HomeMy WebLinkAbout053023-3.1
LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE MEMORANDUM 3.1
TO: Mayor and Town Council May 30, 2023
SUBJECT: May 2023 Legislative Report
BACKGROUND
On May 12, Governor Newsom released his revised budget proposal for the 2023-2024
fiscal year. The “May Revise” edition of the budget framework reflects revised revenues
and expenditure estimates based on actual tax receipts and allows the Administration
and the Legislature to reconcile and reconfigure spending plans to reflect priorities and
economic realities. The overarching theme of the Governor’s May Revise presentation
was “preparing for uncertainty” due to federal debt ceiling standoff, delayed tax receipts
due to disastrous weather events, and extreme fluctuations in the markets which have
reduced tax revenue from capital gains. In total, the May spending plan includes $224
billion in General Fund spending with a projected $31.5 billion budget shortfall. The May
Revise budget shortfall reflects an approximate $9 billion increase from the January
budget.
During the month of May, the Legislature continued its work on fiscal legislation ahead
of the May 19 deadline for the Appropriation Committees to refer bills to the Floor. At
the start of the 2023 Session, 2,661 bills were introduced. Of those, about 75% are keyed
“fiscal” by the Office of Legislative Counsel. Bills that successfully passed through the
Appropriations Committee will have until June 2, the last day for bills to pass to the
second house, to be heard and passed by the Assembly and Senate Floors.
DISCUSSION
The Town’s Legislative Committee follows priority legislation as identified through the
Tri-Valley Cities coalition and the Danville Town Council based upon the Town’s
legislative framework. The bills and positions that are a priority for the Tri-Valley
coalition are discussed in the second half of this report.
The following bills have been identified as having an impact on Danville.
May Legislative Update 2 May 30, 2023
AB 965 (Carrillo) Local government: broadband permit applications.
This bill would require a local agency to undertake batch broadband permit processing
upon receiving two or more broadband permit applications for substantially similar
broadband project sites submitted at the same time by the same applicant. Batch
broadband permit processing shall be completed within a presumptively reasonable time
for wireless broadband projects subject to applicable law unless a longer period of time
is permitted under the circumstances pursuant to applicable law, as specified. This bill
passed on the Assembly Floor with a 76:0:4 vote.
Recommended Position: Oppose
AB 1065 (Patterson) Communications: California Advanced Services Fund.
This bill expressly authorize otherwise eligible wireless broadband service providers to
apply for and receive funding from the Broadband Infrastructure Grant Account and
Federal Funding Account. This bill passed out of Appropriations on a 15:0:1 vote.
Recommended Position: Oppose
AB 1290 (Rivas) Product safety: plastic packaging: substances.
This bill would prohibit, beginning January 1, 2026, a person from manufacturing, selling,
offering for sale, or distributing in the state, (1) opaque or pigmented polyethylene
terephthalate bottles, and (2) plastic packaging that contains certain chemicals, pigments,
or additives, as specified. The bill would exclude from that prohibition packaging used
for certain medical, drug, and federally regulated products. The bill would authorize the
imposition of a civil penalty for a violation of that prohibition, as specified. This bill passed
out of Appropriation on a 12:4:0 vote.
Recommended Position: Support
Tri-Valley Cities Coalition
On May 1, the Tri-Valley Cities Coalition met to discuss bills that have been identified as
priority legislation to track during the 2023 Legislative Session. The TVC Coalition
adopting positions on the following bills:
AB 234 (Bauer-Kahan) Microparticles.
This bill would prohibit a synthetic polymer microparticle from being placed on the
market in this state as a substance on its own or, where the synthetic polymer
microparticles are present to confer a sought-after characteristic, in mixtures in a
concentration equal to or greater than 0.01% by weight. This bill was pulled at the request of
the author and is marked as a 2-year bill. (Climate, Environment, Health & Safety)
TVC Position: Support
AB 478 (Connolly) Wildfires: insurance.
This bill would limit an increase in the yearly premium, of insureds 65 years of age or
older, for a policy of residential property insurance by no more than 25% for the insured
property located in a high or very high fire hazard severity zone. Additionally, only one
previous increase in a 5-year period would be allowed. This bill also prohibits an insurer
May Legislative Update 3 May 30, 2023
form cancelling or refusing to renew a policy of residential property insurance based
solely on the fact that the insured property is located in a high or very high fire hazard
severity zone, if the insured is 65 years of age or older. This bill was pulled at the request of
the author and is considered dead for the remainder of the session. (Climate, Environment,
Health & Safety)
TVC Position: Support with Amendments
AB 894 (Friedman) Parking requirements: shared parking.
This bill would require a public agency to allow existing land uses with underutilized
parking to share underutilized parking with the public, a private entity, a public agency,
or other users. Furthermore, this bill would require a public agency to allow shared
parking to be counted toward meeting automobile parking requirements for a new or
existing development or use, when the parking spaces meet specified conditions
regarding the distance of the spaces from the applicable site. This bill passed on the
Assembly Floor with a 62:10:8 vote. (Affordable Housing and Homelessness,
Transportation and Infrastructure)
TVC Position: Oppose unless Amended
ACA 1 (Aguiar-Curry) Local government financing: affordable housing and public
infrastructure: voter approval.
This measure would authorize a local government to impose, extend, or increase a sales
and use tax or transactions and use tax imposed for the purposes of funding the
construction, rehabilitation, or replacement of public infrastructure, affordable housing,
or permanent supportive housing if the proposition proposing that tax is approved by
55% of its voters voting on the proposition and the proposition includes specified
accountability requirements. (Affordable Housing and Homelessness, Transportation
and Infrastructure)
TVC Position: Support
SB 43 (Eggman) Behavioral Health
This bill would expand the definition of “gravely disabled,” for purposes of involuntarily
detaining an individual, to include a condition in which a person, as a result of a mental
health disorder or a substance use disorder, or both, is at substantial risk of serious harm
or is currently experiencing serious harm to their physical or mental health. The bill
defines “serious harm” for purposes of these provisions to mean significant deterioration,
debilitation, or illness due to a person’s failure to meet certain conditions, including,
among other things, attend to needed personal or medical care and attend to self-
protection or personal safety. This bill passed out of Appropriations on a 7:0 vote. (Mental
Health)
TVC Position: Support
May Legislative Update 4 May 30, 2023
SB 423 (Wiener) Land use: streamlined housing approvals: multifamily housing
developments.
This bill would modify provisions of SB 35 (Wiener) by extending the operation of the
streamline, ministerial approval process to January 1, 2036. This bill would also make
specified revisions to provisions including eliminating the authorization for a local
government’s planning commission to conduct public oversight of a development and
would only authorize design review. This bill passed out of Appropriations on a 5:0:2 vote.
(Affordable Housing and Homelessness)
TVC Position: Oppose unless Amended
SB 569 (Glazer) Taxation: renter’s credit.
This bill, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2023, and before January 1,
2028, would require the Franchise Tax Board to annually recompute for inflation the
above-mentioned credit amounts, as provided. The bill, for credits allowable for taxable
years beginning on or after January 1, 2023, and before January 1, 2028, would provide
that the credit amount in excess of the qualified renter’s liability would be refundable and
paid from the Tax Relief and Refund Account to the qualified renter upon appropriation
by the Legislature. This bill passed out of Appropriations on a 7:0:0 vote. (Economic
Development)
TVC Position: Support
SB 746 (Eggman) Energy conservation contracts: alternate energy equipment:
hydrogen.
This bill would expand existing law to authorize a public agency to enter into an energy
service contract for the sale of hydrogen. This bill passed on the Senate Floor with a 40:0:0
vote. (Economic Development, Transportation and Infrastructure)
TVC Position: Support
Additional Advocacy Efforts
The Tri-Valley Cities Council met on Wednesday, May 24. Agenda items included a
legislative update from Townsend Public Affairs and the League of California Cities, and
along with a presentation from the Alameda County Fair Foundation on “The Farm”, a
working exhibition farm project.
May Legislative Update 5 May 30, 2023
CONCLUSION
Accept this report and direct any questions and/or direction to Town legislative staff.
Prepared by:
Cat Bravo
Management Analyst
Reviewed by:
Joseph Calabrigo
Town Manager
Attachment A – Bill Summary and Analysis Packet
Attachment B – TVC Letter of Support ACA 1 (Aguiar-Curry)
Attachment C – TVC Letter of Support SB 43 (Eggman)
Attachment D – TVC Letter of Support SB 569 (Glazer)
Attachment E – TVC Letter of Support SB 746 (Eggman)
AB 965
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 965 (Juan Carrillo)
As Amended May 1, 2023
Majority vote
SUMMARY
Requires local agencies to undertake batch broadband permit processing.
Major Provisions
1)Requires a local agency to undertake batch broadband permit processing upon receiving two
or more broadband permit applications for substantially similar broadband project sites
submitted at the same time by the same applicant. Batch broadband permit processing shall
be completed within a presumptively reasonable time for wireless broadband projects subject
to applicable law unless a longer period of time is permitted under the circumstances
pursuant to applicable law, as specified.
2)Requires, if a local agency does not approve or reject broadband permit applications for
substantially similar wireless broadband project sites submitted for batch broadband permit
processing and issue permits within the presumptively reasonable time, all of the permits to
be deemed approved.
3)Allows a local agency to place reasonable limits on the number of broadband project sites
that are grouped into a single permit while undertaking batch broadband permit processing,
and provides that a reasonable limit shall be no less than 50 project sites, as specified.
4)Provides the following definitions:
a)"Batch broadband permit processing" means the simultaneous processing of multiple
broadband permit applications for substantially similar broadband project sites under a
single permit.
b)"Broadband permit application" means an application or other documents submitted for
review by a local agency to permit the construction of a broadband project, as specified.
c)"Broadband project" means the proposed facility, including the support structure and any
supporting equipment necessary for operation of the proposed facility. A broadband
project may be comprised of one or more components, including, but not limited to, a
wireless facility, a fiber optic connection, and other supporting equipment, each of which
may require separate permits or authorizations by a local agency.
d)"Local agency" means a city, county, city and county, charter city, special district, or
publicly owned utility (POU), as specified.
"Presumptively reasonable time" means the timeframe that a local agency must review and
resolve an application pursuant to applicable law following submission of a complete
broadband permit application.
e)"Substantially similar broadband project sites" means broadband project sites that are
nearly identical in terms of equipment and general design, but not location.
ATTACHMENT A
AB 965
Page 2
COMMENTS
The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) provides review periods for individual applications for
personal wireless service facilities. The following are the presumptively reasonable periods of
time for action on applications seeking authorization for deployments in the following
categories:
1)Review of an application to collocate a small wireless facility using an existing structure: 60
days.
2)Review of an application to collocate a facility other than a small wireless facility using an
existing structure: 90 days.
3)Review of an application to deploy a small wireless facility using a new structure: 90 days.
4)Review of an application to deploy a facility other than a small wireless facility using a new
structure: 150 days.
The CFR also provides requirements for batching, as follows:
1)If a single application seeks authorization for multiple deployments, all of which fall within
the "small wireless facility" categories, then the presumptively reasonable period of time for
the application as a whole is equal to that for a single deployment within that category.
2)If a single application seeks authorization for multiple deployments, the components of
which are a mix of deployments that fall within the "small wireless facility" categories (both
collocated on an existing structure and deploying using a new structure), then the
presumptively reasonable period of time for the application as a whole is 90 days.
The CFR provides that siting authorities may not refuse to accept batched applications for small
wireless facilities.
The State of California's Local Permitting Playbook, released in August of 2022, was created by
the California Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development, the California
Department of Technology, the California Public Utilities Commission, and the California
Emerging Technology Fund. It states, "The California Local Permitting Playbook offers
strategies designed to enable communities to prepare for broadband investment – recognizing
that an unprecedented amount of state and federal funding has been allocated to expanding
broadband infrastructure in California, and that local government permitting and planning staffs
have varying degrees of experience with and knowledge of broadband deployment."
The playbook also notes, "These approaches are not all appropriate for all communities – nor
would any given community be likely to adopt every practice described here. Rather, the
playbook presents a set of options a local government can evaluate in light of its public policy
priorities, its community's unique circumstances, and its residents' needs…The strategies and
smart practices presented in this playbook are intended to enable localities to receive value in
return for the efforts they make to enable a broadband deployer's efforts. That value may be
financial (such as a lease payment in return for access to a city's fiber network) or it may be less
tangible (such as a commitment by the partner to deliver broadband service to low-income
residents in return for access to a city's excess conduit). Either way, the locality will facilitate
AB 965
Page 3
broadband deployment in partnership with the deployer; the relationship should not favor the
deployer over the public interest."
Among many "smart practices" outlined in the Playbook is "developing a batch permitting
process." The Playbook notes, "For localities anticipating large broadband-related projects that
will require extensive but potentially repetitive permit applications, batch permitting might allow
applicants to request a single permit that would cover a project typically subject to multiple
permit applications. As with some of the other strategies presented here, a batch permitting
process might reduce the permit application caseload, decrease the permit processing timeline,
and improve a broadband deployer's timeline.
"The City of Long Beach, for example, developed a bulk permitting process in 2020 for small
cell wireless facilities that allows up to 10 sites to be grouped under a single permit. Applicants
must negotiate specifications before submitting the application, and sites must all be either Tier
A (commercial arterial) or Tier B (residential roads). This enhanced permitting process has
improved the City's timeline while still protecting local interests (e.g., distinguishing between
siting locations proposed on commercial arteries and residential roads)."
Please refer to policy committee analyses of this bill for additional background and comments.
According to the Author
AB 965 will accelerate broadband deployment and help close our state's digital divide while
retaining local control. The bill simply requires local jurisdictions to make a decision on a group
of broadband permits in a reasonable amount of time – they can approve, reject or extend the
amount of time needed for review. Broadband permit batching is an industry best practice used
by local jurisdictions, state government and the private sector to streamline and expedite the
deployment of broadband infrastructure so local communities can more quickly get connected to
high-speed internet and telecommunications services. When a broadband project in a community
involves dozens of nearly identical permits for a variety of locations, the permits are submitted
and processed at the same time as one large group concurrently through various city departments
instead of individually. The state of California is currently pursuing this technique in its
deployment of the Middle Mile Broadband Initiative.
This bill will ensure Californians will quickly benefit from high-speed internet projects by
allowing broadband installers to submit their nearly identical broadband project applications at
the same time and local governments to process this batch of permits together within existing
shotclocks. Processing several substantially similar broadband permit applications at the same
time will allow local governments to still receive permit fees, but staff can more easily process
routine, high-volume broadband permits as a group instead of individually to help bridge the
digital divide and more quickly connect communities to high-speed internet. This will allow the
state to meet the federal broadband funding deadline of December 31, 2024 while creating
greater broadband equity amongst communities so more individuals can have access to high-
speed internet access for emergency response, remote work, telehealth, education and commerce.
A recent report conducted by the Bay Area Council Economic Institute found that 75% of
California voters support statewide streamlining of broadband projects, while 70% support
requiring all local governments to follow a uniform state mandated review process for broadband
projects.
AB 965
Page 4
Arguments in Support
A large coalition of supporters write, "This bill ensures Californians will more quickly benefit
from high-speed internet access, a vital resource essential for the public's safety, health, and
economic resilience. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the severe need to expand broadband
access across California. The pandemic dramatically changed our state's economic, educational,
and business landscape. Californians' enhanced reliance on remote work, telehealth, and virtual
learning demonstrate the need for legislation to accelerate the deployment of broadband
infrastructure. Currently, local jurisdictions' permitting processes can severely delay broadband
projects. These delays stifle economic growth and connectivity in our local communities.
"In California, each local jurisdiction has its own broadband permitting process and timeline.
Some use the industry best practice of permit batching, master-permitting, programmatic-
permitting or term-permitting, which allow large volumes of substantially similar broadband
permits to be processed and approved within an expedited timeframe. Notably, California's
Middle Mile broadband project is utilizing this approach.
"There are currently over 1,000 broadband permits pending with local jurisdictions in California
that would improve internet connectivity for millions. Even though many of these permits are
nearly identical other than the location, some local jurisdictions process each one of them
individually, which can take years, instead of months, delaying broadband deployment. Another
reason for delay is the local jurisdiction will move the permit through multiple municipal
departments exacerbating an already bureaucratic process.
"AB 965 would require local jurisdictions to process groups of substantially similar broadband
permits at the same time in an efficient manner. Permit fees would still be received by local
governments, but staff would be able to more easily process routine, high-volume broadband
permits as a group, instead of individually to help rapidly bridge the digital divide. We support
AB 965 because it will allow broadband project permits to move forward as quickly and
efficiently as possible. In doing so, the bill will expand high-speed internet access to millions of
Californians."
Arguments in Opposition
The California State Association of Counties, the Rural County Representatives of California,
and the League of California Cities, with an "oppose, unless amended position" state, "The FCC
batching requirements, while not limited in number, are limited to "small wireless facilities." AB
965 would apply more broadly to all broadband permitting which vastly expands the universe of
projects. This bill requires a local jurisdiction to allow batching of no less than 50 broadband
permits into a single application. Although it requires those 50 or more projects to be 'nearly
identical in terms of equipment and general design,' variables such as terrain, geographic location
and size of project can make evaluation needs from application to application very different. For
instance, laying five miles of fiber optic cable through the valley floor is different than installing
30 miles to fiber through granite laden foothills.
"The FCC shot clocks for individual or batched applications include tolling of the time period if
necessary. A local agency may demonstrate that more time is needed to process the application,
as outlined in the deemed approved statute found in Government Code 65964.1. This section of
law shifts the onus onto local agencies to seek judicial review and affirmatively demonstrates the
need for more time, but does preserve a local government's ability to do so. AB 965 removes
these protections.
AB 965
Page 5
"Language included in Section 65964.3(f) of the bill states that AB 965 does not preclude a local
agency from requiring compliance with 'generally applicable health and safety requirements.'
Yet, the same subdivision then requires a local agency to issue a written finding that the facility
proposed in the broadband permit application would have a specific adverse impact on public
health and safety in order to enforce applicable health and safety requirements. This provision
applies to all applications, including for facilities in the public right-of-way, creating potentially
hazardous conditions on roadways, pedestrian walkways, surrounding buildings and to the
general public.
"Local governments are committed to providing robust internet access to our communities and
have worked collaboratively in the past with industry partners to improve our processes while
maintaining important local safeguards…We appreciate the amendments the author took in
policy committee narrowing the applicability of the shot clock provisions to only wireless
facilities, however we continue to be gravely concerned for the reasons outlined herein and
respectfully urge your 'No' vote."
FISCAL COMMENTS
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, this bill entails no direct state costs
because local agencies each have the ability to impose fees on permit applicants to cover the
local costs to implement this bill.
VOTES
ASM COMMUNICATIONS AND CONVEYANCE: 13-0-0
YES: Boerner Horvath, Jim Patterson, Connolly, Davies, Holden, Hoover, Low, Maienschein,
Papan, Luz Rivas, Rodriguez, Schiavo, Weber
ASM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: 8-0-0
YES: Aguiar-Curry, Dixon, Boerner, Pacheco, Ramos, Robert Rivas, Waldron, Wilson
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 16-0-0
YES: Holden, Megan Dahle, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Dixon, Mike Fong, Hart,
Lowenthal, Mathis, Papan, Pellerin, Robert Rivas, Sanchez, Weber, Ortega
UPDATED
VERSION: May 1, 2023
CONSULTANT: Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958 FN: 0000426
AB 1065
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1065 (Jim Patterson)
As Amended May 18, 2023
Majority vote
SUMMARY
This bill would expressly authorize an otherwise eligible wireless broadband service provider to
apply for and receive funding from two accounts of the California Advanced Services Fund
(CASF) program, as provided.
Major Provisions
1) Expressly provides that an otherwise eligible wireless broadband service provider may apply
for and receive funding from the Broadband Infrastructure Grant Account (IGA) and Federal
Funding Account (FFA). The IGA and FFA are two separate subaccounts of the CASF
program.
2) Clarifies that receiving funds from either account is at the discretion of the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC).
COMMENTS
1) The CASF program has two subaccounts focused on broadband infrastructure. The CASF
Broadband Infrastructure Grant Account (IGA) and the Federal Funding Account (FFA) both
provide grants to fund broadband infrastructure. However, the IGA and FFA are distinct
funds and grant programs with different funding sources, statutory requirements and program
goals as summarized below.
The IGA, which existed since the inception of the CASF, is funded through state surcharges
collected by the CPUC on telephone bills. The goal of the IGA is to provide broadband
access to 98% of households in each consortia region by December 31, 2032. In the 2022-
2023 budget year the CPUC allocated about $25-million for the IGA.
The FFA, on the other hand, is a recently created account. The FFA was established in 2021
pursuant to SB 156 (Budget and Fiscal Review Committee), Chapter 112, Statutes of 2021.
Pursuant to that legislation and the companion budget agreement, the FFA received $2 billion
over three fiscal years, starting in 2021-22, to fund grants for last-mile broadband
infrastructure projects. Pursuant to state law under SB 156, the FFA must be spent
corresponding with federal rules and requirements. For example, federal guidelines require
FFA funds to be encumbered by December 31, 2024 and spent by December 31, 2026.
Notably, SB 156 set a state requirement to encumber the funds by June 30, 2023 to ensure
the funds are used by the final federal deadline. Besides a strict spending timeline, the federal
government also provides guidance on use of the funds regarding eligible projects and
affordability requirements.
2) CPUC Has Adopted Inconsistent CASF Rules for Wireless Projects. The CPUC has adopted
different program rules to govern both the IGA and the FFA, although at their essence both
programs have the same purpose of encouraging the deployment of broadband infrastructure
in unserved areas of the state. For example, under IGA rules a wireless project would be
eligible for funding provided that the proposed system otherwise meets the performance
AB 1065
Page 2
standards adopted by the commission. However, under the FFA rules wireless projects are
categorically ineligible to be considered for funding, regardless if that projects otherwise
meets the performance criteria adopted in the rules. Notably the funding differential between
both programs is also stark – the IGA has budgeted about $25-million for projects but the
FFA has budgeted $2-billion. This bill would expressly authorize wireless project eligibility
for both funds.
