
to execute recovery of the supply chain infrastructure."
FISCAL COMMENTS
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
1)The Department of Transportation (Caltrans) estimates ongoing costs of approximately
$572,000 annually and 3.0 PY of staff for work associated with the development of a fiscally
constrained financial element as part of the California Transportation Plan (CTP) and
associated recommendations for funding allocations. In addition, Caltrans estimates costs of
$2 million on a permanent biennial basis for a consultant contract to prepare the financial
element with every update to the Plan. (State Highway Account)
AB 2438
Page 4
2) Minor and absorbable costs for Caltrans, the California Transportation Agency (CalSTA),
and the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to update their respective specified
transportation program guidelines. (State Highway Account)
3) Unknown, potentially significant redirection of transportation funding, to the extent
incorporating CAPTI strategies directs allocations to projects and facilities primarily focused
on improving greenhouse gas emissions, public health, and equity. This could lead to
significant cost pressures to provide additional funding for projects and facilities that would
have otherwise received funding under a "fix it first" model, absent the bill. (General Fund,
various special funds, federal funds, bond funds)
VOTES:
ASM TRANSPORTATION: 8-4-3
YES: Friedman, Berman, Kalra, Lee, Bloom, Nazarian, Ward, Wicks
NO: Fong, Cunningham, Davies, Nguyen
ABS, ABST OR NV: Daly, Gipson, O'Donnell
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 12-4-0
YES: Holden, Bryan, Calderon, Carrillo, Mike Fong, Gabriel, Eduardo Garcia, Levine, Quirk,
Robert Rivas, Akilah Weber, Wilson
NO: Bigelow, Megan Dahle, Davies, Fong
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 41-23-14
YES: Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Bloom, Boerner Horvath, Mia Bonta, Bryan, Calderon,
Carrillo, Mike Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Haney,
Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lee, Low, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian,
Quirk, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Santiago, Stone, Ting, Ward, Akilah Weber,
Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Rendon
NO: Bigelow, Chen, Choi, Cunningham, Megan Dahle, Davies, Flora, Fong, Gallagher, Gray,
Kiley, Lackey, Levine, Mathis, Mayes, Nguyen, Patterson, Salas, Seyarto, Smith, Valladares,
Voepel, Waldron
ABS, ABST OR NV: Aguiar-Curry, Berman, Cervantes, Cooley, Cooper, Daly, Grayson,
Maienschein, O'Donnell, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Blanca Rubio, Villapudua
UPDATED
VERSION: August 25, 2022
CONSULTANT: Julia Kingsley / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 FN: 0003686
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
SB 897
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 897
Author: Wieckowski (D)
Amended: 8/25/22
Vote: 21
SENATE HOUSING COMMITTEE: 5-1, 3/24/22
AYES: Wiener, Cortese, Ochoa Bogh, Skinner, Wieckowski
NOES: Bates
NO VOTE RECORDED: Caballero, McGuire, Umberg
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 5-0, 4/7/22
AYES: Caballero, Nielsen, Durazo, Hertzberg, Wiener
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 5/19/22
AYES: Portantino, Bradford, Kamlager, Laird, Wieckowski
NOES: Bates, Jones
SENATE FLOOR: 24-9, 5/25/22
AYES: Allen, Archuleta, Atkins, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dodd, Durazo,
Eggman, Gonzalez, Hueso, Hurtado, Kamlager, Laird, Leyva, Limón, Newman,
Pan, Roth, Skinner, Stern, Umberg, Wieckowski, Wiener
NOES: Bates, Becker, Dahle, Glazer, Grove, Jones, Min, Nielsen, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Borgeas, Hertzberg, McGuire, Melendez, Ochoa Bogh,
Portantino, Rubio
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: Not available
SUBJECT: Accessory dwelling units: junior accessory dwelling units
SOURCE: Bay Area Council
DIGEST: This bill makes numerous changes to the laws governing accessory
dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs), as specified.
SB 897
Page 2
Assembly Amendments adjust the allowable ADU height limit that a local may
impose depending on certain property features, and address chaptering issues.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) Requires a local agency to 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:
a) The ADU or JADU that is within a proposed or existing structure, or the
same footprint as the existing structure, provided the space has exterior
access from the proposed or existing structure and the side and rear setbacks
are sufficient for fire and safety.
b) One detached ADU that is within a proposed or existing structure or the
same footprint as the existing structure, along with one JADU, that may be
subject to a size limit of 800 square feet, a height limit of 16 feet, and side
and rear yard setbacks of four feet.
2) Requires a local agency to ministerially approve, within 60 days, on a lot with a
multifamily dwelling:
a) Multiple ADUs within the existing structures that are not used as livable
space, if each unit complies with state building standards for dwellings.
b) Two detached ADUs that are subject to a height limit of 16 feet and rear and
side yard setbacks of four feet.
3) Requires a local agency to mandate a minimum of 30 days on ADU rentals.
4) Provides for a tiered schedule of impact fees based on the size of the ADU, as
specified.
5) Provides for 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.
6) Requires the State Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) to review each local ADU ordinance after it is adopted and to notify the
local agency as to whether it complies with ADU law. Provides for a process
for a local agency to respond and authorizes HCD to notify the Attorney
General if an ADU ordinance continues to be non-compliant.
SB 897
Page 3
7) Authorizes a local agency to count an ADU for purposes of identifying
adequate sites for its housing element.
This bill:
1) Adjusts the minimum ADU height limit that a local agency may impose, as
follows:
a) For detached ADUs on a lot with an existing or proposed single family, a 16
feet height limitation is allowed.
b) For detached ADUs on a lot with an existing or proposed multifamily
dwelling unit, an 18 feet height limitation is allowed.
c) For a detached ADU within one-half of one mile walking distance of a major
transit stop or a high-quality transit corridor, an 18 feet height limitation is
allowed. Also, requires that a local agency must allow an additional two feet
in height to accommodate a roof pitch on an ADU that is aligned with the
roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit; and
d) For ADUs attached to the primary dwelling, a height of 25 feet or the height
limitation in the local zoning ordinance that applies to the primary dwelling,
whichever is lower, is allowed.
2) Clarifies the following:
a) Standards imposed on ADUs must be objective.
b) A permitting agency must act by specifically approving or denying an
application for an ADU or JADU within 60 days from receiving. And, if a
permitting agency denies an application, they must return in writing a full set
of comments on how the application can be remedied.
c) Any requirement for a zoning clearance or separate zoning review for either
an attached or detached dwellings will be constructed in compliance with all
other local building standards.
3) Prohibits a local agency from denying 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, but correction of the
violation is not necessary to protect the health and safety of the public or
occupants of the structure; and
SB 897
Page 4
b) The ADU does not comply with state or local ADU law.
4) Provides that the construction of an ADU on a property does not trigger a
requirement for fire sprinklers in the proposed or existing primary dwelling.
5) Provides that a local agency cannot require, as a condition for ministerial
approval of a permit application for the creation of an ADU or a JADU, the
correction of a violation on the primary dwelling unit, provided that correcting
the violation is not necessary to protect health and safety.
Background
According to HCD, “ADUs are an innovative, affordable, effective option for
adding much needed housing in California.” ADUs, also known as accessory
apartments, accessory dwellings, mother-in-law units, or granny flats, are
additional living spaces on single-family or multifamily lots that have a separate
kitchen, bathroom, and exterior access independent of the primary residence.
These spaces can either be attached to, or detached from, the primary residence.
Local ADU ordinances must meet specified parameters outlined in existing state
law.
Local governments may also adopt ordinances for JADUs, which are no more than
500 square feet and are bedrooms in a single-family home that have an entrance
into the unit from the main home and an entrance to the outside from the JADU.
The JADU must have cooking facilities, including a sink and stove, but is not
required to have a bathroom.
The cost of constructing an ADU, however, can still be high. According to the
State Treasurer’s Office, many lower income homeowners, as well as homeowners
who have not yet built up significant equity in their homes, are struggling to obtain
loans to construct ADUs.
Comments
1) Encouraging ADU construction. According to a UC Berkeley study, Yes in My
Backyard: Mobilizing the Market for Secondary Units, second units are a means
to accommodate future growth and encourage infill development in developed
neighborhoods. Despite state law requirements for each city in the state to have
a ministerial process for approving second units, local regulations often impede
development. In response, several bills, including SB 1069 (Wieckowski,
2016), SB 13 (Wieckowski, 2019) and AB 68 (Ting, 2019), have relaxed
multiple requirements for the construction and permitting of ADUs and JADUs.
SB 897
Page 5
According to a 2020 UCLA Working Paper, “state ADU and JADU legislation
has created the market-feasible potential for nearly 1.5 million new units.”
Since 2013, the number of permitted ADUs increased from 799 to 12,813 in
2020, for a total of almost 44,000 ADUs permitted statewide. With localities
across the state facing large regional housing needs allocations for the sixth
housing element cycle, ADUs and JADUs represent a key tool in the housing
production toolbox.
2) Allowable ADU height limit. Existing law states that ADUs are subject to a
height limit of 16 feet. A 16-foot height limit does not allow for an ADU to be
two full stories without some creative workarounds and increased costs, such as
going below grade and having a flat roof. To encourage the production of more
ADUs and eliminate barriers to development, this bill increases the height
limitation for ADUs under certain circumstances.
3) Challenges in Implementing ADU Law. It has been about five and a half years
since the state made ADUs and JADUs permitted by right. In that time, a
substantial amount of knowledge and expertise has been developed by invested
parties, such as ADU developers, financiers, and regulators such as local
planning and permitting staff, special districts, utilities, and HCD. Not
surprisingly, these parties have been able to identify areas of the law that are
impeding the development of ADUs and JADUs, or where ad ditional clarity
could facilitate more timely permitting of ADUs and JADUs.
This bill makes multiple changes to ADU and JADU law intended to address
identified issues and facilitate the development of more ADUs. These include
expanding the space available to build ADUs and JADUs and/or reducing their
cost. Proposed changes also include efforts to make it easier to permit
unpermitted ADUs that were built before January 1, 2018.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:
HCD estimates minor and absorbable costs.
Costs to local agencies of an unknown amount to update ADU and JADU
ordinances to conform to the bill's statutory changes. These costs are not
reimbursable by the state because affected local agencies have the authority to
charge various permit, planning, and developer fees to offset any increased
costs associated with the provisions of this bill.
SB 897
Page 6
SUPPORT: (Verified 8/29/22)
Bay Area Council (source)
AARP
Abundant Housing LA
All Home
Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles
California Apartment Association
California Building Industry Association
California YIMBY
CalRHA
CivicWell
Fremont for Everyone
Housing Action Coalition
Meta
MidPen Housing Corporation
San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Research Association
Silicon Valley @ Home
South Pasadena Residents for Responsible Growth
Southern California Rental Housing Association
Terner Center for Housing Innovation At the University of California, Berkeley
The Two Hundred
YimbyLA
OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/29/22)
California Association of Code Enforcement Officers
California Association of Realtors
California Building Officials
Catalysts for Local Control
City of Bakersfield
City of Chino Hills
City of Corona
City of Lake Forest
City of Los Altos
City of Paramount
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
City of San Marcos
City of Thousand Oaks
City of Torrance
Community Associations Institute - California Legislative Action Committee
SB 897
Page 7
County of Del Norte
Hills2000 - Friends of the Hills
Livable California
Marin County Council of Mayors and Council Members
Mission Street Neighbors
Town of Danville
One individual
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: 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 significan t drivers
of institutional and generational poverty cycles and will not be resolved until more
housing can be developed. Eliminating any unnecessary barriers to ADU
construction 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 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 builds upon previous ADU legislation by addressing some of the remaining
barriers to ADU construction and supporting the development of housing that is
more affordable by design.”
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The California Building Officials have
expressed concerns with the safety implications of prohibiting an occupancy
change for an ADU conversion and the ability of their members to enforce the
safety standards established in the California Building Code. Other written
opposition received came from local organizations and community associations
concerned about local control and opposing the increased height limit for ADUs.
According to the League of California Cities, "we must be careful not to change
the look and feel of an existing community which already maintains specific height
and design limitations."
Prepared by: Mehgie Tabar / HOUSING / (916) 651-4124
8/31/22 13:55:31
**** END ****
AB 988
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 988 (Bauer-Kahan, et al.)
As Amended August 18, 2022
2/3 vote. Urgency
SUMMARY
Requires the California Health and Human Services Agency (CHHSA) to appoint and convene a
state 988 policy advisory group (AG) to advise CHHSA on the implementation and
administration of the five-year implementation plan for the 988 Suicide Prevention System.
Requires the Office of Emergency Services (OES) to appoint a 988 system director and convene
an advisory board (Board) to guide how 988 is implemented and made interoperable with 911,
including the creation of a new surcharge for 988 to fund the crisis services. Requires health plan
and insurer coverage of 988 center services when medically necessary and without prior
authorization. Establishes a 988 surcharge for the 2023 and 2024 calendar years at $0.08 per
access line per month, and for years beginning January 1, 2025 at an amount based on a specified
formula, but not greater than $0.30 per access line per month. Appropriates $300,000 from the
General Fund to the 988 State Suicide and Behavioral Health Crisis Services Fund ((fund)
previously the State Mental Health and Crisis Services Special Fund) to the Department of Tax
and Fee Administration (DTFA) for purposes of implementing this bill. States it is the intent of
the Legislature that the go live date for the federally established 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline
using the three-digit telephone number 988 will be established by July 16, 2022; and, the 988
number receives and responds to the anticipated call volume in the first year of operation for 988
in order to provide crisis intervention services and crisis care coordination to individuals
accessing 988.
