HomeMy WebLinkAbout072523 - 03.1
LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE MEMORANDUM 3.1
TO: Mayor and Town Council July 25, 2023
SUBJECT: July 2023 Legislative Report
BACKGROUND
At the end of June, Governor Newsom and the Legislature announced an agreement on
the framework for the 2023-24 state budget. On June 27, the Governor signed the primary
budget framework SB 101 (Skinner) into law. Overall, the budget reflects a $310.8 billion
spending plan for the 2023-24 fiscal year. This agreement also closed an estimated $32
billion budget deficit while setting aside about $37.8 billion in reserves.
Following budget trailer negotiations, a number of budget trailer bills have been signed
into law, amending the Budget Act and providing implementing language for key
spending programs that reflects the final agreement on the state’s spending plan reached
between the Administration and the Legislature.
In the Legislature, policy committees had until July 14 to refer bills to fiscal committees.
Bills that failed to be referred to fiscal committees by the deadline are marked as inactive
for the remainder of the legislative session. The legislature is currently on summer recess
and will reconvene on August 14, at which point fiscal committees will have until
September 1 to report bills to the floor.
DISCUSSION
The Town’s Legislative Committee follows priority legislation 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.
AB 1318 (Rivas) California Environmental Quality Act: exception: residential projects.
This bill would expand the existing CEQA exemptions by increasing the size of a
residential project that would qualify for the exemption to include a project of no more
July Legislative Update 2 July 25, 2023
than 5 acres in total area. This bill failed to pass out of Senate policy committees and is marked
inactive for the remainder of the session.
Position: Oppose
SB 393 (Glazer) California Environmental Quality Act: judicial challenge:
identification of contributors: housing development projects.
This bill would authorize a defendant, in an action brought pursuant to the act relating
to a housing development project, to file a motion requested the plaintiff or petition to
identify every person or entity that contributes in excess of $10,000, as specified, toward
the plaintiff’s or petitioner’s costs of the action and require the plaintiff or petitioner to
identify any pecuniary or business interest related to the housing development project of
any person or entity that contributes in excess of $10,000 to the costs of the action, as
specified. This bill failed to pass out of Assembly policy committees and is marked inactive for the
remainder of the session.
Position: Support
SB 532 (Wiener) San Francisco Bay area toll bridges: tolls: transit operating expenses
This bill would require the Bay Area Transit Authority (BATA) to increase the toll rate
for vehicles for crossing the state-owned toll bridges in the San Francisco Bay area by
$1.50. The bill would require the revenues collected from this toll to be deposited in the
Bay Area Toll Account, would continuously appropriate moneys from this toll increase
and other specified tolls, and would require moneys from this toll to be transferred to
MTC for allocation to transit operators that provide service within the San Francisco Bay
area and that are experiencing a financial shortfall, as specified. The bill would direct
MTC to require each transit operator eligible to receive an allocation from the account to,
on an annual basis, submit a 5-year projection of its operating needs, as specified.
Recommended Position: Oppose
Tri-Valley Cities Coalition
Below is the list of bills the TVC identified at the beginning of the 2023 Legislative session
to track.
AB 894 (Friedman) Parking requirements: shared parking.
This bill would require a public agency to allow entities with underutilized parking to
share their underutilized parking with the public, a private entity, a public agency, or
other users, if those entities submit a shared parking agreements to the public agency,
and information demonstrating the benefit of the proposed shared parking agreement.
This bill passed on the Assembly Floor with a 62:10:8 vote. (Affordable Housing and
Homelessness, Transportation and Infrastructure)
Recommended TVC Position: Neutral
July Legislative Update 3 July 25, 2023
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, reconstructions, rehabilitation, or replacement of public infrastructure,
affordable housing, or permanent supportive housing, if the proposition proposing that
tax is approved by a majority vote of the membership of the governing board of the local
government and by 55% of its voters voting on the proposition. (Affordable Housing
and Homelessness, Transportation and Infrastructure)
TVC Position: Support
Additional Advocacy Efforts
The next Tri-Valley Cities Council meeting is September 27 and will be hosted here in
Danville where we will hear a legislative update from the League of California Cities and
Townsend Public Affairs. Discovery Counseling Center and Teen Esteem+ will also be
giving a presentation on mental health.
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
SB 532
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 5, 2023
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Laura Friedman, Chair
SB 532 (Wiener) – As Amended June 22, 2023
SENATE VOTE: Not applicable
SUBJECT: San Francisco Bay area toll bridges: tolls: transit operating expenses
SUMMARY: Requires the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) to increase by $1.50 the toll for
each of the seven state-owned toll bridges in the San Francisco Bay Area and continuously
appropriates toll revenues to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), including
revenues from the toll increase for allocation to transit operators in the region that are
experiencing a financial shortfall. Specifically, this bill:
1)Beginning January 1, 2024, and until December 31, 2028 requires MTC to increase the base
toll rate by $1.50 for the seven state-owned toll bridges within its jurisdiction and requires
the toll to be adjusted annually based on the California Consumer Price Index.
2)Continuously appropriates moneys from the toll increase and other specified tolls to MTC to
expend for specified purposes.
3)Requires MTC to provide revenues from the toll increase to toll operators within MTC’s
jurisdiction that are experiencing a financial shortfall and operate fixed-route public transit
services, including bus, rail, or ferry and do not directly receive most of their revenues from
the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, and Transportation District.
4)Requires MTC to annually distribute at least 90% of the revenues from the toll increase to
these operators in order to avoid service cuts and maintain operations, including safety,
security, reliability, or cleanliness services and improvements.
5)Provides that MTC may only allocate these funds to a transit operator after it determines that
the funds are necessary to avoid service cuts relative to service levels provided by that transit
operator during the 2022-23 fiscal year.
6)Requires MTC to prioritize averting service cuts for transit operators that serve the highest
number of transit riders.
7)Requires MTC to annually distribute no more than 10% of the revenues from the toll increase
to assist eligible transit riders with restoring or reconfiguring service above levels provided
during the 2022-23 fiscal year, or for the purpose of funding initiatives to transform transit
service pursuant to the MTC’s adopted Transit Transformation Action Plan, or to make
specific safety, reliability, or cleanliness improvements.