In public statements made to the Assembly Communications & Conveyance Committee, the
CPUC has defended their reasoning for excluding wireless projects from the FFA. The
CPUC's rationale is that most funding should be reserved for superior technologies. For
example, projects using fiber optic cables, which reliably provide greater speed capabilities
and are much more likely to meet a user's technological needs in the long run. On the other
hand, wireless technologies are the quickest projects to deploy and are much less expensive
to build than projects that require direct physical connections to a premises. Indeed there are
tradeoffs among different types of technologies: capabilities, time to deployment, cost - and
the CPUC ought to exercise discretion when evaluating potential applicants. However,
because the CPUC's rules for the FFA categorically exclude wireless technology, potentially
worthy projects using wireless technologies cannot be considered. Ultimately, a technology-
inclusive approach that allows any technology that is otherwise capable of meeting the
CPUC's performance criteria to compete for funding is most likely to meet the state's
broadband goals. Towards that end, this bill would make it explicitly clear that those types of
projects are eligible for IGA and FFA funds.
According to the Author
"AB 1065 will allow for the greatest number of Californians to have access to the internet and
other communication services at the lowest possible cost."
Arguments in Support
Supporters of this bill, Cal.net, Inc., argue that many large sections of the state would not be
served well by limiting the means by which they receive communication services. In many of
these cases, fixed wireless can easily meet the needs of the community and far exceed the
minimum performance requirements of the grant programs, but at a much lower cost of
implementation and at a much accelerated construction period.
Arguments in Opposition
The Utility Reform Network (TURN), a consumer advocacy organization, opposes this bill
because they claim it seeks to expand eligibility to projects that deploy unreliable and inadequate
broadband service. TURN claims that fixed wireless projects suffer from established
engineering-capacity limits and are unreliable because they are easily impaired by weather.
TURN argues that public investments in subpar technologies will only further exacerbate
unequal access to broadband.
FISCAL COMMENTS
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:
1) No direct state cost.
2) Cost pressure because the bill expands the types of entities that might receive a CASF
grant (wireless projects).
AB 1065
Page 3
VOTES
ASM COMMUNICATIONS AND CONVEYANCE: 12-0-1
YES: Boerner Horvath, Jim Patterson, Davies, Garcia, Holden, Hoover, Low, Maienschein,
Papan, Luz Rivas, Rodriguez, Weber
ABS, ABST OR NV: Bonta
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-1
YES: Holden, Megan Dahle, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Dixon, Mike Fong, Hart,
Lowenthal, Mathis, Papan, Pellerin, Sanchez, Weber, Ortega
ABS, ABST OR NV: Robert Rivas
UPDATED
VERSION: May 18, 2023
CONSULTANT: Emilio Perez / C. & C. / (916) 319-2637 FN: 0000959
AB 1290
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1290 (Luz Rivas)
As Amended March 21, 2023
Majority vote
SUMMARY
Bans specified toxic and nonrecyclable plastics and plastic additives on and after January 1,
2026.
Major Provisions
Specifically, this bill:
1) Beginning January 1, 2026, with specified exemptions, prohibits the manufacture, sale, offer
for sale, or distribution of:
a) Opaque or pigmented polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles.
b) Plastic packaging that contains any of the following: nondetectable pigments, oxo-
degradable additives, regulated perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS),
polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and polyvinylidene chloride (PVCD).
c) Rigid plastic packaging containers containing polyethylene terephthalate glycol (PETG).
2) Authorizes a city, county, or the state to impose civil liability in the amount of $500 for the
first violation, $1,000 for the second violation, and $2,000 for any subsequent violations.
Requires that any penalties collected be paid to the office of the city attorney, city prosecutor,
district attorney, or Attorney General (AG), whichever brought the action.
3) Provides that penalties collected by the AG may be expended, upon appropriation, to enforce
this bill's requirements, and that costs incurred by a state agency under this bill are
recoverable by the AG, as specified.
4) Specifies that remedies associated with this bill are not exclusive and are in addition to
remedies available under existing law.
COMMENTS
Plastic pollution. Plastic is everywhere. From the highest mountain on earth to the deepest parts
of the sea, plastic pollutes. Production has continued to increase rapidly over the last several
decades and far outpaces our capacity to manage it. In 1950, 2.3 million tons of plastic were
generated. By 2015, that had ballooned to 448 million metric tons. Half of all plastic ever created
was manufactured in the last 15 years. By 2050, production is expected to triple current
production and account for one-fifth of global oil production. Between 1950 and 2015,
approximately 9,500 million metric tons of plastic was generated. While the conversation around
plastic has generally focused on its end of life, plastic pollution starts with fossil fuel extraction,
and continues through manufacturing, transportation, usage, and finally disposal.
Some plastics and plastic additives pose health risks during their use. For example, additives
like bisphenols and PFAS in plastic can leach from packaging into food, drinks, and personal
AB 1290
Page 2
care products. Bisphenols, including BPA, BPS, and other forms like bisphenol F, are endocrine
disrupters that are associated with possible cancer and reproductive risks. PFAS, also known as
forever chemicals because they do not break down naturally, are widely used in food and product
packaging (both plastic and fiber) to make the containers stain, oil, heat, and water resistant.
According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), animal studies indicate that PFAS may
affect reproduction, thyroid function, immune response, liver damage, and raise kidney and
testicular cancer risks. Since 1999, the CDC has been testing for PFAS in blood samples and
found PFAS in the samples of nearly all people tested.
Plastic accounts for around 12% of California's disposed waste stream -- more than 4.5 million
tons. Recycling figures are harder to estimate, as California has only recently begun collecting
data from recycling facilities, but it appears that less than 15% of the plastic generated in
California is recycled.
An estimated eight million metric tons of plastic waste enters the world's oceans annually. By
2040, that number is expected to triple to 24 million metric tons. Ocean plastic pollution is
driven by ocean currents and accumulates in certain areas throughout the ocean. The North
Pacific Central Gyre is the ultimate destination for much of the marine debris originating from
the California coast. However, plastic generated in California pollutes oceans across the globe,
as bales of plastic collected for recycling here are exported for processing and recycling. The
plastic with value is collected and recycled, and the rest is discarded or incinerated.
As plastic circulates in the environment, it breaks down into smaller particles, known as
microplastic. Microplastic refers to plastic particles that are less than 5 millimeters in length
(about the size of a sesame seed). They come from a variety of sources, including primary
microplastics, which are purposely manufactured for use in products, and pellets used for plastic
manufacturing, and secondary microplastics that are generated as larger plastic debris degrades
into smaller and smaller pieces over time. This fragmentation increases the surface area to
volume ratio, which facilitates adherence and transport of harmful organisms and chemicals. As
they are ingested by animals, they bioaccumulate in the food web.
Microplastics have become ubiquitous in the environment. They are floating in outdoor and
indoor air, even in areas far from any identifiable source. The particles are small enough to be
carried by wind currents. They make up a measurable component of household dust and, like
dust, are inhaled. They have been found in waterways and drinking water. Humans are
breathing and ingesting microplastics, but there is almost no research into their health impacts.
A recent research review conducted by the California State Policy Evidence Consortium
(CalSPEC) reports that microplastics have been found in human blood, breastmilk, liver, lung,
and placenta samples. Based on the review of the limited animal studies available, the report
concludes that "microplastics are suspected to promote deleterious human health impacts in the
reproductive and digestive systems… CalSPEC concludes that respiratory harms from
microplastics are also likely suspected."
Recycling plastic into new products is one way to reduce plastic pollution, as it keeps the
recycled plastic out of the environment and reduces our dependence on virgin resin. Recycling is
currently only feasible for some of the more common, and least toxic, forms of plastic. Many
forms of plastic, like those included in this bill, contain toxic and nonrecyclable resins and
additives that make them difficult or impossible to recycle. The abundance and variety of the
types of plastic in our recycling system make it difficult to sort, and high contamination rates in
AB 1290
Page 3
bales of recycled plastic have caused many countries to stop accepting recycled plastic from the
United States unless it meets stringent contamination rates.
Problematic and unnecessary materials. The United States (U.S.) Plastics Pact (Pact) is a
consortium founded by The Recycling Partnership and World Wildlife Fund that is intended to
connect public and private stakeholders to create a pathway to a circular economy for plastic in
the United States by "eliminating plastics we don't need, innovating to ensure that the plastics we
do need are reusable, recyclable, or compostable, and circulating all the plastic items we use to
keep them in the economy and out of the environment." The Pact's advisory council includes
representatives from environmental organizations, recyclers, local and state governments, and
industry, and its "activators" (members) include an even broader range of more than 100
stakeholders with expertise and experience in the production and management of plastic.
The Pact identified 11 "problematic and unnecessary" plastic packaging items, resins, and
additives that it works with its activators to eliminate by 2025. The Pact defines "problematic
and unnecessary" as:
Plastic packaging items, components, or materials where consumption could be avoided
through elimination, reuse, or replacement, and items that, post-consumption, commonly do
not enter the recycling and/or composting systems, or where they do, are detrimental to the
recycling or composting system due to their format, composition, or size.
The list includes cutlery, intentionally added PFAS, non-detectable pigments such as carbon
black, opaque or pigmented PET (any color other than transparent blue or green), oxo-
degradable additives, PETG in rigid packaging, problematic label constructions, polystyrene
(including expanded polystyrene), PVC (including PVCD), stirrers, and straws.
SB 54 (Allen) Chapter 75, Statutes of 2022. SB 54 establishes sweeping new minimum recycling
requirements for single-use plastic packaging and food service ware (covered material), source
reduction requirements for plastic covered material, and prohibits the sale or distribution of
expanded polystyrene unless it meets accelerated recycling rates. SB 54 requires producers to
comply with the bill's requirements through an expanded producer responsibility program. This
bill additionally requires producers, through the producer responsibility organization, to pay
$500 million per year for ten years (from 2027 to 2037) to be deposited into the California
Plastic Pollution Mitigation Fund, which is established to fund various environmental and public
health programs.
This bill. This bill phases out a subset of the materials identified by the Pact as problematic and
unnecessary that are the most toxic or pose the greatest challenges to recycling systems,
specifically: opaque or pigmented PET bottles, which are a contaminant in the recycling stream;
nondetectable pigments in packaging, which are pigments that cannot be detected by sorting
systems in recycling operations and contaminate the recycling stream; oxo-degradable additives
in packaging, which contribute to the proliferation of microplastics and contaminate both
compost and recycling streams; PFAS in packaging, which poses health and environmental risks
and act as contaminants in compost and recycling streams; PVC and PVCD in packaging, which
are made from vinyl chloride, a known carcinogen, and are generally not recycled; and, rigid
plastic packaging containing PETG, which is a contaminant in recycling streams.
Like SB 54, this bill applies to packaging materials, and the resins included in this bill are also
subject to the requirements of that bill. Many of the materials included by this bill are the very
AB 1290
Page 4
materials that will hinder compliance with SB 54, and removing them from packaging should
ease SB 54 compliance. Given the challenges that these materials pose to recycling systems, it is
likely that most would be phased out under the SB 54 program eventually but the timeline for SB
54 implementation is lengthy. The program won't be fully implemented until 2032.
Additionally, SB 54 does not regulate the use of toxic components like PFAS and PVC. SB 54 is
a groundbreaking law that creates a long-term plan to create a circular economy for packaging
waste, but it is not clear that Californians should not have to wait a decade for toxic and
problematic plastics to be removed from the packaging they use. This bill takes near-term action
to address materials and additives that pose the most significant environmental and health
impacts.
According to the Author
The U.S. Plastics Pact, a group of over 100 industry stakeholders, including Target, The
Coca-Cola Company, and Walmart identified numerous unnecessary plastic packaging
materials and additives. They deemed these materials and additives could be avoided through
elimination, reusables or replacement, and commonly do not enter the recycling and/or
composting systems, or where they do, are detrimental to the recycling or composting system
due to their format, composition, or size. Many of these materials and additives pose serious
threats to human and environmental health. While SB 54 develops a long-term plan to
address the plastic pollution crisis, California should take immediate action to align with the
U.S. Plastic Pact's thoroughly researched goal to eliminate these problematic plastic materials
and additives as quickly as possible. This will also make it easier for the state to meet its SB
54 goals. AB 1290 will prohibit the sale of the certain plastic packaging materials and
additives by January 1, 2026 to protect public health and facilitate greater levels of effective
and affordable recycling.
Arguments in Support
A coalition of organizations in support state:
The Plastic Pact "Activators," which include some of the largest corporations in the country
such as Mondelez, The Coca-Cola Company, and Walmart, set a goal to eliminate these
materials and additives by 2025. The US Plastics Pact is not the only one to take aim at these
problematic plastics. The UK, France, South Africa, Kenya, and Portugal Plastics Pacts, as
well as major brands like Nestle and Tesco, have also targeted these problematic plastics for
elimination, some on even faster timelines… AB 1290 would eliminate these problematic
plastics, delivering both health and environmental benefits. It would also help the state meet
its ambitious recycling objectives pursuant to SB 54.
Arguments in Opposition
A coalition of organizations in opposition state:
The enactment of SB 54 [(Allen), Chapter 75,] Statutes of 2022 , along with SB 343 [(Allen)
Chapter 507,] Statutes of 2021 has resulted in arguably the most comprehensive and rigorous
single use packaging and plastics recycling and waste reduction requirements enacted
domestically and internationally… These new laws will require significant resources to
implement, both from the regulated community and CalRecycle. Given that the law was only
passed and signed into law in June 2022, and the development of implementing regulations
has only just begun, creating new packaging mandates as proposed in AB 1290 is
unnecessary and counterproductive… The Legislature should allow for SB 54 and SB 343 to
AB 1290
Page 5
be fully implemented before imposing new packaging requirements and/or restrictions on
producers.
FISCAL COMMENTS
The Department of Justice (DOJ) anticipates minor and absorbable costs as a result of this bill
but notes as numerous bills this session may result in no significant impact to DOJ, should an
aggregate of these bills become law, DOJ would need to request additional resources to process
the increase to its workload.
VOTES
ASM NATURAL RESOURCES: 8-3-0
YES: Luz Rivas, Addis, Friedman, Muratsuchi, Pellerin, Ward, Wood, Zbur
NO: Flora, Hoover, Mathis
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 12-4-0
YES: Holden, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Hart, Lowenthal, Papan, Pellerin,
Robert Rivas, Weber, Wilson
NO: Megan Dahle, Dixon, Mathis, Sanchez
UPDATED
VERSION: March 21, 2023
CONSULTANT: Elizabeth MacMillan / NAT. RES. / (916) 319-2092 FN: 0000300
AB 894
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 894 (Friedman)
As Amended April 20, 2023
Majority vote
SUMMARY
Requires public agencies to allow proposed and existing developments to count underutilized
and shared parking spaces toward a parking requirement imposed by the agency.
Major Provisions
1) Requires public agencies to allow entities with underutilized parking to share their
underutilized parking spaces with the public, other public agencies or other entities.
2) Requires public agencies to allow shared parking arrangements to be counted toward meeting
any automobile parking requirement for a new or existing development or use, including, but
not limited to, shared parking in underutilized spaces, and in parking lots and garages that
will be constructed as part of the development or developments under specified conditions.
3) Requires a public agency, private landowner, or lessor to examine the feasibility of shared
parking arrangements to replace new parking construction or limit the number of new
parking spaces that will be constructed in either of the following circumstances:
a) When state funds are being used on a proposed new development.
b) Before a parking structure or surface parking lot is developed using public funds.
COMMENTS
This bill requires public agencies to allow new and existing developments and uses to share
underutilized parking with nearby developments and uses, and count that parking toward those
entity's minimum automobile-parking requirements. This bill also allows new developments to
share parking in lots and garages that will be constructed. This bill requires public agencies to
use a specified parking analysis to determine the number of parking spaces that may be shared
and counted toward an entity's minimum automobile-parking requirement.
Cities and counties generally establish parking standards that capture various types of facilities
and uses. Parking standards are commonly indexed to conditions related to the building or
facility they are associated with. For example, shopping centers may have parking requirements
linked to total floor space, restaurants may be linked to the total number of seats, and hotels may
have parking spaces linked to the number of beds or rooms present at the facility.
In 2019, CARB staff reviewed over 200 municipal codes and found that, for nonresidential
construction, an average of at least one parking space is installed for every 275 square feet of
nonresidential building floor space. Accounting for the fact that approximately 60% of reviewed
municipal codes already allow developers to reduce parking by an average of 30%, CARB staff
estimated that between 1.4 million and 1.7 million new nonresidential parking spaces may be
constructed from 2021-2024.
AB 894
Page 2
Developing new parking spaces requires a significant dedication of land and resources. A typical
parking space measures from eight to 10 feet wide and 18-20 feet long. Off-street parking also
requires driveways and access lanes for circulation within the parking lot. As a result, off-street
parking typically requires 300 square feet (compact, urban off-street parking) to 400 square feet
(full-size, urban off-street parking) of land per parking space. This means that 100 to 150 parking
spaces requires one acre of land. In urban areas where land is expensive or unavailable, the cost
of constructing an aboveground or belowground parking structure is considerable. A 2018 report
by the United States Government Accountability Office found that urban affordable housing
projects in California and Arizona that include parking structures were associated with a per-unit
cost increase of about $56,000 per unit. A more recent study analyzed the regional parking
structure construction costs per parking space in major metropolitan areas. The study found that
the average cost of construction for a parking space in a parking structure is $26,653 in Los
Angeles and $30,316 in San Francisco.
According to the Author
"Currently, some jurisdictions either prohibit shared parking, allow shared parking only in
certain narrow circumstances, or make no clear accommodation to allow parking owners or
managers to share underutilized parking with other land uses. Many jurisdictions do allow shared
parking to count toward meeting public agency parking requirements.
"Without action, some public agencies will continue to require new parking spaces where
existing parking can be shared more effectively. Unnecessary parking consumes land and
resources that could be better used to support more housing, jobs, services, and open space. It
also encourages more single-occupant vehicle use which contradicts the legislature's climate and
equity goals."
Arguments in Support
San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association writes in support, "AB 894
responds to recent research on parking supply. Recent assessments have found a surprising
abundance of parking in the most populous California regions, even where there are perceptions
that parking is inadequate. A 2015 study of Los Angeles County parking found that there are
more than 1.5 parking spaces for every resident in the County, including children. SPUR
coordinated a 2022 Bay Area Parking Census which found 15 million parking spaces in the 9-
county area - 2.4 spaces for every car. What is often lacking is not parking, but rather tools and
regulations that allow existing parking to be shared more effectively."
Arguments in Opposition
The City of Eastvale writes in opposition, "Nothing in current law prohibits a local agency from
permitting shared parking agreements between business entities, public agencies, and developers.
Decisions like these should be left at the local level so that agreements can be crafted in a way that
reflects the unique characteristics of each community."
FISCAL COMMENTS
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, no state costs. Local costs are not
reimbursable by the state because local agencies have general authority to charge and adjust
planning and permitting fees to cover their administrative expenses associated with new planning
mandates.
AB 894
Page 3
VOTES
ASM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: 5-2-0
YES: Aguiar-Curry, Pacheco, Ramos, Robert Rivas, Wilson
NO: Dixon, Waldron
ASM HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 6-0-2
YES: Wicks, Wendy Carrillo, Gabriel, Kalra, Quirk-Silva, Ward
ABS, ABST OR NV: Joe Patterson, Sanchez
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 12-3-1
YES: Holden, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Hart, Lowenthal, Papan, Pellerin,
Robert Rivas, Weber, Ortega
NO: Megan Dahle, Dixon, Sanchez
ABS, ABST OR NV: Mathis
UPDATED
VERSION: April 20, 2023
CONSULTANT: Hank Brady / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958 FN: 0000406
california legislature—2023–24 regular session
Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 1
Introduced by Assembly Members Aguiar-Curry, Berman, and
Haney
(Principal coauthor: Senator Wiener)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Addis, Arambula, Grayson,
Robert Rivas, Santiago, Ward, and Wood)
December 5, 2022
Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 1—A resolution to propose
to the people of the State of California an amendment to the Constitution
of the State, by amending Sections 1 and 4 of Article XIII A thereof,
by amending Section 2 of, and by adding Section 2.5 to, Article XIII
C thereof, by amending Section 3 of Article XIII D thereof, and by
amending Section 18 of Article XVI thereof, relating to local finance.
legislative counsel’s digest
ACA 1, as introduced, Aguiar-Curry. Local government financing:
affordable housing and public infrastructure: voter approval.
(1) The California Constitution prohibits the ad valorem tax rate on
real property from exceeding 1% of the full cash value of the property,
subject to certain exceptions.
This measure would create an additional exception to the 1% limit
that would authorize a city, county, city and county, or special district
to levy an ad valorem tax to service bonded indebtedness incurred to
fund the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of
public infrastructure, affordable housing, or permanent supportive
housing, or the acquisition or lease of real property for those purposes,
if the proposition proposing that tax is approved by 55% of the voters
of the city, county, or city and county, as applicable, and the proposition
99
includes specified accountability requirements. The measure would
specify that these provisions apply to any city, county, city and county,
or special district measure imposing an ad valorem tax to pay the interest
and redemption charges on bonded indebtedness for these purposes that
is submitted at the same election as this measure.
(2) The California Constitution conditions the imposition of a special
tax by a local government upon the approval of 2⁄3 of the voters of the
local government voting on that tax, and prohibits these entities from
imposing an ad valorem tax on real property or a transactions or sales
tax on the sale of real property.
This measure would authorize a local government to impose, extend,
or increase a sales and use tax or transactions and use tax imposed in
accordance with specified law or a parcel tax, as defined, for the
purposes of funding the construction, rehabilitation, or replacement of
public infrastructure, affordable housing, or permanent supportive
housing if the proposition proposing that tax is approved by 55% of its
voters voting on the proposition and the proposition includes specified
accountability requirements. This measure would also make conforming
changes to related provisions. The measure would specify that these
provisions apply to any local measure imposing, extending, or increasing
a sales and use tax, transactions and use tax, or parcel tax for these
purposes that is submitted at the same election as this measure.
(3) The California Constitution prohibits specified local government
agencies from incurring any indebtedness exceeding in any year the
income and revenue provided in that year, without the assent of 2⁄3 of
the voters and subject to other conditions. In the case of a school district,
community college district, or county office of education, the California
Constitution permits a proposition for the incurrence of indebtedness
in the form of general obligation bonds for the construction,
reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of school facilities,
including the furnishing and equipping of school facilities, or the
acquisition or lease of real property for school facilities, to be adopted
upon the approval of 55% of the voters of the district or county, as
appropriate, voting on the proposition at an election.
This measure would expressly prohibit a special district, other than
a board of education or school district, from incurring any indebtedness
or liability exceeding any applicable statutory limit, as prescribed by
the statutes governing the special district. The measure would also
similarly require the approval of 55% of the voters of the city, county,
city and county, or special district, as applicable, to incur bonded
99
— 2 — ACA 1
indebtedness, exceeding in any year the income and revenue provided
in that year, that is in the form of general obligation bonds issued to
fund the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of
public infrastructure, affordable housing, or permanent supportive
housing projects, if the proposition proposing that bond includes
specified accountability requirements. The measure would specify that
this 55% threshold applies to any proposition for the incurrence of
indebtedness by a city, county, city and county, or special district for
these purposes that is submitted at the same election as this measure.