Senate Amendments:
1) Name this bill the Miles Hall Lifeline and Suicide Prevention Act (Act).
2) Require, by July 16, 2022, the OES to ensure that designated 988 centers utilize technology
that allow for transfers between 988 centers and 911 public safety answering points (PSAP).
3) Require OES, no later than 90 days after the passage of the Act, to:
a) Appoint a 988 system director to implement and oversee the policy and regulatory
framework for the technology infrastructure coordination and transfer of calls between
988, 911, and behavioral health crisis centers;
b) Establish and convene a State 988 Technical Advisory Board (Board) to advise OES on:
i) Recommendations on the feasibility and plan for sustainable interoperability between
988, 911, and behavioral health crisis services, including the identification of any
legal or regulatory barriers to the transfer of 911 calls;
ii) The development of technical and operational standards for the 988 system that allow
for coordination with California’s 911 system; and,
iii) The creation of standards and protocols for when 988 centers transfer 988 calls into
the “911” PSAPs, and vice versa.
AB 988
Page 2
4) Require the Board to meet at least quarterly until December 31, 2028, and authorize the
Board to be disbanded after that time at the discretion of OES.
5) Require the Board to consist of a representative from CHHSA and expert representatives,
including, but not limited to those from 988 centers, 911, and behavioral health crisis service
providers.
6) Requires OES, by July 1, 2024, to verify interoperability between 988 and 911. Require OES
to consult with the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline (NSPL) and the Federal Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) on any technology
requirements for 988 centers.
7) Require CHHSA, by December 31, 2023, to create a set of recommendations to support a
five-year implementation plan for a comprehensive 988 system.
8) Require CHHSA to convene a state 988 AG to advise CHHSA on the set of
recommendations to support the five-year implementation plan.
9) Require the AG to include but not be limited to, the Department of Health Care Services
(DHCS), OES, and the Department of Public Health, representatives of counties,
representatives of employees working for county behavioral health agencies and agencies
who subcontract with county behavioral health agencies who provide these services, health
plans, emergency medical services, law enforcement, consumers, families, peers, and other
local and statewide public agencies.
10) Require the AG to meet at least quarterly until December 31, 2023 and allow the AG to be
disbanded at the discretion of CHHSA, but not prior to January 1, 2024.
11) Require CHHSA and the AG to make recommendations on all of the following:
a) Federal SAMHSA requirements and national best practices guidelines for operational and
clinical standards, as specified;
b) Maintenance of an active agreement with the administrator of the NSPL for participation
within the network;
c) Compliance with state technology requirements for the operation of 988;
d) A state governance structure to support the implementation and administration of
behavioral health crisis services accessed through 988
e) 988 infrastructure, staffing, and training standards that will support statewide access to
crisis counselors through telephone call, text, and chat 24 hours per day, seven days per
week;
f) Access to crisis receiving and stabilization services and triage and response to warm
handoffs from 911 and 988 call centers;
g) Resources and policy changes to address statewide and regional needs in order to meet
population needs for behavioral health crisis services;
AB 988
Page 3
h) Statewide and regional public communications strategies informed by the NSPL and the
SAMHSA to support public awareness and consistent messaging regarding 988 and
behavioral health crisis services;
i) Recommendations to achieve statewide provision of mobile crisis team services that meet
specified criteria;
j) Quantifiable goals for the provision of statewide and regional behavioral health crisis
services, which consider factors such as reported rates of suicide attempts and deaths;
k) A process for establishing outcome measures, benchmarks, and improvement targets for
988 centers and the behavioral health crisis services system;
l) Findings from a comprehensive assessment of the behavioral health crisis services system
that takes into account infrastructure projects that are planned and funded. Requires
findings to include an inventory of the infrastructure, capacity and needs as specified;
m) 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
consistent with federal law; and,
n) Strategies to support the behavioral health crisis service system to ensure it is adequately
funded, including mechanisms for reimbursement of behavioral health crisis responses as
specified.
12) Require that commencing December 31, 2024, and until December 31, 2029, the CHHSA to
report annually on or before December 31 each year, on the status of 988 implementation
including any actions take in that calendar year, planned actions for the futu re calendar year,
barriers to implementation, need for additional funding, and any legislative action required to
support implementation.
13) Establish the fund, consisting of the revenue generated by the 988 surcharge assessed on
users, to be used solely for the operations of the 988 center and mobile crisis teams, as
defined. Provides that the fund may also consist of any other appropriations made to it by the
Legislature.
14) Require the revenue generated by the 988 surcharge to be prioritized to fund the following:
a) First, the 988 centers, including the efficient and effective routing of telephone calls,
personnel, and the provision of acute mental health services through telephone call, text,
and chat to the 988 number; and,
b) Second, the operation of mobile crisis teams accessed via telephone calls, texts, or chats
made to or routed through 988 as specified.
15) Prohibit money in the fund being subject to transfer to any other fund or to transfer,
assignments, or reassignment for any other use or purpose outside of those specified in this
bill.
16) Provide that 988 surcharge revenue in the fund be available, upon appropriation by the
Legislature, for the purposes specified in this bill.
AB 988
Page 4
17) Require the revenue generated by the 988 surcharge to be used to supplement and not
supplant federal, state, and local funding for 988 centers and mobile crisis services.
18) Specify that the revenue generated by the 988 surcharge can only be used to fund service and
operation expenses that are not reimbursable through Medicaid, federal financial
participation, Medicare, health care service plans, or disability insurers.
19) Authorize the OES, in consultation with DHCS, to adopt regulations regarding how funds
received are to be disseminated to support the operations of the 988 system and related
behavioral health crisis services. Require the OES to require entities seeking funds to file
annually an expenditure and outcomes report as specified on a form and manner as
determined by OES and DHCS.
20) Authorize OES and DHCS to implement, interpret, or make specific this bill, in whole or in
part, by means of all-county letters, plan letters, provider bulletins, information notices,
regulations, or other similar instructions.
21) Specify that coverage of mental health (MH) and substance use disorder (SUD) treatment
pursuant to existing law includes medically necessary treatment of a MH or SUD, including,
but not limited to, behavioral health crisis services, provided to an enrollee by a 988 center or
mobile crisis team regardless of whether the service is provided by an in-network or out-of-
network provider.
22) Prohibit a health plan or insurer from requiring prior authorization for medically necessary
treatment of a MH or SUD provided by a 988 center, mobile crisis team, or other provider of
behavioral health crisis services to an enrollee or insured.
23) Require a health plan or insurer to reimburse a 988 center, mobile crisis team, or other
provider of behavioral health crisis services for medically necessary treatment of a MH or
SUD consistent with the requirements of existing law with respect to the authorization of
emergency services.
24) Prohibit the enrollee or insured from paying more than the same cost sharing that the enrollee
or insured would pay for the same covered services received from an in-network provider if
an enrollee or insured receives medically necessary treatment for a MH or SUD from a 988
center, mobile crisis team, or other provider of behavioral health crisis services outside the
plan network. Require this amount to be referred to as the “in-network cost-sharing amount.”
Prohibit an out-of-network 988 center, mobile crisis team, or other provider of behavioral
health crisis services from billing or collecting an amount from the enrollee or insured for
services except for the in-network cost-sharing amount.
25) Define “behavioral health crisis services” to mean the continuum of services to address crisis
intervention, crisis stabilization, and crisis residential treatment needs of those with a MH or
SUD crisis that are wellness, resiliency, and recovery oriented. Include, but are not limited
to, crisis intervention, including counseling provided by 988 centers, mobile crisis teams, and
crisis receiving and stabilization services.
26) Clarify that 21) to 24) above do not excuse a health plan or insurer from complying with
existing law.
AB 988
Page 5
27) Exempt Medi-Cal managed care contracts between the DHCS and a health care service plan
for enrolled Medi-Cal beneficiaries from provisions of this bill related to coverage.
28) Exempt accident-only, specified disease, hospital indemnity, Medicare supplement, dental-
only, or vision-only insurance policies from this bill.
29) Allow the California Department of Insurance to promulgate regulations subject to the
Administrative Procedure Act, as specified.
30) Create, beginning January 1, 2023, a 988 surcharge on each telephone access line for each
month or part thereof for which a service user subscribes with a service supplier. Set the 988
surcharge for the 2023 and 2024 calendar year at $0.08 per access line per month and, for
years beginning January 1, 2025, at an amount based on a specific formula, but no greater
than $0.30 per access line per month.
31) Make various conforming changes throughout the Emergency Telephone Users Surcharge
Act to provide authority for OES to implement the surcharge for 988 in addition to 911.
32) Require all amounts of the 988 surcharge collected to be spent for specified purposed. Before
funds are dispersed, require the funds to be used to pay authorized refunds and the DTFA’s
and OES’s administrative costs.
33) Appropriate $300,000 from the General Fund to the 988 State Suicide and Behavioral Health
Services Fund for the expenditure of DTFA in the 2022-23 fiscal year for purposes of
implementing the bill to cover the state’s first year of administrative costs and to fund the
designated 988 centers to support the first year of their implementation of the 988 system.
34) Include an urgency clause to ensure that the provisions of this bill go into immediate effect
upon enactment.
35) Include legislative findings that to enable public agencies to implement the 988 hotline
required by the provisions of the Act, it is necessary that a surcharge be imposed upon access
lines purchased by every person in the state for access to the 988 crisis hotline.
36) Declare uncodified Legislative intent as follows:
a) To implement the National Suicide Hotline Designation Act of 2020 (NSHD), in
compliance with the Federal Communication Commission’s rules designating “988” as a
three-digit number for the National Suicide Prevention Hotline now known as the 988
Suicide and Crisis Lifeline, to assure all persons residing in and visiting the State of
California have access to the “988” suicide prevention and behavioral health crisis hotline
and care 24 hours per day, seven days per week;
b) The 988 system in California operate as an emergency suicidal, mental health, and
substance use disorder crisis system that provides compassionate, appropriate, and easily
accessible care to save lives and reduce law enforcement engagement, arrests,
hospitalizations, and deaths; and,
AB 988
Page 6
c) By July 16, 2022, the federally established go-live date for the 988 number will be
prepared to receive and respond to the anticipated call volume in the first year of
operation of 988.
37) Require by June 30, 2024, the CHHSA and the OES to develop a plan for the statewide
coordination of 988, 911, and behavioral health crisis services. Specify the plan will be based
on a five-year implementation plan that includes a landscape analysis of existing services and
describes how to expand, improve, and link services with the goal of fully implementing the
988 system by January 1, 2030.
COMMENTS
1) NSHD. NSHD was authored by Republican Senator Cory Gardner and passed unanimously
through both chambers of Congress. It designated 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 (FCC) to designate 988 as the universal telephone number for a national
suicide prevention and mental health crisis hotline, which operates through the 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. Revenue from the fee must be held in a designated
account to be spent only in support of 988 services, and the FCC must submit an annual
report on state administration of these fees. The fees may only be spent on:
i) Ensuring the efficient and effective routing of calls made to the 988 national suicide
prevention and mental health crisis hotline to an appropriate crisis center; personnel;
and,
ii) The provision of acute mental health crisis outreach and stabilization by directly
responding to the 988 national suicide prevention and mental health crisis hotline.
c) Health Equity: The United States Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)
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 DHHS 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.
2) 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. Lifeline call centers in
AB 988
Page 7
California set the hours and coverage areas for when they will take lifeline calls. They do this
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. In 2019, the NSPL received nearly 2.3 million crisis calls from across the United States
and 290,619 of those calls were from California. Of those calls, 199,192 were connected to
crisis centers in the state. Since 2016, California Lifeline 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.
3) 911. The Warren 911 Act authorizes cities and counties to form contracts regulating the
implementation of a 911 system. The basic structure of the 911 system is designed to ensure
that when a person dials 911, a law enforcement agency serving as a primary PSAP receives
911 requests from the area where the person is calling. If a 911-caller requests emergency
medical assistance, the primary PSAP may retain the caller if it directly provides emergency
medical services (EMS) dispatch, or may transfer the caller to a secondary PSAP for
emergency medical response. The medical secondary PSAP can be a public agency,
public/private partnership, or private EMS provider designated or recognized by the local
EMS agency as serving the entire EMS area or portion of the EMS area.
4) MH AND SUD COVERAGE LAWS.
a) Federal Mental Health Parity Act (MHPA). In 1996, the U.S. Congress passed the
MHPA, which prohibits large group health plans from imposing higher annual or lifetime
dollar limits on MH benefits. However, the MHPA did not mandate coverage for MH
services and only applied to group health plans that offered MH benefits. The MHPA
also did not apply to SUDs, services limits, limitations on the types of facilities covered,
or differences in cost sharing, and plans could have stricter prior authorization
requirements for MH services than for other medical services. It should be noted that
these restrictions were lifted in the federal Act discussed below.
b) State Mental Health Parity. In 1999, California passed AB 88 (Thompson), Chapter 534,
Statutes of 1999, which requires a health plan contract or disability insurance policy to
provide coverage for the diagnosis and medically necessary services of serious mental
illness of a person of any age and of serious emotion distress of a child. Benefits must be
applied under the same terms and conditions as applied to other medical conditions. AB
88 also requires copayments, deductibles, and maximum lifetime benefits to be applied
equally to all benefits under the plan.
c) Federal Act. In 2008, Congress passed the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental
Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (federal Act) to cover some of the gaps
in the MHPA. Similar to the MHPA, the federal Act only applies to large-group health
plans. However, the federal Act also included Medicare Advantage plans offered through
group health plans, state and local government plans, Medicaid managed care plans, and
state Children’s Health Insurance Program plans. Unlike the MHPA, the federal Act
prohibited differences in services limits, cost-sharing, in-and-out-of-network coverage,
and applied to services for SUDs.