8)Requires each transit operator eligible to receive an allocation to annually submit a five-year
projection of its operating needs based on standardized assumptions and guidance developed
by MTC.
ATTACHMENT A
SB 532
Page 2
9) Allows MTC to audit, request revision, or directly amend operating needs projections if
necessary to ensure consistency and fairness across transit operators.
10) Prohibits the $1.50 toll increase from being reduced without statutory authorization by the
Legislature.
11) Authorizes BATA to issue revenue bonds to finance transit operations and capital funded by
the $1.50 toll increase.
12) Decreases the maximum amount of penalties that can be included in a schedule of toll
evasion penalties for a toll evasion violation on a San Francisco Bay area state-owned toll
bridge to instead be $5 for the notice of toll evasion violation and $10 for the notice of
delinquent toll evasion violation beginning July 1, 2024.
13) States legislative intent to enact future legislation to require MTC to study, design, and
implement an equity-based program to mitigate the impacts of the $1.50 toll increase within
two years of the effective date of this act.
14) Creates a state-local mandate and requires a 2/3 vote.
EXISTING LAW:
1) Creates the MTC as the transportation planning, coordinating, and financing agency for the
nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. (Government Code section 66500)
2) Identifies the following state-owned toll bridges within MTC's jurisdiction:
a) Antioch Bridge;
b) Benicia-Martinez Bridge;
c) Carquinez Bridges;
d) Richmond-San Rafael Bridge;
e) Dumbarton Bridge;
f) San Mateo-Hayward Bridge; and,
g) San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. (Streets and Highways Code section (SHC) 30910)
3) Creates BATA to administer the base $1 auto toll for the San Francisco Bay Area’s seven
state-owned toll bridges. BATA operates under the same board that governs MTC; however,
they are separate entities. In 2005, BATA’s responsibilities were expanded to include
administration of all toll revenues and joint oversight of the toll bridge construction program
along with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the California
Transportation Commission. Vests with the BATA the responsibility to administer all toll
revenues from state-owned toll bridges within the geographic jurisdiction of the MTC. (SHC
30800)
4) Authorized a special election in the 9-county Bay Area region to increase bridge tolls by up
to $3, increasing tolls from $5 to $8 (SHC 30923).
5) Gives BATA the authority to control and maintain the Bay Area Toll Account and other
subaccounts it deems necessary and appropriate to document toll revenue and operating
SB 532
Page 3
expenditures in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and to transfer
revenues to MTC after providing for operating assistance and paying for outstanding revenue
bonds, as specified in statute. (SHC 30911)
6) Allows revenue derived from tolls on all bridges to be expended, subject to the adopted
annual budget of the authority, for Safety and operational costs, including toll collection and
maintenance costs, and costs of bridge construction and improvement projects. (SHC 30912)
7) Prohibits a schedule of toll evasion penalties for a toll evasion violation on a toll bridge from
exceeding $25 for the notice of toll evasion violation and $50 for the notice of delinquent toll
evasion violation (Vehicle Code 40258)
FISCAL EFFECT: The fiscal effect provided by the Senate Appropriations Committee is not
relevant because this bill has been amended significantly since its analysis.
COMMENTS: Over 200 transit operators in California, including cities, counties, independent
special districts, transportation planning agencies, private nonprofit organizations, universities,
and tribes provide a wide variety of transit services. Prior to COVID-19, nationwide, based on
data from the American Public Transit Association (APTA), transit ridership for both light rail
and buses had declined to levels seen in 2012 for light rail, and ridership for buses had dropped
to the levels of the early 1990s. California (except for the Bay Area which had flat ridership
levels) experienced similar declines.
Transit ridership and revenues plunged during COVID. With the onset of the COVID-19
pandemic, during the first half of 2020, transit ridership plunged from 50% to as much as 94%.
In efforts to stave off financial losses from declining transit ridership, the federal government
provided relief for transit operators across the country. In March of 2020, Congress passed and
the President signed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act, which
provided $25 billion in relief to transit agencies. The Coronavirus Response and Relief
Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2021 added an additional $14 billion in transit relief. The
American Rescue Plan in March of 2021 provided an additional $30.5 billion.
Transit ridership has improved since 2020, but is still far below January 2020 levels. In January
of 2021, transit ridership nationally was at 48% of what it was prior to the pandemic. By the start
of 2023, national ridership has returned to 73% of where it was pre-pandemic. The Pacific region
of the United States has seen a smaller return to transit ridership than national trends, with
ridership hovering at 67% of where it was pre-pandemic.
Ridership recovery in California has been mixed. Transit ridership has recovered unevenly
across the state due to a variety of factors. Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) has been hit
particularly hard by the shift to remote work, and ridership these days is only about 35% of what
it was before the pandemic, according to APTA. Similarly, Caltrain, has only 25% of its former
ridership, according APTA. In contrast, Los Angeles’s buses and trains, and the AC Transit bus
service based in Oakland have been doing much better in 2023, carrying closer to 75% of their
pre-pandemic ridership.
The variance in recovery and operating funding shortfalls among transit systems is based on a
variety of factors that include what types of riders the system primarily served prior to COVID.
Recovery, in part, depends on if most of the transit system’s riders were “choice riders” who
SB 532
Page 4
choose to ride transit but have other options, such as commuters, or if they were dependent on
transit for mobility because they lack a car. In addition, systems that rely heavily on passenger
fares for revenue are struggling more financially than those that rely on local sales tax measures
or other funding sources for operations funding. This is further complicated by some systems,
such as fixed-rail, having little flexibility to change their operating routes to address changing
travel patterns. Systems like fixed-rail have large fixed costs that are difficult to reduce the costs
of compared to being able to reduce the cost of operating a bus-dependent system by eliminating
or consolidating less-utilized bus routes.
Bay Area transit agencies facing operating shortfalls. MTC was created by the California
Legislature in 1970 to help integrate bus and rail systems with the new BART system. MTC has
grown significantly since then and directly distributes more than $700 million a year to local
public transit agencies and other recipients, and prioritizes requests from local agencies for
millions more in state and federal funds. Acting as the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA), MTC
collects in excess of $600 million a year in bridge tolls, and allocates these funds for the
operation and upkeep of the region's seven state-owned toll bridges.