Vote: 2⁄3. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.
line 1 Resolved by the Assembly, the Senate concurring, That the
line 2 Legislature of the State of California at its 2023–24 Regular
line 3 Session commencing on the fifth day of December 2022, two-thirds
line 4 of the membership of each house concurring, hereby proposes to
line 5 the people of the State of California, that the Constitution of the
line 6 State be amended as follows:
line 7 First—That Section 1 of Article XIII A thereof is amended to
line 8 read:
line 9 SECTION 1. (a) The maximum amount of any ad valorem
line 10 tax on real property shall not exceed One 1 percent (1%) of the
line 11 full cash value of such that property. The one percent (1%) tax to
line 12 1 percent tax shall be collected by the counties and apportioned
line 13 according to law to the districts within the counties.
line 14 (b) The limitation provided for in subdivision (a) shall not apply
line 15 to ad valorem taxes or special assessments to pay the interest and
line 16 redemption charges on any of the following:
line 17 (1) Indebtedness approved by the voters prior to before July 1,
line 18 1978.
line 19 (2) Bonded indebtedness for to fund the acquisition or
line 20 improvement of real property approved on or after July 1, 1978,
line 21 by two-thirds of the votes cast by the voters voting on the
line 22 proposition.
line 23 (3) Bonded indebtedness incurred by a school district,
line 24 community college district, or county office of education for the
line 25 construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of
line 26 school facilities, including the furnishing and equipping of school
line 27 facilities, or the acquisition or lease of real property for school
line 28 facilities, approved by 55 percent of the voters of the district or
99
ACA 1 — 3 —
line 1 county, as appropriate, voting on the proposition on or after the
line 2 effective date of the measure adding this paragraph. November 8,
line 3 2000. This paragraph shall apply only if the proposition approved
line 4 by the voters and resulting in the bonded indebtedness includes
line 5 all of the following accountability requirements:
line 6 (A) A requirement that the proceeds from the sale of the bonds
line 7 be used only for the purposes specified in Article XIII A, Section
line 8 1(b)(3), this paragraph, and not for any other purpose, including
line 9 teacher and administrator salaries and other school operating
line 10 expenses.
line 11 (B) A list of the specific school facilities projects to be funded
line 12 and certification that the school district board, community college
line 13 board, or county office of education has evaluated safety, class
line 14 size reduction, and information technology needs in developing
line 15 that list.
line 16 (C) A requirement that the school district board, community
line 17 college board, or county office of education conduct an annual,
line 18 independent performance audit to ensure that the funds have been
line 19 expended only on the specific projects listed.
line 20 (D) A requirement that the school district board, community
line 21 college board, or county office of education conduct an annual,
line 22 independent financial audit of the proceeds from the sale of the
line 23 bonds until all of those proceeds have been expended for the school
line 24 facilities projects.
line 25 (4) (A) Bonded indebtedness incurred by a city, county, city
line 26 and county, or special district for the construction, reconstruction,
line 27 rehabilitation, or replacement of public infrastructure, affordable
line 28 housing, or permanent supportive housing for persons at risk of
line 29 chronic homelessness, including persons with mental illness, or
line 30 the acquisition or lease of real property for public infrastructure,
line 31 affordable housing, or permanent supportive housing for persons
line 32 at risk of chronic homelessness, including persons with mental
line 33 illness, approved by 55 percent of the voters of the city, county,
line 34 city and county, or special district, as appropriate, voting on the
line 35 proposition on or after the effective date of the measure adding
line 36 this paragraph. This paragraph shall apply only if the proposition
line 37 approved by the voters and resulting in the bonded indebtedness
line 38 includes all of the following accountability requirements:
line 39 (i) A requirement that the proceeds from the sale of the bonds
line 40 be used only for the purposes specified in this paragraph, and not
99
— 4 — ACA 1
line 1 for any other purpose, including city, county, city and county, or
line 2 special district employee salaries and other operating expenses.
line 3 (ii) A list of the specific projects to be funded, and a certification
line 4 that the city, county, city and county, or special district has
line 5 evaluated alternative funding sources.
line 6 (iii) A requirement that the city, county, city and county, or
line 7 special district conduct an annual, independent performance audit
line 8 to ensure that the funds have been expended only on the specific
line 9 projects listed.
line 10 (iv) A requirement that the city, county, city and county, or
line 11 special district conduct an annual, independent financial audit of
line 12 the proceeds from the sale of the bonds until all of those proceeds
line 13 have been expended for the public infrastructure or affordable
line 14 housing projects, as applicable.
line 15 (v) A requirement that the city, county, city and county, or
line 16 special district post the audits required by clauses (iii) and (iv) in
line 17 a manner that is easily accessible to the public.
line 18 (vi) A requirement that the city, county, city and county, or
line 19 special district appoint a citizens’ oversight committee to ensure
line 20 that bond proceeds are expended only for the purposes described
line 21 in the measure approved by the voters.
line 22 (B) For purposes of this paragraph:
line 23 (i) “Affordable housing” shall include housing developments,
line 24 or portions of housing developments, that provide workforce
line 25 housing affordable to households earning up to 150 percent of
line 26 countywide median income, and housing developments, or portions
line 27 of housing developments, that provide housing affordable to lower,
line 28 low-, or very low income households, as those terms are defined
line 29 in state law.
line 30 (ii) “At risk of chronic homelessness” includes, but is not limited
line 31 to, persons who are at high risk of long-term or intermittent
line 32 homelessness, including persons with mental illness exiting
line 33 institutionalized settings, including, but not limited to, jail and
line 34 mental health facilities, who were homeless prior to admission,
line 35 transition age youth experiencing homelessness or with significant
line 36 barriers to housing stability, and others, as defined in program
line 37 guidelines.
line 38 (iii) “Permanent supportive housing” means housing with no
line 39 limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the target population,
line 40 and that is linked to onsite or offsite services that assist residents
99
ACA 1 — 5 —
line 1 in retaining the housing, improving their health status, and
line 2 maximizing their ability to live and, when possible, work in the
line 3 community. “Permanent supportive housing” includes associated
line 4 facilities, if those facilities are used to provide services to housing
line 5 residents.
line 6 (iv) “Public infrastructure” shall include, but is not limited to,
line 7 projects that provide any of the following:
line 8 (I) Water or protect water quality.
line 9 (II) Sanitary sewer.
line 10 (III) Treatment of wastewater or reduction of pollution from
line 11 stormwater runoff.
line 12 (IV) Protection of property from impacts of sea level rise.
line 13 (V) Parks and recreation facilities.
line 14 (VI) Open space.
line 15 (VII) Improvements to transit and streets and highways.
line 16 (VIII) Flood control.
line 17 (IX) Broadband internet access service expansion in
line 18 underserved areas.
line 19 (X) Local hospital construction.
line 20 (XI) Public safety buildings or facilities, equipment related to
line 21 fire suppression, emergency response equipment, or interoperable
line 22 communications equipment for direct and exclusive use by fire,
line 23 emergency response, policy, or sheriff personnel.
line 24 (XII) Public library facilities.
line 25 (v) “Special district” has the same meaning as provided in
line 26 subdivision (c) of Section 1 of Article XIII C and specifically
line 27 includes a transit district, except that “special district” does not
line 28 include a school district, redevelopment agency, or successor
line 29 agency to a dissolved redevelopment agency.
line 30 (C) This paragraph shall apply to any city, county, city and
line 31 county, or special district measure imposing an ad valorem tax to
line 32 pay the interest and redemption charges on bonded indebtedness
line 33 for those purposes described in this paragraph that is submitted
line 34 at the same election as the measure adding this paragraph.
line 35 (c) (1) Notwithstanding any other provisions of law or of this
line 36 Constitution, a school districts, district, community college
line 37 districts, and district, or county offices office of education may
line 38 levy a 55 percent 55-percent vote ad valorem tax pursuant to
line 39 paragraph (3) of subdivision (b).
99
— 6 — ACA 1
line 1 (2) Notwithstanding any other provisions of law or this
line 2 Constitution, a city, county, city and county, or special district
line 3 may levy a 55-percent vote ad valorem tax pursuant to paragraph
line 4 (4) of subdivision (b).
line 5 Second—That Section 4 of Article XIII A thereof is amended
line 6 to read:
line 7 Section 4. Cities, Counties and special districts,
line 8 SEC. 4. Except as provided by Section 2.5 of Article XIII C, a
line 9 city, county, or special district, by a two-thirds vote of the qualified
line 10 electors of such district, its voters voting on the proposition, may
line 11 impose special taxes on such district, a special tax within that city,
line 12 county, or special district, except an ad valorem taxes tax on real
line 13 property or a transaction transactions tax or sales tax on the sale
line 14 of real property within such City, County that city, county, or
line 15 special district.
line 16 Third—That Section 2 of Article XIII C thereof is amended to
line 17 read:
line 18 SEC. 2. Local Government Tax Limitation. Notwithstanding
line 19 any other provision of this Constitution:
line 20 (a) All taxes Any tax imposed by any a local government shall
line 21 be deemed to be is either a general taxes tax or a special taxes.
line 22 Special purpose districts tax. A special district or agencies, agency,
line 23 including a school districts, shall have no power district, has no
line 24 authority to levy a general taxes. tax.
line 25 (b) No A local government may not impose, extend, or increase
line 26 any general tax unless and until that tax is submitted to the
line 27 electorate and approved by a majority vote. A general tax shall is
line 28 not be deemed to have been increased if it is imposed at a rate not
line 29 higher than the maximum rate so approved. The election required
line 30 by this subdivision shall be consolidated with a regularly scheduled
line 31 general election for members of the governing body of the local
line 32 government, except in cases of emergency declared by a unanimous
line 33 vote of the governing body.
line 34 (c) Any general tax imposed, extended, or increased, without
line 35 voter approval, by any local government on or after January 1,
line 36 1995, and prior to before the effective date of this article, shall
line 37 may continue to be imposed only if that general tax is approved
line 38 by a majority vote of the voters voting in an election on the issue
line 39 of the imposition, which election shall be held within two years
99
ACA 1 — 7 —
line 1 of the effective date of this article no later than November 6, 1996,
line 2 and in compliance with subdivision (b).
line 3 (d) No Except as provided by Section 2.5, a local government
line 4 may not impose, extend, or increase any special tax unless and
line 5 until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a
line 6 two-thirds vote. A special tax shall is not be deemed to have been
line 7 increased if it is imposed at a rate not higher than the maximum
line 8 rate so approved.
line 9 Fourth—That Section 2.5 is added to Article XIII C thereof, to
line 10 read:
line 11 SEC. 2.5. (a) The imposition, extension, or increase of a sales
line 12 and use tax imposed in accordance with the Bradley-Burns Uniform
line 13 Local Sales and Use Tax Law (Part 1.5 (commencing with Section
line 14 7200) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code) or a
line 15 successor law, a transactions and use tax imposed in accordance
line 16 with the Transactions and Use Tax Law (Part 1.6 (commencing
line 17 with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation
line 18 Code) or a successor law, or a parcel tax imposed by a local
line 19 government for the purpose of funding the construction,
line 20 reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of public
line 21 infrastructure, affordable housing, or permanent supportive housing
line 22 for persons at risk of chronic homelessness, including persons with
line 23 mental illness, or the acquisition or lease of real property for public
line 24 infrastructure, affordable housing, or permanent supportive housing
line 25 for persons at risk of chronic homelessness, including persons with
line 26 mental illness, is subject to approval by 55 percent of the voters
line 27 in the local government voting on the proposition, if both of the
line 28 following conditions are met:
line 29 (1) The proposition is approved by a majority vote of the
line 30 membership of the governing board of the local government.
line 31 (2) The proposition contains all of the following accountability
line 32 requirements:
line 33 (A) A requirement that the proceeds of the tax only be used for
line 34 the purposes specified in the proposition, and not for any other
line 35 purpose, including general employee salaries and other operating
line 36 expenses of the local government.
line 37 (B) A list of the specific projects that are to be funded by the
line 38 tax, and a certification that the local government has evaluated
line 39 alternative funding sources.
99
— 8 — ACA 1
line 1 (C) A requirement that the local government conduct an annual,
line 2 independent performance audit to ensure that the proceeds of the
line 3 special tax have been expended only on the specific projects listed
line 4 in the proposition.
line 5 (D) A requirement that the local government conduct an annual,
line 6 independent financial audit of the proceeds from the tax during
line 7 the lifetime of that tax.
line 8 (E) A requirement that the local government post the audits
line 9 required by subparagraphs (C) and (D) in a manner that is easily
line 10 accessible to the public.
line 11 (F) A requirement that the local government appoint a citizens’
line 12 oversight committee to ensure the proceeds of the special tax are
line 13 expended only for the purposes described in the measure approved
line 14 by the voters.
line 15 (b) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the
line 16 following meanings:
line 17 (1) “Affordable housing” shall include housing developments,
line 18 or portions of housing developments, that provide workforce
line 19 housing affordable to households earning up to 150 percent of
line 20 countywide median income, and housing developments, or portions
line 21 of housing developments, that provide housing affordable to lower,
line 22 low-, or very low income households, as those terms are defined
line 23 in state law.
line 24 (2) “At risk of chronic homelessness” includes, but is not limited
line 25 to, persons who are at high risk of long-term or intermittent
line 26 homelessness, including persons with mental illness exiting
line 27 institutionalized settings, including, but not limited to, jail and
line 28 mental health facilities, who were homeless prior to admission,
line 29 transition age youth experiencing homelessness or with significant
line 30 barriers to housing stability, and others, as defined in program
line 31 guidelines.
line 32 (3) “Permanent supportive housing” means housing with no
line 33 limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the target population,
line 34 and that is linked to onsite or offsite services that assist residents
line 35 in retaining the housing, improving their health status, and
line 36 maximizing their ability to live and, when possible, work in the
line 37 community. “Permanent supportive housing” includes associated
line 38 facilities, if those facilities are used to provide services to housing
line 39 residents.
99
ACA 1 — 9 —
line 1 (4) “Public infrastructure” shall include, but is not limited to,
line 2 the projects that provide any of the following:
line 3 (A) Water or protect water quality.
line 4 (B) Sanitary sewer.
line 5 (C) Treatment of wastewater or reduction of pollution from
line 6 stormwater runoff.
line 7 (D) Protection of property from impacts of sea level rise.
line 8 (E) Parks and recreation facilities.
line 9 (F) Open space.
line 10 (G) Improvements to transit and streets and highways.
line 11 (H) Flood control.
line 12 (I) Broadband internet access service expansion in underserved
line 13 areas.
line 14 (J) Local hospital construction.
line 15 (K) Public safety buildings or facilities, equipment related to
line 16 fire suppression, emergency response equipment, or interoperable
line 17 communications equipment for direct and exclusive use by fire,
line 18 emergency response, policy, or sheriff personnel.
line 19 (L) Public library facilities.
line 20 (c) This section shall apply to any local measure imposing,
line 21 extending, or increasing a sales and use tax imposed pursuant to
line 22 the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law, a
line 23 transactions and use tax imposed in accordance with the
line 24 Transactions and Use Tax Law, or a parcel tax imposed by a local
line 25 government for those purposes described in subdivision (a) that
line 26 is submitted at the same election as the measure adding this section.
line 27 Fifth—That Section 3 of Article XIII D thereof is amended to
line 28 read:
line 29 SEC. 3. Property Taxes, Assessments, Fees and Charges
line 30 Limited. (a) No (a) An agency shall not assess a tax, assessment,
line 31 fee, or charge shall be assessed by any agency upon any parcel of
line 32 property or upon any person as an incident of property ownership
line 33 except:
line 34 (1) The ad valorem property tax imposed pursuant to Article
line 35 XIII and Article XIII A.
line 36 (2) Any special tax receiving a two-thirds vote pursuant to
line 37 Section 4 of Article XIII A. XIII A or receiving a 55-percent
line 38 approval pursuant to Section 2.5 of Article XIII C.
line 39 (3) Assessments as provided by this article.
99
— 10 — ACA 1
line 1 (4) Fees or charges for property related property-related services
line 2 as provided by this article.
line 3 (b) For purposes of this article, fees for the provision of electrical
line 4 or gas service shall are not be deemed charges or fees imposed as
line 5 an incident of property ownership.
line 6 Sixth—That Section 18 of Article XVI thereof is amended to
line 7 read:
line 8 SEC. 18. (a) No A county, city, town, township, board of
line 9 education, or school district, shall not incur any indebtedness or
line 10 liability in any manner or for any purpose exceeding in any year
line 11 the income and revenue provided for such that year, without the
line 12 assent of two-thirds of the voters of the public entity voting at an
line 13 election to be held for that purpose, except that with respect to any
line 14 such public entity which that is authorized to incur indebtedness
line 15 for public school purposes, any proposition for the incurrence of
line 16 indebtedness in the form of general obligation bonds for the
line 17 purpose of repairing, reconstructing reconstructing, or replacing
line 18 public school buildings determined, in the manner prescribed by
line 19 law, to be structurally unsafe for school use, shall be adopted upon
line 20 the approval of a majority of the voters of the public entity voting
line 21 on the proposition at such the election; nor unless before or at the
line 22 time of incurring such indebtedness provision shall be made for
line 23 the collection of an annual tax sufficient to pay the interest on such
line 24 indebtedness as it falls due, and to provide for a sinking fund for
line 25 the payment of the principal thereof, on or before maturity, which
line 26 shall not exceed forty years from the time of contracting the
line 27 indebtedness. A special district, other than a board of education
line 28 or school district, shall not incur any indebtedness or liability
line 29 exceeding any applicable statutory limit, as prescribed by the
line 30 statutes governing the special district as they currently read or
line 31 may thereafter be amended by the Legislature.
line 32 (b) (1) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), on or after the effective
line 33 date of the measure adding this subdivision, in the case of any
line 34 school district, community college district, or county office of
line 35 education, any proposition for the incurrence of indebtedness in
line 36 the form of general obligation bonds for the construction,
line 37 reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of school facilities,
line 38 including the furnishing and equipping of school facilities, or the
line 39 acquisition or lease of real property for school facilities, purposes
line 40 described in paragraph (3) or (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 1
99
ACA 1 — 11 —
line 1 of Article XIII A shall be adopted upon the approval of 55 percent
line 2 of the voters of the district or county, school district, community
line 3 college district, county office of education, city, county, city and
line 4 county, or other special district, as appropriate, voting on the
line 5 proposition at an election. This subdivision shall apply only to a
line 6 proposition for the incurrence of indebtedness in the form of
line 7 general obligation bonds for the purposes specified in this
line 8 subdivision only if the proposition meets all of the accountability
line 9 requirements of paragraph (3) or (4) of subdivision (b) (b), as
line 10 appropriate, of Section 1 of Article XIII A.
line 11 (2) The amendments made to this subdivision by the measure
line 12 adding this paragraph shall apply to any proposition for the
line 13 incurrence of indebtedness in the form of general obligation bonds
line 14 pursuant to this subdivision for the purposes described in
line 15 paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 1 of Article XIII A that
line 16 is submitted at the same election as the measure adding this
line 17 paragraph.
line 18 (c) When two or more propositions for incurring any
line 19 indebtedness or liability are submitted at the same election, the
line 20 votes cast for and against each proposition shall be counted
line 21 separately, and when if two-thirds or a majority or 55 percent of
line 22 the voters, as the case may be, voting on any one of those
line 23 propositions, vote in favor thereof, the proposition shall be deemed
line 24 adopted.
O
99
— 12 — ACA 1
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
SB 43
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 43
Author: Eggman (D), et al.
Amended: 4/27/23
Vote: 21
SENATE HEALTH COMMITTEE: 12-0, 3/29/23
AYES: Eggman, Nguyen, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Limón, Menjivar,
Roth, Rubio, Wahab, Wiener
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 11-0, 4/25/23
AYES: Umberg, Wilk, Allen, Ashby, Caballero, Durazo, Laird, Min, Niello,
Stern, Wiener
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/18/23
AYES: Portantino, Jones, Ashby, Bradford, Seyarto, Wahab, Wiener
SUBJECT: Behavioral health
SOURCE: Big City Mayors Coalition
California State Association of Psychiatrists
NAMI California
Psychiatric Physicians Alliance of California
DIGEST: This bill expands the definition of “gravely disabled,” for purposes of
involuntarily detaining an individual, as a condition that will result in substantial
risk of serious harm, as defined, to the physical or mental health of an individual
due to a mental health or substance use disorder (MH/SUD), as specified. This bill
prohibits the existence of a MH/SUD alone from establishing a substantial risk of
serious harm, as specified. This bill deems statements of specified health
practitioners, for purposes of an expert witness in a proceeding relating to the
appointment or reappointment of a conservator, as not hearsay, as specified.
SB 43
Page 2
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
Involuntary Commitment
1) Establishes the Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act to end the inappropriate,
indefinite, and involuntary commitment of persons with MH disorders,
developmental disabilities, and chronic alcoholism, as well as to safeguard a
person’s rights, provide prompt evaluation and treatment, and provide services
in the least restrictive setting appropriate to the needs of each person. Permits
involuntary detention of a person deemed to be a danger to self or others, or
“gravely disabled,” as defined, for periods of up to 72 hours for evaluation and
treatment, or for up-to 14 days and up-to 30 days for additional intensive
treatment in county-designated facilities. [WIC §5000, et seq.]
2) Permits a conservator of a person, or the estate, or of both the person and the
estate, to be appointed for someone who is gravely disabled as a result of a MH
disorder or impairment by chronic alcoholism, and who remains gravely
disabled after periods of intensive treatment. [WIC §5350]
3) Defines “gravely disabled,” for purposes of evaluating and treating an
individual who has been involuntarily detained or for placing an individual in
conservatorship, as a condition in which a person, as a result of a MH disorder
or impairment by chronic alcoholism, is unable to provide for his or her basic
personal needs for food, clothing, or shelter. [WIC §5008]
4) Requires the phrase “a danger to himself or herself or others, or gravely
disabled” throughout the LPS Act to refer also to the condition of being a
danger to self or others, or gravely disabled, as a result of the use of controlled
substances rather than by MH disorder. [WIC §5342]
5) Defines a “designated facility” or “facility designated by the county for
evaluation and treatment” as a facility that is licensed or certified as a MH
treatment facility or a hospital, as specified, by the Department of Public
Health, and includes a licensed psychiatric hospital, a licensed psychiatric
health facility, and a certified crisis stabilization unit. [WIC §5008]
6) Prohibits licensed general acute care hospitals or licensed acute psychiatric
hospitals that are not county-designated facilities (NDFs) for purposes of
involuntarily detaining a person; licensed professional staff o f those hospitals;
or, any physician providing emergency medical services in those hospitals
from being civilly or criminally liable for involuntarily detaining a person for
SB 43
Page 3
more than eight hours but less than 24 hours who is gravely disabled, using the
same definition of “gravely disabled” as is used in the LPS Act.