AB 988
Page 8
The federal Act requires, if health plans include services for MH/SUDs as part of their
benefits, to provide those services under the same terms and conditions as other medical
services. The federal Act eliminated all differences between MH/SUDs and other medical
services as they related to: services and visit limits; deductibles; copayments;
coinsurance; and, the use of out-of-network providers when a health plan gave this
option. Further, federal regulations in 2010 and then the final rule in 2013, prohibited
health plans from imposing a financial requirement or services limit restriction that is
more restrictive than what are offered for medical and surgical benefits in the same
classification. Both the Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC) and the California
Department of Insurance (CDI) provide regulatory oversight of federal and California
parity laws and are monitoring filings for compliance with these laws.
d) The federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) and essential health
benefits (EHBs) and recent state law. The ACA applied the federal Act to issuers in the
individual market and qualified health plans offered through a health benefit exchange,
including small group products. The ACA also specified coverage of the 10 EHBs,
including MH/SUD treatment services. California’s EHB statute also specifically states
that the federal Act applies to health plans that must comply with EHBs, including
products offered off the exchange. The ACA states that coverage of MH/SUD services
along with any scope and duration limits imposed on the benefits be in compliance with
the federal Act and all rules, regulations, and guidance issued pursuant to the federal Act.
According to a 2015 Health Affairs Health Policy Brief, the ACA went beyond the
federal Act by mandating coverage instead of requiring parity only if coverage is
provided. SB 855 (Wiener), Chapter 151, Statutes of 2020, requires commercial health
plans and insurers to provide full coverage for the treatment of all MH conditions and
SUDs. SB 855 also establishes specific standards for what constitutes medically
necessary treatment and criteria for the use of clinical guidelines. SB 855 applies to all
state-regulated health care service plans and insurers that provide hospital, medical, or
surgical coverage, and to any entity acting on the plan or insurer's behalf. A health plan
cannot limit benefits or coverage for MH or SUD treatments or services when medically
necessary.
According to the sponsors of this bill, under current law, California plans are already
required to cover all medically necessary treatment of MH and SUDs. The sponsors state
that further, emergency transport is an EHB and thus included in the benchmark plan
under the ACA and the federal Act also prohibits medical necessity reviews under that
emergency classification. Plans have to provide equal coverage within that classification
of care. Given this standard on the physical health side, the regulators could reasonably
prohibit plans from requiring medical necessity reviews for emergency services but they
need regulating authority to do so. Regarding in and out of network provisions of this
bill, state and federal balance billing protections would apply, according to the
sponsors. This language allows both CDI and DMHC to write regulations to ensure this
parity between physical and MH and ensure these services are covered pursuant to state
and federal parity laws. Without this language, the sponsors understand that the
regulators do not feel they have the authority to issue guidance on this bill. This has come
up numerous times as the sponsors have gone through the regulations process on SB 855.
In short, plans should already be providing medically necessary care and for emergency
services and they should be doing so at in network rates. The author and sponsor believe
that this bill does not change that but does make it clarify services provided under this bill
AB 988
Page 9
are not left out of existing law and gives the departments authority to regulate.
Additionally, the Committee reached out to the DMHC with questions regarding the
technical assistance provided in this bill and have not received a response. The
Governor’s Office, however, responded to the author that the language currently in this
bill is intended to clarify how reimbursement for services already covered would operate.
The language regarding “medical necessity” keeps the coverage requirement for 988
services consistent with the coverage requirements for other services, including MH and
SUD services provided pursuant to Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 1374.12.
However, if the 988 service provided falls into the existing definitions of “emergency
services and care” (HSC Section 1371.4 (a)), then HSC Section 1371.4 (c) prohibits the
health plan from denying payment for services rendered regardless of medical necessity
(unless it is determined that emergency services and care were not performed). According
to the Governor’s Office, the language added to this bill does not supplant HSC Section
1371.4 when that section is applicable, it instead elaborates on how the MH and SUD
coverage mandate in HSC Section 1374.72 would apply to 988 services.
It should be noted that due to the timing of these amendments, the Committee was not
accorded the opportunity to further research these issues, nor confer with Legislative
Counsel on interpretations of existing law and the amendments to this bill.
According to the Author
A previous version of this bill created a new three-digit phone line, 988, for suicide prevention
and immediate, localized emergency response by trained mental health professionals for
individuals in mental health crisis. The author opines that the 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. The author concludes by stating that a comprehensive crisis response system can help
prevent avoidable tragedies, save money, and increase access to the right kind of care. The
author states, we must make significant changes in how we respond to those suffering from a
mental health crisis.
Arguments in Support
The Steinberg Institute and The Kennedy Forum, cosponsors of this bill, state in support of a
previous version of the bill, that California is facing a mental health crisis. One in six
Californians now live with a mental illness and suicides have been steadily climbing, increasing
by 35% nationally over the last two decades. This tragic trend has only been exacerbated by
COVID-19. With calls to existing suicide prevention call centers skyrocketing as a result of the
COVID-19 pandemic, this bill will ensure the state is prepared to answer calls of all Californians
in need by providing a seamless transition from our current suicide prevention system and
handling the expected increase in volume demand of calls to suicide prevention lines. The
cosponsors conclude, this bill takes a monumental step forward in addressing these systemic
inequities in our mental health system by creating a crisis response system that provides support
to help individuals and communities thrive.
Arguments in Opposition
The California Association of Health Plans (CAHP) in an oppose position states that this bill as
amended on August 18, 2022, creates an overly broad and substantive new mandate on health
plans and insurers despite the fact that the language has not been analyzed by any policy
committee or reviewed by the California Health Benefits Review Program. CAHP concludes that
AB 988
Page 10
this exceptionally flawed process does not provide stakeholders with any opportunity to provide
feedback or discuss the merits of this new mandate despite the significant operational and cost
impacts this bill will have.
Arguments in Oppose Unless Amended
The County Behavioral Health Directors Association (CBHDA), in oppose unless amended,
states that this bill makes clear that private plans are only required to reimburse for “medically
necessary” mobile crisis services. The addition of “medically necessary” as a qualifier does not
apply to EMS services, and therefore would establish a new high-bar standard for field-based
mobile crisis teams addressing emergency behavioral health crisis needs. CBHDA is concerned
that applying the medical necessity standard is unfair and it would have such detrimental
consequences that it would impact the viability of efforts to stand up statewide 24/7 mobile crisis
services under Medi-Cal and 988 (e.g. it gives the perception of help but would set a bad
precedent for requiring private insurance reimbursement for mobile crisis services generally –
not just within 988; increase documentation burden for providers; require a level of clinician
participation in mobile crisis that is untenable in the current workforce crisis environment; and,
limit the use of paraprofessionals). According to CBHDA, this language creates such an uneven
playing field for field-based crisis response across behavioral health and medical services.
Also in an oppose unless amended position, the Service Employees International Union –
California (SEIU) states that this bill threatens the jobs of county behavioral health workers and
jeopardizes the health of individuals in crisis by opening the door for lower quality services by
providers with little or poor training. They further state the bill establishes an unfair,
unsustainable system, blocking access to funding for most behavioral health services. They state
the current definitions in the bill are written in a way that the majority of services delivered by
county behavioral health services, emergency responders other behavioral health providers
would not be able to access this funding – leaving counties responsible for payment of these
services.
FISCAL COMMENTS
According to Senate Appropriations on an earlier version of the bill, the OES anticipates
approximately $55.6 million in annual revenue from the monthly surcharge of $0.08 per access
line, to be deposited into the 988 State Mental Health and Crisis Services Special Fund. Revenue
from the surcharge will offset, to some extent, OES’s stand-up and administrative costs, which
include one-time costs of approximately $35 million for information technology equipment and
services and ongoing annual costs of approximately $31.5 million to implement and administer
the program.
Unknown, likely significant fiscal impact to the CHHSA to among other things, designate
centers and create the 988 system implementation plan, convene the working group, and
administer the program.
The DTFA anticipates implementation costs of approximately $50,000 to $250,000. And
beginning in fiscal year (FY) 2023-24, ongoing administrative costs of approximately $445,000.
The CDI estimates costs of $377,000 in FY 2021-22, $902,000 in FY 2022-23, and $679,000
ongoing to coordinate with CHHS and the DMHC to develop a guidance and adopt regulations
(Insurance Fund). CDI does not anticipate these costs to be absorbable.
AB 988
Page 11
This bill appropriates $8,035,700 from the General Fund to the 988 State Suicide and Behavioral
Health Services Fund to cover the state’s first year of administrative costs and to fund the
designated 988 centers to support the first year of their implementation of the 988 system.
VOTES:
ASM HEALTH: 11-2-2
YES: Wood, Aguiar-Curry, Bonta, Burke, Carrillo, Maienschein, McCarty, Nazarian, Luz
Rivas, Rodriguez, Santiago
NO: Bigelow, Waldron
ABS, ABST OR NV: Mayes, Flora
ASM COMMUNICATIONS AND CONVEYANCE: 10-0-3
YES: Santiago, Boerner Horvath, Cervantes, Eduardo Garcia, Holden, Low, Quirk-Silva,
Rodriguez, Bennett, Ting
ABS, ABST OR NV: Patterson, Davies, Valladares
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 12-4-0
YES: Lorena Gonzalez, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Gabriel, Eduardo Garcia, Levine, Quirk,
Robert Rivas, Akilah Weber, Holden, Luz Rivas
NO: Bigelow, Megan Dahle, Davies, Fong
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 70-0-9
YES: Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Bloom, Boerner Horvath,
Bryan, Burke, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chiu, Cooley, Cooper, Cunningham, Daly,
Davies, Frazier, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Lorena
Gonzalez, Gray, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Levine, Low,
Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Nguyen,
O'Donnell, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas,
Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Smith, Stone, Ting, Valladares, Villapudua, Voepel,
Waldron, Ward, Akilah Weber, Wicks, Wood, Rendon
ABS, ABST OR NV: Bigelow, Chen, Choi, Megan Dahle, Flora, Fong, Kiley, Patterson,
Seyarto
SENATE FLOOR: 38-0-2
YES: Allen, Archuleta, Atkins, Bates, Becker, Borgeas, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dahle,
Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hueso, Hurtado, Jones, Kamlager, Laird,
Leyva, Limón, McGuire, Melendez, Min, Nielsen, Ochoa Bogh, Pan, Portantino, Roth, Rubio,
Skinner, Stern, Umberg, Wieckowski, Wiener, Wilk
ABS, ABST OR NV: Hertzberg, Newman
UPDATED
VERSION: August 18, 2022
CONSULTANT: Judith Babcock / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097; Kristen Mapile/HEALTH (916)
319-2097 FN: 0004254
AB 2011
Page 1
(Without Reference to File)
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 2011 (Wicks, et al.)
As Amended August 25, 2022
Majority vote
SUMMARY
Enacts the "Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022" to create a ministerial,
streamlined approval process for 100% affordable housing projects in commercial zones and for
mixed-income housing projects along commercial corridors, as specified. The bill would also
impose specified labor standards on those projects, including requirements that contractors pay
prevailing wages, participate in apprenticeship programs, and make specified healthcare
expenditures.
Senate Amendments
1) Delay implementation to July 1, 2023, and sunset this bill's provisions on January 1, 2033.
2) Require HCD to conduct at least two studies of the outcomes of the bill by January 1, 2027
and January 1, 3031, respectively, that include the number of projects built, the number of
units build, the jurisdictional and regional location of the housing, the relative wealth and
access to resources of the communities in which they are built, the level of affordability, the
effect on greenhouse gas emissions, and the creation of construction jobs that pay the
prevailing wage.
3) Add an option for developers of mixed-income rental housing to provide 8% of the units for
very low-income households and 5% of the units for extremely low-income households.
4) Require developers to provide relocation assistance for displaced small businesses.
5) Require a specified environmental assessment and mitigation of any hazards identified.
6) Allow local governments to exempt parcels from the bill if the local government identifies
alternative sites that can be developed by right pursuant to the by criteria of this bill, such
that there is no overall loss in units, no loss in affordable units, and that the new sites
affirmatively further fair housing.
7) Make certain changes to conform to recent or proposed amendments to SB 35's (Umberg),
Chapter 318, Statutes of 2021, ministerial process.
8) Specify that this bill cannot apply to the following:
a) Sites where a neighborhood plan does not permit housing, and defines neighborhood
plans to include specific plans, areas plans, precise plans, master plans, and urban village
plans;
b) Sites that include industrial uses or are identified in local general plans as being for
industrial uses;
AB 2011
Page 2
c) Vacant sites in a very high hazard severity zone; and
d) Housing within 500 feet of a freeway or 3,200 feet of an oil or gas extraction facility or
refinery.
