HomeMy WebLinkAbout062524 - 3.1
LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE MEMORANDUM 3.1
TO: Mayor and Town Council June 25, 2024
SUBJECT: June Legislative Report
BACKGROUND
The Legislature’s main focus during the month of June has been the State Budget, as the
State’s Constitution requires the Legislature to pass a balanced budget bill by June 15.
On June 13, the Legislature met and approved three bills including AB 107, AB 154 and
SB 167.
• AB 107, the main budget bill, outlines over $211 billion in state expenditures for
the next fiscal year.
• AB 154 suspends Prop 98 spending in the current fiscal year to help keep the
budget balanced.
• SB 167 contains numerous revenue adjustments, including the Legislature’s plan
to start a three-year suspension of corporate net operating loss (NOL) deductions
and tax credits in 2024—one year earlier than the Governor proposed.
The three-bill package reflects the joint legislative budget plan approved by the Assembly
and the Senate in late May but does not represent an agreement with the Administration
on the overall budget. The next steps are for the Governor, Senate, and Assembly to
negotiate the final framework. The Governor has until June 30 to take action.
Policy committees slowed during the month of June. This is a result of bills moving into
their second house and the need for Rules Committees to refer them to the appropriate
policy committee(s). The pause allows time for legislators to rework language and to
introduce bill amendments prior to the second house referral process.
DISCUSSION
The Town’s Legislative Committee follows legislation that is identified as a priority
through the Tri-Valley Cities Coalition and by the Danville Town Council based upon
the Town’s legislative framework.
June Legislative Update 2 June 25, 2024
The Tri-Valley Cities Legislative Framework identifies six focus areas for the 2024 State
Legislative session including: Transportation and Infrastructure, Climate, Environment,
Health and Safety, Economic Development, Affordable Housing and Homelessness,
Mental Health, and Fiscal Sustainability. The bills and positions that are a priority for the
Tri-Valley coalition are discussed in the second half of this report.
The following bills have been identified as having an impact on Danville.
H.R. 8002 (Harder) Stop the Rate Hikes Act
This bill would amend the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 to require States
to consider measures that limit the amount of retail utility rate increases a utility company
can request to once every 365 days.
Recommended Position: Support
Tri-Valley Cities Coalition
AB 1779 (Irwin) Theft: Jurisdiction
This bill would permit the consolidation of specified theft charges, as well as all
associated offenses occurring in different counties into a single trial if the district
attorneys in all involved jurisdictions agree. Location: Senate Floor
TVC Position: Support
AB 1794 (McCarty) Crimes: larceny
Under existing law, if the value of all property taken over the course of distinct but related
acts motivated by one intention, general impulse, and plan exceeds $950, those values
may be aggregated into a single charge of grand theft. This bill would clarify that those
values may be aggregated even though the thefts occurred in different places or from
different victims. The bill would also, declarative of existing law, provide that
circumstantial evidence may be used to prove that multiple thefts were motivated by one
intention, general impulse, and plan.
Location: Re-referred to Senate Appropriations Committee
TVC Position: Support
AB 1820 (Schiavo) Housing development projects: applications: fees and exactions.
This bill would authorize a development proponent that submits a preliminary
application for a housing development project to request a preliminary fee and exaction
estimate and would require the local agency to provide the estimate within 30 business
days of the submission of the preliminary application. For development fees imposed by
an agency other than a city, county, or city and county, the bill would require the
development proponent to request the fee schedule from the agency that imposes the fee
without delay.
June Legislative Update 3 June 25, 2024
Location: Senate Committee on Housing
TVC Position: Neutral
AB 1886 (Alverez) Housing Element Law: substantial compliance: Housing
Accountability Act
Current law requires the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
to review and determine whether a housing element substantially complies with the
Housing Element Law. If HCD finds that a draft housing element or amendment does
not substantially comply with the Housing Element Law, current law requires the
legislative body of the city or county to either (A) change the draft element or amendment
to substantially comply with the Housing Element Law or (B) adopt the draft housing
element or amendment without changes and make specified findings as to why the draft
element or amendment substantially complies with the Housing Element Law despite
the HCD findings. This bill would require a planning agency that makes the above-
described findings as to why a draft housing element or amendment substantially
complies with the Housing Element Law despite the HCD findings to submit those
findings to HCD. The bill would require HCD to review those findings in its review of
an adopted housing element or amendment. The bill would create a rebuttable
presumption of validity for HCD’s findings as to whether the adopted element or
amendment substantially complies with the Housing Element Law.
Location: Senate Committee on Housing
TVC Position: Oppose
AB 2021 (Bauer-Kahan) Crimes: selling or furnishing tobacco or related products and
paraphernalia to underage persons
Existing law prohibits the sale or furnishing of tobacco or tobacco products or
paraphernalia, as specified, to a person who is under 21 years of age. This bill would
create a separate fine of $500 for the first offense, $1,000 for the 2nd offense, and $5,000
for any subsequent offense for firms, corporations, businesses, retailers, or wholesalers,
who violate this prohibition.
Location: Senate Committee on Public Safety
TVC Position: Support
AB 2243 (Wicks) Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022: objective
standards and affordability and site criteria
The Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022, until January 1, 2033, authorizes
a development proponent to submit an application for an affordable housing
development or a mixed-income housing development that meets specified objective
standards, affordability and site criteria, including being located within a zone where
office, retail, or parking are a principally permitted use. The act makes such
developments a use by right. Such developments would be subject to one of 2
streamlined, ministerial review processes depending on, among other things, the
affordability requirements applicable to the project. This bill would make various
June Legislative Update 4 June 25, 2024
changes to the objective standards and affordability and site criteria applicable to an
affordable housing development or mixed-income housing development subject to the
streamlined, ministerial review process under the act.
Location: Senate Committee on Local Government
TVC Position: Oppose Unless Amended
AB 2943 (Zbur, Rivas) Crimes: shoplifting
Known as the California Retail Theft Reduction Act, this bill creates a new crime targeting
"serial" retail thieves, with a penalty of up to three years’ incarceration for possession of
stolen property with intent to resell. Additionally, it clarifies that similar thefts from
different victims can be aggregated to charge grand theft if certain criteria are met. This
measure also provides new tools for law enforcement to arrest for shoplifting based on a
witness's sworn statement or video footage of the crime and extends the ability of police
to keep repeat offenders in custody.
Location: Senate Floor
TVC Position: Support
SB 402 (Wahab) Involuntary commitment.
Existing law, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, authorizes the involuntary commitment
and treatment of persons with specified mental disorders. Under the act, when a person,
as a result of a mental health disorder, is a danger to self or others, or gravely disabled,
the person may, upon probable cause, be taken into custody by specified individuals,
including, among others, by peace officers and designated members of a mobile crisis
team, and placed in a facility designated by the county and approved by the State
Department of Health Care Services for up to 72 hours for evaluation and treatment. This
bill would additionally authorize a person to be taken into custody, pursuant to those
provisions, by a licensed mental health professional, as defined.
Location: Assembly Committee on Judiciary
TVC Position: Support
SB 905 (Wiener) Unlawful entry of a vehicle.
This bill creates two new wobbler offenses pertaining to theft from vehicles. The first
offense is similar to the existing crime of auto burglary but does not require a prosecutor
to prove the vehicle was locked in order to obtain a conviction if someone steals from the
vehicle. The second offense makes it unlawful for a person to possess property that was
stolen from a vehicle. A misdemeanor conviction is punishable by up to one year in
county jail, and a felony conviction is punishable by 16 months, 2 years, or 3 years in a
county jail. If a defendant has prior convictions, a felony conviction could result in a term
in state prison.
Location: Assembly Floor
TVC Position: Support
June Legislative Update 5 June 25, 2024
SB 1031 (Wiener, Wahab) San Francisco Bay Area: local revenue measures:
transportation improvements.
This bill authorizes the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to propose new
taxes, allocate new revenue and issue bonds for specified transportation projects, and
requires the State Transportation Agency to consider transit agency consolidation within
the San Francisco Bay Area.
Location: In Assembly – Held at Desk.
TVC Position: Watch
SB 1060 (Becker) Property insurance underwriting: risk models.
This bill requires a property insurer that employs risk models for underwriting purposes
that account for wildfire risk reduction associated with hazardous fuel reduction, home
hardening, defensible space, and fire prevention activities for properties, communities,
and landscapes, to provide to the Department of Insurance information that
demonstrates compliance with these provisions.
Location: Assembly Committee on Insurance
TVC Position: Support
November Ballot Measures
The Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act
On Tuesday, June 11, the Secretary of State announced The Homelessness, Drug
Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act, sponsored by the California Association of District
Attorneys, and received the necessary signatures needed to qualify for the ballot.
The initiative would roll back some of the changes made by Prop 47, a law voters
approved in 2014 that reduced jail population by downgrading drug possession crimes
and theft of items valued at less than $950 from felonies or misdemeanors. If passed by
the voters, this new initiative would, among other things:
1.Eliminate the $950 threshold for a third theft, meaning someone caught stealing
three times could be prosecuted for a felony, regardless of the value of the
merchandise stolen.
2.Increase jail time for repeat and organized retail theft.
3.Provide drug and mental health treatment for people who are addicted to hard
drugs such as fentanyl, cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine.
ACA 10 (Aguiar- Curry) Local government financing: affordable housing and public
infrastructure: voter approval
This measure directs the Secretary of State to make amendments to ACA 1. ACA 1 is the
ballot measure that, if approved by the voters, would authorize a city, county, or special
district, with 55% voter approval, to incur bonded indebtedness or impose specified
special taxes to fund projects for affordable housing, permanent supportive housing, or
June Legislative Update 6 June 25, 2024
public infrastructure. Amendments to ACA 1, as directed in ACA 10, include removing
the provisions related to special taxes, and the following amendments to the bond
provisions:
1.Allow the Legislature, subject to a 2/3 vote, to enact laws imposing additional
conditions or restrictions on the acquisition or lease of real property for purposes
described in the bond provisions of ACA 1.
2.Modify the definitions of affordable housing and public infrastructure, as
specified.
3.Clarify that the 55% vote threshold applies to any proposition for the incurrence
of indebtedness by a city, county, city and county, or special district that is
submitted at the same election as ACA 1 or at a later election held after the effective
date of ACA 1.
ACA 10 will need to be passed before June 27 to allow the Secretary of State’s office
enough time to print ballots with the updated language.
Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act
Sponsored by the California Business Roundtable, this initiative would amend the
California Constitution to restrict the ability of the state, local governments, and the
electorate to approve or collect taxes fees and other revenues. Governor Newsom and
Democratic legislators filed a petition with the California Supreme Court to remove the
initiative from the ballot, citing the measure is an invalid revision of the State
Constitution—which cannot be accomplished by initiative.
Following hearings, the California Supreme Court ruled on June 20 that the
initiative goes beyond amending the state constitution by revising the core functions
of state/local governments and directed the Secretary of State to not proceed with
placing the initiative on the November General Election ballot. Additionally, the Court
indicated that to carry out the proposal, the proponents would need to go through the
constitutional revision process, via a constitutional convention.
Due to the June 27 deadline to place measures on the ballot, there will not be sufficient
time for the proponents to go through the steps necessary to place this measure before
the voters this November.
Conclusion
It is recommended that the Town Council Legislative Sub-Committee accept this report
and direct any questions and/or direction to Town legislative staff.
June Legislative Update 7 June 25, 2024
Prepared by:
Cat Bravo
Management Analyst
Reviewed by:
Joseph Calabrigo
Town Manager
Attachment A – Bill Summaries/Analysis
Attachment B – TVC Letter of Opposition AB 1886
Attachment C – TVC Letter of Oppose Unless Amended AB 2243
I
118TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION H. R. 8002
To amend the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 to require
States to consider measures that limit the amount of retail utility rate
increases a utility company can request to once every 365 days.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
APRIL 15, 2024
Mr. HARDER of California introduced the following bill; which was referred
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce
A BILL
To amend the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978
to require States to consider measures that limit the
amount of retail utility rate increases a utility company
can request to once every 365 days.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-1
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 2
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.3
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stop the Rate Hikes 4
Act’’. 5
VerDate Sep 11 2014 00:11 Apr 25, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H8002.IH H8002ss
a
v
a
g
e
o
n
L
A
P
J
G
3
W
L
Y
3
P
R
O
D
w
i
t
h
B
I
L
L
S
ATTACHMENT A
2
•HR 8002 IH
SEC. 2. CONSIDERATION OF MEASURES TO CAP RETAIL 1
UTILITY RATE INCREASES TO ONCE A YEAR. 2
Section 111(d) of the Public Utility Regulatory Poli-3
cies Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2621(d)) is amended by add-4
ing at the end the following: 5
‘‘(22) CAP ON RETAIL UTILITY RATE IN-6
CREASES TO ONCE A YEAR.—Each electric utility 7
shall request no more than one rate increase once 8
per year.’’. 9
Æ
VerDate Sep 11 2014 00:11 Apr 25, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6301 E:\BILLS\H8002.IH H8002ss
a
v
a
g
e
o
n
L
A
P
J
G
3
W
L
Y
3
P
R
O
D
w
i
t
h
B
I
L
L
S
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Anna Caballero, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular Session
AB 1779 (Irwin) - Theft: jurisdiction
Version: April 25, 2024 Policy Vote: PUB. S. 4 - 0
Urgency: No Mandate: No
Hearing Date: June 17, 2024 Consultant: Liah Burnley
Bill Summary: AB 1779 allows specified criminal theft charges to be consolidated and
brought in any jurisdiction, subject to a hearing on consolidation of the offenses, as
specified.
Fiscal Impact: Unknown, potentially significant cost pressure to the state funded trial
court system (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) to adjudicate the consolidation
hearings required by this bill. Certain rights to the defendants are attached to criminal
proceedings, including the right to counsel (at public expense if the defendants are
unable to afford the costs of representation) which could lead to lengthier and more
complex court proceedings with attendant workload and resource costs to the court. An
eight hour court day costs approximately $8,000 in staff in workload. If the bill results in
12 or more days spent in court, trial court costs could be in the hundreds of thousands
of dollars. While the courts are not funded on a workload basis, an increase in workload
could result in delayed court services and would put pressure on the General Fund to
fund additional staff and resources. For example, the 2021-22 budget included $90
million onetime General Fund to address case backlogs—with $30 million specifically
for certain criminal case backlogs and $60 million for backlogs across all case types.
The Governor’s 2024-25 May Revision proposes reducing $97 million ongoing from the
General Fund to the trial courts.
Background: Territorial jurisdiction for a criminal offense is generally proper in any
competent court within the jurisdictional territory where it was committed. In other
words, subject to a few exceptions, criminal charges must be brought in the county
where the crime is alleged to have happened.
Recently enacted law expanded territorial jurisdiction for a criminal action brought by the
AG for the crimes of theft, organized retail theft, or receipt of stolen property. (AB 1613
(Irwin), chapter 949, statutes of 2022.) It allows the prosecution of these offenses when
brought by the AG to occur in any county where any stolen merchandise was
recovered, or any instigating, procuring, promoting, or aiding in the commission of the
offense occurred, even if the theft offense itself was committed in a distant county. It
also expanded jurisdiction to any one of the counties in which a theft offense occurred
against the same victim(s), and the merchandise was the same, or the theft was
committed by the same defendant or defendants under a common plan or scheme. The
expanded jurisdiction also applies any associated offenses connected together in their
commission to the underlying offenses of theft, organized retail theft or receiving stolen
property.
Proposed Law:
AB 1779 (Irwin) Page 2 of 3
Expands the jurisdiction to prosecute theft, organized retail theft or receiving
stolen property when brought by a district attorney to include the county where
an offense involving the theft or receipt of the stolen merchandise occurred, the
county in which the merchandise was recovered, or the county where any act
was done by the defendant in instigating, procuring, promoting, or aiding in the
commission of the offense or in abetting the parties concerned.
States that if multiple offenses of theft, organized retail theft or receiving stolen
property either all involving the same defendant or defendants and the same
merchandise, or all involving the same defendant or defendants and the same
scheme or substantially similar activity, occur in multiple jurisdictions, then any of
those jurisdictions are a proper jurisdiction for all of the offenses, subject to a
hearing on consolidation of the matters in the jurisdiction of the proposed trial.
Provides that at the consolidation hearing, the prosecution shall present written
evidence that all district attorneys in counties with jurisdiction over the offenses
agree to the venue. Charged offenses from jurisdictions where there is not a
written agreement from the district attorney shall be returned to that jurisdiction.
Specifies that jurisdiction also extends to all associated offenses connected
together in their commission to the underlying offenses of theft, organized retail
theft, or receiving stolen property.
Related Legislation:
AB 1794 (McCarty) authorizes counties to operate a program to allow retailers to submit
details of alleged shoplifting, organized retail theft, or grand theft directly to the district
attorney through an online portal on the district attorney’s internet website. AB 1794 will
be heard by this Committee today.
AB 1802 (Jones-Sawyer) removes the sunset date on the organized retail theft statute
and the regional property crimes task force. AB 1802 will be heard by this Committee
today.
AB 1960 (Soria) creates sentencing enhancements for taking, damaging, or destroying
property in the commission or attempted commission of a felony, as specified. AB 1960
will be heard by this Committee today.
AB 1972 (Alanis) requires the existing regional crimes property task force to assist
railroad police and specifies cargo theft as a property crime for consideration by the
regional property crimes task force. AB 1972 will be heard by this Committee today.
AB 2943 (Zbur) makes it a crime for any person to possess property unlawfully that was
acquired through one or more acts of shoplifting, theft, or burglary from a retail
business, if the property is not possessed for personal use and the person has intent to
sell, exchange, or return the merchandise for value, or the intent to act in concert with
one or more persons to sell, exchange, or return the merchandise for value, and the
value of the possessed property exceeds $950. AB 2943 will be heard by this
Committee today.
AB 1779 (Irwin) Page 3 of 3
AB 3209 (Berman) establishes a retail theft restraining order, as specified. AB 3209 will
be heard by this Committee today.
SB 1144 (Skinner) revises the types of transactions that qualify a third-party seller as a
“high-volume third-party seller,” relating to online marketplaces, as specified. SB 1144 is
pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
SB 1416 (Newman) reinstates sentencing enhancements for selling, exchanging, or
returning for value, or attempting to sell, exchange, or return for value, any property
acquired through one or more acts of shoplifting, theft, or burglary from a retail
business, if the property value exceeds specified amounts. SB 1416 is pending in the
Assembly Appropriations Committee.
SB 905 (Wiener) creates the new crime of forcibly entering a vehicle with intent to
commit theft therein, as specified. SB 905 is pending in the Assembly Appropriations
Committee.
SB 982 (Wahab) removes the sunset date on the organized retail theft statute. SB 982
is pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
SB 1242 (Min) makes it a factor in aggravation if arson was carried out within a
merchant’s premises in order to facilitate organized retail theft. SB 1242 is pending in
the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
Proposed Amendments: This bill will be amended to contain an urgency clause,
allowing the bill’s provisions to take effect immediately upon approval of the Governor.
Additionally, the bill will be amended to contain an inoperability clause stating that its
provisions will become inoperative if the proposed initiative measure titled, “The
Homelessness, Drug Addition, and Theft Reduction Act” (Initiative 23-0017A1) is
approved by the voters at the statewide general election on November 5, 2024.
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Anna Caballero, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular Session
AB 1794 (McCarty) - Crimes: larceny
Version: April 11, 2024 Policy Vote: PUB. S. 4 - 0
Urgency: No Mandate: No
Hearing Date: June 17, 2024 Consultant: Liah Burnley
Bill Summary: AB 1794 authorizes counties to operate a Cal-Fast Pass program to
allow retailers to submit details of alleged shoplifting, organized retail theft, or grand
theft directly to the district attorney through an online portal on the district attorney’s
internet website.
Fiscal Impact:
Incarceration costs (local funds, General Fund) to the counties and the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to the extent this bill
results in more grand theft convictions. Costs may be in the millions of dollars
annually statewide, with actual costs depending on the number of convictions,
the length of each sentence, and whether each sentence must be served in
county jail or state prison. The average annual cost to incarcerate one person in
county jail is approximately $29,000. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO)
estimates the average annual cost to incarcerate one person in state prison is
$133,000. Although county incarceration costs are generally not considered
reimbursable state mandates pursuant to Proposition 30 (2012), overcrowding in
county jails creates cost pressure on the General Fund because the state has
historically granted new funding to counties to offset overcrowding resulting from
2011 public safety realignment.