There are 27 transit agencies in the Bay Area, according to one source, but the landscape of
operators in the area is more complex. The agencies range from large agencies such as BART
and Caltrain which serve tens to millions of riders annually to much smaller ones such as
Petaluma Transit and the Rio Vista Delta Breeze.
Fare dependent systems like BART and Caltrain have seen the slowest transit ridership returns
and face the largest financial problems as a result. Prior to COVID-19, farebox revenues made
up 70% of BARTs operating budget, accounting for nearly $600 million of their operating
budget. For the 2023-24 fiscal year, BART anticipates the collection of $255.2 million in
operating revenue, down from $578.8 million in 2019. BART anticipates that federal relief
money will run out by fiscal year 2026-27, with projected annual deficits of $140 million.
Caltrain is likely to see its federal relief dollars run out in in fiscal year 2024-25, facing a
projected $25 million budget deficit in 2024 and a $49 million budget deficit in 2025.
Recently passed 2023-24 Budget Act provides financial support for transit agencies. The
legislature as part of the 2023-24 Budget Act recently passed a funding package that provides
$5.1 billion for transit across 2023-24, 2024-25, 2025-26 and 2026-27 fiscal years to help ensure
that transit operators do not have to cut their service levels. The funding is 100% flexible for
transit agencies to use for capital and operations expenses and is contingent on meeting specified
accountability provisions.
Local revenues are an option to increase funding. The short term funding the state will provide
is unlikely to cover the operating shortfalls of all transit operators based on budget forecasts
provided by some of the larger operators in the state. As a result, transit agencies facing a
shortfall not covered by the state relief will need to consider other ways to cover their shortfall.
According to the author’s office, the toll increase proposed in this bill is expected to yield
roughly $180 million annually over the 5-year period.
According to the author “Bay Area public transportation systems face ongoing risks from budget
shortfalls resulting from pandemic ridership reductions, inflation, and the exhaustion of
pandemic emergency federal relief funds. While temporary state relief to address the nearest-
term funding shortfalls from these financial pressures is incredibly important, it does not come
SB 532
Page 5
close to addressing the full regional shortfall. Agencies will exhaust current funding before the
region can identify and enact long-term funding solutions. The resulting shortfalls will force
drastic service cuts that will irreparably damage the Bay Area’s transit network, deeply harming
low-income transit riders and undermining California’s ability to meet its climate goals. SB 532
is critical to ensure Bay Area public transportation systems avert these service cuts and improve
cleanliness, reliability, and safety by investing in reforms.”
Writing in support, seven members of BART’s board of directors state “we greatly appreciate the
funding that the Legislature has included in the Fiscal Year 2023-24 State Budget. However,
BART, alone, faces a deficit of almost $1.1 billion through Fiscal Year 2027-28, and additional
funding will be necessary to avoid drastic service cuts, station closures, and layoffs. SB 532
offers Bay Area transit agencies experiencing the worst shortfalls a lifeline until a Bay Area
regional transportation funding measure can be placed on the ballot in 2026 or 2028. With
increased toll revenues planned through Fiscal Year 2028-29, regional stakeholders are afforded
time to assemble a funding measure that will help operators achieve financial sustainability long-
term and transform the regional transit network.”
Writing in opposition, the Bay Area Council writes “Bay Area residents’ ability to pay for
improvements is not limitless, and they deserve a more cost-effective, efficient, seamless, and in
some cases safer transit system. You have called for that, the Governor has called for that, the
Budget Chairs have called for that, the Bay Area Caucus has called for that, and the Bay Area
Council has pushed hard for that. We appreciate that some accountability measures were
included in the budget deal.
Before we can support new taxes, tolls or fees to support transit, we need to see the agencies do
the hard work to make their systems safer, most cost effective and more seamless. This is work
that needs to be done now, at a very fast pace. While we acknowledge this work by the agencies
will be painful and complex, we have been exceptionally frustrated with the stubbornness to
change and adapt.”
Bridge Tolls in the Bay Area: In 2017 the Legislature passed SB 595 (Beall) Chapter 650, which
authorized MTC to go to the voters to approve a toll increase from $5 to $8 for a measure
referred to as Regional Measure 3 (RM3). RM3 was expected to raise $4.5 billion for
transportation projects across the region. MTC has only recently been given authority to spend
RM3 as the funds were held in escrow pending a lawsuit questioning whether RM3 required a
2/3 vote of the Legislature. The California Supreme Court rejected the challenge in January of
2023, freeing up $545 million that had been held in escrow.
RM3 passed with 54% of the vote in June of 2018. On January 1, 2019, tolls were increased by
$1 to $6. Tolls were increased again to $7 in January of 2022, and are set to increase again to $8
in January of 2025. Should SB 532 pass, tolls in the Bay Area will increase to $8.50 in 2024,
and in combination with the expected $1 increase due to RM3 in 2025 will be greater than $9.50.
While SB 595 only required a majority vote because MTC was required to receive voter
approval before increasing tolls, this bill requires a two-thirds vote because it makes a
continuous appropriation of toll revenues to MTC.
Increased transit use is necessary to meet the state’s climate goals. Declining public transit use
is problematic if the State is going to meet its climate change goals. In California, the
transportation sector is the largest contributor of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and is
SB 532
Page 6
responsible for about 40% of the state’s emissions with light duty passenger vehicles being the
single largest contributor. The Legislature has set a number of goals to reduce greenhouse
(GHG) emissions and address climate change. Providing alternative modes of transportation such
as buses and light rail could significantly reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in
California and associated GHG emissions. California has targeted a 15% reduction in VMT by
2050 as part of its larger strategy to reduce GHG emissions 80% from 1990 levels by 2050.
Staff comments:
This bill was very recently amended from being an elections bill to a transportation bill that is
intended to address operating funding shortfalls that some transit operators in the Bay Area
anticipate they will face even after the state budget provides near-term fiscal relief of $5.1 billion
statewide. According to the author’s office, this bill is a work in progress and amendments are
anticipated related to accountability and distribution of funds.