9) Require, for a vacant site, that it does not contain tribal cultural resources that could be
affected by the development and that were found pursuant to a consultation, and that those
effects cannot be mitigated, as specified.
10) Specify that the 65 foot height limit within one-half mile of a major transit stop only applies
in cities of greater than 100,000 and outside the coastal zone.
11) Enable a local government to require up to half of the ground floor of the new development
be utilized as retail, and preclude development from using the density bonus process to avoid
any local requirement to provide retail.
12) Allow local governments to adopt an ordinance to implement the bill, the adoption of which
would not be subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
13) Require local agencies to report, in their Annual Progress Report to the Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD), whether projects have utilized the provisions
of this bill, and other pertinent information.
14) Allow HCD to enforce the provisions of this bill, including referring violations to the
Attorney General.
COMMENTS
California's Housing Crisis: California is in the midst of a housing crisis. Only 24% of
households can afford to purchase the median priced single-family home – 50% less than the
national average, and 33% less than at the start of the pandemic. 1 Over half of renters – and 80%
of low-income renters – are "rent burdened," in households paying more than 30% 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
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.
AB 2011
Page 3
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.
There are myriad reasons that supply has not kept pace with demand, including that:
1) The demand for housing in California has been strong for decades;
2) There are limited places to build;
3) Local governments have made it difficult to build housing;
4) Housing is expensive to build; and
5) There is a deficit of residential construction workers.
Increasing the Affordability of Housing through the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act
of 2022: This bill, the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022, is intended to build
on and greatly accelerate the recent efforts by the state to facilitate the construction of more
affordable housing. It would allow do so as follows:
Approval process: This bill would require housing to be "by right" if it conforms to the
provisions below regarding affordability, location, objective standards, and labor. In being by
right, it would not be subject to a local government's discretionary approval process and would
be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Local governments would be able to
apply objective standards and design review processes as long as they do not conflict with the
provisions in the bill and do not preclude development of the housing.
Affordability requirements: This bill would require that mixed-income rental projects make
either 15% of their units affordable to lower-income households or 8% of their units affordable
to very-low income households and 5% of the units affordable to extremely low-income
households. This bill would require that mixed-income, for-sale projects make either 15% of
their units affordable to lower-income households or 30% of their units affordable to moderate-
income households. Affordable units would be subject to a recorded deed restriction for a period
of 55 years for rental units and 45 years for owner-occupied units. The option for deeply targeted
affordable rental units could help people who are experiencing or at risk of homelessness secure
stable housing without the need for public subsidy. The option for a for-sale project to direct
30% of its units to moderate-income households could result in a substantial increase in
homeownership opportunities for that demographic.
Location requirements: This bill facilitates the development of two kinds of housing – 100%
affordable housing, and mixed-income housing. To qualify to utilize the by right provisions of
this bill, both kinds of housing projects must be located in zones where office, retail, or parking
are a principally permitted use. Mixed-income housing projects would be limited to sites that
abut a "commercial corridor," which is a local road with a right-of-way of 70 to 150 feet
(generally, four to eight lanes). These commercial corridors are typically the location of strip
6 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/housing-challenges.shtml
AB 2011
Page 4
retail centers and parking lots. Directing new development along these existing thoroughfares
can facilitate transit use and other non-vehicular modes of transportation.
By allowing housing in zones where residential development may not currently be permitted, this
bill expands the potential sites where housing can be developed, while directing development
away from existing residential neighborhoods – in particular, existing single-family
neighborhoods.
This bill includes provisions that would preclude development on environmentally unsafe or
sensitive area, per previously established objective standards. It would also require development
to occur within infill areas, which would help reduce commutes and, commensurately,
greenhouse gas emissions.
To protect existing communities, projects would not be allowed to demolish existing housing.
Additionally, the development could not lead to the demolition of a historic structure. Small
businesses would be paid to help relocate if their lease expired after a development proposal had
been placed on their property. Local governments could choose to transfer the applicability of
this bill to other parcels in their jurisdiction, as long as there was no net loss of overall or
affordable housing, and the new sites were not generally located in lower-income communities
than the existing sites.
Objective Standards: To utilize the by right provisions of this bill, housing projects would need
to meet the objective standards specified in the bill. All projects would need to be multi-family
projects where no more than one-third of the space can be for a non-residential use.
For 100% affordable projects, the residential density would need to meet or exceed the density
considered geographically appropriate for affordable housing projects 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. The site must otherwise meet the local government's height
limits, objective zoning standards, and objective design review standards.
Mixed-income housing projects would need to meet or exceed the density and height standards
in the table below. These standards are distinguished by the type of community, width of the
commercial corridor, and proximity to transit. The local government may allow higher densities
and height limits at their discretion.
Location Metropolitan
Jurisdiction
Non-Metropolitan
Jurisdiction
Minimum
Project
Density
Minimum
Project
Height
Minimum
Project
Density
Minimum
Project
Height
Commercial
corridors
with a
width of 70'
to 100'
40
units/acre
35 feet 30
units/acre
35 feet
Commercial
corridors
with a
60
units/acre
45 feet 50
units/acre
45 feet
AB 2011
Page 5
width of
100' to 150'
Commercial
corridors
within ½
mile of a
major
transit stop
in cities >
100K
80
units/acre
65 feet 70
units/acre
65 feet
Site of less
than one
acre
30
units/acre
As
applicable
per street
width
20
units/acre
As
applicable
per street
width
Mixed-income projects must meet specified setback standards regarding any frontages along the
commercial corridor, any side street, and rear property lines. These setback standards are
designed to focus the development along the commercial corridors, and away from the rear of the
property.
The bill does not allow a local government to require parking for mixed-income projects, except
that projects must meet requirements around accessible parking for people with disabilities,
electric vehicle parking spaces, and bicycle parking. Developers would be allowed to determine
the amount of parking needed to meet the demands of the new residents.
Overall Impact on Housing and the Environment: A recent analysis of the bill determined that it
would increase the amount of potential units in the state by 10 million, and the amount of units
that would be economically feasible to build under current conditions by 1.6-2.4 million.7
Compared to typical greenfield housing development, housing built along commercial corridors
would use 40% less water, drive 33% fewer miles, and produce up to 45% fewer greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions.
California's Construction Workforce Deficit: During California's post-World War II boom,
approximately 300,000 units were built per year. 8 Between 1975 – 1990, nearly 200,000 units
were built a year. 9 That number is now less than 100,000 units a year.10 As discussed above,
there are numerous reasons for the sharp decline in housing production. These reasons alone
could have led to a reduction in the construction workforce. But, in addition, the 2008 Great
Recession, led to a steep decline in the workforce as construction ceased and workers moved to
others states to find jobs.
7 https://urbanfootprint.com/ab2011-analysis/
8 State Building and Construction Trades Council, Housing on the High Road, 2019, as summarized here:
https://norcalapa.org/2019/03/taking-the-high-road-to-fix-californias-broken-housing-production-system/
9 Ibid
10 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/apr-data-dashboard-and-downloads
AB 2011
Page 6
The remaining workforce has also been deskilled, due to a sharp decline in the pay and benefits
associated with homebuilding jobs. The construction workforce used to produce 1.4 units per
worker per year but has been below 1.0 units per worker per year for the past 15 years. 11
Not only is the workforce smaller and less skilled than it needs to be, it is not necessarily well
positioned for growth, as it is difficult to attract new workers. The work is physicall y demanding
and can require odd and long hours, both at work and commuting to work. It can be
economically challenging as well, as construction work is seasonal and vulnerable to economic
downturns, with workers face twice the earnings volatility.12 The pay and benefits are often not
attractive enough to overcome those risks, as residential construction workers earn 24% less per
year than other jobs, and less than half have health insurance coverage at work.13 A significant
number of workers are misclassified as independent contractors, which reduces their earnings by
about a third. 14 Wage theft is an even more substantial issue, as paying workers off the books is
a common practice in construction, resulting in those workers having their earnings reduced in
half. 15 Finally, the traditional pathways to the construction workforce have been eroded – high
schools have less vocational training courses, federal policy has restricted the influx of new
immigrants, and high housing costs dissuade workers from moving to California from other
states.
Rebuilding the Residential Workforce through the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act
of 2022: This bill would make it easier to build housing, ensures that the workers who build that
housing are well compensated, and provides opportunity for job training to grow the skilled
construction workforce.
This bill would require compensation consistent with standards in place for public works projects
by requiring projects to pay prevailing wages. The prevailing wages are the most common wage
found in a region for a construction craft, and are usually based on rates specified in collective
bargaining agreements between employers and unions. Prevailing wages are established by the
Director of the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR), according to the type of work and
location of the project, and published on DIR's website. 16 The prevailing wage encompasses an
hourly pay, as well as compensation for other benefits should the employer not provide them,
including health care, vacation, and pension.
This bill includes an enforcement component by the Labor Commissioner, an underpaid workers,
or a joint labor-management cooperation committee established under federal law. These
provisions would help bolster enforcement capacity of the labor standards and help ameliorate
concerns about wage theft.
This bill requires that all contractors on projects of 50 or more units participate in a state-
approved apprenticeship program or request the dispatch of apprentices from a program.
Construction trades apprenticeships result in the elevation of most participating construction
11 Ibid
12 Smart Cities Prevail, Rebuilding California: The Golden State's Housing Workforce Reckoning, 2019:
https://www.smartcitiesprevail.org/wp -content/uploads/2019/01/SCP_HousingReport.0118_2.pdf
13 Ibid
14 UC Berkeley Labor Center, The Public Cost of Low-Wage Jobs in the US Construction Industry, 2022:
https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/the-public-cost-of-low-wage-jobs-in-californias-construction-industry/
15 Ibid.
16 https://www.dir.ca.gov/public-works/prevailing-wage.html
AB 2011
Page 7
workers' wages to living wage levels. As such, this provision would help ensure that these
projects train the next generation of skilled craftspeople, so that over time the residential
construction workforce is large enough to build the housing we need to end the housing crisis.
This bill allows for a locally negotiated Collective Bargaining Agreement to supersede the labor
provisions in the bill. Collective Bargaining Agreements are agreements reached between the
employer and the labor union that will govern the employment for the employee-members of that
labor union.
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."
Arguments in Support
Supporters of the bill include groups that represent construction workers, groups that support the
development of affordable housing, and groups that support an overall increase in the housing
supply.
Groups that represent construction workers, including the Northern California Regional
Conference of Carpenters, the Southwest Regional Conference of Carpenters, and affiliated
groups, argue that the prevailing wage requirements and enforcement provisions in the bill would
benefit workers while the housing provisions in the bill would help put those workers to work.
According to the California Conference of Carpenters (a co-sponsor of the bill), the bill "will
open the door to middle-class, blue-collar careers for young workers who will actually be able to
live in, and eventually even own, the affordable housing they build."
Groups that support the development of affordable housing, including the California Housing
Consortium (a co-sponsor of the bill) argue that the bill would rapidly accelerate the production
of affordable housing. They write that the bill "will expand climate-friendly infill affordable
housing opportunities for struggling families, seniors, workers, and veterans – while also
growing a thriving, well-paid, middle-class construction workforce."
Groups that support an overall increase in the housing supply argue that the bill is necessary to
help overcome the state's deficit of 2.5 million housing units. According to the California
Apartment Association, "By opening new sites to housing, AB 2011 would rapidly accelerate
housing production at all income levels – particularly for lower income Californians."
Arguments in Opposition
Opponents of this bill include groups that represent construction workers and cities.
The State Building and Construction Trades Council (SBCTC) and affiliated groups, argue that
the bill should require the utilization of a skilled and trained workforce, as defined in labor law,
that would in effect require a certain percentage of each construction craft and trade to be
unionized unless the project is subject to a Project Labor Agreement. They argue that, absent
these provisions, the bill provides a path to developer profits with little protections for workers
and meaningful input from community members. According to the SBCTC, "We remain
AB 2011
Page 8
opposed to any effort that would create a statewide right to develop mostly market-rate and
luxury housing without, at a very minimum, basic community protections, including the
requirement to use a skilled and trained workforce and pay area prevailing wages."
The cities in opposition to the bill argue that it would remove local control and the ability of
cities to determine the adequacy of sites for housing and the ability to provide affiliated
infrastructure. They also express concern over a potential reduction in tax revenue from the loss
of commercial properties.