[HSC §1799.111]
7) Permits, until January 1, 2024, Los Angeles and San Diego counties and the
City and County of San Francisco to place in a housing conservatorship, as
specified, a person who is chronically homeless and incapable of caring for his
or her own health and well-being due to serious MH/SUD, as specified. [WIC
§5450, et seq.]
8) Permits the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS), until January 1,
2027, to establish the Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program for
the purpose of awarding competitive grants to qualified entities, as specified, to
construct, acquire, and rehabilitate real estate assets or to invest in needed
mobile crisis infrastructure to expand the community con tinuum of behavioral
health treatment resources to build new capacity or expand existing capacity
for short-term crisis stabilization; acute and subacute care; crisis residential;
community-based MH residential; SUD residential; peer respite; mobile crisis;
community and outpatient behavioral health services; and other clinically
enriched longer term treatment and rehabilitation options for persons with
behavioral health disorders in the least restrictive and least costly setting. [WIC
§5960, et seq.]
9) Enacts the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE)
Court Act to help connect an individual with a court-ordered care plan for up
to 12 months, with the possibility to extend for an additional 12 months, that
provides a clinically appropriate, community-based set of services and
supports that are culturally and linguistically competent, which include short-
term stabilization medications, wellness and recovery supports, a CARE
navigator, connection to social services, and a housing plan. [WIC §5970, et
seq.]
Hearsay
10) Defines “hearsay evidence” as evidence of a statement that was made other
than by a witness while testifying at the hearing and that is offered to prove the
truth of the matter stated. Establishes the hearsay rule, which states that, except
as provided by law, hearsay evidence is inadmissible. [EVID §1200]
SB 43
Page 4
This bill:
Involuntary Commitment
1) Expands the definition of “gravely disabled,” for purposes of the LPS Act and
NDFs, to include a condition that will result in substantial risk of serious harm
to the physical or MH of an individual due to one of more of the following:
a) A MH disorder; or,
b) A SUD, including alcohol use disorder.
2) Defines “serious harm” as significant deterioration, debilitation, or illness due
to the individual’s inability to do one or more of the following:
a) Satisfy the need for nourishment;
b) Attend to necessary personal or medical care;
c) Seek adequate shelter;
d) Be appropriately or adequately clothed; or,
e) Attend to self-protection or personal safety.
3) Permits a substantial risk of serious harm to the physical or MH of the
individual to be evidenced by one or more of the following:
a) The individual is presently suffering adverse effects to their physical or
MH; or,
b) The individual previously suffered adverse effects to their physica l or MH
in the historical course of their MH/SUD and their condition is again
deteriorating.
4) Prohibits the existence of a MH/SUD diagnosis alone from establishing a
substantial risk of serious harm to the physical or MH of an individual.
5) Requires an individual’s inability to appreciate the nature of their disorder and
that their decision making is impaired due to their lack of insight into their
mental or medical disorders to be considered by the court when evaluating a
substantial risk of serious harm.
SB 43
Page 5
Hearsay
6) Deems the statements of specified health practitioners, for purposes of an
expert witness in a proceeding relating to the appointment or reappointment of
a conservator, as specified, that are included in the medical record, as not
hearsay.
7) Specifies that deeming statements of specified health practitioners as not
hearsay does not prevent a party from calling as a witness the author of any
statement contained in the medical records, whether or not the author was
relied on by the expert witness.
8) Permits the court to grant a reasonable continuance if an expert witness in a
proceeding relied on the medical record and the medical record has not been
provided to the parties or their counsel.
Comments
1) Author’s statement. According to the author, this bill modernizes the definition
of “gravely disabled” within the LPS Act to provide for the needs, more
accurately and comprehensively, of individuals experiencing a substantial risk
of serious harm due to a MH/SUD. This bill includes under the definition of
“gravely disabled” a condition in which a person is unable to provide for the
basic needs for nourishment, personal or medical care, adequate shelter,
adequate clothing, self-protection, or personal safety. Involuntary treatment is
a serious intervention, and one that should only be used as a last resort. This
bill also ensures that the court is considering the contents of the medical record
and that, during conservatorship proceedings, relevant testimony regarding
medical history can be considered in order to provide the most appropriate and
timely care. Our current model is leaving too many people suffering with
significant psychotic disorders in incredibly unsafe situations, leading to severe
injury, incarceration, homelessness, or death. This bill will help to provide
dignity and treatment to those who are the most difficult to reach.
2) LPS Act involuntary detentions. The LPS Act provides for involuntary
detentions for varying lengths of time for the purpose of evaluation and
treatment, provided certain requirements are met, such as that an individual is
taken to a county-designated facility. Typically, one first interacts with the LPS
Act through a 5150 hold initiated by a peace officer or other person authorized
by a county, who must determine and document that the individual meets the
standard for a 5150 hold. A county-designated facility is authorized to then
involuntarily detain an individual for up to 72 hours for evaluation and
SB 43
Page 6
treatment if they are determined to be, as a result of a MH disorder, a danger to
self or others, or gravely disabled. The professional person in charge of the
county-designated facility is required to assess an individual to determine the
appropriateness of the involuntary detention prior to admitting the individual.
Subject to various conditions, a person who is found to be a danger to self or
others, or gravely disabled, can be subsequently involuntarily detained for an
initial up-to 14 days for intensive treatment, an additional 14 days (or up to an
additional 30 days in counties that have opted to provide this additional up -to
30-day intensive treatment episode), and ultimately a conservatorship, which is
typically for up to a year and may be extended as appropriate. (According to
DHCS’s website, the following counties offer additional up-to 30 days of
intensive treatment: Butte, El Dorado, Fresno, Humboldt, Kern, Los Angeles,
Mendocino, Merced, Monterey, Orange, Placer, Plumas, Riverside,
Sacramento, San Benito, San Diego, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Barbara,
Shasta, Tulare, Yolo and Sutter/Yuba.) Throughout this process, existing law
requires specified entities to notify family members or others identified by the
detained individual of various hearings, where it is determined whether a
person will be further detained or released, unless the detained person requests
that this information is not provided. Additionally, a person cannot be f ound to
be gravely disabled if they can survive safely without involuntary detention
with the help of responsible family, friends, or others who indicate they are
both willing and able to help. A person can also be released prior to the end of
intensive treatment if they are found to no longer meet the criteria or are
prepared to accept treatment voluntarily.
3) Support if amended. The Sutter County Board of Supervisors agrees that many
individuals with MH/SUDs fail to receive necessary medical treatment because
of the narrow legal definition of the term “gravely disabled” but has concerns
about the impact this bill will have on county resources and community medical
resources, not just in Sutter but across the state. They argue this bill will
mandate changes that include an increased workload on law enforcement,
public guardians, courts, health care, and behavioral health workforce, which
are already strained under a firehose of new laws and responsibilities aimed at
mitigating the impact of homelessness in the state (such as CARE Court)
without providing counties with the necessary resources to meet the new
mandates. They are further concerned about the chronic underinvestment of
ongoing support in public and private treatment resources, housing facilities,
and public guardians to absorb millions of individuals into the health care
system who will likely need expensive, long-term care. They support this bill if
amendments are made to guarantee sufficient funding to cover the increased
SB 43
Page 7
costs necessary to humanely meet the needs of the population who will be
impacted by the expanded definition.
4) Concerns. The County Behavioral Health Directors Association of California
(CBHDA) states its membership agrees with concerns expressed by the author
and sponsors that too many individuals suffer without adequate and appropriate
treatment and housing, and they share in the urgency to bring about real change
to address the needs of unhoused individuals with serious MH/SUD. Counties
specialize in providing a full continuum of prevention, outpatient, intensive
outpatient, crisis and inpatient, and residential MH/SUD primarily to low-
income Californians who have Medi-Cal or are uninsured. Counties also have
responsibility for involuntary commitments under the LPS Act. CBHDA states
they found that for a small subset of their clients, conservatorships can be
effective in helping individuals with significant MH conditions by compelling
inpatient treatment. CBHDA has concerns about this bill on the basis that the
proposed expansion of LPS is overly broad and ultimately would not benefit the
clients and communities they serve. These changes would also further
stigmatize behavioral health conditions and frustrate clients and the public, who
want to see real action to meaningfully address the needs of those with
MH/SUDs. CBHDA expresses additional concerns when it comes to
involuntarily detaining and treating those with SUDS, such as that involuntary
SUD treatment could result in overrepresentation of people or color, LGBTQ+,
and other historically marginalized people being forced into more coercive
treatment, which is often traumatizing; that a peer reviewed study of research
from around the world suggests that coerced and involuntary treatment is
actually less effective in terms of long-term substance use outcomes, and more
dangerous in terms of overdose risk, and voluntary treatment is more effective;
and, a build out of delivery networks to support this policy change would take
years, with new, sustained dedicated state resources needed above and beyond
investments already made by the state, with a significant increase in residential
and inpatient SUD treatment capacity.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Unknown, potentially significant workload costs in the millions, to the courts to
adjudicate conservatorship petitions, by trial if demanded by the petition
subject, and review the progress reports for established conservatorships based
upon the expanded definition of gravely disabled (Trial Court Trust Fund,
General Fund). While the superior courts are not funded on a workload basis,
SB 43
Page 8
an increase in workload could result in delayed court services and would put
pressure on the General Fund to increase the amount appropriated for trial court
operations.
Unknown, potentially significant costs for an increase in the use of mental
health and substance abuse treatment services for individuals involuntarily
detained and individuals under conservatorship based upon the expanded
definition of gravely disabled (General Fund, federal funds, county funds). Cost
to counties for administration would be potentially reimbursable by the state,
subject to a determination by the Commission on State Mandates.
SUPPORT: (Verified 5/18/23)
Big City Mayors Coalition (co-source)
California State Association of Psychiatrists (co-source)
NAMI California (co-source)
Psychiatric Physicians Alliance of California (co -source)
AEsynergy
Alameda County Families Advancing for the Seriously Mental Ill
Bay Area Council
California Contract Cities Association
California Medical Association
City of Bakersfield
City of Carlsbad
Cloverdale Community Outreach Committee
City of Eureka
City of Jurupa Valley
City of Lake Forest
City of Moorpark
City of Murrieta
City of Palo Alto
City of Riverside
City of Redwood City
City of Rosmead
City of Santa Barbara
City of Santa Monica
City of South Gate
City of West Hollywood
City of Whittier Mayor Joe Vinatieri
County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors
Govern for California
SB 43
Page 9
Heart Forward
NAMI – Contra Costa County
NAMI – Nevada County
NAMI – Urban LA LPS Conservativeship Program
Psynergy
San Diego City Attorney Mara W. Elliott
San Diego County District Attorney's Office
San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments
Stories from the Frontline
Treatment Advocacy Coalition
Tri-Valley Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and Town of
Danville
Union of American Physicians and Dentists
OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/24/23)
API Equality-LA
Black Women for Wellness
Cal Voices
California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform
California Association of Mental Health Patients’ Rights Advocates
California Black Health Network
California Pan-Ethnic Health Network
California Public Defenders Association
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
California Youth Empowerment Network
CAMHPRO
Caravan 4 Justice
Corporation for Supportive Housing
Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance
Disability Rights California
Empowering Pacific Islander Communities
Hmong Cultural Center of Butte County
Kern County Board of Supervisors
Law Foundation of Silicon Valley
LGBTQ+ Collaboration
Lift Up Love Always
Mental Health American of California
National Health Law
Native American Health Center
Orange County Equality Coalition
SB 43
Page 10
Pacific Asian Counseling Services
Peers Envisioning and Engaging in Recovery Services
Project Amiga
Racial and Ethnic Mental Health Disparities Coalition
Sacramento Homeless Union
Sacramento Regional Coalition to End Homelessness
Safe Black Space
San Bernardino Free Them All
South Asian Network
Southeast Asia Resource Action Center
Western Center on Law and Poverty
Western Regional Advocacy Project
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The co-sponsors of this bill, largely psychiatrist
groups, local governments, and family of those with MH conditions, state that
despite all efforts to reduce the need for conservatorship the reality is that they can
sometimes be the last resort to provide critical treatment to those who are gravely
disabled. As such, the current definition and interpretation of gravely disabled does
not accurately reflect the realities they are seeing in communities and on the
streets. Additionally, supporters state they continue to see the struggles of
community members that cycle in and out of hospitalizat ions, shelters, and jails
without getting the concrete connections to needed medication and treatment.
These aforementioned problems point to the fact that legislation like this bill is
needed. Supporters argue the focus on a person’s ability to provide for their own
personal or medical care, or self-protection and safety, is important because it
ensures that those who are truly vulnerable receive the help they need.
Furthermore, supporters encourage support of the provision that ensures relevant
history can be considered by the court in a uniform manner across the state, and
state that tools focused on acute symptoms are not suited for chronic and severe
conditions that are seen on the streets. This bill will also ensure that a complete and
accurate picture is presented in court when considering the very serious step of
conservatorship. California currently has the largest concentration of homelessness
in the United States, both in absolute and per-capita figures, and people
experiencing homelessness in California are less likely to have access to shelter
than in any other state. Supporters state an estimated 23% of people experiencing
homelessness in California—approximately 40,000 individuals—suffer a severe
MH/SUD and can no longer care for themselves. The Psychiatric Physicians
Alliance of California (PPAC) argues that serious mental illnesses disrupt a
person’s ability to engage in activities of daily living that the rest of us take for
granted, which is why in California 24% of emergency medical service encounters
are for people with severe mental illness. Among those, nearly 40% of these are
SB 43
Page 11
attributed to patients who are arguably gravely disabled. These individuals
comprise the majority of a conservatively estimated 30% of homeless individuals.
Many counties whose coroners track homeless deaths, such as Sacramento,
Alameda, Los Angeles, and the City and County of San Francisco report a large
uptick in deaths in the homeless population—in some cases 89% annual increases.
PPAC states that clearly business as usual is no longer tolerable, as the above
statistics will attest.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: A coalition of other opponents, largely
comprised of disability rights and racial and ethnic minority group advocates, echo
some of the arguments made by CBHDA. The coalition further argues that
voluntary, community-based treatment and services, as well as the expansion of
choices, rights, and liberties for people living with MH disabilities are what the
state needs. The coalition states that the Legislature should invest in evidence-
based programs and services that are proven to meet the needs of Californians, and
that the state should exercise greater oversight over local jurisdictions to ensure
that unhoused people are actually offered and placed in appropri ate affordable,
accessible housing with voluntary supports. The coalition further points out that
while the state has made investment, such as BHCIP, that infrastructure will not be
available soon enough to absorb additional involuntary detentions that wil l result if
the expanded definition of “gravely disabled” is enacted.
Prepared by: Reyes Diaz / HEALTH / (916) 651-4111
5/24/23 11:15:36
**** END ****
AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 23, 2023
AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 28, 2023
SENATE BILL No. 423
Introduced by Senator Wiener
(Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Wicks)
(Coauthor: Senator Hurtado)
(Coauthor: Assembly Member Grayson)
February 13, 2023
An act to amend Section 65913.4 of the Government Code, relating
to land use.
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 423, as amended, Wiener. Land use: streamlined housing
approvals: multifamily housing developments.
Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, authorizes a development
proponent to submit an application for a multifamily housing
development that is subject to a streamlined, ministerial approval
process, as provided, and not subject to a conditional use permit, if the
development satisfies specified objective planning standards, including,
among others, that the development proponent has committed to record,
prior to the issuance of the first building permit, a land use restriction
or covenant providing that any lower or moderate-income housing units
required, as specified, remain available at affordable housing costs, as
defined, or rent to persons and families of lower or moderate-income
for no less than specified periods of time. Existing law repeals these
provisions on January 1, 2026.
This bill would authorize the Department of General Services to act
in the place of a locality or local government, at the discretion of that
department, for purposes of the ministerial, streamlined review for
97
development on property owned by or leased to the state. The bill would
delete extend the January 1, 2026, repeal date, thereby making these
provisions operative indefinitely. operation of the streamlined,
ministerial approval process to January 1, 2036. The bill would provide
that the streamlined, ministerial approval process does not apply to
applications for developments proposed on qualified sites, defined as
a site that is located within an equine or equestrian district and meets
certain other requirements, that are submitted on or after January 1,
2024, but before July 1, 2025.
This bill would modify the above-described objective planning
standards, including by deleting the standard that prohibits a multifamily
housing development from being subject to the streamlined, ministerial
approval process if the development is located in a coastal zone, and
by providing an alternative definition for “affordable housing costs”
for a development that dedicates 100% of units, exclusive of a manager’s
unit or units, to lower income households. The bill would, among other
modifications, delete the objective planning standards requiring
development proponents to pay at least the general prevailing rate of
per diem wages and utilize a skilled and trained workforce and would
instead require a development proponent to certify to the local
government that certain wage and labor standards will be met, including
a requirement that all construction workers be paid at least the general
prevailing rate of wages, as specified. The bill would require the Labor
Commissioner to enforce the obligation to pay prevailing wages. By
expanding the crime of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated
local program. The bill would specify that the requirements to pay
prevailing wages, use a workforce participating in an apprenticeship,
or provide health care expenditures do not apply to a project that consists
of 10 or fewer units and is not otherwise a public work.
Existing law requires a local government to approve a development
if the local government determines the development is consistent with
the objective planning standards. Existing law requires, if the local
government determines a submitted development is in conflict with any
of the objective planning standards, the local government to provide
the development proponent written documentation of the standards the
development conflicts with and an explanation for the conflict within
certain timelines depending on the size of the development. Existing
law, the Housing Accountability Act, prohibits a local agency from
disapproving a housing development project, as described, unless it
makes specified written findings.
97
— 2 — SB 423
This bill would instead require approval if a local government’s
planning director or equivalent position determines the development is
consistent with the objective planning standards. The bill would make
conforming changes. The bill would require all departments of the local
government that are required to issue an approval of the development
prior to the granting of an entitlement to also comply with the
above-described streamlined approval requirements within specified
time periods. The bill would prohibit a local government from requiring,
prior to approving a development that meets the requirements of the
above-described streamlining provisions, compliance with any standards
necessary to receive a postentitlement permit or studies, information,
or other materials that do not pertain directly to determining whether
the development is consistent with the objective planning standards
applicable to the development.
The bill would, for purposes of these provisions, establish that the
total number of units in a development includes (1) all projects
developed on a site, regardless of when those developments occur, and
(2) all projects developed on sites adjacent to a site developed pursuant
to these provisions if, after January 1, 2023, the adjacent site had been
subdivided from the site developed pursuant to these provisions.
Existing law requires, before submitting an application for a
development subject to the above-described streamlined, ministerial
approval process, the development proponent to submit to the local
government a notice of its intent to submit an application, as described.
For developments proposed in a census tract that is designated either
as a moderate resource area, low resource area, or an area of high
segregation and poverty, as described, this bill would require local
governments to provide, within 45 days of receiving a notice of intent
and before the development proponent submits an application for the
proposed development that is subject to the streamlined, ministerial
approval process, for a public meeting, as described, to provide an
opportunity for the public and the local government to comment on the
development.
Existing law authorizes the local government’s planning commission
or any equivalent board or commission responsible for review and
approval of development projects, or as otherwise specified, to conduct
any design review or public oversight of the development.
This bill would remove the above-described authorization to conduct
public oversight of the development and would only authorize design
97
SB 423 — 3 —
review to be conducted by the local government’s planning commission
or any equivalent board or commission responsible for design review.
By imposing additional duties on local officials, the bill would impose
a state-mandated local program.
The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill
address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair
and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.
Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act
for specified reasons.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares that it has
line 2 provided reforms and incentives to facilitate and expedite the
line 3 construction of affordable housing. Those reforms and incentives
line 4 can be found in the following provisions:
line 5 (a) Housing element law (Article 10.6 (commencing with
line 6 Section 65580) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the
line 7 Government Code).
line 8 (b) Extension of statute of limitations in actions challenging the
line 9 housing element and brought in support of affordable housing
line 10 (subdivision (d) of Section 65009 of the Government Code).
line 11 (c) Restrictions on disapproval of housing developments
line 12 (Section 65589.5 of the Government Code).
line 13 (d) Priority for affordable housing in the allocation of water and
line 14 sewer hookups (Section 65589.7 of the Government Code).
line 15 (e) Least cost zoning law (Section 65913.1 of the Government
line 16 Code).
line 17 (f) Density Bonus Law (Section 65915 of the Government
line 18 Code).
line 19 (g) Accessory dwelling units (Sections 65852.150 and 65852.2
line 20 of the Government Code).
line 21 (h) By-right housing, in which certain multifamily housing is
line 22 designated a permitted use (Section 65589.4 of the Government
line 23 Code).