Unlike RM3, which had a detailed expenditure plan approved by the Legislature, this bill
provides little direction to MTC about how to allocate the revenues provided by the $1.50 toll
increase aside from prioritizing “averting service cuts for transit operators that serve the highest
number of transit riders.” The author’s office may wish to give MTC less discretion about how
to allocate funding to eligible transit operators and may wish to prioritize allocating funding in a
way that is consistent with recent state actions in SB 125, the transportation trailer bill that
accompanied the transit relief provided in the budget act. Specifically, SB 125 seeks to hold
transit agencies accountability for using the additional revenues to maintain and increase existing
service levels and states the intent to provide funding (1) to transit operators to address
operational costs until long-term transit sustainability solutions are identified; (2) assist transit
operators in preventing service cuts and increasing ridership; (3) prioritize the availability of
transit for riders who are transit dependent; and (4) prioritize transit agencies representing a
significant percentage of the region’s ridership.
The author’s office also could establish in the bill outcomes that it would like to see achieved
with the additional funds, such as requiring transit agencies that receive the funds to develop
ridership improvement strategies that focus on riders, such as coordinating schedules and ease of
payment, and improving cleanliness and safety, to improve the ridership experience.
In addition, under current law, BATA is authorized to issue revenue bonds backed by all sources
of toll revenue deposited in the Bay Area Toll Account. This bill adds the $1.50 toll increase to
the code section that specifies all the sources of revenue that constitute collateral for bonds
issued by the authority. While the intent of the bill is for the revenue from the $1.50 toll increase
to fund transit operations, as drafted, the increased revenue from the toll increase would be
pledged to back future revenue bonds issued pursuant to this section in accordance with the
existing structure for all of the authority’s bond issuances. The author may want to consider
amendments that offer an assurance of legislative intent that the revenue from the $1.50 increase
is intended to be fully dedicated to operations costs.
Prior legislation:
SB 595 (Beall), Chapter 650, Statutes of 2017 required BATA to place a toll increase measure,
known as Regional Measure 3, on the 2018 ballot in the 9-county Bay Area region, that allowed
SB 532
Page 7
BATA to increase base toll rates, directing the revenues to MTC for allocation to a variety of
transportation capital projects, including public transit capital projects.
SB 916 (Perata), Chapter 715, Statutes of 2003 defined BATA as a separate entity from MTC but
with the same governing board, and made BATA responsible for the programming,
administration, and allocation of toll revenues from the state-owned toll bridges in the San
Francisco Bay Area, including toll revenues raised by state action.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Alameda County Transportation Commission
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
California State Council of Service Employees International Union (SEIU California)
California YIMBY
City of Berkeley
City of Oakland
City of Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao
Common Ground California
East Bay YIMBY
Grow the Richmond
Housing Action Coalition
How to ADU
Mountain View YIMBY
Napa-Solano for Everyone
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Northern Neighbors
Peninsula for Everyone
Progress Noe Valley
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART)
San Francisco YIMBY
Santa Cruz YIMBY
Santa Rosa YIMBY
Seamless Bay Area
Sonoma County Climate Activist Network
Spur
Streets for People Bay Area
SV@Home Action Fund
Transform
Urban Environmentalists
YIMBY Action
Opposition
Bay Area Council
Analysis Prepared by: Farra Bracht / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093
SENATE COMMITTEE ON HOUSING
Senator Scott Wiener, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular
Bill No: AB 894 Hearing Date: 7/10/2023
Author: Friedman
Version: 6/22/2023
Urgency: No Fiscal: Yes
Consultant: Aiyana Cortez
SUBJECT: Parking requirements: shared parking
DIGEST: This bill requires public agencies to allow developments to count
underutilized and shared parking spaces toward a parking requirement imposed by
the agency.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) Requires each city or county to adopt a general plan for the physical
development of the city or county and authorizes the adoption and
administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations by cities and
counties.
2) Enables the legislative body of any county or city to adopt ordinances that
establish requirements for off-street parking and loading.
3) Sets specified percentage requirements of available parking spaces for new
developments for persons with disabilities, electric vehicles, and other specific
purposes.
This bill:
1) Defines “automobile parking requirements” as any parking that a public agency
requires an entity to provide, as specified.
2) Defines “public agency” as the state or any state agency, board, or commission,
any city, county, city and county, including charter cities, or special district, or
any agency, board, or commission of the city, county, city and county, special
district, joint powers authority, or other political subdivision .
AB 894 (Friedman) Page 2 of 7
3) Defines “shared parking agreement” as an agreement that outlines the terms
under which underutilized parking will be shared between the entities that are a
party to the agreement.
4) Defines “underutilized parking” as parking where 20% or more of a
development’s parking spaces are available during the period that the parking is
needed by another user, group, development, or the public.
5) Requires a public agency to allow entities with underutilized parking to share
their underutilized parking spaces with the public, public agencies, or other
entities, if those entities submit a shared parking agreement to the public agency
and information demonstrating the benefits of the proposed shared parking
agreement.
6) Requires a public agency, if no shared parking ordinance exists before January
1, 2024, to:
a) Allow parking spaces identified in a shared parking agreement to count
toward meeting any automobile parking requirement for a new or existing
development or use, as specified.
b) Approve a shared parking agreement if it includes a parking analysis using
peer-reviewed methodologies, as specified. If no parking analysis is
included, the public agency is required to:
i) Notify all property owners within 300 feet of the shared parking spaces
of the proposed agreement, including that the property owner has 14 days
to request a public meeting before the public agency decides whether to
approve or deny the shared parking agreement.
ii) If requested, hold a public meeting on the shared parking agreement to
approve or deny the shared parking agreement and determine the number
of parking spaces that can be reasonably shared between uses to fulfill
parking requirements.
7) Prohibits a public agency from requiring the curing of any preexisting deficit of
the number of parking spaces as a condition for approval of the shared parking
agreement.
8) Prohibits a public agency from withholding approval of a shared parking
agreement between entities solely on the basis that it will temporarily reduce or
eliminate the number of parking spaces available at the entity sharing
underutilized parking.
AB 894 (Friedman) Page 3 of 7
9) Requires a public agency to allow a development project applicant to meet
minimum parking requirements through the use of offsite shared parking in
which a designated historical resource is being converted or adapted.
10) Clarifies that it does not reduce, eliminate, or preclude the enforcement of
any requirement imposed on a residential or nonresidential development to
provide parking spaces that are accessible to persons with disabilities that
would have otherwise applied to the development.