FISCAL COMMENTS
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
1) HCD estimates ongoing costs of $204,000 annually for 1.0 PY of staff to coordinate with
local governments, provide guidance and technical assistance, and manage enforcement
activities. HCD estimates additional costs of $102,000 in contract costs each year in 2023-24
and 2025-25 to develop and revise guidelines for developers and local jurisdictions related to
the new streamlining and ministerial approval provisions. (General Fund)
2) The Department of Industrial Relations estimates costs of approximately $3.8 million in the
first year and $3.6 million annually ongoing for oversight and enforcement activities related
to prevailing wage and apprenticeship standards on projects constructed pursuant to the
provisions of this bill. There would also be penalty revenue gains, potentially in the
hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, to partially offset these costs. Actual costs and
penalty revenues would depend upon the number of qualifying projects constructed under
this bill and the number of complaints and referrals to the Division of Labor Standards and
Enforcement that require enforcement actions, investigations, and appeals. (State Public
Works Enforcement Fund)
3) Unknown local mandated costs. While the bill could impose new costs on local agencies to
revise planning requirements for certain developments, and providing for streamlined and
expedited review of those projects, these 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)
VOTES:
ASM HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 7-1-0
YES: Wicks, Carrillo, Gabriel, Kalra, Kiley, Quirk-Silva, Ward
NO: Seyarto
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-1-4
YES: Holden, Calderon, Carrillo, Mike Fong, Gabriel, Eduardo Garcia, Levine, Quirk,
Robert Rivas, Akilah Weber, Wilson
NO: Bigelow
ABS, ABST OR NV: Bryan, Megan Dahle, Davies, Fong
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 48-11-19
YES: Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Bloom, Bryan, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Cooper,
Cunningham, Megan Dahle, Daly, Flora, Mike Fong, Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Cristina Garcia,
AB 2011
Page 9
Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Holden, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kiley, Lackey, Levine,
Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Robert Rivas,
Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Ting, Villapudua, Ward, Akilah Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood,
Rendon
NO: Aguiar-Curry, Bigelow, Choi, Cooley, Nguyen, Patterson, Seyarto, Stone, Valladares,
Voepel, Waldron
ABS, ABST OR NV: Arambula, Berman, Boerner Horvath, Mia Bonta, Chen, Davies,
Gallagher, Gray, Irwin, Lee, Low, Maienschein, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Petrie-Norris,
Luz Rivas, Blanca Rubio, Smith
UPDATED
VERSION: August 26, 2022
CONSULTANT: Steve Wertheim / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085 FN: 0004415
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 ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
SB 6
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 6
Author: Caballero (D), Eggman (D) and Rubio (D), et al.
Amended: 8/25/22
Vote: 21
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 5-0, 3/11/21
AYES: McGuire, Nielsen, Durazo, Hertzberg, Wiener
SENATE HOUSING COMMITTEE: 8-0, 4/29/21
AYES: Wiener, Caballero, Cortese, McGuire, Ochoa Bogh, Skinner, Umberg,
Wieckowski
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bates
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 6-1, 5/20/21
AYES: Portantino, Bradford, Jones, Kamlager, Laird, Wieckowski
NOES: Bates
SENATE FLOOR: 32-2, 5/24/21
AYES: Allen, Archuleta, Atkins, Becker, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dodd,
Durazo, Eggman, Gonzalez, Hertzberg, Hueso, Hurtado, Jones, Kamlager, Laird,
Leyva, Limón, McGuire, Min, Newman, Ochoa Bogh, Pan, Portantino, Roth,
Rubio, Skinner, Stern, Umberg, Wieckowski, Wiener
NOES: Bates, Melendez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Borgeas, Dahle, Glazer, Grove, Nielsen, Wilk
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: Not available
SUBJECT: Local planning: housing: commercial zones
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill enacts, until January 1, 2033, the Middle Class Housing Act
of 2022, which establishes housing as an allowable use on any parcel zoned for
office or retail uses.
SB 6
Page 2
Assembly Amendments limit project sizes to 20 acres, delete the unspecified
affordability requirement in the bill, require parcels to meet additional criteria,
modify the provisions that apply to functioning retail sites, extend the sunset date
to January 1, 2033, rename the bill, and make other changes.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) Allows, under the California Constitution, 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.”
2) Requires every county and city to adopt a general plan that sets out planned
uses for all of the area covered by the plan. A general plan must include
specified mandatory “elements,” including a housing element that establishes
the locations and densities of housing, among other requirements.
3) Requires cities’ and counties’ major land use decisions—including zoning
ordinances and other aspects of development permitting —must be consistent
with their general plans.
4) Restricts a local agency’s ability to disapprove, or require density reductions in,
certain types of residential projects under the Housing Accountability Act
(HAA).
5) Establishes, pursuant to SB 35 (Wiener, Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017), a
streamlined, ministerial process for approving housing developments that are
in compliance with the applicable objective local planning standards—
including the general plan, zoning ordinances, and objective design review
standards—and meet certain affordability and labor requirements.
This bill:
1) Enacts, until January 1, 2033, the “Middle Class Housing Act of 2022,” which
establishes a housing development project as an allowable use within a zone
where office, retail, or parking are a principally permitted use, so long as the
parcel is not adjacent to a parcel dedicated to industrial use, as specified .
2) Requires a housing development project to comply with all of the following:
a) The density for the housing development must meet or exceed the
applicable density deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for lower
income households under housing element law.
SB 6
Page 3
b) The project must comply with all local zoning, parking, design, public
notice or hearing requirements, local code requirements, ordinances, and
permitting procedures that apply in a zone that allows housing at the density
required by this bill. If more than one zoning designation in the city or
county meets this requirement, the zoning standards that apply to the parcel
are the same zoning standards that apply to the closest parcel that allows for
residential use at that density. If the existing zoning on the pa rcel allows
denser residential use, the existing zoning applies.
c) All other local requirements for the parcel, other than those that prohibit
residential use or allow residential use at a lower density than provided by
this bill.
d) The project site is 20 acres or less, and is located within an urban area, as
specified.
e) The housing development is consistent with any applicable and approved
sustainable community strategy or alternative plan, as defined in existing
law.
f) The developer certifies 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 defined in existing law, except as provided below:
i) A contractor or subcontractor shall not be in violation of the
apprenticeship graduation requirements in existing law to the extent that
all of the following requirements are satisfied:
(1) All contractors and subcontractors performing work on the
development are subject to a project labor agreement that includes
the local building and construction trades council as a party, that
requires compliance with the apprenticeship graduation
requirements, and that provides for enforcement of that obligation
through an arbitration procedure.
(2) The project labor agreement requires the contractor or subcontractor
to request the dispatch of workers for the project through a hiring
hall or referral procedure.
(3) The contractor or subcontractor is unable to obtain sufficient
workers to meet the apprenticeship graduation percentage
requirement within 48 hours of its request, Saturdays, Sundays, and
holidays excepted.
ii) A contract or subcontract may be awarded without a requirement for the
use of a skilled and trained workforce to the extent that all of the
following requirements are satisfied:
(1) At least seven days before issuing any invitation to prequalify or bid
solicitation for the project, the developer sends a notice of the
SB 6
Page 4
invitation or solicitation that describes the project to labor
organizations and organizations representing contractors, as
specified;
(2) The developer seeks bids from prequalified bidders, as specified,
containing an enforceable commitment that all contractors and
subcontractors at every tier will use a skilled and trained workforce
to perform work on the project that falls within an apprenticeable
occupation in the building and construction trades.
(3) The developer or contractor follows a specified bidding process. If
the developer or contractor receives two bids from bidders
committing to a skilled and trained workforce, a skilled and trained
workforce must be used.
(4) If the developer or contractor receives fewer than two bids, they may
rebid without the skilled and trained requirement.
(5) An interested party, including a labor organization that represents
workers in the geographic area of the project, may bring an action
for injunctive relief against a developer or prime contractor that is
proceeding with a project in violation of the bidding requirements of
the bill. The court in such an action may issue injunctive relief to
halt work on the project and to require compliance. The prevailing
plaintiff in such an action shall be entitled to recover its reasonable
attorney’s fees and costs.
g) The project consists of entirely residential units or a mix of retail
commercial, office, or residential uses, except that the project cannot
include a hotel or other transient lodging and must devote at least 50% of
the square footage of the project to residential uses.
h) The local agency requires that the rental of any unit is for a term longer than
30 days.
3) Requires a development proponent to provide written notice of a pending
application to each commercial tenant on the parcel when an application is
submitted, and to provide relocation assistance to small businesses, as defined,
that have existing leases, based on the tenancy of the business at the site.
4) Allows local agency to exempt a lot from the bill if the local agency finds
either of the following based on substantial evidence:
a) The lost residential density from each exempted parcel can be
accommodated on a site or sites allowing residential densities at or above
the densities in the bill and in excess of the acreage required to
accommodate the local agency’s share of housing for lower income
households; or
SB 6
Page 5
b) The local agency concurrently reallocated the lost residential density to
other lots so that there is no net loss in residential density, but only if the
lots are:
i) Suitable for residential development, using an existing definition in
housing element law; and
ii) Subject to an ordinance that allows for development by right.
5) Provides that its provisions do not alter or lessen the applicability of any
housing, environmental, or labor law applicable to a housing development
authorized by the bill, including, but not limited to: the California Coastal Act
of 1976, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the HAA, density
bonus law, obligations to affirmatively further fair housing, and state or local
housing and tenant protection laws.
6) Allows a project to apply for density bonus.
7) Provides that for the purposes of the HAA, a project is deemed consistent,
compliant, and in conformity with local standards if it meets all of the
conditions in this bill.
8) Allows a local agency to adopt an ordinance to implement the provisions of the
bill, and provides that such an ordinance shall not be considered a project
under the California Environmental Quality Act.
9) Allows parcels subject to the bill to be eligible for SB 35’s streamlined
ministerial approval process if it meets all of the following requirements:
a) The proposed project meets the other requirements in SB 6 for a
development on the parcel;
b) The site has not been previously developed under SB 35 with a project of
10 units or fewer;
c) Neither the developer of the project or any person acting in concert with th e
developer has previously proposed a project under SB 35 of 10 units or
fewer on the same site or an adjacent site;
d) The proposed project meets all of SB 35’s other requirements; and
e) The site is zoned for office or retail commercial use.
10) Requires each local agency to include specified data on projects developed
under the bill in their annual progress report;
11) Requires the Department of Housing and Community development to
undertake two studies of the outcomes of the bill, as specified;
SB 6
Page 6
12) Becomes operative on July 1, 2023, and sunsets its provisions on January 1,
2033; and
13) Includes chaptering amendments with AB 2668 (Grayson) and findings and
declarations to support its purposes.
Background
California’s housing challenges. California faces a severe housing shortage. In its
most recent statewide housing assessment, The Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) estimated that California needs to build an
additional 100,000 units per year over recent averages of 80,000 units per year to
meet the projected need for housing in the state. Prior to the onset of COVID -19,
California was building approximately 100,000 to 115,000 units a year in recent
years, but many analysts expect homebuilding activity to drop.
COVID-19 effect on housing. The COVID-19 pandemic has only exacerbated
California’s housing challenges. According to the California Association of
Realtors’ January 2021 home sales and price report, the median home price in
California jumped by almost 22 percent from January 2020 to January 2021, in
part due to reluctance of sellers to list homes during the pandemic. At the same
time, as many Californians became unemployed due to the pandemic, more
individuals at risk of homelessness have fallen into homelessne ss. The Legislative
Analyst’s Office notes in a January 2021 post, “Even before the pandemic, the high
cost of housing in California placed renter households in a precarious position,
particularly the 1.5 million low-income households who pay at least half of their
income in rent. A pandemic-induced job loss adds further financial stress to these
households. Due to the composition of the industries and occupations most
affected by public health restrictions and declining economic activity, renter
households have faced higher rates of job loss during the pandemic because job
losses have been concentrated among lower-wage workers who are much more
likely to rent than higher-wage workers.”
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
SB 6
Page 7
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 author wants to make it easier to develop housing on sites currently zoned for
office and retail use.
Comments
1) Author’s statement. According to the author, “This bill will allow cities to
approve, through an expedited process, the reuse of infill property zoned for
retail and office space for residential construction. This adaptive reuse of
shopping malls or strip malls will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and urban
sprawl. 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. 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 in rent. In addition, 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 2 019
were far below the recommended annual average of new homes needed. This
bill allows for the transformation of underperforming commercial sites into
mixed-use use centers with residential units, with some affordability
restrictions, often in locations that are well connected to major transportation
routes.”
2) 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. SB 6 allows residential
use on properties that are zoned instead for office and retail uses, and thereby
contravenes this principle. It also undermines the planning decisions made by
local officials, who established which uses are allowed and at what intensity. In
SB 6
Page 8
addition, SB 6 allows relatively intense residential uses—up to 30 units an acre
in some jurisdictions—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. Should the state allow this type of residential use in
places where local governments have decided it isn’t appropriate?
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:
HCD estimates ongoing General Fund (GF) costs of $204,000 annually, for one
staff position to provide ongoing technical assistance to local jurisdictions for
rezoning required by the bill, and to undertake necessary enforcement activities.
HCD estimates $102,000 (GF), in contract costs for each of fiscal years 2023-
24 and 2024-25, to develop and revise guidelines for developers and local
jurisdictions. HCD indicates the guidelines will need to be revised in the second
year of implementation.
Estimated costs of an unknown amount, likely ranging from the low-hundreds
of thousands of dollars to the low millions of dollars ongoing, to the
Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) for increased oversight of new public
works activities, for which prevailing wage must be paid to workers (Labor
Enforcement and Compliance Fund). The Division of Labor Standards
Enforcement investigates complaints and imposes penalties, while DIR’s Office
of the Director’s Legal Unit hears appeals. Actual costs will depend on the
number of qualifying projects under this bill and the corresponding increase in
the number of workers paid prevailing wage. Although the number of
qualifying projects under this bill is unknown, it is reasonable to anticipate
additional complaints and resulting enforcement activities.