97
— 4 — SB 423
line 1 (i) No-net-loss-in zoning density law limiting downzonings and
line 2 density reductions (Section 65863 of the Government Code).
line 3 (j) Requiring persons who sue to halt affordable housing to pay
line 4 attorney’s fees (Section 65914 of the Government Code) or post
line 5 a bond (Section 529.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure).
line 6 (k) Reduced time for action on affordable housing applications
line 7 under the approval of development permits process (Article 5
line 8 (commencing with Section 65950) of Chapter 4.5 of Division 1
line 9 of Title 7 of the Government Code).
line 10 (l) Limiting moratoriums on multifamily housing (Section 65858
line 11 of the Government Code).
line 12 (m) Prohibiting discrimination against affordable housing
line 13 (Section 65008 of the Government Code).
line 14 (n) California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8
line 15 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2 of the
line 16 Government Code).
line 17 (o) Community Redevelopment Law (Part 1 (commencing with
line 18 Section 33000) of Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code, and
line 19 in particular Sections 33334.2 and 33413 of the Health and Safety
line 20 Code).
line 21 (p) Streamlining housing approvals during a housing shortage
line 22 (Section 65913.4 of the Government Code).
line 23 (q) Housing sustainability districts (Chapter 11 (commencing
line 24 with Section 66200) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government
line 25 Code).
line 26 (r) Streamlining agricultural employee housing development
line 27 approvals (Section 17021.8 of the Health and Safety Code).
line 28 (s) The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Senate Bill 330 (Chapter
line 29 654 of the Statutes of 2019)).
line 30 (t) Allowing four units to be built on single-family parcels
line 31 statewide (Senate Bill 9 (Chapter 162 of the Statutes of 2021)).
line 32 (u) The Middle Class Housing Act of 2022 (Section 65852.24
line 33 of the Government Code).
line 34 (v) Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022
line 35 (Chapter 4.1 (commencing with Section 65912.100) of Division
line 36 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code).
line 37 SEC. 2. Section 65913.4 of the Government Code is amended
line 38 to read:
line 39 65913.4. (a) A Except as provided in subdivision (r), a
line 40 development proponent may submit an application for a
97
SB 423 — 5 —
line 1 development that is subject to the streamlined, ministerial approval
line 2 process provided by subdivision (c) and is not subject to a
line 3 conditional use permit or any other nonlegislative discretionary
line 4 approval if the development complies with subdivision (b) and
line 5 satisfies all of the following objective planning standards:
line 6 (1) The development is a multifamily housing development that
line 7 contains two or more residential units.
line 8 (2) The development and the site on which it is located satisfy
line 9 all of the following:
line 10 (A) It is a legal parcel or parcels located in a city if, and only
line 11 if, the city boundaries include some portion of either an urbanized
line 12 area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census
line 13 Bureau, or, for unincorporated areas, a legal parcel or parcels
line 14 wholly within the boundaries of an urbanized area or urban cluster,
line 15 as designated by the United States Census Bureau.
line 16 (B) At least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels
line 17 that are developed with urban uses. For the purposes of this section,
line 18 parcels that are only separated by a street or highway shall be
line 19 considered to be adjoined.
line 20 (C) (i) A site that meets the requirements of clause (ii) and
line 21 satisfies any of the following:
line 22 (I) The site is zoned for residential use or residential mixed-use
line 23 development.
line 24 (II) The site has a general plan designation that allows residential
line 25 use or a mix of residential and nonresidential uses.
line 26 (III) The site is zoned for office or retail commercial use and
line 27 meets the requirements of Section 65852.24.
line 28 (ii) At least two-thirds of the square footage of the development
line 29 is designated for residential use. Additional density, floor area,
line 30 and units, and any other concession, incentive, or waiver of
line 31 development standards granted pursuant to the Density Bonus Law
line 32 in Section 65915 shall be included in the square footage
line 33 calculation. The square footage of the development shall not
line 34 include underground space, such as basements or underground
line 35 parking garages.
line 36 (3) (A) The development proponent has committed to record,
line 37 prior to the issuance of the first building permit, a land use
line 38 restriction or covenant providing that any lower or moderate
line 39 income housing units required pursuant to subparagraph (B) of
line 40 paragraph (4) shall remain available at affordable housing costs
97
— 6 — SB 423
line 1 or rent to persons and families of lower or moderate-income for
line 2 no less than the following periods of time:
line 3 (i) Fifty-five years for units that are rented.
line 4 (ii) Forty-five years for units that are owned.
line 5 (B) The city or county shall require the recording of covenants
line 6 or restrictions implementing this paragraph for each parcel or unit
line 7 of real property included in the development.
line 8 (4) The development satisfies clause (i) or (ii) of subparagraph
line 9 (A) and satisfies subparagraph (B) below:
line 10 (A) (i) For a development located in a locality that is in its sixth
line 11 or earlier housing element cycle, the development is located in
line 12 either of the following:
line 13 (I) In a locality that the department has determined is subject
line 14 to this clause on the basis that the number of units that have been
line 15 issued building permits, as shown on the most recent production
line 16 report received by the department, is less than the locality’s share
line 17 of the regional housing needs, by income category, for that
line 18 reporting period. A locality shall remain eligible under this
line 19 subclause until the department’s determination for the next
line 20 reporting period.
line 21 (II) In a locality that the department has determined is subject
line 22 to this clause on the basis that the locality did not adopt a housing
line 23 element that has been found in substantial compliance with housing
line 24 element law (Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of
line 25 Chapter 3) by the department. A locality shall remain eligible under
line 26 this subclause until such time as the locality adopts a housing
line 27 element that has been found in substantial compliance with housing
line 28 element law (Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of
line 29 Chapter 3) by the department.
line 30 (ii) For a development located in a locality that is in its seventh
line 31 or later housing element cycle, is located in a locality that the
line 32 department has determined is subject to this clause on the basis
line 33 that the locality did not adopt a housing element that has been
line 34 found in substantial compliance with housing element law (Article
line 35 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of Chapter 3) by the
line 36 department by the statutory deadline, or that the number of units
line 37 that have been issued building permits, as shown on the most recent
line 38 production report received by the department, is less than the
line 39 locality’s share of the regional housing needs, by income category,
line 40 for that reporting period. A locality shall remain eligible under
97
SB 423 — 7 —
line 1 this subparagraph until the department’s determination for the next
line 2 reporting period.
line 3 (B) The development is subject to a requirement mandating a
line 4 minimum percentage of below market rate housing based on one
line 5 of the following:
line 6 (i) The locality did not adopt a housing element pursuant to
line 7 Section 65588 that has been found in substantial compliance with
line 8 the housing element law (Article 10.6 (commencing with Section
line 9 65580) of Chapter 3) by the department, did not submit its latest
line 10 production report to the department by the time period required
line 11 by Section 65400, or that production report submitted to the
line 12 department reflects that there were fewer units of above
line 13 moderate-income housing issued building permits than were
line 14 required for the regional housing needs assessment cycle for that
line 15 reporting period. In addition, if the project contains more than 10
line 16 units of housing, the project does either of the following:
line 17 (I) The project dedicates a minimum of 10 percent of the total
line 18 number of units, before calculating any density bonus, to housing
line 19 affordable to households making at or below 80 percent of the area
line 20 median income. However, if the locality has adopted a local
line 21 ordinance that requires that greater than 10 percent of the units be
line 22 dedicated to housing affordable to households making below 80
line 23 percent of the area median income, that local ordinance applies.
line 24 (II) (ia) If the project is located within the San Francisco Bay
line 25 area, the project, in lieu of complying with subclause (I), dedicates
line 26 20 percent of the total number of units, before calculating any
line 27 density bonus, to housing affordable to households making below
line 28 120 percent of the area median income with the average income
line 29 of the units at or below 100 percent of the area median income.
line 30 However, a local ordinance adopted by the locality applies if it
line 31 requires greater than 20 percent of the units be dedicated to housing
line 32 affordable to households making at or below 120 percent of the
line 33 area median income, or requires that any of the units be dedicated
line 34 at a level deeper than 120 percent. In order to comply with this
line 35 subclause, the rent or sale price charged for units that are dedicated
line 36 to housing affordable to households between 80 percent and 120
line 37 percent of the area median income shall not exceed 30 percent of
line 38 the gross income of the household.
line 39 (ib) For purposes of this subclause, “San Francisco Bay area”
line 40 means the entire area within the territorial boundaries of the
97
— 8 — SB 423
line 1 Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Mateo,
line 2 Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma, and the City and County of San
line 3 Francisco.
line 4 (ii) The locality’s latest production report reflects that there
line 5 were fewer units of housing issued building permits affordable to
line 6 either very low income or low-income households by income
line 7 category than were required for the regional housing needs
line 8 assessment cycle for that reporting period, and the project seeking
line 9 approval dedicates 50 percent of the total number of units, before
line 10 calculating any density bonus, to housing affordable to households
line 11 making at or below 80 percent of the area median income.
line 12 However, if the locality has adopted a local ordinance that requires
line 13 that greater than 50 percent of the units be dedicated to housing
line 14 affordable to households making at or below 80 percent of the area
line 15 median income, that local ordinance applies.
line 16 (iii) The locality did not submit its latest production report to
line 17 the department by the time period required by Section 65400, or
line 18 if the production report reflects that there were fewer units of
line 19 housing affordable to both income levels described in clauses (i)
line 20 and (ii) that were issued building permits than were required for
line 21 the regional housing needs assessment cycle for that reporting
line 22 period, the project seeking approval may choose between utilizing
line 23 clause (i) or (ii).
line 24 (C) (i) A development proponent that uses a unit of affordable
line 25 housing to satisfy the requirements of subparagraph (B) may also
line 26 satisfy any other local or state requirement for affordable housing,
line 27 including local ordinances or the Density Bonus Law in Section
line 28 65915, provided that the development proponent complies with
line 29 the applicable requirements in the state or local law. If a local
line 30 requirement for affordable housing requires units that are restricted
line 31 to households with incomes higher than the applicable income
line 32 limits required in subparagraph (B), then units that meet the
line 33 applicable income limits required in subparagraph (B) shall be
line 34 deemed to satisfy those local requirements for higher income units.
line 35 (ii) A development proponent that uses a unit of affordable
line 36 housing to satisfy any other state or local affordability requirement
line 37 may also satisfy the requirements of subparagraph (B), provided
line 38 that the development proponent complies with applicable
line 39 requirements of subparagraph (B).
97
SB 423 — 9 —
line 1 (iii) A development proponent may satisfy the affordability
line 2 requirements of subparagraph (B) with a unit that is restricted to
line 3 households with incomes lower than the applicable income limits
line 4 required in subparagraph (B).
line 5 (D) The amendments to this subdivision made by the act adding
line 6 this subparagraph do not constitute a change in, but are declaratory
line 7 of, existing law.
line 8 (5) The development, excluding any additional density or any
line 9 other concessions, incentives, or waivers of development standards
line 10 for which the development is eligible pursuant to the Density Bonus
line 11 Law in Section 65915, is consistent with objective zoning
line 12 standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design
line 13 review standards in effect at the time that the development is
line 14 submitted to the local government pursuant to this section, or at
line 15 the time a notice of intent is submitted pursuant to subdivision (b),
line 16 whichever occurs earlier. For purposes of this paragraph, “objective
line 17 zoning standards,” “objective subdivision standards,” and
line 18 “objective design review standards” mean standards that involve
line 19 no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are
line 20 uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform
line 21 benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the
line 22 development applicant or proponent and the public official before
line 23 submittal. These standards may be embodied in alternative
line 24 objective land use specifications adopted by a city or county, and
line 25 may include, but are not limited to, housing overlay zones, specific
line 26 plans, inclusionary zoning ordinances, and density bonus
line 27 ordinances, subject to the following:
line 28 (A) A development shall be deemed consistent with the objective
line 29 zoning standards related to housing density, as applicable, if the
line 30 density proposed is compliant with the maximum density allowed
line 31 within that land use designation, notwithstanding any specified
line 32 maximum unit allocation that may result in fewer units of housing
line 33 being permitted.
line 34 (B) In the event that objective zoning, general plan, subdivision,
line 35 or design review standards are mutually inconsistent, a
line 36 development shall be deemed consistent with the objective zoning
line 37 and subdivision standards pursuant to this subdivision if the
line 38 development is consistent with the standards set forth in the general
line 39 plan.
97
— 10 — SB 423
line 1 (C) It is the intent of the Legislature that the objective zoning
line 2 standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design
line 3 review standards described in this paragraph be adopted or
line 4 amended in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 905 of
line 5 the Statutes of 2004.
line 6 (D) The amendments to this subdivision made by the act adding
line 7 this subparagraph do not constitute a change in, but are declaratory
line 8 of, existing law.
line 9 (E) A project that satisfies the requirements of Section 65852.24
line 10 shall be deemed consistent with objective zoning standards,
line 11 objective design standards, and objective subdivision standards if
line 12 the project is consistent with the provisions of subdivision (b) of
line 13 Section 65852.24 and if none of the square footage in the project
line 14 is designated for hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other
line 15 transient lodging use, except for a residential hotel. For purposes
line 16 of this subdivision, “residential hotel” shall have the same meaning
line 17 as defined in Section 50519 of the Health and Safety Code.
line 18 (6) The development is not located on a site that is any of the
line 19 following:
line 20 (A) Either prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance,
line 21 as defined pursuant to United States Department of Agriculture
line 22 land inventory and monitoring criteria, as modified for California,
line 23 and designated on the maps prepared by the Farmland Mapping
line 24 and Monitoring Program of the Department of Conservation, or
line 25 land zoned or designated for agricultural protection or preservation
line 26 by a local ballot measure that was approved by the voters of that
line 27 jurisdiction.
line 28 (B) Wetlands, as defined in the United States Fish and Wildlife
line 29 Service Manual, Part 660 FW 2 (June 21, 1993), unless the
line 30 development within the wetlands has been authorized by a permit
line 31 or other approval issued pursuant to federal or other state law.
line 32 (C) Within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined
line 33 by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to
line 34 Section 51178, or within a high or very high fire hazard severity
line 35 zone as indicated on maps adopted by the Department of Forestry
line 36 and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 4202 of the Public
line 37 Resources Code. This subparagraph does not apply to sites
line 38 excluded from the specified hazard zones by a local agency,
line 39 pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 51179, or sites that have
line 40 adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing
97
SB 423 — 11 —
line 1 building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to
line 2 the development.
line 3 (D) A hazardous waste site that is listed pursuant to Section
line 4 65962.5 or a hazardous waste substances release site designated
line 5 by the Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Section
line 6 25356 of the Health and Safety Code, unless either of the following
line 7 apply:
line 8 (i) The site is an underground storage tank site that received a
line 9 uniform closure letter issued pursuant to subdivision (g) of Section
line 10 25296.10 of the Health and Safety Code based on closure criteria
line 11 established by the State Water Resources Control Board for
line 12 residential use or residential mixed uses. This section does not
line 13 alter or change the conditions to remove a site from the list of
line 14 hazardous waste sites listed pursuant to Section 65962.5.
line 15 (ii) The State Department of Public Health, State Water
line 16 Resources Control Board, Department of Toxic Substances Control,
line 17 or a local agency making a determination pursuant to subdivision
line 18 (c) of Section 25296.10 of the Health and Safety Code, has
line 19 otherwise determined that the site is suitable for residential use or
line 20 residential mixed uses.
line 21 (E) Within a delineated earthquake fault zone as determined by
line 22 the State Geologist in any official maps published by the State
line 23 Geologist, unless the development complies with applicable seismic
line 24 protection building code standards adopted by the California
line 25 Building Standards Commission under the California Building
line 26 Standards Law (Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of
line 27 Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code), and by any local
line 28 building department under Chapter 12.2 (commencing with Section
line 29 8875) of Division 1 of Title 2.
line 30 (F) Within a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by
line 31 the 1 percent annual chance flood (100-year flood) as determined
line 32 by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in any official
line 33 maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
line 34 If a development proponent is able to satisfy all applicable federal
line 35 qualifying criteria in order to provide that the site satisfies this
line 36 subparagraph and is otherwise eligible for streamlined approval
line 37 under this section, a local government shall not deny the application
line 38 on the basis that the development proponent did not comply with
line 39 any additional permit requirement, standard, or action adopted by
line 40 that local government that is applicable to that site. A development
97
— 12 — SB 423
line 1 may be located on a site described in this subparagraph if either
line 2 of the following are met:
line 3 (i) The site has been subject to a Letter of Map Revision
line 4 prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and
line 5 issued to the local jurisdiction.
line 6 (ii) The site meets Federal Emergency Management Agency
line 7 requirements necessary to meet minimum flood plain management
line 8 criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program pursuant to Part
line 9 59 (commencing with Section 59.1) and Part 60 (commencing
line 10 with Section 60.1) of Subchapter B of Chapter I of Title 44 of the
line 11 Code of Federal Regulations.
line 12 (G) Within a regulatory floodway as determined by the Federal
line 13 Emergency Management Agency in any official maps published
line 14 by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, unless the
line 15 development has received a no-rise certification in accordance
line 16 with Section 60.3(d)(3) of Title 44 of the Code of Federal
line 17 Regulations. If a development proponent is able to satisfy all
line 18 applicable federal qualifying criteria in order to provide that the
line 19 site satisfies this subparagraph and is otherwise eligible for
line 20 streamlined approval under this section, a local government shall
line 21 not deny the application on the basis that the development
line 22 proponent did not comply with any additional permit requirement,
line 23 standard, or action adopted by that local government that is
line 24 applicable to that site.
line 25 (H) Lands identified for conservation in an adopted natural
line 26 community conservation plan pursuant to the Natural Community
line 27 Conservation Planning Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with Section
line 28 2800) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code), habitat
line 29 conservation plan pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act
line 30 of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.), or other adopted natural
line 31 resource protection plan.
line 32 (I) Habitat for protected species identified as candidate,
line 33 sensitive, or species of special status by state or federal agencies,
line 34 fully protected species, or species protected by the federal
line 35 Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.),
line 36 the California Endangered Species Act (Chapter 1.5 (commencing
line 37 with Section 2050) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code), or
line 38 the Native Plant Protection Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with
line 39 Section 1900) of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code), unless
97
SB 423 — 13 —
line 1 the development within the habitat has been authorized by a permit
line 2 or approval issued pursuant to federal or other state law.
line 3 (J) Lands under conservation easement.
line 4 (7) The development is not located on a site where any of the
line 5 following apply:
line 6 (A) The development would require the demolition of the
line 7 following types of housing:
line 8 (i) Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance,
line 9 or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and
line 10 families of moderate, low, or very low income.
line 11 (ii) Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control
line 12 through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power.
line 13 (iii) Housing that has been occupied by tenants within the past
line 14 10 years.
line 15 (B) The site was previously used for housing that was occupied
line 16 by tenants that was demolished within 10 years before the
line 17 development proponent submits an application under this section.
line 18 (C) The development would require the demolition of a historic
line 19 structure that was placed on a national, state, or local historic
line 20 register.
line 21 (D) The property contains housing units that are occupied by
line 22 tenants, and units at the property are, or were, subsequently offered
line 23 for sale to the general public by the subdivider or subsequent owner
line 24 of the property.
line 25 (8) Except as provided in paragraph (9), a proponent of a
line 26 development project approved by a local government pursuant to
line 27 this section shall require in contracts with construction contractors,
line 28 and shall certify to the local government, that the following
line 29 standards specified in this paragraph will be met in project
line 30 construction, as applicable:
line 31 (A) A development that is not in its entirety a public work for
line 32 purposes of Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720) of Part 7
line 33 of Division 2 of the Labor Code and approved by a local
line 34 government pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section
line 35 65912.110) or Article 3 (commencing with Section 65912.120)
line 36 shall be subject to all of the following:
line 37 (i) All construction workers employed in the execution of the
line 38 development shall be paid at least the general prevailing rate of
line 39 per diem wages for the type of work and geographic area, as
line 40 determined by the Director of Industrial Relations pursuant to
97
— 14 — SB 423
line 1 Sections 1773 and 1773.9 of the Labor Code, except that
line 2 apprentices registered in programs approved by the Chief of the
line 3 Division of Apprenticeship Standards may be paid at least the
line 4 applicable apprentice prevailing rate.
line 5 (ii) The development proponent shall ensure that the prevailing
line 6 wage requirement is included in all contracts for the performance
line 7 of the work for those portions of the development that are not a
line 8 public work.
line 9 (iii) All contractors and subcontractors for those portions of the
line 10 development that are not a public work shall comply with both of
line 11 the following:
line 12 (I) Pay to all construction workers employed in the execution
line 13 of the work at least the general prevailing rate of per diem wages,
line 14 except that apprentices registered in programs approved by the
line 15 Chief of the Division of Apprenticeship Standards may be paid at
line 16 least the applicable apprentice prevailing rate.
line 17 (II) Maintain and verify payroll records pursuant to Section
line 18 1776 of the Labor Code and make those records available for
line 19 inspection and copying as provided in that section. This subclause
line 20 does not apply if all contractors and subcontractors performing
line 21 work on the development are subject to a project labor agreement
line 22 that requires the payment of prevailing wages to all construction
line 23 workers employed in the execution of the development and
line 24 provides for enforcement of that obligation through an arbitration
line 25 procedure. For purposes of this subclause, “project labor
line 26 agreement” has the same meaning as set forth in paragraph (1) of
line 27 subdivision (b) of Section 2500 of the Public Contract Code.
line 28 (B) (i) The obligation of the contractors and subcontractors to
line 29 pay prevailing wages pursuant to this paragraph may be enforced
line 30 by any of the following:
line 31 (I) The Labor Commissioner through the issuance of a civil
line 32 wage and penalty assessment pursuant to Section 1741 of the Labor
line 33 Code, which may be reviewed pursuant to Section 1742 of the
line 34 Labor Code, within 18 months after the completion of the
line 35 development.
line 36 (II) An underpaid worker through an administrative complaint
line 37 or civil action.
line 38 (III) A joint labor-management committee through a civil action
line 39 under Section 1771.2 of the Labor Code.