Cost pressures (General Fund) to provide increased funding to the Organized
Retail Theft Prevention Grant Program and Organized Retail Theft Vertical
Prosecution Grant Program. This bill authorizes a county that establishes a CAL-
Fast Pass Program to apply for funding from these grant programs, widening the
pool of authorized grant recipients and potentially increasing the demand for
further grant funds. The Governor’s 2024-25 budget proposal includes $373.5
million General Fund over four years for various efforts related to retail theft,
including $10 million in fiscal year 2024-25 for the Organized Retail Theft Vertical
Prosecution Grant Program.
Background: The Cal-Fast Pass program created by this bill is based on a program
enacted in Yolo County in fall 2023. The Yolo County “FastPass to Prosecution”
program was created to speed up shoplifting investigations by allowing retailers to
submit information about suspected crimes directly to the district attorney’s office, rather
than reporting the information to the police first.
AB 1794 (McCarty) Page 2 of 4
Proposed Law:
Authorizes, but does not require, each county district attorney’s office to establish
a CAL-Fast Pass Program to facilitate reporting of retail theft-related incidents
from retailers to prosecutors.
Establishes minimum operating and reporting guidelines and authorizes
participating counties to apply for funding through two existing grant programs for
theft-related prosecution, the Organized Retail Theft Prevention Grant Program
and Organized Retail Theft Vertical Prosecution Grant Program.
Specifies that thefts that occurred in multiple places or from multiple victims may
be aggregated for the purpose of charging a defendant with grand theft.
Adds to the grand theft statute examples of the types of evidence that may be
used to determine whether a defendant acted with a single intent, impulse and
plan in committing a series of thefts, such that the thefts may be aggregated into
grand theft.
Related Legislation:
AB 1779 (Irwin) allows specified criminal actions for thefts to be consolidated and
brought in any jurisdiction, subject to a hearing on consolidation of the offenses, as
specified. AB 1779 will be heard by this Committee today.
AB 1802 (Jones-Sawyer) removes the sunset date on the organized retail theft statute
and the regional property crimes task force. AB 1802 will be heard by this Committee
today.
AB 1960 (Soria) creates sentencing enhancements for taking, damaging, or destroying
property in the commission or attempted commission of a felony, as specified. AB 1960
will be heard by this Committee today.
AB 1972 (Alanis) requires the existing regional crimes property task force to assist
railroad police and specifies cargo theft as a property crime for consideration by the
regional property crimes task force. AB 1972 will be heard by this Committee today.
AB 2943 (Zbur) makes it a crime for any person to possess property unlawfully that was
acquired through one or more acts of shoplifting, theft, or burglary from a retail
business, if the property is not possessed for personal use and the person has intent to
sell, exchange, or return the merchandise for value, or the intent to act in concert with
one or more persons to sell, exchange, or return the merchandise for value, and the
value of the possessed property exceeds $950. AB 2943 will be heard by this
Committee today.
AB 3209 (Berman) establishes a retail theft restraining order, as specified. AB 3209 will
be heard by this Committee today.
SB 1144 (Skinner) revises the types of transactions that qualify a third-party seller as a
“high-volume third-party seller,” relating to online marketplaces, as specified. SB 1144 is
pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
AB 1794 (McCarty) Page 3 of 4
SB 1416 (Newman) reinstates sentencing enhancements for selling, exchanging, or
returning for value, or attempting to sell, exchange, or return for value, any property
acquired through one or more acts of shoplifting, theft, or burglary from a retail
business, if the property value exceeds specified amounts. SB 1416 is pending in the
Assembly Appropriations Committee.
SB 905 (Wiener) creates the new crime of forcibly entering a vehicle with intent to
commit theft therein, as specified. SB 905 is pending in the Assembly Appropriations
Committee.
SB 982 (Wahab) removes the sunset date on the organized retail theft statute. SB 982
is pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
SB 1242 (Min) makes it a factor in aggravation if arson was carried out within a
merchant’s premises in order to facilitate organized retail theft. SB 1242 is pending in
the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
Staff Comments: To the extent the CAL-Fast Pass programs authorized by this bill are
operated and result in more convictions than would otherwise have occurred, they will
likely contribute to increased incarceration costs in the long term. Also, if, as proponents
hope, additional changes made by this bill make it easier to charge and convict
defendants with grand theft rather than petty theft, the bill will result in significant
incarceration costs to the counties and the state.
When taking into account the total costs of incarceration, including fixed costs for
staffing and infrastructure in addition to the marginal cost of each inmate, the average
annual per capita cost to confine a person in state prison is over $133,000. That’s
because there are many other types of costs—including most staffing costs—that are
only saved when capacity is reduced. Specifically, when a whole prison is deactivated,
the state can save several tens of thousands of dollars per capita annually in addition to
the population driven savings. Since 2021, the administration has deactivated several
prisons and yards. CDCR estimates that these deactivations resulted in ongoing
General Fund savings totaling about $620 million annually. The administration currently
plans to deactivate additional prisons. The Governor’s 2024-25 budget proposes a $493
million decrease in CDCR funding, largely as a result of previous capacity reductions
and the planned deactivation of a prison in March 2025. The LAO believes the state
could deactivate around five additional prisons that collectively cost nearly $1 billion
should they continue operating. As such, the LAO has recommended that the
Legislature direct CDCR to begin planning to reduce capacity by deactivating prisons.
Longer state prison sentences, like those proposed by this bill, would delay prison
closures and the cost savings associated with them.
Proposed Amendments: This bill will be amended to contain an urgency clause,
allowing the bill’s provisions to take effect immediately upon approval of the Governor.
Additionally, the bill will be amended to contain an inoperability clause stating that its
provisions will become inoperative if the proposed initiative measure titled, “The
Homelessness, Drug Addition, and Theft Reduction Act” (Initiative 23-0017A1) is
approved by the voters at the statewide general election on November 5, 2024. The
amendments also include double-jointing language to avoid chaptering issues with AB
2943 (Zbur).
AB 1794 (McCarty) Page 4 of 4
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Senator María Elena Durazo, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular
Bill No: AB 1820 Hearing Date: 6/11/24
Author: Schiavo Fiscal: Yes
Version: 6/5/24 Consultant: Peterson
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS: APPLICATIONS: FEES AND EXACTIONS
Requires local agencies to provide developers with more information on fees and exactions at
various stages of the housing development approval process.
Background
Local government finance after Proposition 13. A series of propositions have drastically cut
into local revenue sources, requiring local governments to look elsewhere to fund services that
the public demands. First, Proposition 13 (1978) capped property tax rates at 1% of assessed
value (which only changes upon new construction or when ownership changes) and required 2/3
voter approval for special taxes; as a result local governments turned to general taxes to avoid the
higher voter threshold. When Proposition 62 (1986) required majority voter approval of general
taxes, local agencies imposed assessments that were more closely tied to the benefit that an
individual property owner receives. Subsequently, Proposition 218 (1996) required voter
approval of parcel taxes, assessments, and property-related fees.
In response to the reduction in property tax revenues from Proposition 13 and the difficulty of
raising taxes, local agencies have turned to other sources of funds for general operations,
including sales taxes and transient occupancy taxes, also known as hotel taxes. Commercial
enterprises generate sales tax and hotel tax revenue, and simultaneously pay property taxes and
demand relatively few services (such as public safety or parks). Residential developments, by
contrast, do not directly generate sales or hotel tax revenue, and the new residents demand a
wider variety of more intensive services. As a result, cities and counties face a disincentive to
approve housing because of the higher net fiscal cost of residential development, particularly if
they have the option to instead permit commercial development that may produce net fiscal
benefits, also known as the fiscalization of land use.
Since they cannot impose broad-based taxes without great difficulty, cities and counties follow a
simple principle: new developments should pay for the impacts they have on the community and
the burden they impose on public services.
Mitigation Fee Act. When approving development projects, counties and cities can require the
applicants to mitigate the project's effects by paying fees—known as mitigation fees, impact
fees, or developer fees. The California courts have upheld impact fees for sidewalks, parks,
school construction, and many other public purposes.
When establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition of approving a development
project the Mitigation Fee Act requires local officials to:
AB 1820 (Schiavo) 6/5/24 Page 2 of 8
Identify the fee’s purpose;
Identify the fee’s use, including the public facilities to be financed;
Determine a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the development; and
Determine a reasonable relationship between the public facility’s need and the
development.
When imposing a fee as a condition of approving a development project, the Mitigation Fee Act
also requires local officials to determine a reasonable relationship between the fee’s amount and
the cost of the public facility. In its 1987 Nollan decision, the U.S. Supreme Court said there
must be an “essential nexus” between a project's impacts and the conditions for approval. In the
1994 Dolan decision, the U.S. Supreme Court said that conditions on development must have a
"rough proportionality" to a project's impacts.
In the 1996 Ehrlich decision, the California Supreme Court distinguished between “legislatively
enacted” conditions that apply to all projects and “ad hoc” conditions imposed on a project-by-
project basis. Ehrlich applied the “essential nexus” test from Nollan and the “rough
proportionality” test from Dolan to “ad hoc’ conditions. The Court did not apply the Nollan and
Dolan tests to the conditions that were “legislatively enacted.” In other words, local officials
face greater scrutiny when they impose conditions on a project-by-project basis.
As a result of these decisions and the Mitigation Fee Act, local agencies must conduct a nexus
study to ensure any proposed impact fees meet these legal tests for most impact fees. Other
requirements in the Mitigation Fee Act ensure that impact fees are appropriately levied and
spent, including that a local agency must:
Hold at least one open and public meeting prior to levying a new fee or increasing an
existing one;
If it decides to adopt capital improvement plans, indicate the approximate location, size,
time of availability, and estimates of cost for all facilities or improvements to be financed
with the fees;
Deposit and spend the fees within five years of collecting them; and
Refund fees or make specific findings on when and how the fees will be spent for
construction, if the fees are not spent within five years of collection.
If a local agency levies an impact fee to fund a capital improvement associated with a
development, it must deposit the fees with any other fees for that improvement in a separate
account or fund.
Local officials must also produce an annual report within 180 days of the end of the fiscal year
that includes information on the fee amounts, how they used the revenue, and any unspent funds,
broken up by each separate fund. The local agency must review this information at the next
regularly scheduled public meeting at least 15 days from when it makes the information available
to public. It must also provide notice to the public at least 15 days prior to the meeting.
Impact fee audit requirements. Any person may request an independent audit of how the impact
fees have been collected and spent, including an assessment of whether the fees exceed the
amount reasonably necessary to cover the costs of the stated projects or services. If a person
makes that request, the local agency retains an independent auditor to conduct the audit, provided
that an audit has not been performed on the same fee within the previous 12 months and the
AB 1820 (Schiavo) 6/5/24 Page 3 of 8
requestor deposits funds necessary to cover the estimated cost for the audit with the local agency.
A local agency must adjust its fees if the audit finds that the fees are set too high.
Impact fee transparency legislation. To increase transparency around impact fees, the
Legislature enacted AB 1483 (Grayson, 2019). AB 1483 requires cities and counties to post
specified housing-related information on their web sites and requires HCD to establish a
workgroup, as specified, to develop a strategy for state housing data.
AB 1483 also requires a city, county, or special district that has an internet website to post on
their websites the following information, as applicable:
A current schedule of mitigation fees, exactions, and affordability requirements imposed
by the city, county, or special district, including any dependent special districts of the city
or county, applicable to a housing development project, in a manner that clearly identifies
the fees that apply to each parcel.
All zoning ordinances and development standards, including which standards apply to
each parcel.
A list that cities and counties must develop under existing law of projects located within
military use airspace or low-level flight path.
The current and five previous annual fee reports or the current and five previous annual
financial reports that local agencies must compile under to existing law.
An archive of impact fee nexus studies, cost of service studies, or equivalent, conducted
by the city, county, or special district on or after January 1, 2018.
A city, county, or special district must update this information on their website within 30 days of
any change. The measure also required cities and counties to request the total amount of fees
and exactions associated with the project from a developer after construction, but the developer
does not have to respond. The city or county must post this information on its internet website,
and update it at least twice per year.
Nexus studies. Subsequently, AB 602 (Grayson, 2021) added new impact fee requirements.
This bill amended the law to require the preparation of nexus studies to follow certain standards
and practices including:
When applicable, identify the existing level of service and proposed new level of service,
explain the metric being used, and include an explanation of why the new level of service
is necessary;
In calculating the fee, require the fee to be proportionate to the square footage of the
proposed units, unless the local agency makes a finding that another standard is more
appropriate. Local agencies can still establish different fees for different types of
developments;
Adopt a capital improvement plan in jurisdictions located in counties with over 250,000
residents;
Adopt studies at a public hearing with at least 30 days’ notice, which must be provided to
members of the public that request it;
Calculate fees using standards that comply with existing law, including, but not limited
to, vehicle miles traveled; and
Update studies every eight years, from the period beginning on January 1, 2022.
AB 1820 (Schiavo) 6/5/24 Page 4 of 8
Importantly, AB 602 exempted sewer and water connection fees and capacity charges. The next
year AB 2536 (Grayson, 2022) imposed new requirements when a local agency imposes a
connection fee or capacity charge. Prior to levying a new connection fee or capacity charge, the
local agency must evaluate the amount of the fee or charge, which must include evidence the fee
or charge amount does not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing service. The local
agency must make all the information included in the evaluation available at least 14 days prior
to the public meeting it must hold. The measure also provided it must not be construed to relieve
a local agency of complying with existing law, the Constitution, or applicable case law.
Housing Crisis Act of 2019. To address concerns that cities and counties were taking actions
that could undermine housing development, the Legislature enacted SB 330 (Skinner, 2019): the
Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (HCA). Among other provisions, the HCA prohibits a local agency
from applying new rules or standards to a project after a “preliminary application” containing
specified information is submitted.
The author wants to increase impact fee transparency.
Proposed Law
Assembly Bill 1820 requires local agencies to provide more information on fees and exactions at
various stages of the housing development approval process.
AB 1820 allows a developer that submits a preliminary application to include in its application a
request for a preliminary fee and exaction estimate, which the local agency must provide within
30 business days of receiving the application. For fees imposed by an agency other than a city or
county, the developer must request the fee schedule from the agency that imposes the fee without
delay. This estimate must be a good faith estimate of the total amount of fees and exactions
imposed in connection with the project. The measure provides the estimate is for informational
purposes only, is not legally binding, and does not affect the scope, amount, or time of payment
of any fee or exaction. For these purposes, fees do not include the cost of providing electrical or
gas service from a local publicly owned utility, or a charge imposed on a project to comply with
the California Environmental Quality Act.
Upon final approval of a project, which the measure defines as the project receiving all necessary
approvals to be eligible to apply for, and obtain, necessary building permits, the city or county
must provide the developer an itemized list and good faith estimate of the total sum of all fees
and exactions for the project within 30 business days. The developer can request this
information from other agencies that are not a city or county, and the agency must provide the
information within the same amount of time. If a public agency calculates fees using a cost
recovery method to cover administrative costs, it must provide fee estimates for those cost
recovery fees based on the average amount of fees imposed on similar projects. The measure
provides the estimate is for informational purposes only, is not legally binding, and does not
affect the scope, amount, or time of payment of any fee or exaction. For these purposes, fees do
not include the cost of providing electrical or gas service from a local publicly owned utility.
Finally, AB 1820 requires, when a city or county requests the total amount of fees and exactions
associated with the project from a development proponent, the request to clearly state the
developer is under no obligation to respond and will not be subject to any consequences for not
responding or for the content of a response. The measure includes a provision proclaiming this
to be existing law.
AB 1820 (Schiavo) 6/5/24 Page 5 of 8
The measure defines its terms and includes findings and declarations to further its intent.
Comments
1. Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “AB 1820 is a simple transparency measure that
allows housing developers to have knowledge of development fees prior to committing shovels
to the ground.”
2. No free lunch. AB 1820 imposes new requirements on local agencies that impose fees
without any additional resources to help them comply with new requirements. Absent additional
resources, local agencies may have to increase fees if they need additional resources to satisfy
new requirements. So, while fees may be more transparent, they could end up higher than they
were before. In the case of AB 1820, local agencies must provide fee estimates when a
developer submits a preliminary application, and an itemized list of fees for the project when
they submit their final application. In both cases, the local agency must provide this information
within 30 days. If the local agency needs to increase resources to comply with these
requirements, they may increase fees to do so.
3. Choppy waters ahead? The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided Sheetz vs. County of El
Dorado. In this case, an El Dorado County resident challenged the county’s legislatively enacted
traffic impact mitigation fee arguing the county should only charge him based on the impact
associated with his specific parcel. In other words, legislatively enacted fees should be subject to
the same standards as ad hoc fees. The decision concluded that the federal constitution does not
distinguish between legislatively enacted and ad hoc fees, and remanded the case back to the
California Court of Appeals’ Third District for a decision in line with its holding. Should the
Committee consider Mitigation Fee Act legislation before the California Court of Appeals makes
its final decision?
4. Charter city. The California Constitution allows cities that adopt charters to control their own
“municipal affairs.” In all other matters, charter cities must follow the general, statewide laws.
Because the Constitution doesn't define “municipal affairs,” the courts determine whether a topic
is a municipal affair or an issue of statewide concern. AB 1820 says that its statutory provisions
apply to charter cities. To support this assertion, the bill includes a legislative finding that
ensuring increasing housing production is a matter of statewide concern, and one of the
impediments to housing production is a lack of predictability and transparency when assessing
fees.
5. Mandate. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local governments for
the costs of new or expanded state mandated local programs. Because AB 1820 adds to the
duties of local officials, Legislative Counsel says the bill imposes a new state mandate. AB 1820
disclaims the state’s responsibility for providing reimbursement by citing local governments’
authority to charge for the costs of implementing the bill's provisions.
6. The song that never ends. The Legislature is considering several other pieces of legislation
concerning the Mitigation Fee Act:
SB 937 (Wiener, 2024), which this Committee approved on a 6-0 vote at its April 3rd
hearing, makes various changes to the process for local agencies to collect development
AB 1820 (Schiavo) 6/5/24 Page 6 of 8
impact fees, and extends development entitlements. The measure is awaiting referral in
the Assembly.
SB 1210 (Skinner, 2024), which this Committee approved on a 5-2 vote at its April 17th
hearing, requires electrical, gas, sewer, and water service utilities to post fee schedules
and estimated timeframes for new service connections and capacity upgrades needed to
connect new housing construction projects. The measure is awaiting referral in the
Assembly.
AB 2553 (Friedman, 2024) redefines “major transit stop” for purposes of exempting
housing developments within ½ mile of a major transit stop from specified impact fees.
The measure is also scheduled for this Committee’s June 11th hearing.
AB 2663 (Grayson, 2024) requires local agencies to post certain information regarding
affordable housing impact fees on their websites. The measure is also scheduled for this
Committee’s June 11th hearing.
AB 2729 (Joe Patterson, 2024) removes the requirement on local agencies that fees must
be paid prior to the date of final inspection or issuance of the certificate of occupancy,
whichever occurs first. The measure is also scheduled for this Committee’s June 11th
hearing.
AB 3012 (Grayson, 2024) requires cities and counties to create a fee estimate tool that the
public can use to calculate an estimate of fees and exactions for a proposed housing
development project available on its internet website. It also requires the Department of
Housing and Community Development to create a fee schedule template, develop best
practices for displaying fees, and gives the department the option to create a fee estimate
tool. The measure is also scheduled for this Committee’s June 11th hearing.
AB 3177 (W. Carrillo, 2024) prohibits land dedications for the purpose of mitigating
vehicular traffic on housing developments. The measure is also scheduled for this
Committee’s June 11th hearing.
AB 3276 (Ramos, 2024) requires local agencies to post certain impact fee information on
their websites by the end of the 2029-30 fiscal year for the previous five years, which it
must do every five years thereafter. The measure is also scheduled for this Committee’s
June 11th hearing.
7. Coming and going. The Senate Rules Committee has ordered a double referral of AB 1820:
first to the Senate Local Government Committee to hear issues related to local government fee
requirements, and second to the Senate Housing Committee.
Assembly Actions
Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee: 9-0
Assembly Local Government Committee: 8-0
Assembly Appropriations Committee: 15-0
Assembly Floor: 72-0
Support and Opposition (6/7/24)
Support: California Building Industry Association (Co-Sponsor)
Abundant Housing LA
Bay Area Council
Buildcasa
California Apartment Association
AB 1820 (Schiavo) 6/5/24 Page 7 of 8
California Builders Alliance
California Chamber of Commerce
California Community Builders
California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
California Yimby
Circulate San Diego
Civicwell
East Bay Yimby
Eden Housing
El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce
El Dorado Hills Chamber of Commerce
Elk Grove Chamber of Commerce
Fieldstead and Company, INC.