11) Clarifies that it does not require parking be offered without cost or at
reduced cost to the user.
COMMENTS:
1) Author’s statement. “Assessments recently quantified the number of parking
spaces in the state’s most populous regions and found abundant parking even in
areas where parking is perceived to be in short supply. The results of these
assessments confirm that what is often lacking in many communities is not
parking, but rather tools and regulations that allow existing parking to be shared
more effectively. At the same time, new technologies make it easier than ever
to share existing parking resources, reducing the need to build n ew parking.
Unfortunately, many jurisdictions have not updated their policies to reflect
evidence on the benefits of shared parking, and the existence new tools that
make it easy to manage shared parking resources. This bill requires that
jurisdictions accept shared parking as a legitimate strategy to meet parking
demands in a manner that supports more affordable development and avoids
wasteful excessive parking construction which contributes to congestion,
greenhouse gas emissions, and neighborhood safety.”
2) Planning and zoning. Every county and city to adopt a general plan that sets
out planned uses for all areas covered by the plan. A general plan must include
specified mandatory “elements,” including a housing element that establishes
the locations and densities of housing, among other requirements. Cities’ and
counties’ major land use decisions—including most zoning ordinances and
other aspects of development permitting —must be consistent with their general
plans. Cities and counties must provide a path to appeal a decision to the
planning commission and/or the city council or county board of supervisors.
Local governments have broad authority to define the specific approval
processes needed to satisfy these considerations. Some housing projects can be
permitted by city or county planning staff “ministerially” or without further
approval from elected officials, but most large housing projects require
“discretionary” approvals from local governments, such as a conditional use
AB 894 (Friedman) Page 4 of 7
permit or a change in zoning laws. This process requires hearings by the local
planning commission and public notice, and may require additional approvals.
Local governments enact zoning ordinances that shape development, such as
setting maximum heights and densities for housing units, minimum numbers of
required parking spaces, setbacks to preserve privacy, lot coverage ratios to
increase open space, and others. These ordinances can also include conditions
on development to address aesthetics, community impacts, or other pa rticular
site-specific considerations. Cities and counties generally establish
requirements for a minimum amount of parking developers must provide for a
given facility or use, known as parking minimums or parking ratios. Local
governments commonly index parking minimums to conditions related to the
building or facility with which they are associated.
3) Parking requirements. In 2019, the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
reviewed over 200 municipal codes and found 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 202 1-2024.
CARB also conducted a limited review of minimum parking requirements and
found parking requirements often result in an over-supply of parking. In
reviewing 10 developments in Southern California, CARB noted that while
most sites built exactly the minimum parking required by the local agency, the
peak parking utilization at these sites ranged from 56% to 72% at each
development.
Both CARB reviews suggest the minimum requirements are too high, creating
an unnecessary oversupply of parking. In response, the Legislature has enacted
several policies limiting minimum parking requirements. Last year, AB 2097
(Friedman) prohibited public agencies from imposing minimum automobile
parking requirements on specified residential, commercial and other
developments located within one-half mile of public transit.
4) Impacts of parking minimums. Although challenging to quantify, parking
minimums are thought to encourage automobile use. For example, researchers
from the University of California found data from affordable housing lotteries
in San Francisco provided a unique setting that effectively randomized housing
assignments for housing lottery applicants. The study found “a building’s
parking ratio not only influences car ownership, vehicle travel and publ ic
AB 894 (Friedman) Page 5 of 7
transport use, but has a stronger effect than public transport accessibility.
Buildings with at least one parking space per unit (as required by zoning codes
in most US cities, and in San Francisco until circa 2010) have more than twice
the car ownership rate of buildings that have no parking. In buildings with no
on-site parking, only 38% of households own a car. In buildings with at least
one parking space per unit, more than 81% of households own automobiles.”
A number of sources have documented the harms associated with imposing
parking requirements. Of particular interest given California’s housing
challenges is parking requirements can increase the cost of building homes and
make some projects infeasible, whether financially due to the cost o f
constructing parking or physically due to capacity limitations of some sites. A
recent study by Santa Clara University found the cost of garage parking to
renter households is approximately $1,700 per year, or an additional 17% of a
housing unit’s rent. Others note parking requirements can reduce the number of
buildable units on a site by taking up space that could be devoted to housing.
According to the Terner Center for Housing Innovation, “Parking requirements
have also been linked to a variety of negative secondary impacts, in particular
the environmental costs for cities. Parking contributes to the urban heat island
effect and does not support any biodiversity. Land coverage by asphalt
increases stormwater runoff, which raises the risk of flooding and causes higher
pollution levels in freshwater systems. Chemical compounds used to seal
parking lots can seep into groundwater and freshwater systems, which
contributes to pollution and decreases the health of these ecosystems. Because
it encourages automobile usage, parking also hinders the effectiveness and
usage of alternative forms of transit (i.e., public transportation, biking, etc.),
increases congestion, and causes externalities like air pollution, noise pollution,
and greenhouse gas emissions.
5) Reducing parking as a barrier. To spur greater use of underutilized parking,
and to make it easier for entities to meet minimum parking requirements, this
bill requires local agencies to allow underutilized parking spaces to be shared
with other land uses and the public, and to count shared parking toward meeting
parking requirements. This bill also provides for public input in instances where
peer-review parking analyses are not provided and local ordinances on shared
parking are not already in place at the time of enactment.
6) Double-referral. This bill passed out of the Senate Governance and Finance
Committee on June 21 on a 7-0 vote.
AB 894 (Friedman) Page 6 of 7
RELATED LEGISLATION:
AB 1308 (Quirk-Silva & Friedman, 2023) — prohibits a public agency from
increasing the minimum parking requirement that applies to a single-family
residence as a condition of approval of a project to remodel, renovate, or add to a
single-family residence, provided the project does not cause the residence to
exceed any maximum size limit imposed by the applicable zoning regulations. This
bill is being heard concurrently in this committee.
AB 2097 (Friedman, Chapter 459, Statutes of 2022) — prohibited public
agencies from imposing minimum automobile parking requirements on specified
residential, commercial and other developments located within one-half mile of
public transit.
SB 1067 (Portantino, 2022) — would have prohibited a city or county from
imposing or enforcing minimum parking requirements on housing development
projects located within one-half mile of public transit. This bill was held in the
Assembly Appropriations Committee.