97
SB 423 — 15 —
line 1 (ii) If a civil wage and penalty assessment is issued pursuant to
line 2 this paragraph, the contractor, subcontractor, and surety on a bond
line 3 or bonds issued to secure the payment of wages covered by the
line 4 assessment shall be liable for liquidated damages pursuant to
line 5 Section 1742.1 of the Labor Code.
line 6 (iii) This paragraph does not apply if all contractors and
line 7 subcontractors performing work on the development are subject
line 8 to a project labor agreement that requires the payment of prevailing
line 9 wages to all construction workers employed in the execution of
line 10 the development and provides for enforcement of that obligation
line 11 through an arbitration procedure. For purposes of this clause,
line 12 “project labor agreement” has the same meaning as set forth in
line 13 paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 2500 of the Public
line 14 Contract Code.
line 15 (C) Notwithstanding subdivision (c) of Section 1773.1 of the
line 16 Labor Code, the requirement that employer payments not reduce
line 17 the obligation to pay the hourly straight time or overtime wages
line 18 found to be prevailing does not apply to those portions of
line 19 development that are not a public work if otherwise provided in a
line 20 bona fide collective bargaining agreement covering the worker.
line 21 (D) The requirement of this paragraph to pay at least the general
line 22 prevailing rate of per diem wages does not preclude use of an
line 23 alternative workweek schedule adopted pursuant to Section 511
line 24 or 514 of the Labor Code.
line 25 (E) A development of 50 or more housing units approved by a
line 26 local government pursuant to this section shall meet all of the
line 27 following labor standards:
line 28 (i) The development proponent shall require in contracts with
line 29 construction contractors and shall certify to the local government
line 30 that each contractor of any tier who will employ construction craft
line 31 employees or will let subcontracts for at least 1,000 hours shall
line 32 satisfy the requirements in clauses (ii) and (iii). A construction
line 33 contractor is deemed in compliance with clauses (ii) and (iii) if it
line 34 is signatory to a valid collective bargaining agreement that requires
line 35 utilization of registered apprentices and expenditures on health
line 36 care for employees and dependents.
line 37 (ii) A contractor with construction craft employees shall either
line 38 participate in an apprenticeship program approved by the California
line 39 Division of Apprenticeship Standards pursuant to Section 3075 of
line 40 the Labor Code, or request the dispatch of apprentices from a
97
— 16 — SB 423
line 1 state-approved apprenticeship program under the terms and
line 2 conditions set forth in Section 1777.5 of the Labor Code. A
line 3 contractor without construction craft employees shall show a
line 4 contractual obligation that its subcontractors comply with this
line 5 clause.
line 6 (iii) Each contractor with construction craft employees shall
line 7 make health care expenditures for each employee in an amount
line 8 per hour worked on the development equivalent to at least the
line 9 hourly pro rata cost of a Covered California Platinum level plan
line 10 for two adults 40 years of age and two dependents 0 to 14 years
line 11 of age for the Covered California rating area in which the
line 12 development is located. A contractor without construction craft
line 13 employees shall show a contractual obligation that its
line 14 subcontractors comply with this clause. Qualifying expenditures
line 15 shall be credited toward compliance with prevailing wage payment
line 16 requirements set forth in this paragraph.
line 17 (iv) (I) The development proponent shall provide to the local
line 18 government, on a monthly basis while its construction contracts
line 19 on the development are being performed, a report demonstrating
line 20 compliance with clauses (ii) and (iii). The reports shall be
line 21 considered public records under the California Public Records Act
line 22 (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1), and
line 23 shall be open to public inspection.
line 24 (II) A development proponent that fails to provide the monthly
line 25 report shall be subject to a civil penalty for each month for which
line 26 the report has not been provided, in the amount of 10 percent of
line 27 the dollar value of construction work performed by that contractor
line 28 on the development in the month in question, up to a maximum
line 29 of ten thousand dollars ($10,000). Any contractor or subcontractor
line 30 that fails to comply with clauses (ii) and (iii) shall be subject to a
line 31 civil penalty of two hundred dollars ($200) per day for each worker
line 32 employed in contravention of clauses (ii) and (iii).
line 33 (III) Penalties may be assessed by the Labor Commissioner
line 34 within 18 months of completion of the development using the
line 35 procedures for issuance of civil wage and penalty assessments
line 36 specified in Section 1741 of the Labor Code, and may be reviewed
line 37 pursuant to Section 1742 of the Labor Code. Penalties shall be
line 38 deposited in the State Public Works Enforcement Fund established
line 39 pursuant to Section 1771.3 of the Labor Code.
97
SB 423 — 17 —
line 1 (v) Each construction contractor shall maintain and verify
line 2 payroll records pursuant to Section 1776 of the Labor Code. Each
line 3 construction contractor shall submit payroll records directly to the
line 4 Labor Commissioner at least monthly in a format prescribed by
line 5 the Labor Commissioner in accordance with subparagraph (A) of
line 6 paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 1771.4 of the Labor
line 7 Code. The records shall include a statement of fringe benefits.
line 8 Upon request by a joint labor-management cooperation committee
line 9 established pursuant to the Federal Labor Management Cooperation
line 10 Act of 1978 (29 U.S.C. Sec. 175a), the records shall be provided
line 11 pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 1776 of the Labor Code.
line 12 (vi) All construction contractors shall report any change in
line 13 apprenticeship program participation or health care expenditures
line 14 to the local government within 10 business days, and shall reflect
line 15 those changes on the monthly report. The reports shall be
line 16 considered public records pursuant to the California Public Records
line 17 Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1)
line 18 and shall be open to public inspection.
line 19 (vii) A joint labor-management cooperation committee
line 20 established pursuant to the Federal Labor Management Cooperation
line 21 Act of 1978 (29 U.S.C. Sec. 175a) shall have standing to sue a
line 22 construction contractor for failure to make health care expenditures
line 23 pursuant to clause (iii) in accordance with Section 218.7 or 218.8
line 24 of the Labor Code.
line 25 (F) For any project over 85 feet in height above-grade, the
line 26 following skilled and trained workforce provisions apply:
line 27 (i) Except as provided in clause (ii), the developer shall enter
line 28 into construction contracts with prime contractors only if both of
line 29 the following are satisfied:
line 30 (I) The contract contains an enforceable commitment that
line 31 subcontractors at every tier will use a skilled and trained
line 32 workforce, as defined in Chapter 2.9 (commencing with Section
line 33 2600) of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Public Contract Code, to
line 34 perform work on the project that falls within an apprenticeable
line 35 occupation in the building and construction trades.
line 36 (II) The prime contractor has provided an affidavit under
line 37 penalty of perjury that, for each scope of work, they included an
line 38 enforceable commitment to require, in compliance with this
line 39 subparagraph, its subcontractors to use a skilled and trained
line 40 workforce or that they did not receive at least three responsive
97
— 18 — SB 423
line 1 bids in any license category from subcontractors that attest to
line 2 satisfying the skilled and trained workforce requirements.
line 3 (ii) (I) If a prime contractor fails to receive at least three
line 4 responsive bids in a construction license classification or scope
line 5 of construction work from subcontractors that attest to satisfying
line 6 the skilled and trained workforce requirements as described in
line 7 this subparagraph, the prime contractor may rebid that scope of
line 8 work. The prime contractor need not require that a skilled and
line 9 trained workforce be used by the subcontractors for that scope of
line 10 work.
line 11 (II) The requirements of this subparagraph shall not apply if
line 12 all contractors, subcontractors and craft unions performing work
line 13 on the development are subject to a multicraft project labor
line 14 agreement that requires the payment of prevailing wages to all
line 15 construction workers employed in the execution of the development
line 16 and provides for enforcement of that obligation through an
line 17 arbitration procedure. The multicraft project labor agreement
line 18 shall include all construction crafts with applicable coverage
line 19 determinations for the specified scopes of work on the project
line 20 pursuant to Section 1773 of the Labor Code and shall be executed
line 21 by all applicable labor organizations regardless of affiliation. For
line 22 purposes of this clause, “project labor agreement” means a prehire
line 23 collective bargaining agreement that establishes terms and
line 24 conditions of employment for a specific construction project or
line 25 projects and is an agreement described in Section 158(f) of Title
line 26 29 of the United States Code.
line 27 (III) Requirements set forth in this subparagraph shall not apply
line 28 to projects where 100 percent of the units are subsidized affordable
line 29 housing.
line 30 (iii) If the skilled and trained workforce requirements of this
line 31 subparagraph apply, the prime contractor shall require
line 32 subcontractors to provide, and subcontractors on the project shall
line 33 provide, the following to the prime contractor:
line 34 (I) An affidavit signed under penalty of perjury that a skilled
line 35 and trained workforce shall be employed on the project.
line 36 (II) Performance bonds on which the prime contractor or
line 37 development proponent may make a claim if the subcontractor
line 38 fails to satisfy its skilled and trained workforce requirements. The
line 39 purpose of the performance bond shall be to indemnify the prime
line 40 contractor for any loss sustained by the prime contractor due to
97
SB 423 — 19 —
line 1 any failure by the subcontractor to comply with this subparagraph.
line 2 However, a prime contractor or development proponent shall be
line 3 prohibited from making a claim on the bonds if the subcontractor
line 4 was not properly notified of the skilled and trained workforce
line 5 requirements prior to the submission of their bid. Proper notice
line 6 includes, but is not limited to, the words “skilled and trained
line 7 workforce required” in any notice to potential bidders,
line 8 correspondence, offer of contract, or contract between the prime
line 9 contractor or development proponent and subcontractor at any
line 10 time before the work is performed.
line 11 (iv) At least seven days before issuing any invitation or bid
line 12 solicitation for the project, the developer shall send a notice of the
line 13 invitation or solicitation that describes the project to the following
line 14 entities within the jurisdiction of the proposed project site:
line 15 (I) Any bona fide labor organization representing workers in
line 16 the building and construction trades who may perform work
line 17 necessary to complete the project and the local building and
line 18 construction trades council.
line 19 (II) Any organization representing contractors that may perform
line 20 work necessary to complete the project, including any contractors’
line 21 association or regional builders’ exchange.
line 22 (v) The developer shall, within three business days of a request
line 23 by a joint labor-management cooperation committee established
line 24 pursuant to the Federal Labor Management Cooperation 8 Act of
line 25 1978 (29 U.S.C. Sec. 175a), provide all of the following:
line 26 (I) The names and Contractors State License Board numbers
line 27 of the prime contractor and any subcontractors that submitted a
line 28 proposal or bid for the development project.
line 29 (II) The names and Contractors State License Board numbers
line 30 of contractors and subcontractors that are under contract to
line 31 perform construction work.
line 32 (vi) (I) For all projects subject to this subparagraph, the
line 33 development proponent shall provide to the local agency, on a
line 34 monthly basis while the project or contract is being performed, a
line 35 report demonstrating compliance with Chapter 2.9 (commencing
line 36 with Section 2600) of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Public Contract
line 37 Code. A monthly report provided to the local government pursuant
line 38 to this subclause shall be a public record under the California
line 39 Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section
line 40 7920.000) of Title 1 and shall be open to public inspection. A
97
— 20 — SB 423
line 1 developer that fails to provide a monthly report demonstrating
line 2 compliance with Chapter 2.9 (commencing with Section 2600) of
line 3 Part 1 of Division 2 of the Public Contract Code shall be subject
line 4 to a civil penalty of 10 percent of the dollar value of construction
line 5 work performed by that contractor on the project in the month in
line 6 question, up to a maximum of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per
line 7 month for each month for which the report has not been provided.
line 8 (II) Any subcontractors subject to the skilled and trained
line 9 workforce requirements under this subparagraph that fail to use
line 10 a skilled and trained workforce shall be subject to a civil penalty
line 11 of two hundred dollars per day for each worker employed in
line 12 contravention of the skilled and trained workforce requirement.
line 13 Penalties may be assessed by the Labor Commissioner within 18
line 14 months of completion of the project using the same issuance of
line 15 civil wage and penalty assessments pursuant to Section 1741 of
line 16 the Labor Code and may be reviewed pursuant to the same
line 17 procedures in Section 1742 of the Labor Code. Prime contractors
line 18 shall not be jointly liable for violations of this subparagraph by
line 19 subcontractors. Penalties shall be paid to the State Public Works
line 20 Enforcement Fund.
line 21 (9) Notwithstanding paragraph (8), a development that is subject
line 22 to approval pursuant to this section is exempt from any requirement
line 23 to pay prevailing wages, use a workforce participating in an
line 24 apprenticeship, or provide health care expenditures if it satisfies
line 25 both of the following:
line 26 (A) The project consists of 10 or fewer units.
line 27 (B) The project is not a public work for purposes of Chapter 1
line 28 (commencing with Section 1720) of Part 7 of Division 2 of the
line 29 Labor Code.
line 30 (10) The development shall not be upon an existing parcel of
line 31 land or site that is governed under the Mobilehome Residency Law
line 32 (Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 798) of Title 2 of Part 2
line 33 of Division 2 of the Civil Code), the Recreational Vehicle Park
line 34 Occupancy Law (Chapter 2.6 (commencing with Section 799.20)
line 35 of Title 2 of Part 2 of Division 2 of the Civil Code), the
line 36 Mobilehome Parks Act (Part 2.1 (commencing with Section 18200)
line 37 of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code), or the Special
line 38 Occupancy Parks Act (Part 2.3 (commencing with Section 18860)
line 39 of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code).
97
SB 423 — 21 —
line 1 (b) (1) (A) (i) Before submitting an application for a
line 2 development subject to the streamlined, ministerial approval
line 3 process described in subdivision (c), the development proponent
line 4 shall submit to the local government a notice of its intent to submit
line 5 an application. The notice of intent shall be in the form of a
line 6 preliminary application that includes all of the information
line 7 described in Section 65941.1, as that section read on January 1,
line 8 2020.
line 9 (ii) Upon receipt of a notice of intent to submit an application
line 10 described in clause (i), the local government shall engage in a
line 11 scoping consultation regarding the proposed development with
line 12 any California Native American tribe that is traditionally and
line 13 culturally affiliated with the geographic area, as described in
line 14 Section 21080.3.1 of the Public Resources Code, of the proposed
line 15 development. In order to expedite compliance with this subdivision,
line 16 the local government shall contact the Native American Heritage
line 17 Commission for assistance in identifying any California Native
line 18 American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with
line 19 the geographic area of the proposed development.
line 20 (iii) The timeline for noticing and commencing a scoping
line 21 consultation in accordance with this subdivision shall be as follows:
line 22 (I) The local government shall provide a formal notice of a
line 23 development proponent’s notice of intent to submit an application
line 24 described in clause (i) to each California Native American tribe
line 25 that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic
line 26 area of the proposed development within 30 days of receiving that
line 27 notice of intent. The formal notice provided pursuant to this
line 28 subclause shall include all of the following:
line 29 (ia) A description of the proposed development.
line 30 (ib) The location of the proposed development.
line 31 (ic) An invitation to engage in a scoping consultation in
line 32 accordance with this subdivision.
line 33 (II) Each California Native American tribe that receives a formal
line 34 notice pursuant to this clause shall have 30 days from the receipt
line 35 of that notice to accept the invitation to engage in a scoping
line 36 consultation.
line 37 (III) If the local government receives a response accepting an
line 38 invitation to engage in a scoping consultation pursuant to this
line 39 subdivision, the local government shall commence the scoping
line 40 consultation within 30 days of receiving that response.
97
— 22 — SB 423
line 1 (B) The scoping consultation shall recognize that California
line 2 Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with
line 3 a geographic area have knowledge and expertise concerning the
line 4 resources at issue and shall take into account the cultural
line 5 significance of the resource to the culturally affiliated California
line 6 Native American tribe.
line 7 (C) The parties to a scoping consultation conducted pursuant
line 8 to this subdivision shall be the local government and any California
line 9 Native American tribe traditionally and culturally affiliated with
line 10 the geographic area of the proposed development. More than one
line 11 California Native American tribe traditionally and culturally
line 12 affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed development
line 13 may participate in the scoping consultation. However, the local
line 14 government, upon the request of any California Native American
line 15 tribe traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area
line 16 of the proposed development, shall engage in a separate scoping
line 17 consultation with that California Native American tribe. The
line 18 development proponent and its consultants may participate in a
line 19 scoping consultation process conducted pursuant to this subdivision
line 20 if all of the following conditions are met:
line 21 (i) The development proponent and its consultants agree to
line 22 respect the principles set forth in this subdivision.
line 23 (ii) The development proponent and its consultants engage in
line 24 the scoping consultation in good faith.
line 25 (iii) The California Native American tribe participating in the
line 26 scoping consultation approves the participation of the development
line 27 proponent and its consultants. The California Native American
line 28 tribe may rescind its approval at any time during the scoping
line 29 consultation, either for the duration of the scoping consultation or
line 30 with respect to any particular meeting or discussion held as part
line 31 of the scoping consultation.
line 32 (D) The participants to a scoping consultation pursuant to this
line 33 subdivision shall comply with all of the following confidentiality
line 34 requirements:
line 35 (i) Section 7927.000.
line 36 (ii) Section 7927.005.
line 37 (iii) Subdivision (c) of Section 21082.3 of the Public Resources
line 38 Code.
line 39 (iv) Subdivision (d) of Section 15120 of Title 14 of the
line 40 California Code of Regulations.
97
SB 423 — 23 —
line 1 (v) Any additional confidentiality standards adopted by the
line 2 California Native American tribe participating in the scoping
line 3 consultation.
line 4 (E) The California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13
line 5 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code)
line 6 shall not apply to a scoping consultation conducted pursuant to
line 7 this subdivision.
line 8 (2) (A) If, after concluding the scoping consultation, the parties
line 9 find that no potential tribal cultural resource would be affected by
line 10 the proposed development, the development proponent may submit
line 11 an application for the proposed development that is subject to the
line 12 streamlined, ministerial approval process described in subdivision
line 13 (c).
line 14 (B) If, after concluding the scoping consultation, the parties
line 15 find that a potential tribal cultural resource could be affected by
line 16 the proposed development and an enforceable agreement is
line 17 documented between the California Native American tribe and the
line 18 local government on methods, measures, and conditions for tribal
line 19 cultural resource treatment, the development proponent may submit
line 20 the application for a development subject to the streamlined,
line 21 ministerial approval process described in subdivision (c). The local
line 22 government shall ensure that the enforceable agreement is included
line 23 in the requirements and conditions for the proposed development.
line 24 (C) If, after concluding the scoping consultation, the parties
line 25 find that a potential tribal cultural resource could be affected by
line 26 the proposed development and an enforceable agreement is not
line 27 documented between the California Native American tribe and the
line 28 local government regarding methods, measures, and conditions
line 29 for tribal cultural resource treatment, the development shall not
line 30 be eligible for the streamlined, ministerial approval process
line 31 described in subdivision (c).
line 32 (D) For purposes of this paragraph, a scoping consultation shall
line 33 be deemed to be concluded if either of the following occur:
line 34 (i) The parties to the scoping consultation document an
line 35 enforceable agreement concerning methods, measures, and
line 36 conditions to avoid or address potential impacts to tribal cultural
line 37 resources that are or may be present.
line 38 (ii) One or more parties to the scoping consultation, acting in
line 39 good faith and after reasonable effort, conclude that a mutual
line 40 agreement on methods, measures, and conditions to avoid or
97
— 24 — SB 423
line 1 address impacts to tribal cultural resources that are or may be
line 2 present cannot be reached.
line 3 (E) If the development or environmental setting substantially
line 4 changes after the completion of the scoping consultation, the local
line 5 government shall notify the California Native American tribe of
line 6 the changes and engage in a subsequent scoping consultation if
line 7 requested by the California Native American tribe.
line 8 (3) A local government may only accept an application for
line 9 streamlined, ministerial approval pursuant to this section if one of
line 10 the following applies:
line 11 (A) A California Native American tribe that received a formal
line 12 notice of the development proponent’s notice of intent to submit
line 13 an application pursuant to subclause (I) of clause (iii) of
line 14 subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) did not accept the invitation to
line 15 engage in a scoping consultation.
line 16 (B) The California Native American tribe accepted an invitation
line 17 to engage in a scoping consultation pursuant to subclause (II) of
line 18 clause (iii) of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) but substantially
line 19 failed to engage in the scoping consultation after repeated
line 20 documented attempts by the local government to engage the
line 21 California Native American tribe.
line 22 (C) The parties to a scoping consultation pursuant to this
line 23 subdivision find that no potential tribal cultural resource will be
line 24 affected by the proposed development pursuant to subparagraph
line 25 (A) of paragraph (2).
line 26 (D) A scoping consultation between a California Native
line 27 American tribe and the local government has occurred in
line 28 accordance with this subdivision and resulted in agreement
line 29 pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2).
line 30 (4) A project shall not be eligible for the streamlined, ministerial
line 31 process described in subdivision (c) if any of the following apply:
line 32 (A) There is a tribal cultural resource that is on a national, state,
line 33 tribal, or local historic register list located on the site of the project.
line 34 (B) There is a potential tribal cultural resource that could be
line 35 affected by the proposed development and the parties to a scoping
line 36 consultation conducted pursuant to this subdivision do not
line 37 document an enforceable agreement on methods, measures, and
line 38 conditions for tribal cultural resource treatment, as described in
line 39 subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2).
97
SB 423 — 25 —
line 1 (C) The parties to a scoping consultation conducted pursuant
line 2 to this subdivision do not agree as to whether a potential tribal
line 3 cultural resource will be affected by the proposed development.
line 4 (5) (A) If, after a scoping consultation conducted pursuant to
line 5 this subdivision, a project is not eligible for the streamlined,
line 6 ministerial process described in subdivision (c) for any or all of
line 7 the following reasons, the local government shall provide written
line 8 documentation of that fact, and an explanation of the reason for
line 9 which the project is not eligible, to the development proponent
line 10 and to any California Native American tribe that is a party to that
line 11 scoping consultation:
line 12 (i) There is a tribal cultural resource that is on a national, state,
line 13 tribal, or local historic register list located on the site of the project,
line 14 as described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (4).
line 15 (ii) The parties to the scoping consultation have not documented
line 16 an enforceable agreement on methods, measures, and conditions
line 17 for tribal cultural resource treatment, as described in subparagraph
line 18 (C) of paragraph (2) and subparagraph (B) of paragraph (4).
line 19 (iii) The parties to the scoping consultation do not agree as to
line 20 whether a potential tribal cultural resource will be affected by the
line 21 proposed development, as described in subparagraph (C) of
line 22 paragraph (4).
line 23 (B) The written documentation provided to a development
line 24 proponent pursuant to this paragraph shall include information on
line 25 how the development proponent may seek a conditional use permit
line 26 or other discretionary approval of the development from the local
line 27 government.
line 28 (6) This section is not intended, and shall not be construed, to
line 29 limit consultation and discussion between a local government and
line 30 a California Native American tribe pursuant to other applicable
line 31 law, confidentiality provisions under other applicable law, the
line 32 protection of religious exercise to the fullest extent permitted under
line 33 state and federal law, or the ability of a California Native American
line 34 tribe to submit information to the local government or participate
line 35 in any process of the local government.
line 36 (7) For purposes of this subdivision:
line 37 (A) “Consultation” means the meaningful and timely process
line 38 of seeking, discussing, and considering carefully the views of
line 39 others, in a manner that is cognizant of all parties’ cultural values
line 40 and, where feasible, seeking agreement. Consultation between
97
— 26 — SB 423
line 1 local governments and Native American tribes shall be conducted
line 2 in a way that is mutually respectful of each party’s sovereignty.
line 3 Consultation shall also recognize the tribes’ potential needs for
line 4 confidentiality with respect to places that have traditional tribal
line 5 cultural importance. A lead agency shall consult the tribal
line 6 consultation best practices described in the “State of California
line 7 Tribal Consultation Guidelines: Supplement to the General Plan
line 8 Guidelines” prepared by the Office of Planning and Research.
line 9 (B) “Scoping” means the act of participating in early discussions
line 10 or investigations between the local government and California
line 11 Native American tribe, and the development proponent if
line 12 authorized by the California Native American tribe, regarding the
line 13 potential effects a proposed development could have on a potential
line 14 tribal cultural resource, as defined in Section 21074 of the Public
line 15 Resources Code, or California Native American tribe, as defined
line 16 in Section 21073 of the Public Resources Code.
line 17 (8) This subdivision shall not apply to any project that has been
line 18 approved under the streamlined, ministerial approval process
line 19 provided under this section before the effective date of the act
line 20 adding this subdivision.
line 21 (c) (1) Notwithstanding any local law, if a local government’s
line 22 planning director or equivalent position determines that a
line 23 development submitted pursuant to this section is consistent with
line 24 the objective planning standards specified in subdivision (a) and
line 25 pursuant to paragraph (3) of this subdivision, the local government
line 26 shall approve the development. Upon a determination that a
line 27 development submitted pursuant to this section is in conflict with
line 28 any of the objective planning standards specified in subdivision
line 29 (a), the local government staff or relevant local planning and
line 30 permitting department that made the determination shall provide
line 31 the development proponent written documentation of which
line 32 standard or standards the development conflicts with, and an
line 33 explanation for the reason or reasons the development conflicts
line 34 with that standard or standards, as follows:
line 35 (A) Within 60 days of submittal of the development to the local
line 36 government pursuant to this section if the development contains
line 37 150 or fewer housing units.
line 38 (B) Within 90 days of submittal of the development to the local
line 39 government pursuant to this section if the development contains
line 40 more than 150 housing units.