One-time and ongoing costs to local governments of an unknown amount, but
potentially significant in the short term, to meet the new requirements in the
bill. These costs are potentially reimbursable by the state, subject to a
determination by the Commission on State Mandates.
SUPPORT: (Verified 8/29/22)
A Better Way Forward to House California
AARP
SB 6
Page 9
Abundant Housing LA
Alameda County Democratic Party
American Planning Association, California Chapter
Bay Area Council
Build Affordable Faster California
California Apartment Association
California Association of Realtors
California Builders Alliance
California Forward Action Fund
California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
California State Association of Electrical Workers
California State Pipe Trades Council
California YIMBY
CivicWell (formerly the Local Government Commission)
County of Monterey
East Bay for Everyone
Facebook, Inc.
Generation Housing
Housing Action Coalition
Los Angeles Business Council
Los Angeles County Business Federation
Sacramento Regional Builders Exchange
San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR)
Schneider Electric
State Building & Construction Trades Council of California
Techequity Collaborative
Terner Center for Housing Innovation at the University of California, Berkeley
Valley Industry and Commerce Association
Western States Council Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation
Westfield
YIMBY Action
Zillow Group
OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/29/22)
Acce Action
California Cities for Local Control
California Coalition for Rural Housing
California Contract Cities Association
California Council for Affordable Housing
California Housing Consortium
SB 6
Page 10
California Housing Partnership
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Inc.
California State Association of Counties
Catalysts
City of Agoura Hills
City of Beverly Hills
City of Camarillo
City of Chino Hills
City of Corona
City of Cupertino
City of Dublin
City of Huntington Beach
City of La Canada Flintridge
City of Lafayette
City of Livermore
City of Milpitas
City of Pleasanton
City of Rancho Santa Margarita
City of San Clemente
City of San Jose
City of San Ramon
City of Santa Clarita
City of Saratoga
City of Thousand Oaks
City of Torrance
City of Tustin
City of Visalia
Council of Community Housing Organizations
Emf Safety Network
Faith in The Valley
Housing California
Latino Alliance for Community Engagement
Leadership Counsel for Justice & Accountability
Livable California
Mission Economic Development Agency
Non Profit Housing Association of Northern California
Orange County Council of Governments
Planning and Conservation League
Public Advocates INC.
Public Interest Law Project
SB 6
Page 11
Riviera Homeowners Association
Rural County Representatives of California
Southern California Association of Nonprofit Housing
Sustainable Tamalmonte
Town of Danville
United to Save the Mission
Urban Counties of California
Western Center on Law & Poverty, Inc.
Prepared by: Jonathan Peterson / GOV. & F. / (916) 651-4119
8/29/22 17:01:35
**** END ****
Senate Bill No. 45
CHAPTER 445
An act to add Section 42655 to the Public Resources Code, relating to
solid waste.
[Approved by Governor September 19, 2022. Filed with
Secretary of State September 19, 2022.]
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 45, Portantino. Short-lived climate pollutants: organic waste reduction
goals: local jurisdiction assistance.
Existing law requires the State Air Resources Board, no later than January
1, 2018, to approve and begin implementing a short-lived climate pollutant
strategy to achieve a reduction in the statewide emissions of methane by
40%, hydrofluorocarbon gases by 40%, and anthropogenic black carbon by
50% below 2013 levels by 2030. Existing law requires that the methane
emissions reduction goals include a 50% reduction in the level of statewide
disposal of organic waste from the 2014 level by 2020 and a 75% reduction
in the level of statewide disposal of organic waste from the 2014 level by
2025.
Existing law requires the Department of Resources Recycling and
Recovery, in consultation with the state board, to adopt regulations to achieve
the organic waste reduction goals established by the state board for 2020
and 2025, as provided. Existing law requires the department, no later than
July 1, 2020, and in consultation with the state board, to analyze the progress
that the waste sector, state government, and local governments have made
in achieving these organic waste reduction goals. Existing law authorizes
the department, if it determines that significant progress has not been made
toward achieving the organic waste reduction goals established by the state
board, to include incentives or additional requirements in its regulations to
facilitate progress towards achieving the goals.
This bill would require the department, in consultation with the state
board, to assist local jurisdictions in complying with these provisions,
including any regulations adopted by the department.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 42655 is added to the Public Resources Code,
immediately following Section 42654, to read:
42655. (a) The department, in consultation with the State Air Resources
Board, shall assist local jurisdictions in complying with the requirements
94
of this chapter, including any regulations adopted by the department pursuant
to Section 42652.5.
(b) This section does not limit a local government’s obligation to comply
with the requirements of this chapter, including any regulations adopted by
the department pursuant to Section 42652.5.
O
94
— 2 — Ch. 445
Senate Bill No. 852
CHAPTER 266
An act to add Division 6 (commencing with Section 62300) to Title 6 of
the Government Code, relating to climate resilience districts.
[Approved by Governor September 9, 2022. Filed with Secretary
of State September 9, 2022.]
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 852, Dodd. Climate resilience districts: formation: funding
mechanisms.
Existing law authorizes certain local agencies to form a community
revitalization authority (authority) within a community revitalization and
investment area, as defined, 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. Existing
law 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.
Existing law 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. Existing law also 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.
This bill would authorize a city, county, city and county, special district,
or a combination of any of those entities to form a climate resilience district,
as defined, for the purposes of raising and allocating funding for eligible
projects and the operating expenses of eligible projects. The bill would deem
each district to be an enhanced infrastructure financing district and would
require each district to comply with existing law concerning enhanced
infrastructure financing districts, except as specified. The bill would require
a district to finance only specified projects that meet the definition of an
eligible project. The bill would define “eligible project” to mean projects
that address sea level rise, extreme heat, extreme cold, the risk of wildfire,
drought, and the risk of flooding, as specified. The bill would establish
project priorities and would authorize districts to establish additional
priorities.
91
This bill would impose certain requirements on a project undertaken or
financed by a district. In this regard, the bill would require a district to obtain
an enforceable commitment from the developer that contractors and
subcontractors performing the work use a skilled and trained workforce, in
accordance with specified provisions. These certifications would expand
the crime of perjury, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program.
This bill would authorize specified local entities to adopt a resolution
allocating tax revenues to the district, subject to certain requirements. The
bill would provide for the financing of the activities of the district by, among
other things, levying a benefit assessment, special tax, property-related fee,
or other service charge or fee consistent with the requirements of the
California Constitution. The bill would require each district to prepare an
annual expenditure plan, an operating budget, and capital improvement
budget, and would require this material to be adopted by the governing body
of the district and subject to review and revision at least annually. By
imposing duties on counties in the administration of tax revenues and
elections of a climate resilience district, the bill would impose a
state-mandated local program.
Existing law 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 would deem the Sonoma County Regional Climate Protection
Authority a climate resilience district and grant the authority all of the
powers available to such a district, except that the authority may not use
any tax increment revenue unless it complies with the requirements for
receiving and using tax increment revenue applicable to a new climate
resilience district.
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.
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.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Division 6 (commencing with Section 62300) is added to
Title 6 of the Government Code, to read:
91
— 2 — Ch. 266
DIVISION 6. CLIMATE RESILIENCE DISTRICTS
62300. This division shall be known, and may be cited, as the Climate
Resilience Districts Act.
62301. It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this division to
provide the ability for local governments to create districts for the purpose
of addressing climate change effects and impacts through activities and
actions that include mitigation and adaptation, as necessary and appropriate,
to achieve all of the following:
(a) Providing a sustained and certain level and source of funding at the
local level.
(b) Allowing activities and actions on an appropriate geographic basis.
(c) Facilitating the receipt and use of federal, state, local, and private
funds.
62302. For purposes of this division:
(a) “District” means a climate resilience district formed pursuant to this
division.
(b) (1) “Eligible project” means a project, including a capital project,
that is designed and implemented to address climate change mitigation,
adaptation, or resilience, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
(A) A project that addresses river, bay, or sea level rise, or rising
groundwater, including wetlands or marsh restoration, vegetated dunes,
living shorelines, erosion control, or levees.
(B) A project that addresses extreme heat or the urban heat island effect,
including increasing shade, deploying cool building and surface materials,
using cool pavements; constructing, improving, or modifying new or existing
facilities; or increasing access to cooling opportunities.
(C) A project that addresses extreme cold, rain, or snow, including
constructing, improving, or modifying new or existing facilities.
(D) A project that addresses the risk of wildfire, including establishing
fire breaks, prescribed burning, structure hardening, or vegetation control.
(E) A project that addresses drought, including multiuse land repurposing,
groundwater replenishment, groundwater storage, or conjunctive use.
(F) A project that addresses the risk of flooding, including structure
elevation or relocation, wetlands restoration, flood easements or bypasses,
or levees.
(2) At a minimum, a district shall give priority to a project that does any
of the following:
(A) Utilizes natural infrastructure, as defined in paragraph (3) of
subdivision (c) of Section 71154 of the Public Resources Code, to address
climate change adaptation or resilience based upon the best available science.
(B) Addresses the needs of under-resourced communities, as defined in
subdivision (g) of Section 71130 of the Public Resources Code, or vulnerable
communities, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 71340 of the Public
Resources Code.
(3) A district may adopt additional priorities for projects.
91
Ch. 266 — 3 —
(4) A district shall seek the input of the communities specified in
subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) in the planning, development, and
implementation of projects.
(c) “Participating entity” means a city, county, or special district that
meets both of the following:
(1) The city, county, or special district is an affected taxing entity within
the climate resilience district.
(2) The city, county, or special district adopts a resolution pursuant to
subdivision (b) of Section 62304 that is applicable to its territory located
within the climate resilience district.
(d) “Participating member city or county” means a city or county that
does not adopt a resolution to be a participating entity, as described in
subdivision (c), and alternatively adopts a resolution at a noticed public
hearing stating that it agrees to participate in, and have its territory subject
to, the jurisdiction, powers, and authority of the district conditioned upon
the city or county also being represented on the governing body of the district
pursuant to Section 62305.
(e) (1) “Property tax increment” means that portion of the ad valorem
taxes, as defined under subdivision (a) of Section 1 of Article XIII A of the
California Constitution, excluding any ad valorem taxes or assessments
levied pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 1 of Article XIII A of the
California Constitution, divided pursuant to Section 53398.75.
(2) Except as otherwise specified in this division, a district formed
pursuant to this division is hereby deemed to also be an enhanced
infrastructure financing district pursuant to Chapter 2.99 (commencing with
Section 53398.50) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 and shall be subject to
statutory provisions for enhanced infrastructure financing districts.
62303. (a) (1) A city, county, city and county, or a combination of any
of those entities may form a climate resilience district pursuant to this
division.
(2) The boundaries of the district shall be one of the following:
(A) Coterminous with the city, county, or city and county forming the
district.
(B) Within a city, county, or city and county forming the district.
(C) Across two or more cities, counties, or cities and counties that are
forming the district.
(D) A special district may join a district initiated by a city, county, city
and county, or a combination of cities and counties.
(b) (1) A district shall be formed for the purpose of raising and allocating
funding for eligible projects and the operating expenses of eligible projects.
(2) Operating expenses may include any of the following:
(A) The expenses of operating the district.
(B) The planning of eligible projects.
(C) The operational expenses of any eligible project.
(3) A district shall finance only projects described in subdivision (b) of
Section 53398.52 if the project meets the definition of an eligible project.
91
— 4 — Ch. 266
(4) A district shall use the proceeds of bonds issued by a district to finance
only eligible projects that meet the requirements of subdivision (a) of Section
53398.52.
(c) A district shall be deemed to be an “agency” described in subdivision
(b) of Section 16 of Article XVI of the California Constitution only for
purposes of receiving property tax increment revenues.
62303.5. (a) Notwithstanding the procedures for establishing a district
under this division, the authority shall be deemed a climate resilience district
and is hereby granted all of the powers described in Section 62307, except
as provided in subdivision (c).
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a) of Section 62305, the legislative
body of the district formed pursuant to this section shall be the legislative
body of the authority.
(c) This section 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 pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section
62304.
(d) For purposes of this section, “authority” means the Sonoma County
Regional Climate Protection Authority created pursuant to Division 19.1
(commencing with Section 181000) of the Public Utilities Code.
62304. (a) Proceedings for the establishment of a district shall be
instituted by the adoption of a resolution of intention to establish the
proposed district and shall do all of the following:
(1) 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.
(2) State the type of eligible projects proposed to be financed or assisted
by the district.
(3) State the need for the district and the goals the district proposes to
achieve.
(b) The city, county, or city and county, shall enact a resolution providing
for the division of taxes of any participating entity pursuant to the procedures
for the preparation and adoption of an infrastructure financing plan described
in Sections 53398.59 to 53398.74, inclusive. A district that completes these
procedures shall follow the procedures for the division of taxes and issuance
of tax increment bonds described in Sections 53398.75 to 53398.88,
inclusive.
62305. (a) A district shall be governed by a board that has the same
membership as a public financing authority as described in Section
53398.51.1. The board shall have the same powers and requirements as a
public financing authority, unless otherwise specified.
(b) The legislative body shall ensure the district board is established at
the same time that it adopts a resolution of intention pursuant to Section
62304.
91
Ch. 266 — 5 —
62306. (a) A minimum of 95 percent of the allocated tax increment
revenues pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 62304 shall be used to fund
eligible projects.