Folsom Chamber of Commerce
Generation Housing
Grow the Richmond
Habitat for Humanity California
Housing Action Coalition
Housing California
Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County
Housing Trust Silicon Valley
How to Adu
Lincoln Area Chamber of Commerce
Midpen Housing
Mountain View Yimby
Napa-Solano for Everyone
Northern Neighbors
Peninsula for Everyone
People for Housing Orange County
Progress Noe Valley
Rancho Cordova Area Chamber of Commerce
Resources for Community Development
Rocklin Area Chamber of Commerce
Roseville Area Chamber of Commerce
Sacramento Regional Builders Exchange
San Francisco Yimby
San Luis Obispo Yimby
Sand Hill Property Company
Santa Cruz Yimby
Santa Rosa Yimby
Shingle Springs/Cameron Park Chamber of Commerce
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
South Bay Yimby
Southside Forward
Spur
Streets for People
United Chamber Advocacy Network Ucan
Urban Environmentalists
Ventura County Yimby
AB 1820 (Schiavo) 6/5/24 Page 8 of 8
Yimby Action
Yuba Sutter Chamber of Commerce
Opposition: None received.
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON HOUSING
Senator Nancy Skinner, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular
Bill No: AB 1886 Hearing Date: 6/18/2024
Author: Alvarez
Version: 6/11/24 Amended
Urgency: No Fiscal: Yes
Consultant: Alison Hughes
SUBJECT: Housing Element Law: substantial compliance: Housing
Accountability Act
DIGEST: This bill clarifies that a housing element or amendment is not
considered substantially compliant with housing element law until the local agency
has adopted a housing element that the Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) has determined is in substantial compliance with housing
element law, as specified.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) Requires each city and county to adopt a housing element, which must contain
specified information, programs, and objectives, including:
a) An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and
constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs;
b) A statement of the community’s goals, quantified objectives, and policies
relative to affirmatively furthering fair housing and to the maintenance,
preservation, improvement, and development of housing; and
c) A program that sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period,
and timelines for implementation, that the local government is undertaking
to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the
housing element.
2) Requires a planning agency to submit a draft housing element revision to HCD
at least 90 days prior to adoption of a revision of its housing element pursuant
to statutory deadlines, or at least 60 days prior for a draft amendment. Requires
the local government to make the first draft revision of the housing element
available for public comment for at least 30 days and, if any comments are
received, requires the local government to take at least 10 business days after
AB 1886 (Alvarez) Page 2 of 11
the 30 day public comment period to consider and incorporate public comments
into the draft revision prior to submitting it to HCD.
3) Requires HCD to review the draft and report its written findings to the planning
agency within 90 days of its receipt of the first draft submittal for each housing
element revision or within 60 days of receipt of a subsequent draft amendment
or an adopted revision or adopted amendment to a housing element. Prohibits
HCD from reviewing the first draft submitted for each housing element revision
until the local government has made the draft available for public comment for
at least 30 days and, if comments were received, has taken at least 10 business
days to consider and incorporate public comments.
4) Requires HCD, in its written findings, to determine whether the draft element or
draft amendment substantially complies with housing element law.
5) Requires a local government’s legislative body to consider HCD’s findings
prior to the adoption of its draft element or draft amendment, and provides that
if HCD’s findings are not available within the time limits specified, the
legislative body may act without them.
6) Requires a legislative body to take one of the following actions, if HCD finds
that the draft element or draft amendment dos not substantially comply:
a) Change the draft element or draft amendment to substantially comply; or
b) Adopt the draft element or draft amendment without changes, in which case
the legislative body must include in its resolution of adoption written
findings that explain the reasons the legislative body believes that the draft
element or draft amendment substantially complies with housing element
law despite HCD’s findings.
7) Requires the planning agency to submit a copy of an adopted housing element
or amendment promptly to HCD following adoption.
8) Requires HCD to review adopted housing elements or amendments and report
its findings to the planning agency within 60 days.
9) Requires HCD to review any action or failure to act by a local government that
it determines is inconsistent with an adopted housing element or housing
element law, including any failure to implement any program actions included
in the housing element. Requires HCD to issue written findings to the local
government as to whether the action or failure to act substantially complies with
housing element law, and provide a reasonable time no longer than 30 days for
the local government to respond to the findings before taking any other action,
including revocation of substantial compliance.
AB 1886 (Alvarez) Page 3 of 11
10) Authorizes HCD, if it finds that an action or failure to act under (9) does not
substantially comply with housing element law, and if it has issued findings that
an amendment to the housing element substantially complies with this article, to
revoke its findings until it determines that the local government has come into
compliance.
11) Requires HCD to notify the local government and authorizes HCD to notify
the office of the Attorney General that the local government is in violation of
state law if HCD finds that the housing element or an amendment to the
element, or any action or failure to act under (9), does not substantially comply
with housing element law or that any local government has taken an action in
violation of various specified housing laws.
12) Requires local governments on an eight-year housing element cycle with
insufficient sites inventories to complete the rezoning of sites, including
adoption of minimum density and development standards, no later than three
years after either the date the housing element is adopted, as specified, or the
date that is 90 days after the receipt of comments from HCD, whichever is
earlier, unless the deadline is extended pursuant to existing law.
13) Notwithstanding (12), requires a local government that fails to adopt a
housing element that HCD has found to be in substantial compliance with the
law within 120 days of the statutory deadline for adoption of the housing
element to complete the rezoning of sites no later than one year from the
statutory deadline for adoption of the housing element.
14) Prohibits a local agency, pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act (HAA)
from disapproving specified housing development projects or conditioning the
approval of the housing development in a manner that renders the housing
development infeasible for very low-, low-, or moderate-income households,
unless it makes written findings that the jurisdiction has adopted a housing
element that has been revised consistent with exiting law, that is in substantial
compliance with housing element law, and the jurisdiction has met or exceed its
share of the housing needs allocation (RHNA) for the planning period, for the
income category proposed for the housing development project, if the
disapproval or conditional approval is not based on housing discrimination, as
specified in existing law.
15) Requires a court, if it finds any portion of a general plan, including a
housing element, out of compliance with the law, to include within its order or
judgment one or more of the following remedies for any or all types of
developments or any or all geographic segments of the city or county until the
city or county has complied with the law, including;
AB 1886 (Alvarez) Page 4 of 11
a) Suspension of the city’s or county's authority to issue building permits;
b) Suspension of the city’s or county's authority to grant zoning changes and/or
variances;
c) Suspension of the city’s or county's authority to grant subdivision map
approvals;
d) Mandating the approval of building permits for residential housing that meet
specified criteria;
e) Mandating the approval of final subdivision maps for housing projects that
meet specified criteria; and
f) Mandating the approval of tentative subdivision maps for residential housing
projects that meet specified criteria.
16) Defines a “compliant housing element” to mean an adopted housing element
that has been found to be in substantial compliance with the requirements of
housing element law by HCD.
This bill:
1) Requires each city and county, in addition to providing a copy of the adopted
element or amendment, to also provide any findings that the draft element or
draft amendment substantially complies with housing element law, despite
other findings by HCD.
2) Requires HCD, within 60 days of receiving any findings by the city that their
housing element substantially complies with housing element law despite
findings by HCD, to review those findings and report its findings to the
planning agency.
3) Provides that a housing element shall be considered to be in substantial
compliance with housing element law when the local agency adopts the housing
element or amendment for the current planning period in accordance with
housing element law and either of the following apply:
a) HCD finds that the adopted housing element or amendment is in substantial
compliance with housing element law and HCD’s compliance finding shave
not been superseded by subsequent contrary findings by the department or
by a decision of a court of competent jurisdiction.
b) A court of competent jurisdiction determines that the adopted housing
element or amendment substantially complies with housing element law and
the court’s decision has not been overturned or superseded by a subsequent
court decision or by statute.
AB 1886 (Alvarez) Page 5 of 11
4) Provides, for purposes of the HAA, that for purposes of a local agency’s
approval, conditional approval, or disapproval of a housing development
project, a housing element or amendment shall be considered in substantial
compliance with housing element law only if the element or amendment was in
substantial compliance as determined by HCD or a court of competent
jurisdiction, when a preliminary application or a complete application was
submitted. This provision is declaratory of existing law.
5) Adds legislative intent that clarifications made to housing element law by this
bill are intended to ratify the regulatory interpretation by a specific memo
issued by HCD on March 16, 2023, as specified.
COMMENTS:
1) Author’s statement. “Despite being a powerful tool to incentivize housing in
cities that are refusing to build enough, the so-called Builder’s Remedy, which
prohibits a city without a compliant housing element from denying a project
based on its zoning code or general plan, was largely unused for decades.
However, given the recent change in support for more housing, which has
shifted the power dynamic between local governments and developers, we have
seen a significant uptick in Builder’s Remedy projects. Unfortunately, we are
also beginning to see Builder’s Remedy related lawsuits after cities erroneously
reject projects using self-certification arguments. This issue directly results
from a lack of clarity in the code related to compliance with Housing Element
Law. AB 1886 seeks to resolve this problem by clarifying that HCD
determination of compliance is the trigger for the Builder’s Remedy,
development standards only apply if a city is in compliance, and Builder’s
Remedy projects remain eligible if the application was submitted while the city
was not in compliance.”
2) Background: housing elements. Cities and counties are required to develop a
housing element as part of the general plan every eight years (every five years
for some rural areas). Cities must submit their housing element to HCD for
approval by a specified date and currently most local governments should have
adopted their housing element or be in the process of finalizing their sixth
housing element. Each local agency receives a total number of housing units to
plan for broken down by income category. The housing element must identify
programs to increase the supply of housing, address inequities in the housing
market, and reduce barriers to producing housing and an inventory of sites that
are zoned for housing at the density necessary to result in housing. Out of 598
cities, 212 have not adopted a compliant housing element and are therefore
considered out of compliance with the law.
AB 1886 (Alvarez) Page 6 of 11
Local governments have a statutory deadline to submit a housing element based
on region. Ninety days before the deadline to adopt a housing element, cities
must submit a draft to HCD. HCD is required to review the draft element
within 90 days of receipt and provide written findings as to whether the draft
amendment substantially complies with housing element law. If HCD finds
that the draft element does not substantially comply with the law, the local
agency may either make changes to the draft element to substantially comply
with the law or adopt the element and make findings as to why a local agency it
complies with the law despite the findings of the department. Following
adoption of a housing element, a local agency submits it to HCD. When a local
government adopts its housing element without making the changes HCD
provides, the process is called “self-certification.” Despite the fact that the
process allows a local agency to adopt a housing element without making the
changes required by HCD to be in substantial compliance, a local agency is not
considered compliant until receiving ultimate approval from HCD.
3) Consequences of not complying with housing element law. Over the last seven
years, the Legislature has strengthened the consequences for local agencies who
are out of compliance or who amend their zoning after their housing element is
found compliant. Local agencies cannot qualify for state funding for affordable
housing, or infrastructure for affordable housing without a compliant housing
element. AB 72 (Santiago, Chapter 72, Statutes of 2017) gave HCD explicit
authority to find a local agency’s housing element out of substantial compliance
if it determines that the local agency acts or fails to act in compliance with its
housing element, and allows HCD to refer violations of law to the Attorney
General (AG). Both the AG and HCD have units with dedicated staff to
enforce housing element law and other land use laws passed by the legislature.
The AG can also sue a city for non-compliance and the court can issue fines up
to $10,000 a day after the local agency fails to comply for an additional 12
months. After an additional six months of non-compliance, the court may
increase the fines by six times.
In addition, an action can be brought to challenge the validity of a local
agency’s general plan, including a housing element. If a court determines that a
housing element does not substantially comply with housing element law, the
court is required to take actions, including suspending the local government’s
authority to issue any kind of building permit (renovations, commercial and
residential building permits); suspending the local agency’s authority to grant
zoning changes and/or variances; suspending the local agency’s authority to
grant subdivision map approvals; mandating the approval of building permits
for residential housing that meet specified criteria; mandating the approval of
final subdivision maps for housing projects that meet specified criteria; and
mandating the approval of tentative subdivision maps for residential housing
AB 1886 (Alvarez) Page 7 of 11
projects that meet specified criteria. If HCD has determined that a city’s
adopted housing element does not substantially comply with state law, a party
may send a notice to the city within two years of the adoption of that housing
element, and a cause of action for that party to challenge the housing element
will accrue (at the latest) 60 days after the notice is sent.
Lastly, if a local government fails to adopt a substantially compliant housing
element, it can be subject to the “builders remedy” in the HAA (see comment
4).
4) Housing Accountability Act (HAA)/Builder’s Remedy. In 1982, the Legislature
enacted the HAA, the purpose of which was to ensure that a city does not reject
or make infeasible housing development projects that contribute to meeting the
housing need determined pursuant to the housing element law without a
thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the
action and without complying with the HAA. The HAA restricts a city’s ability
to disapprove, or require density reductions in, certain types of residential
projects. The HAA does not preclude a locality from imposing developer fees
necessary to provide public services or requiring a housing development project
to comply with objective standards, conditions, and policies appropriate to the
locality’s share of the RHNA.
One such constraint on local governments authority to disprove housing, which
has gained recent attention is the “Builder’s Remedy.” The Builder’s Remedy
prohibits a local government from denying a housing development that includes
20% lower-income housing that does not conform to the local government’s
underlying zoning, if the local government has not adopted a compliant housing
element. A number of developers have attempted to use the Builders Remedy
in the last few years.
5) Self-certification. In order to avoid the penalties and consequences for failing
to comply with housing element law, some local governments have attempted
to “self-certify” their housing elements.
For example, the City of Beverly Hills “self-certified” its housing element –
i.e., adopted a housing element that had not been certified as substantially
compliant with housing element law by HCD – by failing to adopt the necessary
changes HCD required to be in compliance. In January of 2023, Californians
for Homeownership sued the City of Beverly Hills for failing to adopted a
housing element that included adequate sites to meet the city’s RHNA
obligations. The court found in favor of the plaintiff and suspended the city’s
authority to take any of the actions previously listed. On March 18, 2024, HCD
AB 1886 (Alvarez) Page 8 of 11
approved Beverly Hills’ revised housing element, a plan that creates capacity
for 3,100 additional housing units.
Another example is the City of La Cañada Flintridge, which failed to adopt a
compliant housing element. Using the Builder’s Remedy, a developer proposed
a project for 80 units of affordable housing on church-owned land that was not
zoned for housing or for density to accommodate the proposed project. The
City denied the project and developer sued. The City of La Cañada Flintridge
argued it was not required to process an application under the HAA to approve
a housing development that did not comply with their underlying zoning
because it had “self-certified” its housing element. The court ruled that the city
was not in compliance despite the fact that it had “self-certified” and found the
housing element the city adopted out of compliance with housing element law
for various reasons.
6) Let’s be clear. Although the statute is clear that HCD (and not a local
government) determines whether a housing element is in compliance with the
law – a point reinforced by the courts, as noted in the examples above – this bill
would further clarify that a housing element is not in compliance until both a
local agency has adopted a housing element and HCD has found the element in
compliance. This bill would eliminate arguments made by local governments
that by “self-certifying” or adopting a housing element that does not reflect
HCD’s findings, the local government satisfies the requirement for compliance
per the “builder’s remedy.”
The bill also makes clear that these changes are declaratory of existing law and
consistent with guidance provided by HCD in a memo dated March 16h, 2023,
which states in relevant part that “where a jurisdiction submits an ‘adopted’
housing element before submitting an initial draft or before considering HCD’s
findings on an initial draft, HCD will consider the ‘adopted’ to be an initial
draft for purposes of both HCD’s review and the jurisdiction’s statutory
compliance” and that “a jurisdiction does not have the authority to determine
that its adopted element is in substantial compliance but may provide reasoning
why HCD should make a finding of substantial compliance.”
7) Opposition. Several cities are opposed to this bill because it “takes away” the
opportunity for self-certification regardless of whether HCD concurs with the
submitted housing element. Cities write that they should be entitled to this
process if there is a good faith disagreement with HCD.
AB 1886 (Alvarez) Page 9 of 11
RELATED LEGISLATION:
AB 2023 (Quirk-Silva, 2024) — creates a rebuttable presumption of invalidity in
any legal action challenging a local government's action or failure to act if HCD
finds that the action or failure to act does not substantially comply with the local
government's adopted housing element or housing element obligations, among
other changes. This bill is set to be heard in the Senate Housing Committee on
June 24, 2024.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday,
June 12, 2024.)
SUPPORT:
California Building Industry Association (Co-Sponsor)
SPUR (Co-Sponsor)
Abundant Housing LA
California Apartment Association
California Building Industry Association (CBIA)
California Chamber of Commerce
California Community Builders
California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
California Housing Consortium
California Housing Partnership Corporation
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, INC.
California YIMBY
Circulate San Diego
CivicWell
East Bay YIMBY
Fieldstead and Company, INC.
Grow the Richmond
Housing Action Coalition
Housing California
Housing Trust Silicon Valley
How to ADU
LeadingAge California
Mountain View YIMBY
Napa-Solano for Everyone
Northern Neighbors
Peninsula for Everyone
AB 1886 (Alvarez) Page 10 of 11
People for Housing Orange County
Progress Noe Valley
Public Interest Law Project
San Diego Housing Federation
San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce
San Francisco YIMBY
San Luis Obispo YIMBY
Santa Cruz YIMBY
Santa Rosa YIMBY
South Bay YIMBY
Southside Forward
Streets for People
Urban Environmentalists
Ventura County YIMBY
YIMBY Action
OPPOSITION:
Catalysts for Local Control
Cities Association of Santa Clara County
City of Beverly Hills
City of Carlsbad
City of Cloverdale
City of Corona
City of Elk Grove
City of Fairfield
City of Fullerton
City of Grass Valley
City of Huntington Beach
City of Lakeport
City of Manhattan Beach
City of Norwalk
City of Oakdale
City of Palm Desert
City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
City of Rancho Santa Margarita
City of San Luis Obispo
City of Santa Clarita
City of Santa Paula
City of Yorba Linda
League of California Cities
AB 1886 (Alvarez) Page 11 of 11
Livable California
Los Angeles County Division, League of California Cities
Save Lafayette
Tri-valley Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and Town of
Danville
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Aisha Wahab, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular
Bill No: AB 2021 Hearing Date: May 28, 2024
Author: Bauer-Kahan
Version: March 20, 2024
Urgency: No Fiscal: Yes
Consultant: SJ
Subject: Crimes: selling or furnishing tobacco or related products and paraphernalia to
underage persons
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: SB 7-X2 (Hernández), Ch. 8, Stats. 2016
SB 5-X2 (Leno), Ch. 7, Stats. 2016
SB 1927 (Hayden), Ch. 1009, Stats. 1994
Support: California District Attorneys Association; City of Alameda; CleanEarth4kids.org;
County Health Executives Association of California
Opposition: California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
Assembly Floor Vote: 72 - 0
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to create a separate fine for firms, corporations, businesses,
retailers, or wholesalers that sell or furnish tobacco or tobacco products or paraphernalia to a
person who is under 21 years of $1,000 for the first offense, $5,000 for the second offense, and
$10,000 for the third offense.
Existing law provides that every person, firm, or corporation that knowingly or under
circumstances in which it has knowledge, or should otherwise have grounds for knowledge, sells,
gives, or in any way furnishes to another person who is under 21 years of age any tobacco,
cigarette, or cigarette papers, or blunt wraps, or any other preparation of tobacco, or any other
instrument or paraphernalia that is designed for the smoking or ingestion of tobacco, tobacco
products, or any controlled substance, is subject to either a criminal action for a misdemeanor or
a civil action brought by a city attorney, a county counsel, or a district attorney, punishable by a
fine of $200 for the first offense, $500 for the second offense, and $1,000 for the third offense.
(Pen. Code, § 308, subd. (a)(1)(A)(i).)
Existing law requires that 25 percent of each civil and criminal penalty collected be paid to the
office of the city attorney, county counsel, or district attorney, whoever is responsible for
bringing the successful action. (Pen. Code, § 308, subd. (a)(1)(B).)
AB 2021 (Bauer-Kahan) Page 2 of 5
Existing law provides that for purposes of determining the liability of persons, firms, or
corporations controlling franchises or business operations in multiple locations for the second
and subsequent violations of this section, each individual franchise or business location is
deemed a separate entity. (Pen. Code, § 308, subd. (c).)
Existing law, the Stop Tobacco Access to Kids Enforcement (“STAKE”) Act, declares the
Legislature’s intent to reduce and eventually eliminate the illegal purchase and consumption of
tobacco products by any person under 21. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 22950 et seq.)
Existing law requires all moneys collected as civil penalties by the Department of Public Health
(CPDH) and other state agencies that enforce the STAKE Act to be deposited in the State
Treasury to the credit of the Sale of Tobacco to Minors Control Account. (Bus. & Prof. Code, §
22953.)