97
SB 423 — 27 —
line 1 (2) If the local government’s planning director or equivalent
line 2 position fails to provide the required documentation pursuant to
line 3 paragraph (1), the development shall be deemed to satisfy the
line 4 objective planning standards specified in subdivision (a).
line 5 (3) For purposes of this section, a development is consistent
line 6 with the objective planning standards specified in subdivision (a)
line 7 if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person
line 8 to conclude that the development is consistent with the objective
line 9 planning standards. The local government shall not determine that
line 10 a development, including an application for a modification under
line 11 subdivision (h), is in conflict with the objective planning standards
line 12 on the basis that application materials are not included, if the
line 13 application contains substantial evidence that would allow a
line 14 reasonable person to conclude that the development is consistent
line 15 with the objective planning standards.
line 16 (4) Upon submittal of an application for streamlined, ministerial
line 17 approval pursuant to this section to the local government, all
line 18 departments of the local government that are required to issue an
line 19 approval of the development prior to the granting of an entitlement
line 20 shall comply with the requirements of this section within the time
line 21 periods specified in paragraph (1).
line 22 (d) (1) Any design review of the development may be conducted
line 23 by the local government’s planning commission or any equivalent
line 24 board or commission responsible for design review. That design
line 25 review shall be objective and be strictly focused on assessing
line 26 compliance with criteria required for streamlined projects, as well
line 27 as any reasonable objective design standards published and adopted
line 28 by ordinance or resolution by a local jurisdiction before submission
line 29 of a development application, and shall be broadly applicable to
line 30 development within the jurisdiction. That design review shall be
line 31 completed, and if the development is consistent with all objective
line 32 standards, the local government shall approve the development as
line 33 follows and shall not in any way inhibit, chill, or preclude the
line 34 ministerial approval provided by this section or its effect, as
line 35 applicable:
line 36 (A) Within 90 days of submittal of the development to the local
line 37 government pursuant to this section if the development contains
line 38 150 or fewer housing units.
97
— 28 — SB 423
line 1 (B) Within 180 days of submittal of the development to the
line 2 local government pursuant to this section if the development
line 3 contains more than 150 housing units.
line 4 (2) If the development is consistent with the requirements of
line 5 subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (9) of subdivision (a) and
line 6 is consistent with all objective subdivision standards in the local
line 7 subdivision ordinance, an application for a subdivision pursuant
line 8 to the Subdivision Map Act (Division 2 (commencing with Section
line 9 66410)) shall be exempt from the requirements of the California
line 10 Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section
line 11 21000) of the Public Resources Code) and shall be subject to the
line 12 public oversight timelines set forth in paragraph (1).
line 13 (3) If a local government determines that a development
line 14 submitted pursuant to this section is in conflict with any of the
line 15 standards imposed pursuant to paragraph (1), it shall provide the
line 16 development proponent written documentation of which objective
line 17 standard or standards the development conflicts with, and an
line 18 explanation for the reason or reasons the development conflicts
line 19 with that objective standard or standards consistent with the
line 20 timelines described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c).
line 21 (e) (1) Notwithstanding any other law, a local government,
line 22 whether or not it has adopted an ordinance governing automobile
line 23 parking requirements in multifamily developments, shall not
line 24 impose automobile parking standards for a streamlined
line 25 development that was approved pursuant to this section in any of
line 26 the following instances:
line 27 (A) The development is located within one-half mile of public
line 28 transit.
line 29 (B) The development is located within an architecturally and
line 30 historically significant historic district.
line 31 (C) When on-street parking permits are required but not offered
line 32 to the occupants of the development.
line 33 (D) When there is a car share vehicle located within one block
line 34 of the development.
line 35 (2) If the development does not fall within any of the categories
line 36 described in paragraph (1), the local government shall not impose
line 37 automobile parking requirements for streamlined developments
line 38 approved pursuant to this section that exceed one parking space
line 39 per unit.
97
SB 423 — 29 —
line 1 (f) Notwithstanding any law, a local government shall not
line 2 require any of the following prior to approving a development that
line 3 meets the requirements of this section:
line 4 (1) Studies, information, or other materials that do not pertain
line 5 directly to determining whether the development is consistent with
line 6 the objective planning standards applicable to the development.
line 7 (2) (A) Compliance with any standards necessary to receive a
line 8 postentitlement permit.
line 9 (B) This paragraph does not prohibit a local agency from
line 10 requiring compliance with any standards necessary to receive a
line 11 postentitlement permit after a permit has been issued pursuant to
line 12 this section.
line 13 (C) For purposes of this paragraph, “postentitlement permit”
line 14 has the same meaning as provided in subparagraph (A) of
line 15 paragraph (3) of subdivision (j) of Section 65913.3.
line 16 (g) (1) If a local government approves a development pursuant
line 17 to this section, then, notwithstanding any other law, that approval
line 18 shall not expire if the project satisfies both of the following
line 19 requirements:
line 20 (A) The project includes public investment in housing
line 21 affordability, beyond tax credits.
line 22 (B) At least 50 percent of the units are affordable to households
line 23 making at or below 80 percent of the area median income.
line 24 (2) (A) If a local government approves a development pursuant
line 25 to this section, and the project does not satisfy the requirements
line 26 of subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1), that approval shall
line 27 remain valid for three years from the date of the final action
line 28 establishing that approval, or if litigation is filed challenging that
line 29 approval, from the date of the final judgment upholding that
line 30 approval. Approval shall remain valid for a project provided
line 31 construction activity, including demolition and grading activity,
line 32 on the development site has begun pursuant to a permit issued by
line 33 the local jurisdiction and is in progress. For purposes of this
line 34 subdivision, “in progress” means one of the following:
line 35 (i) The construction has begun and has not ceased for more than
line 36 180 days.
line 37 (ii) If the development requires multiple building permits, an
line 38 initial phase has been completed, and the project proponent has
line 39 applied for and is diligently pursuing a building permit for a
97
— 30 — SB 423
line 1 subsequent phase, provided that once it has been issued, the
line 2 building permit for the subsequent phase does not lapse.
line 3 (B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), a local government may
line 4 grant a project a one-time, one-year extension if the project
line 5 proponent can provide documentation that there has been
line 6 significant progress toward getting the development construction
line 7 ready, such as filing a building permit application.
line 8 (3) If the development proponent requests a modification
line 9 pursuant to subdivision (h), then the time during which the approval
line 10 shall remain valid shall be extended for the number of days
line 11 between the submittal of a modification request and the date of its
line 12 final approval, plus an additional 180 days to allow time to obtain
line 13 a building permit. If litigation is filed relating to the modification
line 14 request, the time shall be further extended during the pendency of
line 15 the litigation. The extension required by this paragraph shall only
line 16 apply to the first request for a modification submitted by the
line 17 development proponent.
line 18 (4) The amendments made to this subdivision by the act that
line 19 added this paragraph shall also be retroactively applied to
line 20 developments approved prior to January 1, 2022.
line 21 (h) (1) (A) A development proponent may request a
line 22 modification to a development that has been approved under the
line 23 streamlined, ministerial approval process provided in subdivision
line 24 (c) if that request is submitted to the local government before the
line 25 issuance of the final building permit required for construction of
line 26 the development.
line 27 (B) Except as provided in paragraph (3), the local government
line 28 shall approve a modification if it determines that the modification
line 29 is consistent with the objective planning standards specified in
line 30 subdivision (a) that were in effect when the original development
line 31 application was first submitted.
line 32 (C) The local government shall evaluate any modifications
line 33 requested pursuant to this subdivision for consistency with the
line 34 objective planning standards using the same assumptions and
line 35 analytical methodology that the local government originally used
line 36 to assess consistency for the development that was approved for
line 37 streamlined, ministerial approval pursuant to subdivision (c).
line 38 (D) A guideline that was adopted or amended by the department
line 39 pursuant to subdivision (n) after a development was approved
line 40 through the streamlined, ministerial approval process described in
97
SB 423 — 31 —
line 1 subdivision (c) shall not be used as a basis to deny proposed
line 2 modifications.
line 3 (2) Upon receipt of the development proponent’s application
line 4 requesting a modification, the local government shall determine
line 5 if the requested modification is consistent with the objective
line 6 planning standard and either approve or deny the modification
line 7 request within 60 days after submission of the modification, or
line 8 within 90 days if design review is required.
line 9 (3) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the local government may
line 10 apply objective planning standards adopted after the development
line 11 application was first submitted to the requested modification in
line 12 any of the following instances:
line 13 (A) The development is revised such that the total number of
line 14 residential units or total square footage of construction changes
line 15 by 15 percent or more. The calculation of the square footage of
line 16 construction changes shall not include underground space.
line 17 (B) The development is revised such that the total number of
line 18 residential units or total square footage of construction changes
line 19 by 5 percent or more and it is necessary to subject the development
line 20 to an objective standard beyond those in effect when the
line 21 development application was submitted in order to mitigate or
line 22 avoid a specific, adverse impact, as that term is defined in
line 23 subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (j) of Section
line 24 65589.5, upon the public health or safety and there is no feasible
line 25 alternative method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse
line 26 impact. The calculation of the square footage of construction
line 27 changes shall not include underground space.
line 28 (C) (i) Objective building standards contained in the California
line 29 Building Standards Code (Title 24 of the California Code of
line 30 Regulations), including, but not limited to, building plumbing,
line 31 electrical, fire, and grading codes, may be applied to all
line 32 modification applications that are submitted prior to the first
line 33 building permit application. Those standards may be applied to
line 34 modification applications submitted after the first building permit
line 35 application if agreed to by the development proponent.
line 36 (ii) The amendments made to clause (i) by the act that added
line 37 clause (i) shall also be retroactively applied to modification
line 38 applications submitted prior to January 1, 2022.
line 39 (4) The local government’s review of a modification request
line 40 pursuant to this subdivision shall be strictly limited to determining
97
— 32 — SB 423
line 1 whether the modification, including any modification to previously
line 2 approved density bonus concessions or waivers, modify the
line 3 development’s consistency with the objective planning standards
line 4 and shall not reconsider prior determinations that are not affected
line 5 by the modification.
line 6 (i) (1) A local government shall not adopt or impose any
line 7 requirement, including, but not limited to, increased fees or
line 8 inclusionary housing requirements, that applies to a project solely
line 9 or partially on the basis that the project is eligible to receive
line 10 ministerial or streamlined approval pursuant to this section.
line 11 (2) (A) A local government shall issue a subsequent permit
line 12 required for a development approved under this section if the
line 13 application substantially complies with the development as it was
line 14 approved pursuant to subdivision (c). Upon receipt of an
line 15 application for a subsequent permit, the local government shall
line 16 process the permit without unreasonable delay and shall not impose
line 17 any procedure or requirement that is not imposed on projects that
line 18 are not approved pursuant to this section. The local government
line 19 shall consider the application for subsequent permits based upon
line 20 the objective standards specified in any state or local laws that
line 21 were in effect when the original development application was
line 22 submitted, unless the development proponent agrees to a change
line 23 in objective standards. Issuance of subsequent permits shall
line 24 implement the approved development, and review of the permit
line 25 application shall not inhibit, chill, or preclude the development.
line 26 For purposes of this paragraph, a “subsequent permit” means a
line 27 permit required subsequent to receiving approval under subdivision
line 28 (c), and includes, but is not limited to, demolition, grading,
line 29 encroachment, and building permits and final maps, if necessary.
line 30 (B) The amendments made to subparagraph (A) by the act that
line 31 added this subparagraph shall also be retroactively applied to
line 32 subsequent permit applications submitted prior to January 1, 2022.
line 33 (3) (A) If a public improvement is necessary to implement a
line 34 development that is subject to the streamlined, ministerial approval
line 35 pursuant to this section, including, but not limited to, a bicycle
line 36 lane, sidewalk or walkway, public transit stop, driveway, street
line 37 paving or overlay, a curb or gutter, a modified intersection, a street
line 38 sign or street light, landscape or hardscape, an above-ground or
line 39 underground utility connection, a water line, fire hydrant, storm
line 40 or sanitary sewer connection, retaining wall, and any related work,
97
SB 423 — 33 —
line 1 and that public improvement is located on land owned by the local
line 2 government, to the extent that the public improvement requires
line 3 approval from the local government, the local government shall
line 4 not exercise its discretion over any approval relating to the public
line 5 improvement in a manner that would inhibit, chill, or preclude the
line 6 development.
line 7 (B) If an application for a public improvement described in
line 8 subparagraph (A) is submitted to a local government, the local
line 9 government shall do all of the following:
line 10 (i) Consider the application based upon any objective standards
line 11 specified in any state or local laws that were in effect when the
line 12 original development application was submitted.
line 13 (ii) Conduct its review and approval in the same manner as it
line 14 would evaluate the public improvement if required by a project
line 15 that is not eligible to receive ministerial or streamlined approval
line 16 pursuant to this section.
line 17 (C) If an application for a public improvement described in
line 18 subparagraph (A) is submitted to a local government, the local
line 19 government shall not do either of the following:
line 20 (i) Adopt or impose any requirement that applies to a project
line 21 solely or partially on the basis that the project is eligible to receive
line 22 ministerial or streamlined approval pursuant to this section.
line 23 (ii) Unreasonably delay in its consideration, review, or approval
line 24 of the application.
line 25 (j) (1) This section shall not affect a development proponent’s
line 26 ability to use any alternative streamlined by right permit processing
line 27 adopted by a local government, including the provisions of
line 28 subdivision (i) of Section 65583.2.
line 29 (2) This section shall not prevent a development from also
line 30 qualifying as a housing development project entitled to the
line 31 protections of Section 65589.5. This paragraph does not constitute
line 32 a change in, but is declaratory of, existing law.
line 33 (k) The California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13
line 34 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code)
line 35 does not apply to actions taken by a state agency, local government,
line 36 or the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District to:
line 37 (1) Lease, convey, or encumber land owned by the local
line 38 government or the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
line 39 or to facilitate the lease, conveyance, or encumbrance of land
line 40 owned by the local government, or for the lease of land owned by
97
— 34 — SB 423
line 1 the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District in association
line 2 with an eligible TOD project, as defined pursuant to Section
line 3 29010.1 of the Public Utilities Code, nor to any decisions
line 4 associated with that lease, or to provide financial assistance to a
line 5 development that receives streamlined approval pursuant to this
line 6 section that is to be used for housing for persons and families of
line 7 very low, low, or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093
line 8 of the Health and Safety Code.
line 9 (2) Approve improvements located on land owned by the local
line 10 government or the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
line 11 that are necessary to implement a development that receives
line 12 streamlined approval pursuant to this section that is to be used for
line 13 housing for persons and families of very low, low, or moderate
line 14 income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code.
line 15 (l) For purposes of establishing the total number of units in a
line 16 development under this chapter, a development or development
line 17 project includes both of the following:
line 18 (1) All projects developed on a site, regardless of when those
line 19 developments occur.
line 20 (2) All projects developed on sites adjacent to a site developed
line 21 pursuant to this chapter if, after January 1, 2023, the adjacent site
line 22 had been subdivided from the site developed pursuant to this
line 23 chapter.
line 24 (m) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the
line 25 following meanings:
line 26 (1) “Affordable housing cost” has the same meaning as set forth
line 27 in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
line 28 (2) (A) Subject to the qualification provided by subparagraphs
line 29 (B) and (C), “affordable rent” has the same meaning as set forth
line 30 in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code.
line 31 (B) For a development for which an application pursuant to this
line 32 section was submitted prior to January 1, 2019, that includes 500
line 33 units or more of housing, and that dedicates 50 percent of the total
line 34 number of units, before calculating any density bonus, to housing
line 35 affordable to households making at, or below, 80 percent of the
line 36 area median income, affordable rent for at least 30 percent of these
line 37 units shall be set at an affordable rent as defined in subparagraph
line 38 (A) and “affordable rent” for the remainder of these units shall
line 39 mean a rent that is consistent with the maximum rent levels for a
line 40 housing development that receives an allocation of state or federal
97
SB 423 — 35 —
line 1 low-income housing tax credits from the California Tax Credit
line 2 Allocation Committee.
line 3 (C) For a development that dedicates 100 percent of units,
line 4 exclusive of a manager’s unit or units, to lower income households,
line 5 “affordable rent” shall mean a rent that is consistent with the
line 6 maximum rent levels stipulated by the public program providing
line 7 financing for the development.
line 8 (3) “Department” means the Department of Housing and
line 9 Community Development.
line 10 (4) “Development proponent” means the developer who submits
line 11 a housing development project application to a local government
line 12 under the streamlined, ministerial review process pursuant to this
line 13 section.
line 14 (5) “Completed entitlements” means a housing development
line 15 that has received all the required land use approvals or entitlements
line 16 necessary for the issuance of a building permit.
line 17 (6) “Health care expenditures” include contributions under
line 18 Section 401(a), 501(c), or 501(d) of the Internal Revenue Code
line 19 and payments toward “medical care,” as defined in Section
line 20 213(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code.
line 21 (7) “Housing development project” has the same meaning as in
line 22 Section 65589.5.
line 23 (8) “Locality” or “local government” means a city, including a
line 24 charter city, a county, including a charter county, or a city and
line 25 county, including a charter city and county.
line 26 (9) “Moderate-income housing units” means housing units with
line 27 an affordable housing cost or affordable rent for persons and
line 28 families of moderate income, as that term is defined in Section
line 29 50093 of the Health and Safety Code.
line 30 (10) “Production report” means the information reported
line 31 pursuant to subparagraph (H) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a)
line 32 of Section 65400.
line 33 (11) “State agency” includes every state office, officer,
line 34 department, division, bureau, board, and commission, but does not
line 35 include the California State University or the University of
line 36 California.
line 37 (12) “Reporting period” means either of the following:
line 38 (A) The first half of the regional housing needs assessment
line 39 cycle.
line 40 (B) The last half of the regional housing needs assessment cycle.
97
— 36 — SB 423
line 1 (13) “Urban uses” means any current or former residential,
line 2 commercial, public institutional, transit or transportation passenger
line 3 facility, or retail use, or any combination of those uses.
line 4 (n) The department may review, adopt, amend, and repeal
line 5 guidelines to implement uniform standards or criteria that
line 6 supplement or clarify the terms, references, or standards set forth
line 7 in this section. Any guidelines or terms adopted pursuant to this
line 8 subdivision shall not be subject to Chapter 3.5 (commencing with
line 9 Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government
line 10 Code.
line 11 (o) The determination of whether an application for a
line 12 development is subject to the streamlined ministerial approval
line 13 process provided by subdivision (c) is not a “project” as defined
line 14 in Section 21065 of the Public Resources Code.
line 15 (p) Notwithstanding any law, for purposes of this section and
line 16 for development on property owned by or leased to the state, the
line 17 Department of General Services may act in the place of a locality
line 18 or local government, at the discretion of the department.
line 19 (q) (1) For developments proposed in a census tract that is
line 20 designated either as a moderate resource area, low resource area,
line 21 or an area of high segregation and poverty on the most recent
line 22 “CTAC/HCD Opportunity Map” published by the California Tax
line 23 Credit Allocation Committee and the Department of Housing and
line 24 Community Development, within 45 days after receiving a notice
line 25 of intent, as described in subdivision (b), and before the
line 26 development proponent submits an application for the proposed
line 27 development that is subject to the streamlined, ministerial approval
line 28 process described in subdivision (c), the local government shall
line 29 provide for a public meeting to be held by the city council or county
line 30 board of supervisors to provide an opportunity for the public and
line 31 the local government to comment on the development.
line 32 (2) The public meeting shall be held at a regular meeting and
line 33 be subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing
line 34 with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5).
line 35 (3) Comments may be provided by testimony during the meeting
line 36 or in writing at any time before the meeting concludes.
line 37 (4) The development proponent shall attest in writing that it
line 38 attended the meeting described in paragraph (1) and reviewed the
line 39 public testimony and written comments from the meeting in its
line 40 application for the proposed development that is subject to the
97
SB 423 — 37 —
line 1 streamlined, ministerial approval process described in subdivision
line 2 (c).
line 3 (5) If the local government fails to hold the hearing described
line 4 in paragraph (1) within 45 days after receiving the notice of intent,
line 5 the development proponent shall hold a public meeting on the
line 6 proposed development before submitting an application pursuant
line 7 to this section.
line 8 (r) (1) This section shall not apply to applications for
line 9 developments proposed on qualified sites that are submitted on or
line 10 after January 1, 2024, but before July 1, 2025.
line 11 (2) For purposes of this subdivision, “qualified site” means a
line 12 site that meets the following requirements:
line 13 (A) The site is located within an equine or equestrian district
line 14 designated by a general plan or specific or master plan, which
line 15 may include a specific narrative reference to a geographically
line 16 determined area or map of the same. Parcels adjoined and only
line 17 separated by a street or highway shall be considered to be within
line 18 an equestrian district.
line 19 (B) As of January 1, 2024, the general plan applicable to the
line 20 site contains, and has contained for five or more years, an equine
line 21 or equestrian district designation where the site is located.
line 22 (C) As of January 1, 2024, the equine or equestrian district
line 23 applicable to the site is not zoned to include residential uses, but
line 24 authorizes residential uses with a conditional use permit.
line 25 (D) The applicable local government has an adopted housing
line 26 element that is compliant with applicable law.
line 27 (3) The Legislature finds and declares that the purpose of this
line 28 subdivision is to allow local governments to conduct general plan
line 29 updates to align their general plan with applicable zoning changes.
line 30 (q)
line 31 (s) The provisions of clause (iii) of subparagraph (E) of
line 32 paragraph (8) of subdivision (a) relating to health care expenditures
line 33 are distinct and severable from the remaining provisions of this
line 34 section. However, the remaining portions of paragraph (8) of
line 35 subdivision (a) are a material and integral part of this section and
line 36 are not severable. If any provision or application of paragraph (8)
line 37 of subdivision (a) is held invalid, this entire section shall be null
line 38 and void.
line 39 (r)
97
— 38 — SB 423
line 1 (t) It is the policy of the state that this section be interpreted and
line 2 implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to
line 3 the interest of, and the approval and provision of, increased housing
line 4 supply.
line 5 (u) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2036,
line 6 and as of that date is repealed.
line 7 SEC. 3. The Legislature finds and declares that ensuring access
line 8 to affordable housing is a matter of statewide concern and is not
line 9 a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI
line 10 of the California Constitution. Therefore, Section 2 of this act
line 11 amending Section 65913.4 of the Government Code applies to all
line 12 cities, including charter cities.
line 13 SEC. 4. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
line 14 Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because
line 15 a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service
line 16 charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or
line 17 level of service mandated by this act or because costs that may be
line 18 incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred
line 19 because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a
line 20 crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction,
line 21 within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or
line 22 changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6
line 23 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.