(b) Not more than 5 percent of allocated revenues may be used for
administration.
62307. In addition to the powers granted to an enhanced infrastructure
financing district pursuant to Chapter 2.99 (commencing with Section
53398.50) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5, a district has the power to do
all of the following within the territorial jurisdiction of a city, county, or
city and county that is a participating entity, or a participating member city
or county, pursuant to this division and is represented on the governing
board in accordance with Section 62305:
(a) (1) Levy a benefit assessment, special tax levied pursuant to Article
3.5 (commencing with Section 50075) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 1
of Title 5, or property-related fee or other service charge or fee consistent
with the requirements of Articles XIII A, XIII C, and XIII D of the California
Constitution, including, but not limited to, a benefit assessment levied
pursuant to paragraph (2).
(2) The district may levy a benefit assessment for any of the purposes
authorized by this division pursuant to any of the following:
(A) The Improvement Act of 1911 (Division 7 (commencing with Section
5000) of the Streets and Highways Code).
(B) The Improvement Bond Act of 1915 (Division 10 (commencing with
Section 8500) of the Streets and Highways Code).
(C) The Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 (Division 12 (commencing
with Section 10000) of the Streets and Highways Code).
(D) The Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Part 2 (commencing
with Section 22500) of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code),
notwithstanding Section 22501 of the Streets and Highways Code.
(E) Any other statutory authorization.
(b) Apply for and receive grants from federal and state agencies.
(c) Solicit and accept gifts, fees, grants, and allocations from public and
private entities.
(d) Issue revenue bonds for any of the purposes authorized by this division
pursuant to the Revenue Bond Law of 1941 (Chapter 6 (commencing with
Section 54300) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5), subject to any applicable
constitutional requirements.
(e) 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.
(f) Receive and manage a dedicated revenue source.
(g) Deposit or invest moneys of the district in banks or financial
institutions in the state in accordance with state law.
(h) Sue and be sued, except as otherwise provided by law, in all actions
and proceedings, in all courts and tribunals of competent jurisdiction.
(i) Engage counsel and other professional services.
(j) Enter into and perform all necessary contracts.
91
— 6 — Ch. 266
(k) Enter into joint powers agreements pursuant to the Joint Exercise of
Powers Act (Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 6500) of Division 7 of
Title 1).
(l) Hire staff, define their qualifications and duties, and provide a schedule
of compensation for the performance of their duties.
(m) 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.
62308. (a) If a district proposes a measure that will generate revenues
for the district that requires voter approval pursuant to the California
Constitution, the board of supervisors of the county or counties in which
the district has determined to place the measure on the ballot shall call a
special election on the measure. The special election shall be consolidated
with the next regularly scheduled statewide election and the measure shall
be submitted to the voters in the appropriate counties, consistent with the
requirements of Articles XIII A, XIII C, and XIII D, or Article XVI of, the
California Constitution, as applicable.
(b) A district shall 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 the provisions of the Elections Code applicable to
districts, including the provisions of Chapter 4 (commencing with Section
9300) of Division 9 of the Elections Code.
(c) The district shall file with the board of supervisors of each county in
which the measure shall appear on the ballot a resolution of the district
requesting consolidation, and setting forth the exact form of the ballot
question, in accordance with Section 10403 of the Elections Code.
(d) The legal counsel for the district shall prepare an impartial analysis
of the measure. The impartial analysis prepared by the legal counsel for the
district shall be subject to review and revision by the county counsel of the
county that contains the largest population, as determined by the most recent
federal decennial census, among those counties in which the measure will
be submitted to the voters.
(e) Each county included in the measure shall use the exact ballot
question, impartial analysis, and ballot language provided by the district. If
two or more counties included in the measure are required to prepare a
translation of ballot materials into the same language other than English,
the county that contains the largest population, as determined by the most
recent federal decennial census, among those counties that are required to
prepare a translation of ballot materials into the same language other than
English shall prepare the translation and that translation shall be used by
the other county or counties, as applicable.
(f) Notwithstanding Section 13116 of the Elections Code, if a measure
proposed by a district pursuant to this division is submitted to the voters of
the district in two or more counties, the elections officials of those counties
shall mutually agree to use the same letter designation for the measure.
91
Ch. 266 — 7 —
(g) The county clerk of each county shall report the results of the special
election to the authority. If two-thirds of all voters voting on the question
at the special election vote affirmatively, or a different approval threshold
required by the California Constitution at the time the election is achieved,
the measure shall take effect in the counties in which the measure appeared
on the ballot within the timeframe specified in the measure.
(h) The county clerk of each county shall report the results of the special
election to the district.
62309. (a) Each district shall prepare an annual expenditure plan that
identifies and describes the operations and eligible projects undertaken by
the district. The expenditure plan shall be, after public review and hearing,
adopted by the governing body of the district and subject to review and
revision at least annually.
(b) Each district shall also prepare and adopt an annual operating budget
and capital improvement budget. The annual operating budget and capital
improvement budget shall be, after public review and hearing, adopted by
the governing body of the district and subject to review and revision at least
annually.
62310. (a) A district shall 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.
(b) A district shall provide for annual financial reports and make copies
of the annual financial reports available to the public.
(c) Commencing in the calendar year in which a district has allocated a
cumulative total of more than one million dollars ($1,000,000) in property
tax increment revenues under this division or other revenues pursuant to
subdivision (b) of Section 62253, including any proceeds of a debt issuance,
and each year thereafter, the district shall contract for an independent audit
conducted in accordance with generally accepted governmental auditing
standards.
62311. (a) All meetings of the district shall be subject to the Ralph M.
Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of
Division 2 of Title 5).
(b) All records prepared, owned, used, or retained by the district are
public records for purposes of the California Public Records Act (Division
10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1).
62312. (a) The following requirements shall apply to a project that is
undertaken or financed by a district:
(1) Construction, alteration, demolition, installation, and repair work on
the project shall be deemed a public work for which prevailing wages must
be paid for purposes of Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720) of Part
7 of Division 2 of the Labor Code.
(2) The district shall obtain an enforceable commitment from the
developer or general contractor that the developer or general contractor and
91
— 8 — Ch. 266
all its contractors and subcontractors at every tier will individually use a
skilled and trained workforce, in accordance with Chapter 2.9 (commencing
with Section 2600) of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Public Contract Code, to
perform all work on the project that falls within an apprenticeable occupation
in the building and construction trades.
(3) Paragraph (2) shall not apply if all contractors and subcontractors at
every tier performing the work will be bound by a project labor agreement
that requires the use of a skilled and trained workforce and provides for
enforcement of that obligation through an arbitration procedure.
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) “Project labor agreement” has the same meaning as set forth in
paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 2500 of the Public Contract
Code.
(2) “Skilled and trained workforce” has the same meaning as set forth
in subdivision (d) of Section 2601 of the Public Contract Code.
SEC. 2. The Legislature finds and declares that the allocation of revenues
derived from a sales and use tax or a transactions and use tax to a climate
resilience district pursuant to Division 6 (commencing with Section 62300)
of Title 6 to the Government Code, as added by this act, is not subject to
Section 29 of Article XIII of the California Constitution because a district
is not a city, county, or city and county within the meaning of that provision,
but is rather a separate political entity as described in subdivision (c) of
Section 62303 of the Government Code, as added by this act.
SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6
of Article XIII B of the California Constitution for certain costs that may
be incurred by a local agency or school district because, in that regard, this
act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or
changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section
17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within
the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.
However, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act
contains other costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies
and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7
(commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government
Code.
O
91
Ch. 266 — 9 —
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
SB 932
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 932
Author: Portantino (D), et al.
Amended: 8/25/22
Vote: 21
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 4-1, 3/17/22
AYES: Caballero, Durazo, Hertzberg, Wiener
NOES: Nielsen
SENATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE: 10-4, 4/26/22
AYES: Gonzalez, Allen, Archuleta, Cortese, Limón, McGuire, Min, Newman,
Rubio, Skinner
NOES: Bates, Dahle, Melendez, Wieckowski
NO VOTE RECORDED: Becker, Dodd, Wilk
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 5/19/22
AYES: Portantino, Bradford, Kamlager, Laird, Wieckowski
NOES: Bates, Jones
SENATE FLOOR: 25-10, 5/25/22
AYES: Allen, Archuleta, Atkins, Becker, Caballero, Cortese, Durazo, Eggman,
Gonzalez, Hueso, Hurtado, Kamlager, Laird, Leyva, Limón, McGuire, Min,
Newman, Pan, Portantino, Roth, Skinner, Stern, Umberg, Wiener
NOES: Bates, Borgeas, Dahle, Dodd, Grove, Jones, Melendez, Nielsen, Ochoa
Bogh, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bradford, Glazer, Hertzberg, Rubio, Wieckowski
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: Not available
SUBJECT: General plans: circulation element: bicycle and pedestrian plans and
traffic calming plans
SOURCE: Streets for All
SB 932
Page 2
DIGEST: This bill requires the circulation element of a general plan to include
specified contents related to bicycle plans, pedestrian plans, and traffic calming
plans, and to implement those plans.
Assembly Amendments delete the cause of action contained in the bill, delete the
requirement that cities and counties complete implementation by a date certain,
grant local governments additional flexibility, and make other changes.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) 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.
2) 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.
3) 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.
4) Provides, under the Government Claims Act, that a public entity is not liable for
an injury, whether such injury arises out of an act or omission of the public
entity or a public employee or any other person unless otherwise provided by
statute.
This bill:
1) Requires the legislative body of a city or county, upon any substantive revision
of the circulation element, on or after January 1, 2025, to do both of the
following:
a) Incorporate in the circulation element the principles of the Federal Highway
Administration’s Safe System Approach by including policies that aim to
eliminate fatal and serious injuries for all road users through a holistic view
of the roadway system, including provisions that account for human error,
SB 932
Page 3
recognize vulnerable road users, and promote redundant and proactive safety
measures.
b) Develop bicycle plans, pedestrian plans, and traffic calming plans based on
the policies and goals in the circulation element that shall address all of the
following for any urbanized area within the scope of the general plan:
i) Identify safety corridors and any land or facility that generates high
concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians.
ii) Use evidence-based strategies, including strategies identified in the
United States Department of Transportation’s Strategic Highway Safety
Plan 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 in the
areas identified in i).
iii) Set goals for initiation and completion of all actions identified in the
plans within 25 years of the date of adoption of the modified circulation
element based upon projected development activities within urbanized
areas within the scope of the general plan and projected availability of
revenues.
2) Requires a county or city to begin implementation of the modified circulation
element above within two years of the date of adoption of the plan.
3) Requires a county or city to regularly review the progress towards and identify
impediments to completing implementation of the plan.
4) Directs a county or city shall consider revising the circulation element if,
following the review under 3), the county or city determines it will not reach the
goals of the bicycle, pedestrian, or traffic calming plans within 25 years of the
date of adoption of the modified circulation element.
5) States the intent of the Legislature that cities and counties use existing
transportation funding to achieve the goals of the circulation element, as
specified.
6) Defines its terms and includes findings and declarations to support its purposes.
Comments
1) Purpose of the bill. 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 fatalities in
SB 932
Page 4
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.”
2) Money trees. Local governments have many demands for their limited
transportation funds. SB 932 is likely to require local governments to spend
significant funds on bike, pedestrian, and traffic calming infrastructure, when
they already face significant shortfalls for their existing transportation
infrastructure. For example, the Stanislaus County Association of Governments
adopted a “Non-Motorized Transportation Plan” in 2021 to improve non-
motorized transportation in the region. That plan estimated the cost to construct
all the planned infrastructure to be $234 million. Can local governments afford
these costs, and are the requirements in the bill the best use of finite
transportation funds?
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
Unknown with latest amendments.
SUPPORT: (Verified 8/30/22)
Streets for All (source)
OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/30/22)
None received
Prepared by: Anton Favorini-Csorba / GOV. & F. / (916) 651-4119
8/30/22 18:23:16
**** END ****
September 2, 2022
The Honorable Gavin Newsom
Governor, State of California
1021 O Street, Suite 9000
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Assembly Bill 2247 (Bloom) Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS) and PFAS products and product components: publicly accessible
data collection interface
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request for Signature – Cities of Pleasanton, Livermore, San Ramon, and
Town of Danville
Dear Governor Newsom:
On behalf of the Cities of Pleasanton, Livermore, San Ramon, and the Town of
Danville, we write to express our strong support for AB 2247 (Bloom) and
respectfully request your signature on the bill.
This measure would foster the implementation of a publicly accessible data
collection interface to collect information about perfluoroalkyl and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and products or product components
containing intentionally added PFAS.
PFAS contamination is a growing issue in the Tri-Valley, and poses serious health
threats to our communities, whether it be found in drinking water or even
common household items. According to the author – AB 2247 will help us
accurately identify how much PFAS is coming into the State of California and will
enable us to explore how best to mitigate its harmful impacts. Without this
information, we cannot take meaningful steps toward protecting the health of
Californians and our environment in the long-term.
Thank you for your consideration and again, we respectfully request your
Signature on AB 2247 (Bloom).