Existing law requires any person engaging in the retail sale of tobacco products check the
identification of tobacco purchasers, to establish the age of the purchaser, if the purchaser
reasonably appears to be under 21 years of age. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 22956.)
Existing law specifies that the STAKE Act establishes minimum state restrictions with respect to
the legal age to purchase or possess tobacco products, but does not preempt or otherwise prohibit
the adoption of a local standard that imposes a more restrictive legal age to purchase or possess
tobacco products. Provides that a local standard that imposes a more restrictive legal age to
purchase or possess tobacco products controls in the event of an inconsistency between state law
and a local standard. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 22964.)
This bill provides that any business, firm, corporation, retailer, or wholesaler who sells,
furnishes, or gives tobacco or tobacco products or paraphernalia, cigarettes, or cigarette papers,
blunt wraps, or any other preparation of tobacco, or any other instrument or paraphernalia that is
designed for the smoking or ingestion of tobacco, tobacco products, or any controlled substance
to any person under the age of 21, the firm, corporation, retailer, or wholesaler will be subject to
either a criminal action for a misdemeanor or a civil action brought by a city attorney, a county
counsel, or a district attorney, punishable by a fine of one thousand dollars $1,000 for the first
offense, $5,000 for the second offense, and $10,000 for the third offense.
COMMENTS
1. Need For This Bill
According to the author
Availability of tobacco based products is continuing to grow and our California
youth are becoming its victims. We have a duty as a legislature to create a healthy
tobacco free environment for our children. AB 2021 will safeguard our children
by increasing penalties for sellers found responsible of selling tobacco products to
people under the age of 21. Even with age and flavor constraints, 24,600 high
school students in California reported consuming tobacco products. Sellers of
tobacco products need to take seriously their mandate to verify buyers are of legal
age of purchase and raising penalties will help ensure that happens. It is
paramount that we take this next step in continuing the fight for a tobacco free
generation.
AB 2021 (Bauer-Kahan) Page 3 of 5
2. Tobacco-Related Enforcement
Existing law includes a wide range of fines on business owners that violate the law by selling or
furnishing tobacco products to people under the age of 21. The STAKE Act mandates that
anyone selling tobacco products check the purchaser’s identification if the person reasonably
appears to be under 21. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 22956.) CPDH is the state governmental agency
tasked with primary enforcement responsibility of the STAKE Act. (Bus. & Prof. Code, §
22957.) CDPH may assess civil penalties for any violation of the STAKE Act as follows: (1) a
civil penalty of $400 to $600 for the first violation, (2) a civil penalty of $900 to $1,000 for the
second violation within a five-year period, (3) a civil penalty of $1,200 to $1,800 for a third
violation within a five-year period, (4) a civil penalty of $3,000 to $4,000 for a fourth violation
within a five-year period, or (5) a civil penalty of $5,000 to $6,000 for a fifth violation within a
five-year period. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 22958, subd. (a).) In addition to escalating fines, upon
the assessment of a third, fourth, or fifth uncontested violation, CPDH must notify the State
Board of Equalization which must then assess a $250 civil penalty and suspend or revoke the
vendor’s license to sell tobacco. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 22958, subd. (b)(1).)
Additionally, federal law applies to the sale of tobacco. The Tobacco Control Act imposes fines
as follows for the illegal sale of tobacco to a person under 21: (a) a warning for the first
violation; (b) up to $279 for a second violation within a one-year period; (c) fines may increase
for subsequent violations up to $11,182 and may include a no-tobacco-sale order which prohibits
a vendor from selling tobacco for a specified period or permanently. (21 U.S.C. § 387 et seq.)
3. Penalty Assessments
When an individual or business is assessed a criminal fine, the amount owed is the amount
specified in the statute in additional to penalty assessments. As such, penalty assessments will
make the proposed fines in this bill much higher. For example, the $1,000 fine proposed in this
bill for a first violation will result in total amount in excess of $4,000 once the penalty
assessments are accounted for. The chart below describes how fines are assessed.
For a base fine of $1,000:
Penal Code § 1464 state penalty on fines $1,000 ($10 for every $10)
Penal Code § 1465.7 state surcharge $200 (20%)
Penal Code § 1465.8 court operations assessment $40 ($40 per criminal
conviction)
Government Code § 70372 court construction penalty $500 ($5 for every $10)
Government Code § 70373 court facilities assessment $30 ($30 for any felony or
misdemeanor)
Government Code § 76000 county penalty $700 ($7 for every $10)
Government Code § 76000.5 county EMS penalty $200 ($2 for every $10)
Government Code § 76104.6 Prop 69 DNA fund penalty $100 ($1 for every $10
Government Code § 76104.7 state penalty $400 ($4 for every $10)
Total Fine with Assessments: $4,170
AB 2021 (Bauer-Kahan) Page 4 of 5
The total amount owed increases depending on the amount of the base fine. The current
penalty assessments essentially triple the base fine. Notably, the fines in Penal Code section
308 could be imposed in addition to the civil fines and penalties listed in Business and
Professions Code section 22958 which levies fines up to $6,000.
4. Argument in Support
The County Health Executives Association of California writes:
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in
2023, 2.8 million middle school and high school students reported current use of
any tobacco products. From 2022 to 2023, the CDC found a decline in current e-
cigarette use among high school students … while no statistically significant
change occurred among middle school students. Although a slight decline has
occurred, youth tobacco use in the United States remains a major public health
concern. Further, the CDC finds that youth who use multiple tobacco products are
at higher risk for developing nicotine dependence and may be more likely to
continue using into adulthood. Additionally, individuals who use tobacco
products are at a significantly higher risk of developing severe health conditions,
including cancer, heart disease, emphysema, and chronic bronchitis.
In addition, the CDC finds national, state, and local program activities have been
shown to reduce and prevent youth tobacco product use when implemented
together. Increasing penalties on tobacco products is a promising step toward
protecting youth from lifelong harm caused by tobacco.
5. Argument in Opposition
According to the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice:
The fine increase proposed by this bill ranges from five-fold to ten-fold for certain
violations. While the State has a compelling interest in restricting tobacco use to
adults who have reached 21 years of age, the considerable fine increase has great
potential to harm small business owners who may not have had knowledge of the
violation when it occurred. Under the theory of respondeat superior, a small
business owner would face possible punishment and fine for the actions of a
reckless employee working a register. A minimum fine of $1,000.00 represents
the profit margin for weeks of sales for some corner stores. The maximum fine of
$10,000.00 has the potential to bring financial strain to small business owners,
many of whom operate in marginalized communities with underserved
populations. Moreover, the potential for uneven enforcement in communities of
color is high given the history of saturation patrols and disparate policing.
The fines imposed in Penal Code Section 308 have remained unchanged for a
number of decades and an increase commensurate with inflation may be
warranted. However, the ten-fold increase for the maximum fine and other
increases under AB 2021 are excessive. In comparison, a $10,000.00 fine eclipses
the maximum fines allowable fines for many felony offenses. The increase
proposed by AB 2021 has the potential to catastrophically impact small business
AB 2021 (Bauer-Kahan) Page 5 of 5
owners, including those found in underserved and economically challenged
communities.
While AB 2021 is well intentioned to bolster prevention of sales of tobacco and
tobacco-related products to those under the age of 21, the proposed fine increase
is jarring and excessive in the context of the conduct covered by the statute.
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON HOUSING
Senator Nancy Skinner, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular
Bill No: AB 2243 Hearing Date: 6/18/2024
Author: Wicks
Version: 6/4/2024
Urgency: No Fiscal: Yes
Consultant: Hank Brady
SUBJECT: Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022: objective
standards and affordability and site criteria.
DIGEST: This bill revises the scope of the Affordable Housing and High Road
Jobs Act of 2022, enacted by AB 2011 (Wicks, Chapter 647, Statutes of 2022).
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) Establishes the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022 (AB
2011), which allows the development of 100% affordable and qualifying
mixed-income housing development projects in commercial zones and
corridors. Specifically AB 2011 established the following:
Affordable Housing Developments in Commercial Zones
a) Deems 100% affordable housing development projects to be a use by right
and requires local agencies to approve these projects ministerially, as
specified, if they comply with the following standards and criteria:
i) Affordability Standards. The development project makes 100% of the
units, excluding the managers’ units, affordable to lower-income
households, as defined, and subjects the units to a recorded deed
restriction for a period of 45-55 years depending on the occupancy type.
ii) Location Criteria. The development project shall be located on a site
that complies with specified criteria, including but not limited to the
following:
(1) The site is located in a zone where office, retail or parking are
principally permitted uses, as specified.
(2) The site is located on an infill parcel, as specified.
AB 2243 (Wicks) Page 2 of 17
(3) The site is not dedicated to industrial use and it is not adjoined to a
site where more than one-third of the square footage of the site is
dedicated to industrial use, as specified.
(4) The site is not in an environmentally sensitive area, as specified.
(5) The site, if it is located within a neighborhood plan area, satisfies both
of the following:
(a) The plan applicable to the site was adopted prior to January 1,
2024, as specified.
(b) The neighborhood plan allows residential use on the site.
iii) Objective Development Standards. In order to qualify as a use by right,
the development project must additionally comply with the following
objective development standards:
(1) The development must be a multifamily housing development, and
meet specified density requirements.
(2) The development proponent shall conduct an environmental
assessment related to hazardous materials, as specified.
(3) None of the housing in the development will be located within 500
feet of a freeway.
(4) None of the housing in the development will be located within 3,200
feet of a facility that actively extracts or refines oil or natural gas.
(5) The development will comply with objective zoning standards,
subdivision standards, and design review standards adopted by the
local government that are applicable to the parcel, as specified.
Mixed-Income Housing Developments along Commercial Corridors
a) Deems mixed-income affordable housing development projects to be a use
by right and requires local agencies to approve these projects ministerially,
as specified, if they comply with the following standards and criteria:
i) Affordability Standards. The development project must meet or exceed
specified affordability requirements.
ii) Location Criteria. The development project shall be located on a site
that complies with specified criteria, including but not limited to:
(1) The site is located in a zone where office, retail or parking are
principally permitted uses, as specified.
(2) The site is located on an infill parcel, as specified.
AB 2243 (Wicks) Page 3 of 17
(3) The site is not dedicated to industrial use and it is not adjoined to a
site where more than one-third of the square footage of the site is
dedicated to industrial use, as specified.
(4) The site is not in an environmentally sensitive area, as specified.
(5) The site, if it is within a neighborhood plan area, satisfies both of the
following:
(a) The plan applicable to the site was adopted prior to January 1,
2024, as specified.
(b) The neighborhood plan allows residential use on the site.
iii) Objective Development Standards. In order to qualify as a use by right,
the development project must additionally comply with objective
development standards including but not limited to:
(1) The development must be a multifamily housing development and
specified density requirements.
(2) The development proponent shall conduct an environmental
assessment related to hazardous materials, as specified.
(3) None of the housing in the development will be located within 500
feet of a freeway.
(4) None of the housing in the development will be located within 3,200
feet of a facility that actively extracts or refines oil or natural gas.
(5) The development will comply with objective zoning standards,
subdivision standards, and design review standards adopted by the
local government that are applicable to the parcel, as specified.
(6) Height limits that may exceed those adopted by the local government,
as specified.
(7) Setback requirement, as specified.
(8) Provides that no parking is required except for bike parking, electrical
vehicle parking, or parking spaces accessible for persons with
disabilities.
2) Establishes the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which requires
public agencies with the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a
proposed project to prepare a negative declaration, mitigated negative
declaration, or an environmental impact report (EIR) for this action, unless the
project is exempt from CEQA.
3) Establishes the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), which provides that when a
proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective
general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria in effect at the time
AB 2243 (Wicks) Page 4 of 17
that the housing development project’s application is complete, but the local
agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the
project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision
regarding the proposed housing development project upon specified written
findings.
4) Establishes, pursuant to SB 35 (Weiner, Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017), and SB
423 (Weiner Chapter 423 Statutes of 2023), until 2036 a streamlined,
ministerial review process for infill housing development projects that meet
strict objective standards and are sites that are zoned for residential use or
residential mixed-use development (SB 35 Developments).
5) Establishes Density Bonus Law (DBL), which requires cities and counties to
grant a density bonus and award other incentives or concessions to an applicant
for a housing development of five or more units that agrees to set aside a
minimum number of units that are affordable to households with low-, very-
low, or moderate-income.
This bill:
1) Makes a series of changes to AB 2011. Specifically, the bill:
Definitions
a) Adds or amends the following terms for the purposes of AB 2011:
i) Defines “Base units” to mean the same as “total units” in DBL and
specifies that affordability requirements for purposes of AB 2011 are
calculated based on the number of base units.
ii) Expands the existing definition of “commercial corridor” so that the
provisions of AB 2011 apply to narrower corridors in areas zoned for
taller buildings, specifically:
(1) For parcels zoned for a height limit of less than 65 feet, a right-of-way
of at least 70 and not greater than 150 feet is required; or
(2) For any parcel zoned for a height limit equal to or greater than 65 feet,
a right-of-way of at least 50 and not greater than 150 feet is required.
iii) Defines “deemed complete” as having the same meaning as it does in the
HAA.
iv) Defines “freeway” as a highway where the owners of abutting lands have
no right or easement of access to or from their abutting lands or have
AB 2243 (Wicks) Page 5 of 17
only limited or restricted right or easement of access. Specifies that a
freeway does not include onramps and offramps.
v) Revises the existing definition of “industrial use” to include any use that
requires a permit from an air quality district. Specifies that industrial
uses exclude power substations and utility conveyances, uses where the
only source permitted by an air quality district is a backup generator, and
on-site residential self-storage.
vi) Defines “minimum efficiency reporting value” (“MERV”) to mean the
measurement scale developed by the American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers used to report the
effectiveness of air filters.
vii) Amends the existing definition of “neighborhood plan” to include timing
parameters so that a neighborhood plan does not include plans adopted
after January 1, 2024 and within 25 years of the date that a development
proponent submits an application. The revised definition also excludes a
community plan or plans that cumulatively cover more than one-half of
the area of a jurisdiction.
viii) Amends the existing definition of “principally permitted use” to specify
that parking shall be considered a principally permitted use on a site even
if the site requires a conditional use permit for parking, and specifies that
the definition of principally permitted use applies to any site that met the
definition as of January 1, 2023, or at any time thereafter.
ix) Defines “regional mall,” as a site that has:
(1) At least 250,000 square feet of permitted retail use;
(2) At least two-thirds of the permitted uses on the site are retail uses; and
(3) At least two of the permitted retail uses on the site that are at least
10,000 square feet.
x) Deletes the definition of “side street” and associated “side street”
provisions throughout AB 2011.
xi) Defines “street” as a way or place of whatever nature, publicly
maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular
travel. Street includes highway and sidewalks as defined.
xii) Amends the definition of “urban uses” to include:
(1) A public park surrounded by other urban uses; and
(2) A parking lot or structure.
xiii) Amends the definition of “use by right” to clarify that an AB 2011
development shall be approved ministerially without discretionary review
AB 2243 (Wicks) Page 6 of 17
and that no aspect development shall be subject to review under the
CEQA.
xiv) Defines very low vehicle travel area as an urbanized area, as designated
by the United States Census Bureau, where the existing residential
development generates vehicle miles traveled per capita that is below
85% of either regional vehicle miles traveled per capita or city vehicle
miles traveled per capita, as specified.
Site Location Criteria that Apply to Affordable and Mixed-Income Housing
Developments.
a) Amends the site location criteria that apply to both 100% affordable and
mixed-income housing development projects eligible for ministerial
approval as follows:
i) Clarifies that bicycle and pedestrian paths are in the same category as
streets and highways and, therefore, do not interfere with a property
being identified as adjoined by “urban uses.”
ii) Makes industrial sites eligible for streamlined ministerial review if either
of the following conditions apply:
(1) The site has not been occupied for the past three years.
(2) The site, as of January 1, 2022, allowed residential uses as a
principally permitted use on the site.
iii) Aligns site location restrictions on streamlining within the sensitive sites
in the coastal zone with site location restrictions that apply to SB 35
developments except that AB 2011 developments are eligible on sites
that are located in the coastal zone that are not zoned for multifamily
housing.
iv) Specifies that for a site that is identified in a neighborhood plan before
January 1, 2024 and within 25 years of the development proponent
submitting an application, the site must be identified as permitting
multifamily housing development on the site.
Objective Development Standards that Apply to Affordable and Mixed-Income
Housing Developments.
a) Amends the objective development standards that both 100% affordable and
mixed-income housing development projects must meet to qualify for
ministerial approval as follows:
AB 2243 (Wicks) Page 7 of 17
i) Expands application of AB 2011 to developments that include housing
located within 500 feet of a freeway, so long as these projects provide air
filtration with a MERV of 13 in the habitable parts of the building.
ii) Expands application of AB 2011 to developments that include housing
within 3,200 feet of oil and gas facilities, so long as these projects
provide air filtration with a MERV of 13 in the habitable parts of the
building.
iii) Prohibits the imposition of new common open space requirements for AB
2011 projects that convert existing space from nonresidential buildings to
residential uses.
b) Extends the historic site protection provisions that apply to mixed-income
developments to 100% affordable developments.
c) Provides that the affordability requirements in AB 2011, for both 100%
affordable and mixed-income developments, shall only apply to the new
units created by the development project for purposes of calculating
affordability requirements when a project utilizing AB 2011 is proposed on a
site that contains existing housing units.
Revisions to Density, Affordability, and Development Standards that only apply to
Mixed-income Housing Developments.
a) Expands the types of sites eligible mixed-income developments eligible for
ministerial approval to include:
i) Projects that will convert an existing office building that is at least 50,000
square feet.
ii) Projects that will convert a regional mall, as defined, provided that the
site of the regional mall is not greater than 100 acres, and establishes the
following standards for a development project at a regional mall:
(1) The average size of a block, as defined, shall not exceed three acres.
(2) At least 5 % of the site shall be dedicated to open space.
(3) For a portion of the property that fronts a street that is newly created
by the project, a building shall abut within 10 feet of the street for at
least 60% of the frontage.
b) Clarifies that the prohibition on parking requirements that applies to mixed-
income housing developments also prohibits requirements for replacement
parking.
c) Clarifies that affordability requirements are calculated on the base units,
prior to the calculation of any applicable density bonus;
AB 2243 (Wicks) Page 8 of 17
d) Specifies that a development project shall comply with a local affordable
housing requirement if both of the following conditions are satisfied:
i) The local affordable housing requirement prescribes a greater percentage
of affordable units or requires a deeper level of affordability than what is
required by AB 2011.
ii) The local government makes written findings, as specified, that the
housing development is economically feasible if subject to the local
affordable requirement.
e) Clarifies how to conduct affordability calculations if the local affordable
housing requirement requires greater than 15% of the units to be dedicated
for low-income households but does not require the provision of homes
affordable to very low and extremely low income households.
f) Establishes that the maximum allowable densities provided in AB 2011 for
mixed-income developments are calculated on the base units, prior to the
calculation of any applicable density bonus.
g) Establishes that the methodologies for determining maximum allowable
residential density established in DBL apply to mixed-income housing
development projects under AB 2011.
h) Reduces the minimum density that a housing development project must meet
in order to qualify for AB 2011 streamlining as follows:
i) For a housing development project with an application that is deemed
complete on or before January1, 2027:
(1) By 25% for projects sites located in a very low vehicle travel area,
within one-half mile of a major transit stop, as defined.
(2) By 50% for all other eligible project sites.
(3) For a housing development project with an application that is deemed
complete on or after January 1, 2027 the minimum density is reduced
by 25%.
i) Removes residential density limits for AB 2011 projects that convert
existing buildings into residential uses, unless the development project adds
20% of more, new square footage to an existing building.
j) Requires ground floor front setbacks to be calculated from the public right-
of-way, rather than the front property line.
k) Precludes local objective design standards from preventing developments to
be built to the maximum allowable density established by the bill.
l) Prohibits local objective design standards from requiring the development to
reduce unit size to meet the objective standard.
AB 2243 (Wicks) Page 9 of 17
m) Allows development proponents to use density bonus concessions,
incentives, and waivers to deviate from AB 2011’s height restrictions, as
well as AB 2011’s side and rear setback requirements.
Ministerial Approval
a) Makes the following changes to the process for public agencies to
ministerially approve 100% affordable and mixed-income housing
development projects:
i) Establishes a schedule for the local approval process as follows:
(1) Requires a local government to determine if a project is consistent or
inconsistent with objective planning standards:
(a) Within 60 days of submittal of an application if the development
contains 150 or fewer housing units; or,
(b) Within 90 days of submittal of an application if the development
contains more than 150 housing units.