AB 1401 (Friedman, 2021) —was substantially similar to AB 2097. This bill was
held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday,
July 5, 2023.)
SUPPORT:
San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR)
(Sponsor)
350 Bay Area Action
Active San Gabriel Valley
American Planning Association, California Chapter
California Apartment Association
California Community Builders
California YIMBY
City of Bakersfield
CivicWell
Council Member Zach Hilton, City of Gilroy
Council of Infill Builders
East Bay for Everyone
AB 894 (Friedman) Page 7 of 7
East Bay YIMBY
Grow the Richmond
How to ADU
Monterey Bay Economic Partnership
Mountain View YIMBY
Move LA
Napa-Solano for Everyone
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Northern Neighbors
Parkade
Peninsula for Everyone
People for Housing Orange County
Progress Noe Valley
San Francisco YIMBY
San Luis Obispo YIMBY
Santa Cruz YIMBY
Santa Rosa YIMBY
Seamless Bay Area
South Bay YIMBY
Southside Forward
Streets for All
Streets for People
Transform
Urban Environmentalists
Ventura County YIMBY
YIMBY Action
OPPOSITION:
Association of California Cities - Orange County (ACC-OC)
City of Eastvale
Livable California
-- END --
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JULY 13, 2023
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 30, 2023
california legislature—2023–24 regular session
Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 1
Introduced by Assembly Members Aguiar-Curry, Berman, and
Haney Haney, Lee, and Wicks
(Principal coauthor: Senator Wiener)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Addis, Arambula, Bennett, Boerner,
Bryan, Juan Carrillo, Friedman, Garcia, Grayson, Hart, Holden,
Jackson, Kalra, Lowenthal, McCarty, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega,
Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Blanca Rubio, Santiago, Ting,
Villapudua, Ward, and Wood) Weber, Wilson, Wood, and Zbur)
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 amended, 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
97
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, or special district, as applicable,
and the proposition 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.
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, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or
replacement of public infrastructure, affordable housing, or permanent
supportive housing housing, or the acquisition or lease of real property
for those purposes, if the proposition proposing that tax is approved by
a majority vote of the membership of the governing board of the local
government and 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
97
— 2 — ACA 1
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
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 1 percent of the full cash
line 11 value of that property. The 1 percent tax shall be collected by the
line 12 counties and apportioned according to law to the districts within
line 13 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 before July 1, 1978.
line 18 (2) Bonded indebtedness to fund the acquisition or improvement
line 19 of real property approved on or after July 1, 1978, by two-thirds
line 20 of the votes cast by the voters voting on the proposition.
97
ACA 1 — 3 —
line 1 (3) Bonded indebtedness incurred by a school district,
line 2 community college district, or county office of education for the
line 3 construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of
line 4 school facilities, including the furnishing and equipping of school
line 5 facilities, or the acquisition or lease of real property for school
line 6 facilities, approved by 55 percent of the voters of the district or
line 7 county, as appropriate, voting on the proposition on or after
line 8 November 8, 2000. This paragraph shall apply only if the
line 9 proposition approved by the voters and resulting in the bonded
line 10 indebtedness includes all of the following accountability
line 11 requirements:
line 12 (A) A requirement that the proceeds from the sale of the bonds
line 13 be used only for the purposes specified in this paragraph, and not
line 14 for any other purpose, including teacher and administrator salaries
line 15 and other school operating expenses.
line 16 (B) A list of the specific school facilities projects to be funded
line 17 and certification that the school district board, community college
line 18 board, or county office of education has evaluated safety, class
line 19 size reduction, and information technology needs in developing
line 20 that list.
line 21 (C) A requirement that the school district board, community
line 22 college board, or county office of education conduct an annual,
line 23 independent performance audit to ensure that the funds have been
line 24 expended only on the specific projects listed.
line 25 (D) A requirement that the school district board, community
line 26 college board, or county office of education conduct an annual,
line 27 independent financial audit of the proceeds from the sale of the
line 28 bonds until all of those proceeds have been expended for the school
line 29 facilities projects.
line 30 (4) (A) Bonded indebtedness incurred by a city, county, city
line 31 and county, or special district for the construction, reconstruction,
line 32 rehabilitation, or replacement of public infrastructure, affordable
line 33 housing, or permanent supportive housing for persons at risk of
line 34 chronic homelessness, including persons with mental illness, or
line 35 the acquisition or lease of real property for public infrastructure,
line 36 affordable housing, or permanent supportive housing for persons
line 37 at risk of chronic homelessness, including persons with mental
line 38 illness, approved by 55 percent of the voters of the city, county,
line 39 city and county, or special district, as appropriate, voting on the
line 40 proposition on or after the effective date of the measure adding
97
— 4 — ACA 1
line 1 this paragraph. This paragraph shall apply only if the proposition
line 2 approved by the voters and resulting in the bonded indebtedness
line 3 includes all of the following accountability requirements:
line 4 (i) A requirement that the proceeds from the sale of the bonds
line 5 be used only for the purposes specified in this paragraph, and not
line 6 for any other purpose, including city, county, city and county, or
line 7 special district employee salaries and other operating expenses.
line 8 (ii) The specific local program or ordinance through which
line 9 projects will be funded and a certification that the city, county,
line 10 city and county, or special district has evaluated alternative funding
line 11 sources.
line 12 (iii) A requirement that the city, county, city and county, or
line 13 special district conduct an annual, independent performance audit
line 14 to ensure that the funds have been expended pursuant to the local
line 15 program or ordinance specified in clause (ii).
line 16 (iv) A requirement that the city, county, city and county, or
line 17 special district conduct an annual, independent financial audit of
line 18 the proceeds from the sale of the bonds until all of those proceeds
line 19 have been expended for the public infrastructure or affordable
line 20 housing projects, as applicable.
line 21 (v) A requirement that the city, county, city and county, or
line 22 special district post the audits required by clauses (iii) and (iv) in
line 23 a manner that is easily accessible to the public.
line 24 (vi) A requirement that the city, county, city and county, or
line 25 special district appoint a citizens’ oversight committee to ensure
line 26 that bond proceeds are expended only for the purposes described
line 27 in the measure approved by the voters.