ATTACHMENT B
Sincerely,
Cc: The Honorable Richard Bloom, California State Assembly
__________________ ____________________
Town of Danville City of Livermore
Mayor Newell Arnerich 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
September 2, 2022
The Honorable Gavin Newsom
Governor, State of California
1021 O Street, Suite 9000
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: AB 988 (Bauer-Kahan) Mental health: 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request for Signature – Tri-Valley Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton,
San Ramon, and Town of Danville
Dear Governor Newsom,
On behalf of the Tri-Valley Cities Coalition, which is comprised of the Cities of
Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and the Town of Danville, we write to
request your signature on AB 988 (Bauer-Kahan), which establishes the Miles Hall
Lifeline Act (Act) to establish a 988 Crisis Hotline Center for the purpose of
connecting individuals experiencing a mental health crisis with suicide prevention
and mental health services, as specified. Additionally, this bill establishes a 988
surcharge for the 2023 and 2024 calendar years at $0.08 per access line per
month, and for years beginning January 1, 2025, at an amount based on a
specified formula, but not greater than $0.30 per access line per month.
A dedicated phone line for mental health emergencies is a critical factor to being
successful in treating these emergencies. Along with the services such as mobile
crisis teams, access to the appropriate mental health resources during times of
need is an enormous benefit to our respective local communities, the region, and
the State. This bill is a tremendous step towards meeting the behavioral health
needs of Californians.
Thank you for your commitment on efforts to address the needs of the state’s most
vulnerable residents. We are pleased to support AB 988 and respectfully request
your signature on the bill.
Sincerely,
ATTACHMENT C
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
CC: The Honorable Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, California State Assembly
__________________ ____________________ ____________________
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
September 12, 2022
The Honorable Gavin Newsom
Governor, State of California
1021 O Street, Suite 9000
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: AB 2011 (Wicks) Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022
Request for Veto – Tri-Valley Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San
Ramon, and Town of Danville
Dear Governor Newsom,
On behalf of the Tri-Valley Cities Coalition, which is comprised of the Cities of
Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and the Town of Danville, we write to
request your veto on AB 2011 (Wicks), which would create a ministerial,
streamlined approval process for 100% affordable housing projects in commercial
zones and for mixed-income housing projects along commercial corridors, as
specified, without regard to local planning and standard development
processes.
First, we want to acknowledge and commend the Author’s 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 are planned the same, and as such,
a bill like will result in development that is not necessarily appropriate for our
communities.
Some more specific concerns we have with the bill include:
1. Need for Retail and Commercial Zones
Some of our cities have a number of locations zoned for retail use that we
need to keep as such. If housing is built there, we lose the opportunity to
create jobs, garner local revenue, and provide essential services and
amenities to residents. Furthermore, with less opportunity for retail and
commercial properties to be established, our most vulnerable populations
will be forced into longer commutes to jobs.
ATTACHMENT D
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
2.Replacing Commercial Zones with Residential Housing Results in Critical
Local Revenue Loss
By allowing residential land uses by-right in commercial zones, AB 2011
removes the ability of a local jurisdiction to continue to carefully zone and
balance revenues generated by all its land uses. It would trigger the loss of
revenue-producing commercial uses with housing, with no ability of a local
jurisdiction to intervene and mitigate the economic offset. Our Coalition
firmly believes that increasing housing production can be done in tandem
with protecting economic viability. Local rezonings are done with the
engagement of residents, property owners, elected officials, and
developers, who all collectively contribute to the local vision for each of
our communities – visions that see beyond immediate housing needs and
into the critical balancing of retail and commercial zones, which include
our current and hopeful local restaurant and small business owners.
Overriding planning processes to inappropriately place housing
developments within commercial zones damages our prospects of
connecting local businesses and their workforces with proximate housing,
simply because it erases our vision for how to create vibrant, connected
communities utilizing strategic mixed land use combinations.
3.Encouraging Local Governments to Defy State-Certified Housing Plans
Undermines the RHNA Process
AB 2011 disregards this state mandated local planning effort and forces
cities to allow housing developments in many areas of a city, which
undermines the rationale for the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA)
process. This bill empowers developers – not democratically elected
officials – to build housing in retail and commercial zones. Why, then, should
cities go through the multiyear planning process to identify sites suitable for
new housing units if those plans will be overwritten by developers who plan
to build on sites never deemed suitable for residential use? AB 2011 sets a
concerning precedent for the function and legitimacy of state-mandated
housing production targets and the tools for effectively planning to
develop new units. Shifting land use discretion away from local officials and
public engagement will result in confusion, poorly constructed units, and
likely legal challenges to existing and future housing laws.
Thank you for your consideration and again, we respectfully request your veto on
AB 2011.
Sincerely, ATTACHMENT E
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
CC: The Honorable Buffy Wicks, California State Assembly
__________________ ____________________ ____________________
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
September 12, 2022
The Honorable Gavin Newsom
Governor, State of California
1021 O Street, Suite 9000
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: SB 6 (Caballero) Local planning: housing: commercial zones
Request for Veto– Tri-Valley Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San
Ramon, and Town of Danville
Dear Governor Newsom,
On behalf of the Tri-Valley Cities (TVC) Coalition, which is comprised of the Cities
of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and the Town of Danville, we write
to request your Veto on SB 6 (Caballero), which establishes housing as an
allowable use on any parcel zoned for office or retail uses.
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.
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.
ATTACHMENT E
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
Thank you for your consideration and again, we respectfully request your veto on
SB 6.
Sincerely,
CC: The Honorable Anna Caballero, California State Senate
__________________ ____________________ ____________________
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
September 13, 2022
The Honorable Gavin Newsom
Governor, State of California
1021 O Street, Suite 9000
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: AB 2374 (Bauer-Kahan) Crimes against public health and safety: illegal
dumping
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request for Signature – Tri-Valley Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton,
San Ramon, and Town of Danville
Dear Governor Newsom,
On behalf of the Tri-Valley Cities Coalition, which is comprised of the Cities of
Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and the Town of Danville, we write to
request your signature on AB 2374 (Bauer-Kahan), which 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.
As you know, illegal dumping is a growing issue that affects the health and safety
of many California residents. Especially in light of our State’s efforts to minimize
harm to the environment, there needs to be more serious enforcement and
penalties against those who engage in illegal dumping – AB 2374 does just that.
Thank you for your leadership and again, we respectfully request your signature
on AB 2374.
Sincerely,
__________________ ____________________ ____________________
Town of Danville City of Dublin City of Livermore
Mayor Newell Arnerich Mayor Melissa Hernandez Mayor Bob Woerner
ATTACHMENT F
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
CC: The Honorable Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, California State Assembly
__________________________ __________________________
City of Pleasanton City of San Ramon
Mayor Karla Brown Mayor Dave Hudson
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
September 13, 2022
The Honorable Gavin Newsom
Governor, State of California
1021 O Street, Suite 9000
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: SB 45 (Portantino) Short-lived climate pollutants: organic waste reduction
goals: local jurisdiction assistance
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request for Signature – Tri-Valley Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton,
San Ramon, and Town of Danville
Dear Governor Newsom,
On behalf of the Tri-Valley Cities Coalition, which is comprised of the Cities of
Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and the Town of Danville, we write to
request your signature on SB 45 (Portantino), which would assist local jurisdictions
in complying with organic waste diversion programs.
As you know, SB 1383 (Lara, Chapter 395, Statutes of 2016) specifies that the
methane emission reduction goals include targets to reduce the landfill disposal
of organic waste 50% by 2020 and 75% by 2025 from the 2014 level; and to rescue
for people to eat at least 20% of currently disposed of surplus food by 2025. The
implementing regulations took effect January 1, 2022, and the regulatory
package is comprehensive, placing various responsibilities on local jurisdictions.
All respective members of our coalition remain strongly committed to achieving
these goals, though help is needed from the State. SB 45 would allow local
jurisdictions such as us to receive assistance from CalRecycle, in consultation with
the California Air Resources Board, to meet the stated goals of SB 1383. 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.
Thank you for your leadership and for the reasons stated above, we respectfully
request your signature on SB 45.
ATTACHMENT G
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
Sincerely,
CC: The Honorable Anthony Portantino, California State Senate
__________________ ____________________ ____________________
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 H
Town of Danville
Legislative Framework
Town Council Legislative Committee
2 February, 2021
Overview
The Town of Danville is actively engaged in legislative advocacy efforts that are aimed at
protecting and promoting Danville’s best interests at the local, state and federal levels. These
efforts are driven by two primary considerations: 1) continuing to uphold the Town mission of
delivering superior municipal services that make people’s lives better; and 2) an increasing level
of state involvement and regulation in areas that have previously fallen within local control.
The significant increase in bills being introduced in the State Legislature that have the potential
to further impact cities’ local control has prompted the Town to continue to expand advocacy
efforts through various means and channels. Key to these efforts is the development of this
Legislative Framework which outlines the Town’s legislative principles, policies, goals and
strategies. The Framework will be monitored and driven by a Town Council Legislative
Committee.
Legislative Goals
• Advocate the Town’s legislative interests at the federal, state, regional, and county levels
to support our Town’s vision and mission.
• Serve as an active participant with other local governments, the League of California Cities,
regional agencies, and local professional organizations in addressing legislative issues that
are important to the town and our region.
• Participate in the Tri-Valley Cities coalition to work together on legislative issues, projects
and initiatives at the federal, state, regional and county levels.
• Seek grant and funding assistance for Town projects, services, and programs.
• Communicate to the Town’s residents those legislative and agency rule-making matters
which are of potentially general interest or concern.
Legislative Principles
To fulfill the goals identified, the Town supports legislation and policies that favor:
1. Outstanding Quality of Life - provide opportunities to protect and enhance our
residents’ quality of life through active living, a healthy lifestyle and diverse recreational
services.
2. Community Safety - provide access to resources and services for residents, such as
quality police, fire, emergency management, emergency medical services, services for
vulnerable populations and community benefit efforts.
3. Local Control over Land Use and Preservation - ensures the Town’s continued
ability and authority to exercise decisions on land use matters and reasonably regulate
new development to ensure consistency with Town design standards. The orderly
growth and development of the Town together with the preservation of open space is a
high priority for the Danville community.
3 February, 2021
4. Foster Economic Vitality and Growth - provide funding for initiatives that
promote: economic health and resilience, business development, workforce
development, and small business entrepreneurship training and assistance.
5. Public Infrastructure - enable continued improvement and maintenance of the
Town’s public infrastructure.
6. Transportation - provide funding for planning and implementation of regional
transportation projects.
7. Housing - seek balanced solutions which consider housing, jobs, and transportation
together; does not take a one size fits all approach; provides funding and resources for
infrastructure and allows the Town to exercise local control in developing locally
appropriate plans that meet State objectives in a manner that is compatible with existing
community character.
8. Support Residents Growth and Enrichment - enhance and encourage
recreational programming, exercise, use of parks and services, community engagement,
social and recreational experiences; and performing and visual arts.
9. Sustainability - enable sustainable development, conserve natural resources, provide
resources to enable environmental awareness and health in our community and source
vendors that comply with California environmental requirements that protect public
health and air quality.
10. Fiscal Sustainability - protect existing federal, state, and local funding sources that
provide revenues to the Town of Danville. Oppose Unfunded Mandates and legislation
that seeks to impose any requirement upon the Town that is not fully funded; aid
recovery of Town costs stemming from State and/or Federal mandates.
Town Council Legislative Committee
• The Legislative Committee shall consist of two members of the Town Council to be
appointed annually by the Mayor, supported by appropriate Town staff.
• The committee shall meet as frequently as monthly to review and discuss the Town’s
legislative platform and pending/possible legislation.
• The committee shall develop positions on pending or possible legislation and make
recommendations for consideration by the Town Council. Recommendations will be
based upon a determination of potential legislative impacts upon the Town and its
residents. Potential positions to be considered include:
o Support: Legislation that the Town should support as drafted
o Support if Amended: that the Town should support if the author accepts
amendments proposed or supported by the Town
o Oppose: Legislation that the Town should oppose as drafted
o Oppose unless amended: Legislation the Town should oppose unless amended
o Watch: Town will take no formal position but will watch the Legislation and
consider taking a position as the legislative process progresses
4 February, 2021
• Once a determination has been made that a legislative proposal may impact the Town by
the Legislative Committee, a letter outlining the Town’s position will be drafted for the
Mayor’s or Town Manager’s signature.
• Legislative Proposals may sometimes advance or change rapidly. Should the need to
respond to such a proposal arise prior to an opportunity for either the Legislative
Committee or Town Council to meet to consider the matter, then the Town Manager is
authorized to act expeditiously to respond via letter, in a manner that is consistent with
the goals and principles contained in the Framework. All such letters shall be transmitted
to the Town Council, and posted on the Legislative page of the Town website.
• The Committee shall make regular reports to the Town Council at duly noticed public
meetings.
• The Committee shall work collaboratively with Tri-Valley Cities of Dublin, Livermore,
Pleasanton and San Ramon to further the Tri-Valley Legislative Framework.
Strategic Documents
The following documents are available on the Town’s website at www.danville.ca.gov
• Town Vision and Mission Statements
• Town of Danville General Plan 2030
• Town of Danville Adopted Budget and Capital Improvement Program
• Town of Danville Recreation, Arts & Community Services Master Plan
• Town of Danville Climate Action Plan
The Legislative Framework will be reviewed annually by the Town Council. Day to day
oversight of legislative matters is the responsibility of the Town Manager’s Office, consistent
with this Legislative Framework and policy set by the Town Council.