(c) Within 30 days of a re-submittal of a development proposal
application that addresses written feedback from the local
government after the initial submission of the development
proposal.
ii) Requires a local government to provide the development proponent with
an exhaustive list of standards the development conflicts with, as
specified.
iii) Establishes the following timelines under which the local government
must approve the development proposal once it determines that a
proposal complies with applicable objective standards:
(1) Within 90 days of submittal if the development contains 150 or fewer
housing units; or
(2) Within 180 days of submittal if the development contains more than
150 housing units.
iv) Requires a public agency with coastal development permitting authority
to approve a coastal development permit if it determines that the
development is on an eligible site, as specified, and is consistent with all
objective standards of the local government’s certified local coastal
program or, for areas that are not subject to a fully certified local coastal
program, the certified land use plan of that area.
AB 2243 (Wicks) Page 10 of 17
v) Clarifies that a development proponents use of incentives, concessions,
and waivers of development standards pursuant to DBL does not subject
to the development to CEQA or local discretionary review.
vi) Specifies that the receipt of any density bonus, concession, incentive,
waiver, or reduction of development standards, and parking ratios to
which the applicant is entitled under DBL shall not constitute a basis to
find the project inconsistent with a local coastal program.
vii) Requires a local government to provide a credit to the development for
any fee, as defined in the Mitigation Fee Act, for existing uses that are
demolished as part of the development at the rate established by the local
government for those existing uses, as specified.
viii) Requires local governments that utilize existing authority in AB 2011 to
exempt a parcel from the streamlining provisions in AB 2011, to update
their zoning maps to reflect those changes and post that information on
their internet websites.
ix) Shifts the timing and obligation of conducting certain environmental
assessments in the following way:
(1) Deletes language that required development proponents to conduct
specified environmental assessments as condition of eligibility for
accessing AB 2011 streamlining provisions, as specified.
(2) Requires local governments to condition approval of a development
eligible for streamlining under AB 2011 on the completion a Phase I
Environmental Assessment of hazardous substances, as defined.
(3) Requires that if recognized environmental conditions are found on the
site additional review and mitigation must be prepared and
implemented prior to a local agency issuing a certificate of occupancy
for the development.
b) Allows a housing development project application submitted on or before
December 31, 2024 to use the provisions of AB 2011 as applicable on
December 31, 2024 or the provisions of AB 2011 as applicable on or after
January 1, 2025.
2) Specifies that the HAA applies to development proceedings that move forward
under AB 2011, and specifies that this amendment is declaratory of existing
law.
COMMENTS:
1) Author’s Statement. “AB 2243 amends the language of the Affordable Housing
and High Road Jobs Act of 2022 (AB 2011, Wicks). These amendments
AB 2243 (Wicks) Page 11 of 17
facilitate implementation of AB 2011 by expanding its geographic applicability
and clarifying aspects of the law that are subject to interpretation. Collectively,
the changes in AB 2243 would improve AB 2011 and, in doing so, make it
easier to build more housing in the right locations.”
2) California’s Housing Crisis. California faces a severe housing shortage. A
variety of factors have contributed to the lack of housing production. The
Statewide Housing Plan adopted by the Department of Housing and
Community Development in 2022 found California needs approximately 2.5
million units of housing, including one million units affordable to lower income
households, to address this mismatch over the next eight years. That would
require production of over 300,000 units a year, including over 120,000 units a
year of housing affordable to lower income households. However, production
in the past decade has lagged at under 100,000 units per year – including less
than 10,000 units of affordable housing per year.
3) Zoning Codes and Designations. Zoning codes are generally adopted by cities
and counties to identify allowable activities (e.g., office, retail, housing, etc.) as
well as the allowed intensity of those activities (e.g., height, density, etc.) in
specific areas of their jurisdiction. Zoning codes are as varied as cities and
counties themselves. Some jurisdictions opt for broad, all-encompassing
zoning designations that allow multiple uses. Others adopt remarkably specific
zoning designations that regulate allowable uses to a fine degree of detail. In
addition to identifying the types of uses allowed (and not allowed) within a
specific zone, cities and counties may denote the conditions under which a use
is allowed. For example, a city may allow single family housing construction
as a use by right in a low density residential zone, but require a conditional use
permit for multifamily developments of more than five units in that same zone.
Cities and counties may also grant variances from strict application of the code
to allow developments that otherwise would not comply with the strict
interpretation of the zoning code. The process for granting a variance may be
embedded in the zoning code and is typically subject to a hearing by the zoning
administrator or the legislative body of the city or county.
4) Zoning Ordinances and CEQA. CEQA establishes a process for evaluating the
environmental effects of a project. Under CEQA, a local agency carrying out a
discretionary project must first determine if the project may have a significant
effect on the environment. Projects can include jurisdiction-wide efforts such
as the update of a general plan, approval of jurisdiction-wide contracts (e.g.,
waste hauling contracts or water service), and zoning ordinance amendments. A
project can also include individual development actions such as the approval of
housing developments, stadiums, gas storage facilities, and other types of
AB 2243 (Wicks) Page 12 of 17
developments. In the case of any discretionary project, if a local agency finds
that the potential for significant environmental impacts exists, CEQA requires
the agency to prepare and certify the completion of an environmental impact
report (EIR). While CEQA includes certain statutory and categorical
exemptions, the provisions of CEQA explicitly apply to “discretionary projects
proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies, including, but not
limited to, the enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, the issuance of
zoning variances, the issuance of conditional use permits, and the approval of
tentative subdivision maps unless the project is exempt from this division.”
(Emphasis added).
5) Housing Development Projects and CEQA. In light of the state’s ongoing
housing crisis, the Legislature created several statutory exemptions from CEQA
for specific types of housing development projects in order to increase the
production of housing. The Legislature also created several statutory schemes
that require local governments to approve specified housing development
projects ministerially. Ministerial approvals remove a project from all
discretionary decisions of a public agency, and thus are not subject to CEQA
which only applies to discretionary approvals.
Bypassing CEQA can provide a tremendous benefit to property owners,
developers, local governments and other parties involved in the approval of a
project as it allows for the project to be completed in an expedited fashion. The
Legislature balances the risk of allowing projects to proceed without a full
environmental review by ensuring that these projects comply with scores of
objective standards and criteria and that they are not located on environmentally
sensitive sites. These standards and criteria are an expression of the state’s
values and ensure that exempt projects do not result in harm to public health
and safety and the environment.
6) Authorizing Residential Development in Commercial Zones. In addition to
streamlining CEQA review at the project level for specific types of housing
developments, the Legislature recently enacted several bills to facilitate the
production of more housing by increasing the sites available for residential
development. Notably, AB 2011 (Wicks) --- the provisions of which are
substantively amended by this bill --- and the Middle Class Housing Act of
2022 (SB 6, Caballero, Chapter 659, Statutes of 2022) both made certain types
of housing developments an allowable use on land zoned for commercial uses;
these bills effectively rezoned eligible parcels statutorily and increased the
stock of land that could be developed into housing in California. These bills
obviated the need for a local government to conduct a CEQA review in order to
AB 2243 (Wicks) Page 13 of 17
rezone certain commercial parcels to allow housing development on these
parcels.
Additionally, AB 2011 required local governments to ministerally approve
housing developments on these parcels if they included specific levels of
affordable housing and met other development criteria. Working in tandem,
AB 2011’s statutory rezoning of commercial parcels, and its requirement for
local governments to approve affordable housing projects ministerially, can
dramatically expedite the approval and development of much needed housing in
California.
7) Rebalancing AB 2011’s Scope. While AB 2011 requires local governments to
ministerially approve certain types of affordable housing projects, it included an
extensive list of site-specific and development criteria that a housing
development project must meet to qualify for ministerial approval. This bill
will amend several of the site-specific criteria in ways that expand the number
of sites eligible for ministerial approval, and it will amend other criteria in ways
that narrow the number of sites eligible for ministerial approval. Specifically,
AB 2011 excluded sites that were within 500 feet of a freeway or within 3,200
feet of an active oil or gas extraction facility or refinery from eligibility for
ministerial approval. This bill will allow for ministerial approval within 500
feet of a freeway or within 3,200 feet of an oil or gas extraction facility or
refinery if the development includes an MERV 13 air filtration system.
Conversely, AB 2011 applies statewide without any limitations on its
provisions in the coastal zone. This bill will narrow the scope of commercial
land that is eligible for streamlined development to exclude certain sensitive
sites in the coastal zone.
8) CEQA Mitigation and Air Quality. Several environmental justice groups,
writing in opposition, have raised concerns with provisions of the bill that
would extend AB 2011 to include housing developments located within 500
feet of a freeway or within 3,200 feet of an active oil or gas facility. CEQA
requires public agencies to study and mitigate, to the extent feasible, the impact
a proposed project will have on the environment. These groups contend that
expanding AB 2011 projects in these areas “could result in substantial public
health harm, an outcome that could be avoided or at least mitigated through
CEQA review.” However, a CEQA analysis, and any associated mitigation
measures stemming from the analysis are focused on the inverse; in other
words, CEQA analyses focus on mitigating the impacts a project will have on
the environment. Generally the courts have found that CEQA is not a tool for
assessing, and by extension mitigating, the impact the existing environment
(e.g., existing air pollution from a freeway) will have on a project. It is unclear
AB 2243 (Wicks) Page 14 of 17
what mitigation measures, if any, could be applied to these housing
development projects if they were subject to CEQA.
9) Technical Amendments. The author will accept amendments to correct a
drafting error. Specifically, the bill as currently written amends Section
65912.123 (j) to add a new paragraph (3). In new language the word
“built” is omitted and the language reads, “The objective standards shall not
preclude a development from being at the residential density…” The
amendments will read “The objective standards shall not preclude a
development from being built at the residential density…”
10) Opposition. As noted above, several environmental justice groups have
raised concerns with provisions of the bill that would extend AB 2011 to
include housing developments located within 500 feet of a freeway or within
3,200 feet of an active oil or gas facility. Additionally several cities write in
opposition expressing concern that AB 2011 was only recently enacted and
argue “that cities need the time and space to implement the dozens new housing
laws that have been passed in recent years…”
11) Double referral. This bill was also referred to the Local Government
Committee.
RELATED LEGISLATION:
SB 423 (Weiner, Chapter 778, Statutes of 2023) — extended the sunset,
amended the labor standards, and made other changes to SB 35 (Wiener), Chapter
366, Statutes of 2017.
SB 4 (Weiner, Chapter 771, Statutes of 2023) — establishes the Affordable
Housing on Faith and Higher Education Lands Act of 2023, which, until January 1,
2036, enables 100% affordable housing to be a use by right on land owned by
religious institutions and independent institution of higher education.
AB 2011 (Wicks, Chapter 647, Statutes of 2022) — required specified housing
development projects to be a use by right on specified sites zoned for retail, office,
or parking, as specified.
AB 2668 (Grayson, Chapter 658, Statutes of 2022) — added parameters for
determining a project’s compliance with the streamlined, ministerial process
created by SB 35 (Wiener, Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017).
AB 2243 (Wicks) Page 15 of 17
SB 6 (Caballero, Chapter 659, Statutes of 2022) — the Middle Class Housing
Act of 2022, establishes housing as an allowable use on any parcel zoned for office
or retail uses.
SB 9 (Atkins, Chapter 162, Statutes of 2021) — required ministerial approval of
a housing development of no more than two units in a single-family zone (duplex),
the subdivision of a parcel zoned for residential use into two parcels (lot split), or
both.
AB 1174 (Grayson, Chapter 160, Statues of 2021) — made several changes to
the SB 35 process.
AB 831 (Grayson, Chapter 194, Statutes of 2020) — added a process for SB 35
projects to be modified after their approval.
AB 1485 (Wicks, Chapter 663, Statutes of 2019) — made various changes to SB
35 including allowing for streamlining of housing developments that include a
percentage of low-income and/or moderate-income housing.
AB 2162 (Chiu, Chapter 753, Statutes of 2018) — streamlined affordable
housing developments that include a percentage of supportive housing units and
onsite services.
SB 35 (Wiener, Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017) — created a ministerial approval
process for specified infill, multifamily housing development projects.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday,
June 12, 2024).
SUPPORT:
California Conference of Carpenters (Co-Sponsor)
Housing Action Coalition (Co-Sponsor)
21st Century Alliance
Abundant Housing LA
California Apartment Association
California Community Builders
California Housing Consortium
California School Employees Association
California YIMBY
Circulate San Diego
AB 2243 (Wicks) Page 16 of 17
Civicwell
Fieldstead and Company, INC.
Generation Housing
Habitat for Humanity California
Housing Trust Silicon Valley
Inner City Law Center
LeadingAge California
MidPen Housing
People for Housing - Orange County
Sand Hill Property Company
Spur
The Two Hundred
Western States Regional Council of Carpenters
YIMBY Action
OPPOSITION:
350 Bay Area Action
Action Asian Pacific Environmental Network
Beverly-Vermont Community Land Trust
Black Women for Wellness
California Environmental Justice Alliance Action, a Project of Tides Advocacy
California Nurses for Environmental Health & Justice
Catholic Charities of The Diocese of Stockton
Center for Biological Diversity
Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment
City of La Habra
City of Newport Beach
City of Santa Clarita
Climate Equity Policy Center
Climate Health Now
Communities for A Better Environment
Courage California
Disability Rights California
East Bay Community Law Center
Environmental Health Coalition
Esperanza Community Housing Corporation
Fossil Free California
Fractracker
Friends of The Earth
Greenpeace USA
Housing Equity & Advocacy Resource Team (HEART)
AB 2243 (Wicks) Page 17 of 17
Labor Network for Sustainability
Labor Rise Climate Jobs Action
Leadership Counsel for Justice & Accountability
League of California Cities
Livable California
Mothers Out Front
Mothers Out Front California
No Coal in Oakland
Physicians for Social Responsibility - Los Angeles
Physicians for Social Responsibility - Sacramento Chapter
Physicians for Social Responsibility - San Francisco Bay Area Chapter
Poder
Sacred Heart Community Service
Stand.earth
Sunflower Alliance
Tenemos Que Reclamar Y Unidos Salvar LA Tierra - South LA (trust South La)
Tri-valley Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and Town of
Danville
Voices in Solidarity Against Oil in Neighborhoods (VISION)
Voting 4 Climate & Health
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Anna Caballero, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular Session
AB 2943 (Zbur) - Crimes: shoplifting
Version: June 5, 2024 Policy Vote: PUB. S. 4 - 0
Urgency: No Mandate: Yes
Hearing Date: June 17, 2024 Consultant: Liah Burnley
Bill Summary: AB 2943 enacts the California Retail Theft Reduction Act, which
contains multiple provisions pertaining to shoplifting, grand theft, criminal deprivation of
a retail business opportunity, and theft-related probation and diversion.
Fiscal Impact:
Cost pressures (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) of an unknown but
significant amount to the courts to adjudicate violations of the offenses created
and clarified by this bill, to the extent the clarifications result in additional charges
being filed. A defendant charged with a misdemeanor or felony is entitled to no-
cost legal representation and a jury trial. Actual court costs will depend on the
number of violations, prosecutorial discretion, and the amount of court time
needed to adjudicate each case. It generally costs approximately $1,000 to
operate a courtroom for one hour. Although courts are not funded on the basis of
workload, increased pressure on the Trial Court Trust Fund may create a need
for increased funding for courts from the General Fund. The Governor’s 2024-25
May Revision proposes reducing $97 million ongoing from the General Fund to
the trial courts.
Costs (local funds, General Fund) to the counties and the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to incarcerate people convicted of the
offenses created and clarified by this bill, to the extent the clarifications result in
additional convictions. Aggregate incarceration costs may be in the tens of
millions of dollars annually, with actual costs depending on the number of
convictions, the length of each sentence, and whether each sentence must be
served in county jail or state prison. The average annual cost to incarcerate one
person in county jail is approximately $29,000. The Legislative Analyst’s Office
(LAO) estimates the average annual cost to incarcerate one person in state
prison is $133,000. Although county incarceration costs are generally not
considered reimbursable state mandates pursuant to Proposition 30 (2012),
overcrowding in county jails creates cost pressure on the General Fund because
the state has historically granted new funding to counties to offset overcrowding
resulting from 2011 public safety realignment.
Costs (local funds, General Fund) to counties of an unknown but potentially
significant amount, possibly in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions of
dollars annually, to incarcerate people who violate probation for petty theft and
shoplifting. This bill doubles, from one year to two years, the maximum period of
probation for petty theft and shoplifting. If a court imposes probation, a
AB 2943 (Zbur) Page 2 of 6
defendant’s sentence is suspended and they are released into the community
under the supervision of a probation officer. If the defendant violates the terms of
their probation, they may be sentenced to a term in county jail, even if the
violation was technical and was not a criminal offense. The longer a defendant
remains on probation, the more likely they will violate probation and be
incarcerated. As described above, these county costs are not reimbursable state
mandates but place additional pressure on the General Fund to provide funding
to alleviate jail overcrowding.
Proposed Law:
States that any person who possesses property unlawfully that was acquired
through one or more acts of shoplifting, theft, or burglary from a retail business,
whether or not the person committed the act of shoplifting, theft, or burglary, is
guilty of the unlawful deprivation of a retail business opportunity when both of the
following apply:
o The property is not possessed for personal use and the person has the
intent to sell, exchange, or return the merchandise for value, or the intent
to act in concert with one or more persons to sell, exchange, or return the
merchandise for value; and,
o The value of the possessed property exceeds $950.
Provides that the value of the property possessed may be considered in
aggregate with either of the following:
o Any other such property possessed by the person with such intent within
the prior two years; or,
o Any property possessed by another person acting in concert with the first
person to sell, exchange, or return the merchandise for value, when such
property was acquired through one or more acts of shoplifting, theft, or
burglary from a retail business, regardless of the identity of the person
committing the act of shoplifting, theft, or burglary.
States that for the purpose of determining in any proceeding whether the
defendant has the intent to sell, exchange, or return the merchandise for value,
the trier of fact may consider any competent evidence, including but not limited
to, the following:
o Whether the defendant has in the prior two years sold, exchanged, or
returned for value merchandise acquired through shoplifting, theft, or
burglary from a retail business, or through any related offense, including
any conduct that occurred in other jurisdictions, if relevant to demonstrate
a fact other than the defendant’s disposition to commit the act, as provided
by subdivision (b) of Section 1101 of the Evidence Code; and,
o The property involved in the offense is of a type or quantity that would not
normally be purchased for personal use or consumption, including use or
consumption by one’s immediate family.
AB 2943 (Zbur) Page 3 of 6
Makes the criminal deprivation of a retail business opportunity punishable by
imprisonment in the county jail for up to one year or as a county jail-eligible
felony.
Clarifies that distinct but related acts for purposes of aggregation for grand theft
includes acts committed against multiple victims or in counties other than the
county of the current offense.
Provides that evidence that distinct acts are motivated by one intention, one
general impulse, and one plan may include, but is not limited to, evidence that
the acts involve the same defendant or defendants, are substantially similar in
nature, or occur within a 90-day period.
Provides that a peace officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person for
misdemeanor shoplifting when the violation was not committed in the officer’s
presence if all of the following conditions are met:
o The officer has probable cause to believe the person committed the
violation;
o The arrest is made without undue delay after the violation; and,
o Any of the following takes place:
The officer obtains a sworn statement from a person who witnessed
the person to be arrested committing the alleged violation;
The officer observes video footage that shows the person to be
arrested committed the alleged violation;
The person to be arrested possesses a quantity of goods
inconsistent with personal use and the goods bear security devices
affixed by a retailer that would customarily be removed upon
purchase; or,
The person confesses to the alleged violation to the arresting
officer.
Extends the sunset date on the provision of law that authorizes cities and
counties to establish diversion and deferred entry of judgment programs for theft
and repeat theft crimes until January 1, 2031.
Extends the sunset date on the provision of law that authorizes non-release for
arrests relating to repeat thefts and organized retail theft until January 1, 2031.
States that notwithstanding the general one-year limit of prohibition for a
misdemeanor, the court may suspend the imposition or execution of the
sentence and make and enforce terms of probation not to exceed two years for a
violation of shoplifting or petty theft.
AB 2943 (Zbur) Page 4 of 6
Provides that if a court imposes a term of probation that exceeds the statutory
maximum of one year, the court, as a condition of probation, shall consider
referring the defendant to a collaborative court or rehabilitation program that is
relevant to the underlying factor or factors that led to the commission of the
offense.