O
97
SB 423 — 39 —
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
SB 569
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 569
Author: Glazer (D), et al.
Introduced: 2/15/23
Vote: 21- Urgency
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 8-0, 4/12/23
AYES: Caballero, Seyarto, Blakespear, Dahle, Durazo, Glazer, Skinner, Wiener
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/18/23
AYES: Portantino, Jones, Ashby, Bradford, Seyarto, Wahab, Wiener
SUBJECT: Taxation: renter’s credit
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill increases the amount of the renter’s credit annually for
inflation, and makes the credit refundable upon appropriation.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) Allows various income tax credits, deductions, exemptions, and exclusions .
2) Allows eligible taxpayers who rent their principal residence to claim the
nonrefundable Renter’s Tax Credit on their Personal Income Tax Return. For
the 2021 taxable year, the credit is equal to:
a) $60 for filers that are single or married filing separately with an adjusted
gross income (AGI) of $43,533 or less; and
b) $120 for filers that are married filing jointly, head of household, or a
qualified widow(er) with an AGI of $87,066 or less
3) Requires an annual inflation adjustment of the credit’s AGI limitations, but
does not annually increase the credit amount for inflation .
SB 569
Page 2
This bill:
1) Requires the Franchise Tax Board (FTB) to increase the amount of the renters
credit annually, based on inflation information the Department of Industrial
Relations provides.
2) Applies beginning in the 2023 taxable year, and ends before the 2028 taxable
year.
3) Makes conforming changes.
4) Makes legislative findings and declarations to comply with Section 41 of the
Revenue and Taxation Code, including:
a) Setting as its goal, purpose, and objective to compensate low- and middle-
income renters for the increasing rates of rent throughout the State of
California, restructure the credit to reflect the disproportionate burden of
high rents on single-parent families, and to stimulate consumer spending and
economic growth by providing more disposable income to reinvest in the
economy.
b) Directing the Franchise Tax Board to annually prepare a written report on
the following:
i) The number of taxpayers claiming the credit during the most recent year.
ii) The average credit amount during the most recent year on tax returns
claiming the credit.
c) Requiring FTB to send the report to the Senate Committee on Budget and
Fiscal Review, the Assembly Committee on Budget, the Senate and
Assembly Committees on Appropriations, the Senate Committee on
Governance and Finance, and the Assembly Committee on Revenue and
Taxation no later than May 15th of every year.
Background
California’s Renter’s Credit. The Legislature enacted the renter’s credit in 1972 as
part of a comprehensive property tax reform program that increased the
homeowner's exemption from property tax which reduces the value subject to
property tax on owner-occupied property. Specifically, because renters do not
directly benefit from property tax reductions, the Legislature enacted the credit to
provide a direct benefit to renters. To maintain parity, the Legislature significantly
SB 569
Page 3
increased the credit in 1979 shortly after the approval of Proposition 13, which
capped property tax rates and limited reassessment. The Legislature suspended the
credit for the 1993 through 1997 taxable years, but reinstated it beginning with the
1998 taxable year.
Low-Income Families and Refundable credits. The current Renter’s Tax Credit
has little benefit for the state’s low-income families. Since California has a
progressive income tax and a significant dependent exemption credit, many low-
income families have little to no income tax liability. However, both FTB and the
Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), agree that refundable credits can increase
refund fraud and identity theft. Historically, both the Internal Revenue Service and
FTB have experienced identity fraud and improper claims with refundable credits.
More importantly, if a refund is determined to be fraudulent, FTB cannot likely
recover the refund because an unknown person filed the tax return using a stolen or
fraudulent identify. SB 843 makes the Renter’s Tax Credit refundable when
specified in any bill providing for appropriations related to the Budget Act. This
change provides financial assistance to low-income and some middle-income
families who may not receive any benefit from the current credit due to low tax
liabilities, but may lead to more fraudulent tax claims.
Related/Prior Legislation
Last year, the Senate approved SB 843 (Glazer), which increased the amount of the
renter’s credit, made it refundable, and required an annual inflation adjustment in
the credit amount. The Assembly Appropriations Committee deleted these
provisions and instead directed the FTB to report on the utilization of the credit.
The bill died on the Assembly Floor.
SB 248 (Glazer, 2020) would have increased the Renter’s Credit amounts to $220
for certain taxpayers with no dependents and $434 for certain taxpayers with one
or more dependents and make the credit refundable. The Assembly Appropriations
Committee held the bill on its suspense file.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, the FTB estimates that this
bill would result in General Fund revenue losses of $130 million in 2023 -24, $140
million in 2024-25, and $150 million in 2025-26. FTB’s costs to implement this
bill have yet to be determined.
SUPPORT: (Verified 5/19/23)
AIDS Health Care Foundation
SB 569
Page 4
All Home
California Apartment Association
California Business Roundtable
California YIMBY
City of San Jose
City of Thousand Oaks
League of California Cities
National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter
Southern California Rental Housing Association
Tri-Valley Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon and the Town of
Danville
OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/19/23)
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, “Surging rental prices
and the expiration of the pandemic eviction moratorium have squeezed families’
budgets and provided little relief for families struggling with the high cost of
inflation. According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, renters on average earn
less than homeowners and were more at risk of losing their jobs because of the stay
at home orders. The Renter’s Tax Credit was establish in 1972, but has only been
raised once, in 1979, since. Meanwhile, rents have tripled. SB 569 would provide
immediate financial relief to 3.1 million low- and middle-income renters by
increasing and restructuring the credit. Further, by making the credit refundable,
this bill would ensure that those who are the most in need benefit, regardless of
their tax obligation. SB 569 compliments California’s long-term goals to increase
and expand access to housing. While it will be years before all Californians have
access to affordable homes, this bill will help millions of Californians now.”
Prepared by: Colin Grinnell / GOV. & F. / (916) 651-4119
5/20/23 13:00:26
**** END ****
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 10, 2023
AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 20, 2023
SENATE BILL No. 746
Introduced by Senator Eggman
February 17, 2023
An act to amend Sections 4217.11, 4217.12, 4217.13, and 4217.14
of the Government Code, relating to public contracts.
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 746, as amended, Eggman. Energy conservation contracts:
alternate energy equipment: electrolytic hydrogen.
Under existing law, a public agency, as defined, may enter into
specified energy conservation contracts, including into contracts for
the sale of electricity, electrical generating capacity, or thermal energy
produced by the energy conservation facility at such rates and on such
terms as are approved by its governing body. Existing law defines
“energy conservation facility” as alternate energy equipment,
cogeneration equipment, or conservation measures located in public
buildings or on land owned by public agencies. Existing law defines
“alternate energy equipment” as equipment for the production or
conversion of energy from alternate sources as its primary fuel source,
such as solar, biomass, wind, geothermal, hydroelectricity under 30
megawatts, remote natural gas of less than one billion cubic feet
estimated reserves per mile from an existing gas gathering line, natural
gas containing 850 or fewer British thermal units per standard cubic
foot, or any other source of energy, the efficient use of which will reduce
the use of fossil or nuclear fuels. Existing law also defines “public
agency” to mean the state, a county, city and county, city, district, and
other specified entities.
97
This bill would add electrolytic hydrogen to the list of examples of
primary fuel sources under the definition of “alternate energy
equipment.” The bill also would revise the definition of “public agency”
to include a transit district.
Existing law authorizes a public agency to enter into an energy service
contract and related facility ground lease if the governing body finds,
among other things, that the anticipated cost to the public agency for
thermal or electrical energy or conservation services provided by the
energy conservation facility under the contract will be less than the
anticipated marginal cost to the agency of thermal, electrical, or other
energy that would have been consumed by the public agency in the
absence of those purchases.
This bill would include electrolytic hydrogen within the above
provision referencing the anticipated cost to the public agency for
thermal or electrical energy.
Existing law additionally authorizes a public agency to enter into a
facility financing contract and a facility ground lease upon meeting
certain requirements and finding that funds for the repayment of the
financing or other specified contract costs are projected to be available
from revenues resulting from sales of electricity or thermal energy from
the facility or other sources.
This bill would include within those provisions revenues resulting
from sales of electrolytic hydrogen.
Existing law authorizes a public agency to enter into contracts for the
sale of electricity, electrical generating capacity, or thermal energy
produced by the energy conservation facility at such rates and terms as
are approved by its governing body.
This bill would authorize a public agency to also enter into contracts
for the sale of electrolytic hydrogen.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Section 4217.11 of the Government Code is
line 2 amended to read:
line 3 4217.11. The following terms, whenever used in this chapter,
line 4 have the meanings given in this section, except where the context
line 5 clearly indicates otherwise:
97
— 2 — SB 746
line 1 (a) “Alternate energy equipment” means equipment for the
line 2 production or conversion of energy from alternate sources as its
line 3 primary fuel source, such as electrolytic hydrogen, solar, biomass,
line 4 wind, geothermal, hydroelectricity under 30 megawatts, remote
line 5 natural gas of less than one billion cubic feet estimated reserves
line 6 per mile from an existing gas gathering line, natural gas containing
line 7 850 or fewer British thermal units per standard cubic foot, or any
line 8 other source of energy, the efficient use of which will reduce the
line 9 use of fossil or nuclear fuels.
line 10 (b) “Cogeneration equipment” means equipment for
line 11 cogeneration, as defined in Section 216.6 of the Public Utilities
line 12 Code.
line 13 (c) “Conservation measures” means equipment, maintenance,
line 14 load management techniques and equipment, or other measures
line 15 to reduce energy use or make for a more efficient use of energy.
line 16 (d) “Conservation services” means the electrical, thermal, or
line 17 other energy savings resulting from conservation measures, which
line 18 shall be treated as a supply of such energy.
line 19 (e) “Energy conservation facility” means alternate energy
line 20 equipment, cogeneration equipment, or conservation measures
line 21 located in public buildings or on land owned by public agencies.
line 22 (f) “Energy service contract” means a contract entered into by
line 23 a public agency with any person, pursuant to which the person will
line 24 provide electrical or thermal energy or conservation services to a
line 25 public agency from an energy conservation facility.
line 26 (g) “Facility financing contract” means a contract entered into
line 27 by a public agency with any person whereby the person provides
line 28 financing for an energy conservation facility in exchange for
line 29 repayment of the financing and all costs and expenses related
line 30 thereto by the public agency. A facility financing contract may
line 31 provide for the person with whom the public agency contracts to
line 32 provide any combination of feasibility studies for, and design and
line 33 construction of, all or part of the energy conservation facility in
line 34 addition to the financing and other related services, and may
line 35 provide for an installment sale purchase, another form of purchase,
line 36 or amortized lease of the energy conservation facility by the public
line 37 agency.
line 38 (h) “Facility ground lease” means a lease of all, or any portion
line 39 of, land or a public building owned by, or under lease to, a public
line 40 agency to a person in conjunction with an energy service contract
97
SB 746 — 3 —
line 1 or a facility financing contract. A facility ground lease may include,
line 2 in addition to the land on which energy conservation facilities will
line 3 be located, easements, rights-of-way, licenses, and rights of access,
line 4 for the construction, use, or ownership by the person of the facility
line 5 and all related utility lines not owned or controlled by the
line 6 interconnecting utility, and offsite improvements related thereto.
line 7 A facility ground lease may also include the addition or
line 8 improvement of utility lines and equipment owned by the
line 9 interconnecting utility which are necessary to permit
line 10 interconnection between that utility and an energy conservation
line 11 facility.
line 12 (i) “Person” means, but is not limited to, any individual,
line 13 company, corporation, partnership, limited liability company,
line 14 public agency, association, proprietorship, trust, joint venture, or
line 15 other entity or group of entities.
line 16 (j) “Public agency” means the state, a county, city and county,
line 17 city, district, community college district, transit district, school
line 18 district, joint powers authority or other entity designated or created
line 19 by a political subdivision relating to energy development projects,
line 20 and any other political subdivision or public corporation in the
line 21 state.
line 22 (k) “Public building” includes any structure, building, facility,
line 23 or work which a public agency is authorized to construct or use,
line 24 and automobile parking lots, landscaping, and other facilities,
line 25 including furnishings and equipment, incidental to the use of any
line 26 structure, building, facility, or work, and also includes the site
line 27 thereof, and any easements, rights-of-way appurtenant thereto, or
line 28 necessary for its full use.
line 29 SEC. 2. Section 4217.12 of the Government Code is amended
line 30 to read:
line 31 4217.12. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, a public agency
line 32 may enter into an energy service contract and any necessarily
line 33 related facility ground lease on terms that its governing body
line 34 determines are in the best interests of the public agency if the
line 35 determination is made at a regularly scheduled public hearing,
line 36 public notice of which is given at least two weeks in advance, and
line 37 if the governing body finds:
line 38 (1) That the anticipated cost to the public agency for thermal
line 39 or electrical energy, including electrolytic hydrogen, or
line 40 conservation services provided by the energy conservation facility
97
— 4 — SB 746
line 1 under the contract will be less than the anticipated marginal cost
line 2 to the public agency of thermal, electrical, or other energy that
line 3 would have been consumed by the public agency in the absence
line 4 of those purchases.
line 5 (2) That the difference, if any, between the fair rental value for
line 6 the real property subject to the facility ground lease and the agreed
line 7 rent, is anticipated to be offset by below-market energy purchases
line 8 or other benefits provided under the energy service contract.
line 9 (b) State agency heads may make these findings without holding
line 10 a public hearing.
line 11 SEC. 3. Section 4217.13 of the Government Code is amended
line 12 to read:
line 13 4217.13. Notwithstanding any other law, a public agency may
line 14 enter into a facility financing contract and a facility ground lease
line 15 on terms that its governing body determines are in the best interest
line 16 of the public agency if the determination is made at a regularly
line 17 scheduled public hearing, public notice of which is given at least
line 18 two weeks in advance, and if the governing body finds that funds
line 19 for the repayment of the financing or the cost of design,
line 20 construction, and operation of the energy conservation facility, or
line 21 both, as required by the contract, are projected to be available from
line 22 revenues resulting from sales of electricity, electrolytic hydrogen,
line 23 or thermal energy from the facility or from funding that otherwise
line 24 would have been used for purchase of electrical, thermal, or other
line 25 energy required by the public agency in the absence of the energy
line 26 conservation facility, or both. State agency heads may make these
line 27 findings without holding a public hearing.
line 28 SEC. 4. Section 4217.14 of the Government Code is amended
line 29 to read:
line 30 4217.14. Notwithstanding any other law, the public agency
line 31 may enter into contracts for the sale of electricity, electrical
line 32 generating capacity, electrolytic hydrogen, or thermal energy
line 33 produced by the energy conservation facility at such rates and on
line 34 such terms as are approved by its governing body. Any such
line 35 contract may provide for a commitment of firm electrical capacity.
O
97
SB 746 — 5 —
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
May 10, 2023
The Honorable Cecilia Aguiar-Curry
California State Assembly
1021 O Street, Suite 6350
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: ACA 1 (Aguiar-Curry) Local government financing: affordable housing and public
infrastructure: voter approval.
Tri-Valley Cities Coalition – Letter of Support
Dear Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry:
On behalf of the Tri-Valley Cities Coalition, which includes the Cities of Dublin, Livermore,
Pleasanton, San Ramon, and the Town of Danville, we write to express our strong support for
Assembly Constitutional Amendment (ACA) 1, which would lower the constitutional vote threshold
to 55 percent for both GO bonds and special taxes, when proposed specifically to fund the
construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of public infrastructure, affordable
housing, or permanent supportive housing, or the acquisition or lease of real property for those
purpose.
This important bill will provide a more realistic financing option to fund the much-needed increase
in the supply of affordable housing, and to address the numerous local public infrastructure
challenges cities, counties, and special districts are facing. We appreciate your recognition and
constant efforts to address the urgent concerns we have with regard to funding.
If California wants to truly address some of our most pressing crises, then local jurisdictions need
tools to address the ever-increasing expenses associated with solving the issues that are present,
such as the lack of affordable housing supply, and the public infrastructure needed to
accommodate a growing and more inclusive Califonria.
Thank you for being a champion on this issue, and again, we are pleased to support ACA 1.
Sincerely,
CC: Senator Steve Glazer
Assembly Member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
__________________ ____________________ ____________________
Town of Danville City of Dublin City of Livermore
Mayor Robert Storer Mayor Melissa Hernandez Mayor John Marchand
__________________________ __________________________
City of Pleasanton City of San Ramon
Mayor Karla Brown Vice-Mayor Mark Armstrong
ATTACHMENT B
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
May 10, 2023
The Honorable Susan Talamantes-Eggman
California State Senate
1021 O Street, Suite 8530
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Senate Bill 43 (Eggman) Behavioral Health
Tri-Valley Cities Coalition – Letter of Support (As Amended 4.27.2023)
Dear Senator Eggman:
On behalf of the Tri-Valley Cities Coalition, which includes the Cities of Dublin, Livermore,
Pleasanton, San Ramon, and the Town of Danville, we write to express our support for your bill,
SB 43, which would expand the definition of “gravely disabled,” for purposes of involuntarily
detaining an individual, to include a condition in which a person, as a result of a mental health
disorder or a substance use disorder, or both, is at substantial risk of serious harm or is currently
experiencing serious harm to their physical or mental health.
In our communities, we continue to see the proliferation of people suffering from behavioral health
or substance use disorders, many of whom are not in a place where they are able to help lift
themselves out of the situation. There is nothing humane about allowing these individuals to
continue suffering, when statutory changes, such as those proposed in this bill, have the potential
to bring them into a scenario where they can receive the help they deserve.
We wholeheartedly agree with your statements around the need for this bill, including that our
current model is leaving too many people suffering with significant psychotic disorders in
incredibly unsafe situations, leading to severe injury, incarceration, homelessness, or death. This
bill will help to provide dignity and treatment to those who are the most difficult to reach.
Thank you for your work on this important topic, and again, we are pleased to support your bill.
Sincerely,
CC: Senator Steve Glazer
Assembly Member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
__________________ ____________________ ____________________
Town of Danville City of Dublin City of Livermore
Mayor Robert Storer Mayor Melissa Hernandez Mayor John Marchand
__________________________ __________________________
City of Pleasanton City of San Ramon
Mayor Karla Brown Vice-Mayor Mark Armstrong
ATTACHMENT C
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
May 10, 2023
The Honorable Anthony Portantino, Chair
Senate Committee on Appropriations
Califonria State Capitol, Room 412
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Senate Bill 569 (Glazer) Taxation: renter’s credit
Tri-Valley Cities Coalition – Letter of Support
Dear Chair Portantino:
On behalf of the Tri-Valley Cities Coalition, which includes the Cities of Dublin, Livermore,
Pleasanton, San Ramon, and the Town of Danville, we write to express our support for SB 569
(Glazer). This bill will make two critically important changes to the existing California Renter’s Tax
Credit:
1.Increase the amount of the renter’s credit annually for inflation.
2.Upon an appropriation of the Legislature, make the renters tax credit refundable.
As you know, the value of the tax credit ($60 or $120, depending on filing status) has remained
unchanged for 43 years. While the overall cost of living increases significantly year to year,
adjusting this tax credit to account for those increases is common sense. Also, according t o the
author “by making the credit refundable, this bill would ensure that those who are the most in need
benefit, regardless of their tax obligation.”
SB 569 truly compliments California’s long-term goals to increase and expand access to housing
and is an important piece of the overall puzzle.
Thank you for your consideration, and we respectfully urge you to pass this important measure
out of your committee.
Sincerely,
CC: Senator Steve Glazer
Assembly Member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
__________________ ____________________ ____________________
Town of Danville City of Dublin City of Livermore
Mayor Robert Storer Mayor Melissa Hernandez Mayor John Marchand
__________________________ __________________________
City of Pleasanton City of San Ramon
Mayor Karla Brown Vice-Mayor Mark Armstrong
ATTACHMENT D
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
May 10, 2023
The Honorable Susan Talamantes-Eggman
California State Senate
1021 O Street, Suite 8530
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Senate Bill 746 (Eggman) Energy conservation contracts: alternate energy
equipment: hydrogen
Tri-Valley Cities Coalition – Letter of Support (As Amended 4.10.2023)
Dear Senator Eggman:
On behalf of the Tri-Valley Cities Coalition, which includes the Cities of Dublin, Livermore,
Pleasanton, San Ramon, and the Town of Danville, we write to express our support for your bill,
SB 746, which would add hydrogen to the list of alternative energy resources for which local
agencies can enter into a service contract and adds transit districts to the list of local agencies
authorized to enter into those contracts. The bill also adds transit districts to the list of public
agencies that may enter into energy service contracts.
As you know, a number of us signatories are on the board of the Tri-Valley San Joaquin Regional
Rail Authority, along with several city council colleagues, and with Dublin Mayor Melissa
Hernandez currently serving as Chair of the Board. The Authority, which is charged with delivering
the Valley Link Rail project to connect the Valley to the Bay Area, along with several other local
entities across the State, will benefit from the explicit ability to enter into energy services contracts.
Ultimately, this will help our State reach its carbon reduction goals while creating a more seamless
and equitable connection between housing, transit, and jobs.
Thank you for your work on this important topic, and again, we are pleased to support your bill.
Sincerely,
CC: Senator Steve Glazer
Assembly Member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
__________________ ____________________ ____________________
Town of Danville City of Dublin City of Livermore
Mayor Robert Storer Mayor Melissa Hernandez Mayor John Marchand
__________________________ __________________________
City of Pleasanton City of San Ramon
Mayor Karla Brown Vice-Mayor Mark Armstrong
ATTACHMENT E