line 28 (B) For purposes of this paragraph:
line 29 (i) “Affordable housing” shall include housing developments,
line 30 or portions of housing developments, that provide workforce
line 31 housing affordable to households earning up to 150 percent of
line 32 countywide median income, and housing developments, or portions
line 33 of housing developments, that provide housing affordable to lower,
line 34 low-, or very low income households, as those terms are defined
line 35 in state law.
line 36 (ii) “At risk of chronic homelessness” includes, but is not limited
line 37 to, persons who are at high risk of long-term or intermittent
line 38 homelessness, including persons with mental illness exiting
line 39 institutionalized settings, including, but not limited to, jail and
line 40 mental health facilities, who were homeless prior to admission,
97
ACA 1 — 5 —
line 1 transition age youth experiencing homelessness or with significant
line 2 barriers to housing stability, and others, as defined in program
line 3 guidelines.
line 4 (iii) “Permanent supportive housing” means housing with no
line 5 limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the target population,
line 6 and that is linked to onsite or offsite services that assist residents
line 7 in retaining the housing, improving their health status, and
line 8 maximizing their ability to live and, when possible, work in the
line 9 community. “Permanent supportive housing” includes associated
line 10 facilities, if those facilities are used to provide services to housing
line 11 residents.
line 12 (iv) “Public infrastructure” shall include, but is not limited to,
line 13 projects that provide any of the following:
line 14 (I) Water or protect protection of water quality.
line 15 (II) Sanitary sewer.
line 16 (III) Treatment of wastewater or reduction of pollution from
line 17 stormwater runoff.
line 18 (IV) Protection of property from impacts of sea level rise.
line 19 (V) Parks and recreation facilities.
line 20 (VI) Open space.
line 21 (VII) Improvements to transit and streets and highways.
line 22 (VIII) Flood control.
line 23 (IX) Broadband internet access service expansion in underserved
line 24 areas.
line 25 (X) Local hospital construction.
line 26 (XI) Public safety buildings or facilities, equipment related to
line 27 fire suppression, emergency response equipment, or interoperable
line 28 communications equipment for direct and exclusive use by fire,
line 29 emergency response, policy, police, or sheriff personnel.
line 30 (XII) Public library facilities.
line 31 (v) “Special district” has the same meaning as provided in
line 32 subdivision (c) of Section 1 of Article XIII C and specifically
line 33 includes a transit district, a regional transportation commission,
line 34 and an association of governments, except that “special district”
line 35 does not include a school district, redevelopment agency, or
line 36 successor agency to a dissolved redevelopment agency.
line 37 (C) This paragraph shall apply to any city, county, city and
line 38 county, or special district measure imposing an ad valorem tax to
line 39 pay the interest and redemption charges on bonded indebtedness
97
— 6 — ACA 1
line 1 for those purposes described in this paragraph that is submitted at
line 2 the same election as the measure adding this paragraph.
line 3 (c) (1) Notwithstanding any other provisions of law or of this
line 4 Constitution, a school district, community college district, or
line 5 county office of education may levy a 55-percent vote ad valorem
line 6 tax pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (b).
line 7 (2) Notwithstanding any other provisions of law or this
line 8 Constitution, a city, county, city and county, or special district
line 9 may levy a 55-percent vote ad valorem tax pursuant to paragraph
line 10 (4) of subdivision (b).
line 11 Second—That Section 4 of Article XIII A thereof is amended
line 12 to read:
line 13 SEC. 4. Except as provided by Section 2.5 of Article XIII C,
line 14 a city, county, or special district, by a two-thirds vote of its voters
line 15 voting on the proposition, may impose a special tax within that
line 16 city, county, or special district, except an ad valorem tax on real
line 17 property or a transactions tax or sales tax on the sale of real
line 18 property within that city, county, or special district.
line 19 Third—That Section 2 of Article XIII C thereof is amended to
line 20 read:
line 21 SEC. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
line 22 Constitution:
line 23 (a) Any tax imposed by a local government is either a general
line 24 tax or a special tax. A special district or agency, including a school
line 25 district, has no authority to levy a general tax.
line 26 (b) A local government may not impose, extend, or increase
line 27 any general tax unless and until that tax is submitted to the
line 28 electorate and approved by a majority vote. A general tax is not
line 29 deemed to have been increased if it is imposed at a rate not higher
line 30 than the maximum rate so approved. The election required by this
line 31 subdivision shall be consolidated with a regularly scheduled general
line 32 election for members of the governing body of the local
line 33 government, except in cases of emergency declared by a unanimous
line 34 vote of the governing body.
line 35 (c) Any general tax imposed, extended, or increased, without
line 36 voter approval, by any local government on or after January 1,
line 37 1995, and before the effective date of this article, may continue to
line 38 be imposed only if that general tax is approved by a majority vote
line 39 of the voters voting in an election on the issue of the imposition,
97
ACA 1 — 7 —
line 1 which election shall be held no later than November 6, 1996, and
line 2 in compliance with subdivision (b).
line 3 (d) Except as provided by Section 2.5, a local government may
line 4 not impose, extend, or increase any special tax unless and until
line 5 that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a two-thirds
line 6 vote. A special tax is not deemed to have been increased if it is
line 7 imposed at a rate not higher than the maximum rate so approved.
line 8 Fourth—That Section 2.5 is added to Article XIII C thereof, to
line 9 read:
line 10 SEC. 2.5. (a) The imposition, extension, or increase of a sales
line 11 and use tax imposed in accordance with the Bradley-Burns Uniform
line 12 Local Sales and Use Tax Law (Part 1.5 (commencing with Section
line 13 7200) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code) or a
line 14 successor law, a transactions and use tax imposed in accordance
line 15 with the Transactions and Use Tax Law (Part 1.6 (commencing
line 16 with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation
line 17 Code) or a successor law, or a parcel tax imposed by a local
line 18 government for the purpose of funding the construction,
line 19 reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of public
line 20 infrastructure, affordable housing, or permanent supportive housing
line 21 for persons at risk of chronic homelessness, including persons with
line 22 mental illness, or the acquisition or lease of real property for public
line 23 infrastructure, affordable housing, or permanent supportive housing
line 24 for persons at risk of chronic homelessness, including persons with
line 25 mental illness, is subject to approval by 55 percent of the voters
line 26 in the local government voting on the proposition, if both of the
line 27 following conditions are met:
line 28 (1) The proposition is approved by a majority vote of the
line 29 membership of the governing board of the local government.
line 30 (2) The proposition contains all of the following accountability
line 31 requirements:
line 32 (A) A requirement that the proceeds of the tax only be used for
line 33 the purposes specified in the proposition, and not for any other
line 34 purpose, including general employee salaries and other operating
line 35 expenses of the local government.
line 36 (B) The specific local program or ordinance through which
line 37 projects will be funded and a certification that the city, county,
line 38 city and county, or special district has evaluated alternative funding
line 39 sources.