Specifies that if the defendant who is referred to a rehabilitative program is under
25 years of age, the court shall, to the extent such a program is available, refer
the defendant to a program modeled on healing-centered, restorative, trauma-
informed, and positive youth development approaches and that is provided in
collaboration with community-based organizations.
States that if the court finds that referral to a collaborative court or rehabilitation
program is not an appropriate condition of probation, the court must state the
reasons for its findings on the record.
States that upon successful completion of the rehabilitation program, as
determined by the program provider, or successful participation in the
collaborative court, as determined by the collaborative court, the court shall
discharge the defendant from probation.
States that participation in a collaborative court or rehabilitation program by the
defendant shall not exceed two years except with the consent of the defendant.
Prohibits local law enforcement or a local jurisdiction from bringing or threatening
a nuisance action against a business, or impose fines upon a business, solely for
the act of reporting a retail crime, unless the report is knowingly false.
Related Legislation:
AB 1794 (McCarty) authorizes counties to operate a program to allow retailers to submit
details of alleged shoplifting, organized retail theft, or grand theft directly to the district
attorney through an online portal on the district attorney’s internet website. AB 1794 will
be heard by this Committee today.
AB 1779 (Irwin) allows specified criminal actions for thefts to be consolidated and
brought in any jurisdiction, subject to a hearing on consolidation of the offenses, as
specified. AB 1779 will be heard by this Committee today.
AB 1802 (Jones-Sawyer) removes the sunset date on the organized retail theft statute
and the regional property crimes task force. AB 1802 will be heard by this Committee
today.
AB 1960 (Soria) creates sentencing enhancements for taking, damaging, or destroying
property in the commission or attempted commission of a felony, as specified. AB 1960
will be heard by this Committee today.
AB 1972 (Alanis) requires the existing regional crimes property task force to assist
railroad police and specifies cargo theft as a property crime for consideration by the
regional property crimes task force. AB 1972 will be heard by this Committee today.
AB 2943 (Zbur) Page 5 of 6
AB 3209 (Berman) establishes a retail theft restraining order, as specified. AB 3209 will
be heard by this Committee today.
SB 1144 (Skinner) revises the types of transactions that qualify a third-party seller as a
“high-volume third-party seller,” relating to online marketplaces, as specified. SB 1144 is
pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
SB 1416 (Newman) reinstates sentencing enhancements for selling, exchanging, or
returning for value, or attempting to sell, exchange, or return for value, any property
acquired through one or more acts of shoplifting, theft, or burglary from a retail
business, if the property value exceeds specified amounts. SB 1416 is pending in the
Assembly Appropriations Committee.
SB 905 (Wiener) creates the new crime of forcibly entering a vehicle with intent to
commit theft therein, as specified. SB 905 is pending in the Assembly Appropriations
Committee.
SB 982 (Wahab) removes the sunset date on the organized retail theft statute. SB 982
is pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
SB 1242 (Min) makes it a factor in aggravation if arson was carried out within a
merchant’s premises in order to facilitate organized retail theft. SB 1242 is pending in
the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
Staff Comments: As discussed above, this bill would increase incarceration costs. The
fiscal impact of this bill cannot be known with certainty, as the actual impact will be
dependent on numerous factors, including, but not limited to, judicial and prosecutorial
discretion, and the factors unique to each case. However, this bill could substantially
impact the General Fund. This is significant given that, and according to the LAO, the
General Fund faces a structural deficit in the tens of billions of dollars over the next
several fiscal years.
According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), the state saves roughly $15,000 per
year each time one fewer person needs to be housed in a prison. When taking into
account the total costs of incarceration, including fixed costs for staffing and
infrastructure in addition to the marginal cost of each inmate, the average annual per
capita cost to confine a person in state prison is over $133,000. That’s because there
are many other types of costs—including most staffing costs—that are only saved when
capacity is reduced. Specifically, when a whole prison is deactivated, the state can save
several tens of thousands of dollars per capita annually in addition to the population
driven savings. Since 2021, the administration has deactivated several prisons and
yards. CDCR estimates that these deactivations resulted in ongoing General Fund
savings totaling about $620 million annually. The administration currently plans to
deactivate additional prisons. The Governor’s 2024-25 budget proposes a $493 million
decrease in CDCR funding, largely as a result of previous capacity reductions and the
planned deactivation of a prison in March 2025. The LAO believes the state could
deactivate around five additional prisons that collectively cost nearly $1 billion should
they continue operating. As such, the LAO has recommended that the Legislature direct
CDCR to begin planning to reduce capacity by deactivating prisons. Longer state prison
AB 2943 (Zbur) Page 6 of 6
sentences, like those proposed by this bill, would delay prison closures and the cost
savings associated with them.
Proposed Amendments: This bill will be amended to contain an urgency clause,
allowing the bill’s provisions to take effect immediately upon approval of the Governor.
Additionally, the bill will be amended to contain an inoperability clause stating that its
provisions will become inoperative if the proposed initiative measure titled, “The
Homelessness, Drug Addition, and Theft Reduction Act” (Initiative 23-0017A1) is
approved by the voters at the statewide general election on November 5, 2024. The
amendments also include double-jointing language to avoid chaptering issues with AB
1794 (McCarty).
-- END --
SB 402
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 18, 2024
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HEALTH
Mia Bonta, Chair
SB 402 (Wahab) – As Amended January 12, 2024
SENATE VOTE: 37-1
SUBJECT: Involuntary commitment.
SUMMARY: Adds licensed mental health professionals (LMHPs) to the list of those authorized
to initiate involuntary holds for those who are found to be a danger to self or others, or gravely
disabled. Specifically, this bill:
1) Adds LMHP, as defined, to the list of those authorized to initiate involuntary holds for those
who are found to be a danger to self or others, or gravely disabled.
2) Defines LMHP as a psychiatrist, psychologist, licensed clinical social worker, licensed
marriage and family therapist, or a licensed professional clinical counselor who has
completed all required supervised clinical experience and who is designated by the county.
EXISTING LAW:
1) Establishes the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS Act) to end the inappropriate, indefinite,
and involuntary commitment of persons with mental health 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. [Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) §5000, et seq.]
2) 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 mental health disorder, a severe substance use disorder
(SUD), or both, is unable to provide for their basic personal needs for food, clothing, shelter,
personal safety, or necessary medical care. [WIC §5008]
3) Permits a county behavioral health director to develop procedures for the county’s
designation and training of professionals who will be designated to perform functions for
involuntary holds, as specified. [WIC §5121]
COMMENTS:
1) PURPOSE OF THIS BILL. According to the author, this bill will allow for appropriately
trained LMHPs to initiate the placement of an individual experiencing a mental health crisis
on a 72 hour involuntary hold—or what is called a 5150 hold. The author argues that mental
health professionals are significantly limited in providing support to vulnerable populations,
even with current law allowing for community based organizations to provide prevention &
early intervention services. The author continues that the current framework reveals
SB 402
Page 2
limitations that hinder our ability to respond adeptly to mental health crises by first
responders and healthcare professionals. The author states that this bill seeks to rectify this
by authorizing a broader spectrum of licensed mental health professionals to intervene
promptly in mental health emergencies; all of whom work one-on-one with those struggling
with mental health. The author concludes that this strategic expansion aligns with
contemporary best practices, ensures more inclusive crisis response, reduces the burden on
law enforcement, and ultimately enhances public safety.
2) BACKGROUND.
a) 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
treatment if they are determined to be, as a result of a mental health 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.
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 found 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.
b) County designation. The LPS Act permits a county behavioral health director to develop
procedures for designating and training people to initiate involuntary holds—outside of
peace officers. Those procedures may include, but not be limited to, the following:
i) The license types, practice disciplines, and clinical experience of professionals
eligible to be designated by the county;
ii) The initial and ongoing training and testing requirements for professionals eligible to
be designated by the county;
iii) The application and approval processes for professionals seeking to be designated by
the county, including the timeframe for initial designation and procedures for renewal
of the designation; and,
SB 402
Page 3
iv) The county’s process for monitoring and reviewing professionals designated by the
county to ensure appropriate compliance with state law, regulations, and county
procedures.
3) SUPPORT. The California Police Chiefs Association (CPCA) supports this bill, stating that
when an individual experiencing a psychiatric crisis presents a significant risk of harming
themselves or others, there will be a need for law enforcement to protect both the individual
and the public. CPCA argues that it remains important to expand LMHP’s role in these
situations in order to not overly rely on a law enforcement response. CPCA continues that
many cases, it is more than appropriate to have LMHPs initiate an involuntary hold. North
East Medical Services (NEMS) also supports this bill, stating that allowing licensed mental
health professionals who have a preexisting relationship with their patients to also initiate a
5150 hold could potentially reduce the intensity, danger, and mistrust that usually occurs
when a hold is initiated. NEMS argues that people who are undergoing mental health crises
are often further triggered when encountered by law enforcement and this bill would allow
for people who are experiencing a mental health crisis to be first approached by a person they
trust, which could reduce the need for law enforcement in certain situations. NEMS
continues that this bill merely aims to reduce, not eliminate, the need for law enforcement
involvement.
4) OPPOSITION. ACLU California Action is opposed to this bill stating that it increases the
likelihood that more holds will be placed, not that fewer people will engage with peace
officers. The ACLU contends that involuntary commitment should be used in only a narrow
set of circumstances because a 5150 hold can lead to weeks or months of detainment, job
loss, and trauma, and these holds do not have robust evidence of long-term success in
addressing mental health needs. The ACLU cites concerns that this bill expands the universe
of people with the discretion to limit a person’s autonomy in a way that lacks evidence basis
or necessary guardrails. The ACLU continues that not all mental health professionals are
trained in crisis response or risk assessment, arguing that under this bill counties would be
encouraged to allow a marriage and family therapist who provides couples’ counseling, or a
licensed social worker who works as a middle manager at a food bank, to place people into
involuntary commitment. The ACLU further contends that community safety instead requires
creation and expansion of non-law enforcement alternatives, such as AB 118 (Kamlager),
Chapter 694, Statutes of 2021, which has proven that emergency interventions can be
“addressed more safely, with greater impact, and more cost effectively and efficiently by
community-based organizations which often have deeper knowledge and understanding of
the issues, trusted relationships with the people and communities involved, and specific
knowledge and relationships surrounding the emergency.”
5) PREVIOUS LEGISLATION.
a) SB 929 (Eggman), Chapter 539, Statutes of 2022, expands the Department of Health Care
Services’ responsibility in current law to collect and publish information about
involuntary detentions to include additional information, including the number of persons
admitted or detained and the amount of times they have been admitted or detained;
clinical outcomes for specified individuals, including the services provided or offered to
them; waiting periods for individuals prior to receiving an evaluation; and, an analysis
SB 402
Page 4
and evaluation of the efficacy of mental health assessments, detentions, treatments, and
supportive services.
b) AB 1443 (McCarty), Chapter 399, Statutes of 2021, permits a county to develop training
and procedures related to taking, or causing to be taken, a person into custody for an
involuntary detention, as specified. Requires the County of Sacramento to develop a
written policy for training and procedures for designating persons who are employed by
the City of Sacramento and who meet specified criteria to involuntarily detain
individuals.
6) DOUBLE REFERRAL. This bill is double referred; upon passage in this Committee, this
bill will be referred to the Assembly Committee on Judiciary.
7) POLICY COMMENTS.
a) Stated intent vs. language in this bill. The author of this bill argues that it authorizes
LMHPs to initiate involuntary holds. Under the LPS Act an involuntary hold can be
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. Current law permits
a county to develop procedures for the county’s designation and training of people who
will be permitted to perform functions for 5150 holds. This means counties have
authority to ultimately decide the appropriateness of designating certain individuals,
including LMHPs. This bill does nothing to change a county’s authority in creating their
own designation standards and processes for individuals that place 5150 holds. This bill
does unnecessarily state a narrow definition of LMHPs who can be, and in many counties
already are, designated to initiate 5150 holds.
The author also argues that this bill will reduce law enforcement involvement in 5150
holds and crisis response. There is nothing in this bill that in effect reduces law
enforcement involvement in either instance. Once an LMHP initiates an involuntary hold,
the mechanics of enforcement of that involuntary hold will require police to be called as
they are the only agency with the authority to involuntarily transport someone. The
author’s office and proponents of this bill have argued that an LMHP will be equipped
with the tools from their training and clinical experience to de-escalate and get an
individual to willingly go to treatment – but if this is the case, the person would be
voluntarily agreeing to treatment and there is no need for an involuntary 5150 hold to
be initiated. Some proponents of this bill have also argued that LMHPs can call an
ambulance or mobile crisis team if involuntary transportation is needed, but neither
emergency medical technicians nor mobile crisis units have the authority to transport
people against their will.
The author and proponents of this bill have also stated that some licensed professionals
are excluded from designation under current law and that counties are not designating
practitioners that are not employees or contracted. Current law permits any “professional
person” to be designated by the county – there are no requirements that they work for or
be contracted with the county. In speaking with various counties, this committee learned
about a range of professionals who are designated across the state ranging from
emergency room doctors to community based organizations. What is true is that counties
have control over their designation authority, and processes differ county by county.
SB 402
Page 5
Counties are charged with delivering all specialty mental health services in their
community, and are thus given the agency to build protocols and processes that reflect
the diversity of their county mental health system’s needs. Rural, urban, large, and small
counties will all have differing needs, capacities, and resources. Additionally, 5150
designation is a huge responsibility – it is a rare area in our state’s law where people are
granted the authority to strip away a person’s autonomy with no Miranda Rights.
Counties can therefore be selective in their designation processes to ensure they are able
to appropriately train, oversee, and ultimately take on liability for those in their
jurisdiction with this power.
8) PROPOSED AMENDMENTS. While the language in this bill does not achieve the
author’s stated goals, this bill has highlighted an important gap in recent legislative efforts to
collect more data on the LPS Act across the state. The Committee may wish to amend this
bill to expand upon SB 929 by adding the collection of data on county designees and their
professions, the number of involuntary holds initiated by designees and peace officers, and
the number of designations denied or revoked by a county. These data would create
transparency around county designation processes and involuntary holds by peace officers
and designees across the state. These data would additionally ensure the Legislature and
stakeholders can make informed and evidence-based proposals to alter these processes, as
needed.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Behavioral Health Collaborative of Alameda County
California Police Chief’s Association
City of Fremont
La Familia Counseling Service
North East Medical Services
Westcoast Children’s Clinic
Opposition
ACLU California Action
Cal Voices
Citizens Commission on Human Rights
Disability Rights California
Mental Health America of California
Analysis Prepared by: Riana King / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097
SB 905
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 19, 2024
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Buffy Wicks, Chair
SB 905 (Wiener) – As Amended May 16, 2024
Policy Committee: Public Safety Vote: 8 - 0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill creates two new alternate felony-misdemeanor (“wobbler”) offenses pertaining to
forcible entry of a vehicle and possession of property stolen from a vehicle.
Specifically, this bill:
1) Makes it a crime for any person to forcibly enter a vehicle, as specified, with the intent to
commit a theft or a felony therein.
2) Makes it a crime for a person to unlawfully possess property that was acquired through one
or more acts of theft from a vehicle, unlawful entry of a vehicle, burglary of a locked vehicle,
or vehicle tampering, if the value of the property exceeds $950 and the property is not
possessed for personal use and the person has the intent to sell or exchange the property, or
the intent to act with another person to sell or exchange the property.
FISCAL EFFECT:
1) Costs (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) to the courts of an unknown but potentially
significant amount to adjudicate cases of the new offenses created by this bill. A defendant
charged with a misdemeanor or felony is entitled to a jury trial and, if the defendant is
indigent, legal representation provided by the government. Actual court costs will depend on
the number of cases filed and the amount of court time and resources needed to adjudicate
each case. It generally costs approximately $1,000 to operate a courtroom for one hour.
Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on the Trial
Court Trust Fund may create a need for increased funding for courts from the General Fund.
The Governor’s 2024-25 budget proposes $83.1 million ongoing from the General Fund to
backfill declining revenue to the Trial Court Trust Fund.
2) Costs (local funds, General Fund) of an unknown but potentially significant amount to the
counties and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to incarcerate
people convicted of the offenses created by this bill. Actual incarceration costs will depend
on the number of convictions, the length of each sentence, and whether each sentence must
be served in county jail or state prison. The average annual cost to incarcerate one person in
county jail is approximately $29,000. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) estimates the
average annual cost to incarcerate one person in state prison is $133,000. Although county
incarceration costs are generally not considered reimbursable state mandates pursuant to
Proposition 30 (2012), overcrowding in county jails creates cost pressure on the General
SB 905
Page 2
Fund because the state has historically granted new funding to counties to offset
overcrowding resulting from 2011 public safety realignment.
According to the LAO, the General Fund faces a structural deficit in the tens of billions of
dollars over the next several fiscal years.
COMMENTS:
1) Purpose. According to the author:
[T]his legislation makes forcible entry sufficient to prove the crime of
auto burglary and makes California safer for everyone. SB 905 also
address the problem of organized resale of goods stolen from cars.
Auto burglars seek valuable items such as laptops, cameras, and cell
phones and then resell them. Under the bill, individuals could be
prosecuted for holding more than $950 of stolen goods intended for
resale, whether those goods were stolen in one or multiple incidents,
and whether the individual played the role of thief, middleman, or
seller.
2) Background. This bill creates two new wobbler offenses pertaining to theft from vehicles.
A wobbler may be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony at the discretion of a prosecutor.
The first offense created by this bill is similar to the existing crime of auto burglary.
According to proponents of the bill, the offense created by this bill, unlike auto burglary,
does not require a prosecutor to prove that a vehicle was locked in order to obtain a
conviction if someone steals from the vehicle. The second offense created by this bill makes
it unlawful for a person to possess property that was stolen from a vehicle. Both of the
offenses created by this bill carry the same penalties. A misdemeanor conviction is
punishable by up to one year in county jail. A felony conviction is punishable by 16 months,
two years, or three years in county jail. If a defendant has certain prior convictions, a felony
conviction is punishable by a term in state prison.
3) Proposed Amendments. This bill has been proposed to be amended to contain an urgency
clause, allowing the bill’s provisions to take effect immediately upon approval of the
Governor. Amendments have also been proposed to add an inoperability clause stating that
its provisions will become inoperative if the proposed initiative measure titled “The
Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act” (Initiative 23-0017A1) is
approved by the voters at the statewide general election on November 5, 2024.
Additionally, when the bill was in the Assembly Committee on Public Safety, the author and
that committee agreed to amendments to specify: (1) that the value of a defendant’s
unlawfully possessed property may be aggregated with any other such property possessed by
the defendant with the requisite intent within the previous two years; and (2) that for the
purpose of determining whether a defendant had the intent to sell or exchange the property
for value, the court may consider evidence about whether the defendant has sold or
exchanged any other property acquired from theft of a vehicle within the previous two years.
These changes have also been proposed to be amended into the bill in this committee.
Analysis Prepared by: Annika Carlson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
SB 1031
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 1031
Author: Wiener (D) and Wahab (D), et al.
Amended: 5/20/24
Vote: 21
SENATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE: 11-4, 4/23/24
AYES: Cortese, Allen, Archuleta, Blakespear, Dodd, Gonzalez, Laird, Limón,
Newman, Portantino, Umberg
NOES: Niello, Dahle, Nguyen, Seyarto
SENATE REVENUE AND TAXATION COMMITTEE: 6-1, 4/24/24
AYES: Glazer, Ashby, Bradford, Dodd, Padilla, Skinner
NOES: Dahle
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 5/16/24
AYES: Caballero, Ashby, Becker, Bradford, Wahab
NOES: Jones, Seyarto
SUBJECT: San Francisco Bay area: local revenue measure: transportation
improvements
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill authorizes the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC) to propose new taxes, allocate new revenue and issue bonds for specified
transportation projects, and requires the State Transportation Agency to consider
transit agency consolidation within the San Francisco Bay area.
Senate Floor Amendments of 5/20/24 add clarification to the bill.
SB 1031
Page 2
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
Establishes MTC as the transportation planning, coordinating, and financing
agency for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, and specifies its governance,
structure duties, and powers.
This bill:
Consolidation Assessment and Report
1) Requires the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) to oversee the
completion of a comprehensive assessment of the benefits, disbenefits, and
feasibility of consolidation among Bay Area transit agencies. The assessment
shall be completed by January 1, 2026.
2) Requires CalSTA to develop a report of recommendations to the Legislature by
January 1, 2027 based on the findings of the assessment.
Travel Demand Management
1) Authorizes MTC to include additional requirements to existing commuter
benefit program as part of a ballot measure that would:
a) Requires a covered employer that is located in proximity to transit to
purchase a regional transit pass for each of its employees that provides
universal and unlimited access to transit services, as specified.
b) Requires a covered employer that is not located in proximity to transit to
provide a subsidy to each of its employees corresponding in financial value
to the regional transit pass.
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
1) Makes MTC responsible for implementing a seamless transit rider experience
across the region and requires MTC to adopt and update rules and regulations to
promote the coordination of fares, as specified, scheduling, mapping and way
finding, real-time transit information and other customer-facing policies.
SB 1031
Page 3
2) Requires MTC to require every transit system to enter into a joint fare revenue
sharing agreement consistent with MTC’s rules and regulations.
3) Requires MTC to develop an expenditure plan before placing a measure on the
ballot (see below).
Revenue Measures
1) Authorizes MTC, either directly or through a qualified voter initiative, to raise
and allocate new revenue through all of the following funding mechanisms:
a) A retail sales and use tax, which cannot exceed one-half of one percent.
b) A regional payroll tax.
c) A parcel tax.
d) A regional vehicle surcharge.
2) Specifies intent that the amount raised be $1.5 billion annually.
3) Prohibits any new tax from being imposed for longer than 30 years.
4) Until January 1, 2041, grants MTC broad authority over when and how often
any of the funding mechanisms, or a combination of funding mechanisms, can
be placed on the ballot subject to the following:
a) No funding measure can be placed on the ballot in the Counties of Marin
and Sonoma before November 2028.
b) Before a measure is placed on the ballot MTC shall develop an expenditure
plan for the revenues expected to be generated by the measures placed on the
ballot in consultation with county transportation authorities. That
expenditure plan must be approved by county transportation authorities
representing both a majority of the counties in which MTC chooses to place
the measures and a majority of the total population in all the counties in
which the commission has determined to place the measure.
c) A measure proposing a regional vehicle surcharge may not be placed on the
ballot until January 1, 2030.
SB 1031
Page 4
5) Exempts any sales tax increase authorized by the measure from contributing to
the combined sales tax rate limit for any entity in the region.
Expenditures
1) Requires that at least 70% of the revenues generated in each county be invested
in projects and programs that benefit that county, including transit operations
funding for transit agencies that serve riders of that county, for the first five
year period that the tax is operative. After the first five year period the
minimum county benefit threshold is 90% for each succeeding five year period.
2) Provides that if the Counties of Marin and Sonoma participate in the election
approving a tax measure, MTC shall annually allocate revenues equivalent to
the revenue that would be collected with a one-quarter of one percent sales tax
in those counties to the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District (SMART).
This provision does not apply if a sales tax to fund SMART is in effect on or
after April 1, 2029.
3) Requires that 45% of the revenues support transit transformation, which
includes improving transit service, implementing customer-focused
improvements, and deployment of zero-emission vehicles, though for the first
five years the priority is to assist transit operators in preventing service cuts. To
be eligible for these funds the public transit agency must be in compliance with
MTC’s rules and regulations adopted to encourage transit agencies to
coordinate fares and schedules. Of the 45%, not less than 40% of revenues
shall be allocated by county based on the share of the revenue generated in each
county, as determined by MTC. Of the 40%, the CTC shall ensure that each
public transit agency receives a minimum annual funding of $5 million to $25
million, based on ridership.
4) Requires that not less than 25% of the revenues support projects to transform
local streets to support safety, social equity, and climate goals. These funds
shall be allocated to the county transportation authority from which the funds
were generated.
5) Requires at least 15% of the revenues support connectivity, which includes
highway, transit and rail mobility projects that close gaps and relieve
bottlenecks in the existing transportation network in a climate neutral manner,
as well as resilience improvements, active transportation projects and safety
improvements. All of these revenues shall be allocated to the county
SB 1031
Page 5
transportation authority representing the county from which the revenue was
generated.
6) Requires transit agencies to maintain existing commitments of local funds to
transit operations in order to be eligible for funding from the measure, except in
proportion to any reduction in operating costs.
Bonds
1) Authorizes and provides procedures for MTC to incur indebtedness and issue
bonds and other securities against the revenues raised pursuant to this bill.
2) Bond proceeds can only be used to fund capital investments consistent with the
expenditures authorized by this bill.
Elections Procedures
1) Establishes MTC as a district for the purposes of the placement of a measure on
the ballot.
2) If the measure is successful, requires MTC to establish an independent
oversight committee, as defined, to ensure that any revenues generated pursuant
to this section are expended consistent with the statute.
Miscellaneous
1) Requires any legal challenge to any provision of the bill to be commenced
within 60 days of the date of the election at which the tax is approved. After
that date all financing, bond issuances, and collection of taxes shall be valid and
incontestable.
2) Requires MTC, no later than April 1, 2025, to update its regional transportation
plan to include the extension of rail transit service operated by the Sonoma-
Marin Area Rail Transit District to the City of Cloverdale in Sonoma County as
part of its sustainable community strategy.
Background
1) MTC is the transportation planning, financing and coordinating agency for the
nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. As the Bay Area’s federally designated
SB 1031
Page 6
metropolitan planning organization and state-designated regional transportation
planning agency, MTC is responsible for developing the Bay Area’s federally
mandated long-range transportation plan and state-mandated sustainable
communities strategy, a 25-year roadmap to achieving state-mandated goals to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from cars and light truck travel,
including planning for adequate housing near jobs and transit to accommodate
expected population growth. MTC distributes roughly $850 million in federal
transportation funds each year for transportation investments across the Bay
Area’s 101 cities, 9 counties and 27 transit operators, including $650 million in
transit capital funds. Additionally, MTC is responsible for apportioning nearly
$1.1 billion in state and locally generated transit operating revenues each year,
including roughly $750 million in discretionary operating funds.
2) Bay Area transit and the pandemic. The Bay Area transit network includes
nine counties with 27 transit operators. The agencies range from large agencies
such as BART and Caltrain which serve tens of millions of riders annually to
much smaller ones such as Petaluma Transit and the Rio Vista Delta Breeze.
Public transit ridership has been declining for decades, nationally and in
California, far before the COVID-19 pandemic. The San Francisco Bay Area,
which has the state’s highest rates of transit use, had until recent years resisted
those trends. Prior to the pandemic, Bay Area transit operators were serving
roughly 900,000 passengers per day. In 2017 and 2018, the region lost over 5%
of its annual riders despite service increases.
3) The transit fiscal cliff. 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
California. Specifically, Caltrain saw a 98% decline in ridership; the Bay Area
Rapid Transit District (BART) saw an 88% decline in transit ridership. Bus
lines in the Bay Area fared slightly better. San Francisco Metropolitan Transit
Association (SFMTA), who operates MUNI, saw a 70% decline in ridership
and AC Transit saw a 72% decline.
In an effort to stave off financial losses from declining transit ridership, the
federal government provided relief for transit operators across the country. In
addition, in June 2023 the Legislature passed and Governor Newsom signed
into law the 2023-24 State Budget which provides $5.1 billion for transit
agencies to use for both capital and operating expenditures.
Of these funds, the Bay Area is expected to receive roughly $800 million in
funds that were previously committed to two major capital projects – BART’s
Core Capacity Project and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority’s
SB 1031
Page 7
BART to Silicon Valley Phase 2 project. Additionally, the Bay Area will
receive roughly $400 million in funding which can be used flexibly for
operations or zero emissions transition investments. The transit capital project
funding was also made flexible for operations. Bay Area transit operators face a
$169 million standardized operating shortfall in budget year 2024-25, which
grows to the $600 million range in 2025-26 and beyond
4) Regional Network Manager Coordination. In May of 2020, MTC created the
Blue Ribbon Transit Recovery Task Force to “guide the future of the Bay
Area’s public transportation network as the region adjusts to the new conditions
created by the COVID-19 pandemic.” The Task Force released their final
report, Bay Area Transit Transformation Action Plan, in June of 2021.
Comments
1) New Regional Measure. This bill authorizes MTC either directly or through a
qualified voter initiative to raise and allocate new revenue. The measure
authorizes a variety of revenue mechanisms, including a combination of them.
There is no limitation on the number of times MTC can place a measure on the
ballot, the duration of the measure, or the funding amount. MTC is permitted to
use an election process which requires a majority vote rather than a 2/3 vote.
2) Superagency. The priority of this bill is transit regionalization which reflects a
belief that better coordination of the 27 independent transit agencies is
foundational to improving transit service. To do this the bill elevates MTC, the
regionally focused transportation planning agency, giving them authority to
craft ballot measures to raise taxes for the purposes described in the bill and to
place those measures before the voters at a general election of their choosing
subject to specified constraints. MTC is given responsibility for implementing
a “seamless transit rider experience” across the nine county Bay Area and is
required to adopt rules and regulations to promote coordination of fares,
payment methods, scheduling, mapping, real-time transit information and other
policies which benefit from a regional approach for all public transit agencies in
its jurisdiction.
3) Spending Is Primarily for Transit Operations and Provides a Moderate but
Increasing Return to Source Guarantee. Most of the funding in this bill goes
toward transit with a secondary emphasis on safe streets: 45% is dedicated for
investments that support transit transformation, as specified. At least 25% is
dedicated to investments that support safe streets, such as bicycle and
pedestrian infrastructure. At least 15% is dedicated for investments that support
SB 1031
Page 8
connectivity in the existing transportation network in a climate-neutral manner.
Traffic congestion relief is not prioritized.
This bill requires that not less than 70% of revenues from each county must be
invested in projects and programs that benefit that county for the initial five-
year period. “Benefit” is defined to include transit operations funding for
transit agencies that serve riders of that county. After the initial five-year
period the 70% minimum increases to 90%.
4) Locally Supported Expenditures Plans. Before placing a tax increase on the
ballot the bill requires MTC to create an expenditure plan in consultation with
county transportation authorities. That plan must be approved by both a
majority of county transportation authorities and by county transportation
authorities representing a majority of the population of all the counties in which
the ballot measure is to be placed.
The relative population of each of the Bay Area counties:
Santa Clara -- 25% Alameda -- 22% Contra Costa --15%
San Francisco -- 11% San Mateo -- 10% Sonoma -- 6%
Solano -- 6% Marin -- 3% Napa -- 2%
5) Consolidation. Improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the Bay Area’s 27
transit agencies is a key objective of this bill. There may be many opportunities
to improve service and increase ridership by better coordinating service,
reducing redundancies, sharing infrastructure and procurements, and reducing
costs.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
CalSTA estimates that costs related to this bill could be as high as the low tens of
millions for consultant contracting costs and workload associated with stakeholder
engagement, completion of the specified comprehensive assessment of the 27 Bay
Area transit agencies by 2026, and developing recommendations for the report to
the Legislature by 2027. Staff notes that detail to support the estimate was not
available at the time of this analysis. Staff estimates costs would at least be in the
high millions, and could potentially exceed $10 million, based on the level of
engagement and analysis required by the bill, and the accelerated timelines for
completion of the assessment and report. (State Highway Account, Public
SB 1031
Page 9
Transportation Account)
Unknown significant local costs related to the substantial workload imposed on
MTC as a result of this bill in advance of placing any revenue measures before
voters in the nine-county Bay Area, including paying for the county costs
associated with elections. Ongoing MTC costs would be covered from the 1% set-
aside of any new revenues collected from the various taxes and charges authorized
by the bill, as specified. Staff is unaware of any instances in which MTC has been
deemed an eligible claimant for state reimbursement for mandated costs.
Ultimately, whether costs associated with the bill’s requirements are reimbursable
from the General Fund would be subject to a determination by the Commission on
State Mandates, should MTC file a reimbursement claim. (General Fund)
Unknown, potentially significant costs for the California Department of Tax and
Fee Administration (CDTFA), the Employment Development Department, and/or
the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to administer the collection of sales and
use taxes, payroll taxes, or vehicle registration surcharges, respectively, to the
extent those taxes are proposed by MTC and approved by the voters. These costs
would be fully recovered from the new tax revenues.
Major local tax revenue gains of up to $1.5 billion annually to fund specified
transportation improvements in the Bay Area, as specified. (local funds)
Unknown, significant General Fund cost pressures to deposit funding into the Bay
Area Transit Consolidation and Coordination Technical Assistance Fund, which is
created by this bill. Any moneys deposited into the fund would be available, upon
appropriation by the Legislature, to pay for the costs of the CalSTA assessment
and report, and for administrative expenses related to the implementation of the
consolidation of transit agencies, if those consolidations occur. (General Fund)
SUPPORT: (Verified 5/16/24)
Board of Supervisors for The City and County of San Francisco
California Yimby
Housing Action Coalition
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Napa County Transportation and Planning Agency/Napa Valley Transportation
Authority
San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority
San Francisco County Transportation Authority
Seamless Bay Area
SB 1031
Page 10
Sustainable Silicon Valley
Wellstone Democratic Renewal Club
OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/16/24)
Alameda County Taxpayers' Association
California Association of Realtors
California Chamber of Commerce
California Taxpayers Association
Coalition of Sensible Taxpayers (COST)
Contra Costa Taxpayers Association
D2unite
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Iconic D3
Kern County Taxpayers Association
Orange County Taxpayers Association
Sensible D7
Soar - Save Our Amazing Richmond
Sun - Sunset United Neighbors
Associated General Contractors of California
Bay Area Council
California Alliance for Jobs
California State Council of Laborers
City/county Association of Governments of San Mateo County
International Union of Operating Engineers, Cal-nevada Conference
Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority
North Bay Leadership Council
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (CALTRAIN)
San Mateo County Transit District (SAMTRANS)
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Sonoma County Transportation Authority/regional Climate Protection Authority
Prepared by: Randy Chinn 651-4121
5/21/24 18:07:45
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
SB 1060
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 1060
Author: Becker (D), et al.
Amended: 5/16/24
Vote: 21
SENATE INSURANCE COMMITTEE: 4-2, 4/24/24
AYES: Rubio, Alvarado-Gil, Cortese, Dodd
NOES: Niello, Caballero
NO VOTE RECORDED: Ochoa Bogh
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 5/16/24
AYES: Caballero, Ashby, Becker, Bradford, Wahab
NOES: Jones, Seyarto
SUBJECT: Property insurance underwriting: risk models
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill requires a property insurer that employs risk models for
underwriting purposes that account for wildfire risk reduction associated with
hazardous fuel reduction, home hardening, defensible space, and fire prevention
activities for properties, communities, and landscapes, to provide to the
Department of Insurance information that demonstrates compliance with these
provisions. Repeals this section on January 1, 2036.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) Establishes the Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan and the Wildfire and
Forest Resilience Action Plan implementation strategy.
2) Requires insurance companies to provide discounts to customers who
implement wildfire safety measures, including home hardening and defensible
space.
SB 1060
Page 2
This bill:
1) Sets forth legislative findings and declarations.
2) Defines the following terms: “Defensible space”, “Fire prevention activities”,
“Hazardous fuel reduction”, and “Home hardening”.
3) Specifies that if a property insurer uses risk models for underwriting purposes
those models may account for wildfire risk reduction associated with hazardous
fuel reduction, home hardening, defensible space, and fire prevention activities
for properties, communities, and landscapes.
4) Requires an insurer using the risk models as described, to provide to the
department information necessary, as determined by the department, including
the types and numbers of policy applications and renewals, by ZIP Code, that
are evaluated by underwriting models that account for the categories of risk
mitigation.
Comments
This bill takes a multi-faceted approach to wildfire mitigation efforts. The bill
looks at both large-scale community fire prevention and individual home
hardening to combat the dangers of wildfires. While home hardening one home at
a time isn’t going to prevent the next catastrophic wildfire, it may save one home
at a time. Individual homeowners are pouring millions of dollars into hardening
their homes. Similarly, according to the author, we have spent $3.7 billion since
2017 on large-scale mitigation efforts such as hazardous fuel management and
prescribed burns. Landscape-scale forest management as a strategy for large-scale
fire reduction has gained attention and support among experts, policymakers, and
communities. This approach involves managing forests and landscapes on a
broader scale to reduce fire risks and enhance forest resilience. Landscape-scale
forest management allows for proactive management of forests and landscapes to
reduce fuel loads, such as dead wood, underbrush, and overgrown vegetation,
which can act as fuel for wildfires. By creating strategic fuel breaks, clearing fire-
prone vegetation, and implementing controlled burns, landscape-scale forest
management can help reduce the spread and intensity of wildfires. Managing
forests and landscapes on a larger scale can protect entire communities by reducing
the risk of wildfires reaching residential areas and infrastructure. So the question
is, are we spending our resources wisely? This bill attempts to capture whether
these investments are paying off by collecting data from insurance companies that
includes the types and numbers of policy applications and renewals by ZIP Code.
SB 1060
Page 3
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Unknown, potentially absorbable workload to the California Department of
Insurance (CDI) to review insurers’ underwriting models as part of the
department’s current rate filing process (Insurance Fund).
SUPPORT: (Verified 5/17/24)
California State Association of Counties
OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/17/24)
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The California State Association of Counties
contends that it is “critically important that property owners across the state are not
penalized for taking steps, recommended by the state, to protect their communities.
SB 1060 moves the needle in the right direction toward this goal. Counties have
made significant investments in community-wide approaches to increase
compliance with recommended home hardening and defensible space upgrades as
well as major vegetation management and fuel reductions work. All of this has
helped communities become tangibly more resilient to wildfire, and inherently
reduces risk to the insurers. There is no one solution that is going to solve this
crisis, however, we feel that SB 1060 begins to address an important facet of the
issue by accounting for the benefits of risk reduction measures.”
Prepared by: Jill Rice / INS. / (916) 651-4110
5/20/24 18:52:35
**** END ****
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 13, 2024
california legislature—2023–24 regular session
Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 10
Introduced by Assembly Member Haney Aguiar-Curry
(Principal coauthors: Assembly Members Bryan and Kalra)
(Principal coauthor: Senator Wahab)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members McKinnor and Quirk-Silva)
(Coauthors: Senators Blakespear, Gonzalez, and Smallwood-Cuevas)
March 6, 2023
Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 10—A resolution to
propose to the people of the State of California an amendment to the
Constitution of the State, by adding Article XXV thereto, directing the
Secretary of State to make amendments in Assembly Constitutional
Amendment No. 1 (Resolution Chapter 173 of the Statutes of 2023)
relating to housing.
legislative counsel’s digest
ACA 10, as amended, Haney Aguiar-Curry. Fundamental human
right to housing. Local government financing: affordable housing and
public infrastructure: voter approval.
Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 1 of the 2023–24 Regular
Session (ACA 1) would, if adopted by the people, amend Section 4 of
Article XIIIA, Section 2 of Article XIIIC, and Section 3 of Article XIIID
of, and would add Section 2.5 of Article XIII C to, the California
Constitution, relative to local finance. Under these provisions, ACA 1
would condition the imposition, extension, or increase of a sales and
use tax or transactions and use tax imposed in accordance with specified
law or a parcel tax by a local government for the purposes of funding
the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of public
98
infrastructure, affordable housing, including downpayment assistance,
or permanent supportive housing, or the acquisition or lease of real
property for those purposes, on the proposition proposing that tax being
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. ACA 1 would also make conforming changes.
This measure would remove the above-described provisions of ACA
1 relating to special taxes and make conforming changes in other
provisions of ACA 1. The measure would direct the Secretary of State
to make those amendments in ACA 1.
ACA 1 would create an additional exception to the 1% ad valorem
property tax rate limit for an ad valorem tax or special assessment to
pay the interest and redemption charges on bonded indebtedness
incurred by a city, county, or special district, as defined, to fund the
construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of public
infrastructure, affordable housing, including downpayment assistance,
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, city and county, or
special district, as applicable, voting on the proposition on or after the
effective date of ACA 1 and on the proposition including specified
accountability requirements. ACA 1 would provide that this exception
applies to an ad valorem tax for these purposes that is submitted at the
same election as ACA 1.
This measure would specify that the proposition proposing bonded
indebtedness for which an ad valorem tax may be imposed under ACA
1, and any measure imposing an ad valorem tax for these purposes,
may be voted on at the same election as ACA 1 or at a later election
held after the effective date of ACA 1. The measure would also modify
the definition of affordable housing for these purposes to include housing
developments, or portions of housing developments, that are affordable
to individuals, families, seniors, people with disabilities, veterans, or
first-time homebuyers, who are lower income households or
middle-income households earning up to 150% of countywide median
income, capitalized operating reserves, downpayment assistance
programs, first-time homebuyer programs, permanent supportive
housing, as defined, and associated facilities, if used to serve residents
of affordable housing. The measure would also modify the definition
of public infrastructure for these purposes to include, among other
98
— 2 — ACA 10
things, facilities or infrastructure for the delivery of public services,
including education, police, fire protection, parks, recreation, open
space, emergency medical, public health, libraries, flood protection,
streets or highways, public transit, railroad, airports, and seaports.