97
— 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 pursuant to the local program or
line 4 ordinance specified in subparagraph (B).
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.
97
ACA 1 — 9 —
line 1 (4) “Local government” has the same meaning as provided in
line 2 subdivision (b) of Section 1 of this article and specifically includes
line 3 a transit district, a regional transportation commission, and an
line 4 association of governments.
line 5 (5) “Public infrastructure” shall include, but is not limited to,
line 6 the projects that provide any of the following:
line 7 (A) Water or protect protection of water quality.
line 8 (B) Sanitary sewer.
line 9 (C) Treatment of wastewater or reduction of pollution from
line 10 stormwater runoff.
line 11 (D) Protection of property from impacts of sea level rise.
line 12 (E) Parks and recreation facilities.
line 13 (F) Open space.
line 14 (G) Improvements to transit and streets and highways.
line 15 (H) Flood control.
line 16 (I) Broadband internet access service expansion in underserved
line 17 areas.
line 18 (J) Local hospital construction.
line 19 (K) Public safety buildings or facilities, equipment related to
line 20 fire suppression, emergency response equipment, or interoperable
line 21 communications equipment for direct and exclusive use by fire,
line 22 emergency response, policy, police, or sheriff personnel.
line 23 (L) Public library facilities.
line 24 (c) This section shall apply to any local measure imposing,
line 25 extending, or increasing a sales and use tax imposed pursuant to
line 26 the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law, a
line 27 transactions and use tax imposed in accordance with the
line 28 Transactions and Use Tax Law, or a parcel tax imposed by a local
line 29 government for those purposes described in subdivision (a) that
line 30 is submitted at the same election as the measure adding this section.
line 31 Fifth—That Section 3 of Article XIII D thereof is amended to
line 32 read:
line 33 SEC. 3. (a) An agency shall not assess a tax, assessment, fee,
line 34 or charge upon any parcel of property or upon any person as an
line 35 incident of property ownership except:
line 36 (1) The ad valorem property tax imposed pursuant to Article
line 37 XIII and Article XIII A.
line 38 (2) Any special tax receiving a two-thirds vote pursuant to
line 39 Section 4 of Article XIII A or receiving a 55-percent approval
line 40 pursuant to Section 2.5 of Article XIII C.
97
— 10 — ACA 1
line 1 (3) Assessments as provided by this article.
line 2 (4) Fees or charges for property-related services as provided by
line 3 this article.
line 4 (b) For purposes of this article, fees for the provision of electrical
line 5 or gas service are not deemed charges or fees imposed as an
line 6 incident of property ownership.
line 7 Sixth—That Section 18 of Article XVI thereof is amended to
line 8 read:
line 9 SEC. 18. (a) A county, city, town, township, board of
line 10 education, or school district, shall not incur any indebtedness or
line 11 liability in any manner or for any purpose exceeding in any year
line 12 the income and revenue provided for that year, without the assent
line 13 of two-thirds of the voters of the public entity voting at an election
line 14 to be held for that purpose, except that with respect to any such
line 15 public entity that is authorized to incur indebtedness for public
line 16 school purposes, any proposition for the incurrence of indebtedness
line 17 in the form of general obligation bonds for the purpose of repairing,
line 18 reconstructing, or replacing public school buildings determined,
line 19 in the manner prescribed by law, to be structurally unsafe for school
line 20 use, shall be adopted upon the approval of a majority of the voters
line 21 of the public entity voting on the proposition at the election; nor
line 22 unless before or at the time of incurring such indebtedness
line 23 provision shall be made for the collection of an annual tax
line 24 sufficient to pay the interest on such indebtedness as it falls due,
line 25 and to provide for a sinking fund for the payment of the principal
line 26 thereof, on or before maturity, which shall not exceed forty 40
line 27 years from the time of contracting the indebtedness. A special
line 28 district, other than a board of education or school district, shall not
line 29 incur any indebtedness or liability exceeding any applicable
line 30 statutory limit, as prescribed by the statutes governing the special
line 31 district as they currently read or may thereafter be amended by the
line 32 Legislature.
line 33 (b) (1) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), any proposition for
line 34 the incurrence of indebtedness in the form of general obligation
line 35 bonds for the purposes described in paragraph (3) or (4) of
line 36 subdivision (b) of Section 1 of Article XIII A shall be adopted
line 37 upon the approval of 55 percent of the voters of the school district,
line 38 community college district, county office of education, city, county,
line 39 city and county, or other special district, as appropriate, voting on
line 40 the proposition at an election. This subdivision shall apply to a
97
ACA 1 — 11 —
line 1 proposition for the incurrence of indebtedness in the form of
line 2 general obligation bonds for the purposes specified in this
line 3 subdivision only if the proposition meets all of the accountability
line 4 requirements of paragraph (3) or (4) of subdivision (b), as
line 5 appropriate, of Section 1 of Article XIII A.
line 6 (2) The amendments made to this subdivision by the measure
line 7 adding this paragraph shall apply to any proposition for the
line 8 incurrence of indebtedness in the form of general obligation bonds
line 9 pursuant to this subdivision for the purposes described in paragraph
line 10 (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 1 of Article XIII A that is
line 11 submitted at the same election as the measure adding this
line 12 paragraph.
line 13 (c) When two or more propositions for incurring any
line 14 indebtedness or liability are submitted at the same election, the
line 15 votes cast for and against each proposition shall be counted
line 16 separately, and if two-thirds or a majority or 55 percent of the
line 17 voters, as the case may be, voting on any one of those propositions,
line 18 vote in favor thereof, the proposition shall be deemed adopted.
O
97
— 12 — ACA 1