The measure would make conforming changes and direct the Secretary
of State to make those amendments in ACA 1.
ACA 1 would authorize the Legislature, subject to a 2/3 vote, to enact
laws establishing additional accountability measures consistent with
the purposes and intent of the bonded indebtedness provisions of ACA
1.
This measure would additionally authorize the Legislature, subject
to a 2/3 vote, to enact laws imposing additional conditions or restrictions
on the acquisition or lease of real property for purposes described in
the bonded indebtedness provisions of ACA 1.
ACA 1 would 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. ACA 1 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 ACA 1.
This 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 ACA 1 or at a later election held after the effective
date of ACA 1. The measure would direct the Secretary of State to make
those amendments in ACA 1.
The California Constitution enumerates various personal rights,
including the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, acquiring,
possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety,
happiness, and privacy.
This measure would declare that the state recognizes the fundamental
human right to adequate housing for everyone in California. The
measure would make it the shared obligation of state and local
jurisdictions to respect, protect, and fulfill this right, by all appropriate
means, as specified.
98
ACA 10 — 3 —
Vote: 2⁄3. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
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 directs the
line 5 Secretary of State to make amendments in Assembly Constitutional
line 6 Amendment No. 1 of the 2023–24 Regular Session (Resolution
line 7 Chapter 173 of the Statutes of 2023) by removing Section 4 of
line 8 Article XIII A of, Section 2 of Article XIII C of, and Section 3 of
line 9 Article XIII D of, the Constitution, as proposed to be amended by
line 10 that measure, and by removing Section 2.5 of Article XIIIC of the
line 11 Constitution, as proposed to be added by that measure; and be it
line 12 further
line 13 Resolved, That the Legislature hereby directs the Secretary of
line 14 State to make amendments in Assembly Constitutional Amendment
line 15 No. 1 of the 2023–24 Regular Session (Resolution Chapter 173 of
line 16 the Statutes of 2023) by removing Section 1 of Article XIII A, and
line 17 Section 18 of Article XVI, of the Constitution, as proposed to be
line 18 amended by that measure, and replacing those sections with the
line 19 following Section 1 and Section 18, respectively:
line 20 That Section 1 of Article XIII A thereof is amended to read:
line 21 SECTION 1. (a) The maximum amount of any ad valorem
line 22 tax on real property shall not exceed One 1 percent (1%) of the
line 23 full cash value of such that property. The one 1 percent (1%) tax
line 24 to shall be collected by the counties and apportioned according to
line 25 law to the districts within the counties.
line 26 (b) The limitation provided for in subdivision (a) shall not apply
line 27 to ad valorem taxes or special assessments to pay the interest and
line 28 redemption charges on any of the following:
line 29 (1) Indebtedness approved by the voters prior to before July 1,
line 30 1978.
line 31 (2) Bonded indebtedness for to fund the acquisition or
line 32 improvement of real property approved on or after July 1, 1978,
line 33 by two-thirds of the votes cast by the voters voting on the
line 34 proposition.
line 35 (3) Bonded indebtedness incurred by a school district,
line 36 community college district, or county office of education for the
line 37 construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of
98
— 4 — ACA 10
line 1 school facilities, including the furnishing and equipping of school
line 2 facilities, or the acquisition or lease of real property for school
line 3 facilities, approved by 55 percent of the voters of the district or
line 4 county, as appropriate, voting on the proposition on or after the
line 5 effective date of the measure adding this paragraph. November 8,
line 6 2000. This paragraph shall apply only if the proposition approved
line 7 by the voters and resulting in the bonded indebtedness includes
line 8 all of the following accountability requirements:
line 9 (A) A requirement that the proceeds from the sale of the bonds
line 10 be used only for the purposes specified in Article XIII A, Section
line 11 1(b)(3), this paragraph and not for any other purpose, including
line 12 teacher and administrator salaries and other school operating
line 13 expenses.
line 14 (B) A list of the specific school facilities projects to be funded
line 15 and certification that the school district board, community college
line 16 board, or county office of education has evaluated safety, class
line 17 size reduction, and information technology needs in developing
line 18 that list.
line 19 (C) A requirement that the school district board, community
line 20 college board, or county office of education conduct an annual,
line 21 independent performance audit to ensure that the funds have been
line 22 expended only on the specific projects listed.
line 23 (D) A requirement that the school district board, community
line 24 college board, or county office of education conduct an annual,
line 25 independent financial audit of the proceeds from the sale of the
line 26 bonds until all of those proceeds have been expended for the school
line 27 facilities projects.
line 28 (4) (A) Bonded indebtedness incurred by a city, county, city
line 29 and county, or special district for the construction, reconstruction,
line 30 rehabilitation, or replacement of public infrastructure or affordable
line 31 housing, or the acquisition or lease of real property for public
line 32 infrastructure or affordable housing, approved by 55 percent of
line 33 the voters of the city, county, city and county, or special district,
line 34 as appropriate, voting on the proposition submitted at the same
line 35 election as the measure adding this paragraph or at a later election
line 36 held after the effective date of the measure adding this paragraph.
line 37 This paragraph shall apply only if the proposition approved by
line 38 the voters and resulting in the bonded indebtedness includes all
line 39 of the following accountability requirements:
98
ACA 10 — 5 —
line 1 (i) A requirement that the proceeds from the sale of the bonds
line 2 be used only for the purposes specified in this paragraph, and not
line 3 for any other purpose, including city, county, city and county, or
line 4 special district employee salaries and other operating expenses.
line 5 The administrative cost of the city, county, city and county, or
line 6 special district executing the projects and programs of the
line 7 proposition shall not exceed 5 percent of the proceeds from the
line 8 sale of the bonds.
line 9 (ii) A requirement that the proceeds from the sale of the bonds
line 10 only be spent on projects and programs that serve the jurisdiction
line 11 of the city, county, city and county, or special district.
line 12 (iii) The specific local program or ordinance through which
line 13 projects will be funded and a certification that the city, county,
line 14 city and county, or special district has evaluated alternative
line 15 funding sources.
line 16 (iv) A requirement that the city, county, city and county, or
line 17 special district conduct an annual, independent performance audit
line 18 to ensure that the funds have been expended pursuant to the local
line 19 program or ordinance specified in clause (iii).
line 20 (v) A requirement that the city, county, city and county, or
line 21 special district conduct an annual, independent financial audit of
line 22 the proceeds from the sale of the bonds until all of those proceeds
line 23 have been expended for the public infrastructure or affordable
line 24 housing projects, as applicable.
line 25 (vi) A requirement that the city, county, city and county, or
line 26 special district post the audits required by clauses (iv) and (v) in
line 27 a manner that is easily accessible to the public.
line 28 (vii) A requirement that the audits required by clauses (iv) and
line 29 (v) will be submitted to the California State Auditor for review.
line 30 (viii) (I) A requirement that the city, county, city and county,
line 31 or special district appoint a citizens’ oversight committee to ensure
line 32 that bond proceeds are expended only for the purposes described
line 33 in the measure approved by the voters.
line 34 (II) Members appointed to an oversight committee established
line 35 pursuant to subclause (I) shall receive educational training about
line 36 bonds and fiscal oversight.
line 37 (ix) A requirement that an entity owned or controlled by a local
line 38 official that votes on whether to put a proposition on the ballot
line 39 pursuant to this paragraph will be prohibited from bidding on any
line 40 work funded by the proposition.
98
— 6 — ACA 10
line 1 (B) Notwithstanding any other law, if the voters of the city,
line 2 county, city and county, or special district have previously
line 3 approved a proposition pursuant to this paragraph, the city, county,
line 4 city and county, or special district shall not place a proposition
line 5 on the ballot pursuant to this paragraph until all funds from the
line 6 previous proposition are committed to programs and projects
line 7 listed in the proposition’s specific local program or ordinance
line 8 described in clause (iii) of subparagraph (A).
line 9 (C) (i) The Legislature may, by two-thirds vote, enact laws
line 10 establishing accountability measures in addition to those listed in
line 11 subparagraph (A), provided such laws are consistent with the
line 12 purposes and intent of this paragraph.
line 13 (ii) The Legislature may, by two-thirds vote, enact laws imposing
line 14 additional conditions or restrictions on the acquisition or lease of
line 15 real property for the purposes described in this paragraph.
line 16 (D) The Legislature may, by majority vote, enact laws for the
line 17 downpayment assistance programs established pursuant to this
line 18 paragraph, provided that those laws further the purposes of this
line 19 paragraph.
line 20 (E) For purposes of this paragraph:
line 21 (i) (I) “Affordable housing” shall include housing
line 22 developments, or portions of housing developments, that are
line 23 affordable to individuals, families, seniors, people with disabilities,
line 24 veterans, or first-time homebuyers, who are lower income
line 25 households or middle-income households earning up to 150 percent
line 26 of countywide median income, as those terms are defined in state
line 27 law. Affordable housing shall include capitalized operating
line 28 reserves, as the term is defined in state law.
line 29 (II) “Affordable housing” shall also include any of the
line 30 following:
line 31 (ia) Downpayment assistance programs.
line 32 (ib) First-time homebuyer programs.
line 33 (ic) Permanent supportive housing, including, but not limited
line 34 to, housing for persons at risk of chronic homelessness, including,
line 35 but not limited to, persons with mental illness.
line 36 (id) Associated facilities, if used to serve residents of affordable
line 37 housing.
line 38 (ii) “At risk of chronic homelessness” includes, but is not limited
line 39 to, persons who are at high risk of long-term or intermittent
line 40 homelessness, including persons with mental illness exiting
98
ACA 10 — 7 —
line 1 institutionalized settings, including, but not limited to, jail and
line 2 mental health facilities, who were homeless prior to admission,
line 3 transition age youth experiencing homelessness or with significant
line 4 barriers to housing stability, and others, as defined in program
line 5 guidelines.
line 6 (iii) “Permanent supportive housing” means housing with no
line 7 limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the target population,
line 8 and that is linked to onsite or offsite services that assist residents
line 9 in retaining the housing, improving their health status, and
line 10 maximizing their ability to live and, when possible, work in the
line 11 community.
line 12 (iv) “Public infrastructure” shall include all of the following:
line 13 (I) Facilities or infrastructure for the delivery of public services,
line 14 including education, police, fire protection, parks, recreation,
line 15 open space, emergency medical, public health, libraries, flood
line 16 protection, streets or highways, public transit, railroad, airports,
line 17 and seaports.
line 18 (II) Utility, common carrier or other similar projects, including
line 19 energy-related, communication-related, water-related, and
line 20 wastewater-related facilities or infrastructure.
line 21 (III) Projects identified by the State or local government for
line 22 recovery from natural disasters.
line 23 (IV) Equipment related to fire suppression, emergency response
line 24 equipment, or interoperable communications equipment for direct
line 25 and exclusive use by fire, emergency response, police, or sheriff
line 26 personnel.
line 27 (V) Projects that provide protection of property from sea level
line 28 rise.
line 29 (VI) Projects that provide public broadband internet access
line 30 service expansion in underserved areas.
line 31 (VII) Private uses incidental to, or necessary for, the public
line 32 infrastructure.
line 33 (v) “Special district” has the same meaning as provided in
line 34 subdivision (c) of Section 1 of Article XIII C and specifically
line 35 includes a transit district, a regional transportation commission,
line 36 and an association of governments, except that “special district”
line 37 does not include a school district, redevelopment agency, or
line 38 successor agency to a dissolved redevelopment agency.
line 39 (F) This paragraph shall apply to any city, county, city and
line 40 county, or special district measure imposing an ad valorem tax to
98
— 8 — ACA 10
line 1 pay the interest and redemption charges on bonded indebtedness
line 2 for those purposes described in this paragraph that is submitted
line 3 at the same election as the measure adding this paragraph or at
line 4 a later election held after the effective date of the measure adding
line 5 this paragraph.
line 6 (c) (1) Notwithstanding any other provisions of law or of this
line 7 Constitution, a school districts, district, community college
line 8 districts, and district, or county offices office of education may
line 9 levy a 55 percent 55-percent vote ad valorem tax pursuant to
line 10 paragraph (3) of subdivision (b).
line 11 (2) Notwithstanding any other provisions of law or this
line 12 Constitution, a city, county, city and county, or special district
line 13 may levy a 55-percent vote ad valorem tax pursuant to paragraph
line 14 (4) of subdivision (b).
line 15 That Section 18 of Article XVI thereof is amended to read:
line 16 SEC. 18. (a) No A county, city, town, township, board of
line 17 education, or school district, shall not incur any indebtedness or
line 18 liability in any manner or for any purpose exceeding in any year
line 19 the income and revenue provided for such that year, without the
line 20 assent of two-thirds of the voters of the public entity voting at an
line 21 election to be held for that purpose, except that with respect to any
line 22 such public entity which that is authorized to incur indebtedness
line 23 for public school purposes, any proposition for the incurrence of
line 24 indebtedness in the form of general obligation bonds for the
line 25 purpose of repairing, reconstructing reconstructing, or replacing
line 26 public school buildings determined, in the manner prescribed by
line 27 law, to be structurally unsafe for school use, shall be adopted upon
line 28 the approval of a majority of the voters of the public entity voting
line 29 on the proposition at such the election; nor unless before or at the
line 30 time of incurring such indebtedness provision shall be made for
line 31 the collection of an annual tax sufficient to pay the interest on such
line 32 indebtedness as it falls due, and to provide for a sinking fund for
line 33 the payment of the principal thereof, on or before maturity, which
line 34 shall not exceed forty 40 years from the time of contracting the
line 35 indebtedness. A special district, other than a board of education
line 36 or school district, shall not incur any indebtedness or liability
line 37 exceeding any applicable statutory limit, as prescribed by the
line 38 statutes governing the special district as they currently read or
line 39 may thereafter be amended by the Legislature.
98
ACA 10 — 9 —
line 1 (b) (1) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), on or after the effective
line 2 date of the measure adding this subdivision, in the case of any
line 3 school district, community college district, or county office of
line 4 education, any proposition for the incurrence of indebtedness in
line 5 the form of general obligation bonds for the construction,
line 6 reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of school facilities,
line 7 including the furnishing and equipping of school facilities, or the
line 8 acquisition or lease of real property for school facilities, purposes
line 9 described in paragraph (3) or (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 1
line 10 of Article XIIIA shall be adopted upon the approval of 55 percent
line 11 of the voters of the district or county, school district, community
line 12 college district, county office of education, city, county, city and
line 13 county, or other special district, as appropriate, voting on the
line 14 proposition at an election. This subdivision shall apply only to a
line 15 proposition for the incurrence of indebtedness in the form of
line 16 general obligation bonds for the purposes specified in this
line 17 subdivision only if the proposition meets all of the accountability
line 18 requirements of paragraph (3) or (4) of subdivision (b) (b), as
line 19 appropriate, of Section 1 of Article XIII A.
line 20 (2) The amendments made to this subdivision by the measure
line 21 adding this paragraph shall apply to any proposition for the
line 22 incurrence of indebtedness in the form of general obligation bonds
line 23 pursuant to this subdivision for the purposes described in
line 24 paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 1 of Article XIIIA that
line 25 is submitted at the same election as the measure adding this
line 26 paragraph or at a later election held after the effective date of the
line 27 measure adding this paragraph.
line 28 (c) When two or more propositions for incurring any
line 29 indebtedness or liability are submitted at the same election, the
line 30 votes cast for and against each proposition shall be counted
line 31 separately, and when if two-thirds or a majority or 55 percent of
line 32 the voters, as the case may be, voting on any one of those
line 33 propositions, vote in favor thereof, the proposition shall be deemed
line 34 adopted.
line 35 Resolved by the Assembly, the Senate concurring, That the
line 36 Legislature of the State of California at its 2023–24 Regular
line 37 Session commencing on the fifth day of December 2022, two-thirds
line 38 of the membership of each house concurring, hereby proposes to
line 39 the people of the State of California, that the Constitution of the
line 40 State be amended as follows:
98
— 10 — ACA 10
line 1 That Article XXV is added thereto, to read:
line 2
line 3 ARTICLE XXV
line 4 Right to Housing
line 5
line 6 SECTION 1. The state hereby recognizes the fundamental
line 7 human right to adequate housing for everyone in California. It is
line 8 the shared obligation of state and local jurisdictions to respect,
line 9 protect, and fulfill this right, on a non-discriminatory and equitable
line 10 basis, with a view to progressively achieve the full realization of
line 11 the right, by all appropriate means, including the adoption and
line 12 amendment of legislative measures, to the maximum of available
line 13 resources.
O
98
ACA 10 — 11 —
ACA 10
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
ACA 10 (Aguiar-Curry)
As Amended June 13, 2024
2/3 vote
SUMMARY
Directs the Secretary of State to make specified amendments to Assembly Constitutional
Amendment (ACA) 1 (Aguiar-Curry), Chapter 173, Statutes of 2023.
Major Provisions
1) Directs the Secretary of State to make amendments to ACA 1 by removing the provisions
related to special taxes.
2) Directs the Secretary of State to make amendments to the bond provisions of ACA 1,
including:
a) Allow the Legislature, subject to a 2/3 vote, to enact laws imposing additional conditions
or restrictions on the acquisition or lease of real property for purposes described in the
bond provisions of ACA 1.
b) Modify the definitions of affordable housing and public infrastructure, as specified.
c) Clarify that the 55% vote threshold applies to any proposition for the incurrence of
indebtedness by a city, county, city and county, or special district that is submitted at the
same election as ACA 1 or at a later election held after the effective date of ACA 1.
d) Make other technical, clarifying, and conforming changes.
COMMENTS
Bonds. Article XVI, Section 18 of the California Constitution generally prohibits cities, counties,
and school districts from incurring any debt or liabilities exceeding any year's revenues without
2/3 voter approval. One of the most common reasons local agencies incur debt is to raise
sufficient capital for a project or cost that the local agency does not have sufficient cash on hand
to immediately finance, such as a public infrastructure project, and promise to pay off the
principal and interest on that debt over time. General obligation (GO) bonds, in the local
government context, refer to bonds payable from ad valorem property tax revenue. These
typically require 2/3 voter approval. However, Proposition 39 (2000) amended the Constitution
to decrease the 2/3 approval requirement to 55% for school districts, community college districts,
or county offices of education, to issue GO bonds for the construction or rehabilitation of school
facilities.
Limitations on Special Taxes. The California Constitution states that taxes local governments
levy are either general taxes, subject to majority voter approval, or special taxes, subject to 2/3
vote (Article XIII C), which local agencies use for specified purposes. Proposition 13 (1978)
required a 2/3 vote of each house of the Legislature for state tax increases, and 2/3 vote for local
special taxes. Proposition 62 (1986) prohibited local agencies from imposing general taxes
without majority approval of local voters. Proposition 218 (1996) extended those vote thresholds
to charter cities and limited local agencies' powers to levy new assessments, fees, and taxes. If
ACA 10
Page 2
approved by the voters, ACA 1 would currently provide the authority for local governments to
issue GO bonds and impose special taxes with a 55% voter threshold. However, this measure,
ACA 10, removes from ACA 1 the authority for local governments to impose special taxes with
a 55% voter threshold.
ACA 1. ACA 1 (Aguiar-Curry) was adopted by the legislature last year. If approved by the voters
at the November 2024 election, ACA 1 would lower the vote threshold from a 2/3 supermajority
to 55% to approve local (city, county, and special district) GO bonds and certain special taxes for
affordable housing, public infrastructure, and permanent supportive housing projects, and defines
those terms. ACA 1 also requires the proposition submitted to the voters to contain certain
accountability provisions including a requirement that the proceeds from the bonds or taxes only
be used for the purposes specified in the ACA, and not for employee salaries or other operating
expenses.
The local ballot proposition must include the specific local program or ordinance through which
projects will be funded and a certification that the city, county, or special district has evaluated
alternative funding sources. It must also include a requirement that the city, county, or special
district conduct both an annual performance audit and an independent financial audit. The local
proposition must also include a requirement that a city, county, or special district post the audits
in a manner that is easily accessible to the public. Lastly, a citizens' oversight committee must
also be appointed to ensure that the proceeds of the bonds or special taxes are expended only for
the purposes described in the measure approved by the voters, among other requirements.
According to the Author
'ACA 10 will remove the Special Taxes from ACA 1 on the ballot this November.'
Arguments in Support
According to the California Professional Firefighters, co-sponsors of this measure, 'ACA 10
would amend ACA 1, already qualified for the November ballot, to remove special taxes from
the measure. As a result, ACA 1, as amended by ACA 10, would ask the voters to consider
whether the vote threshold for bonded indebtedness for affordable housing and public
infrastructure should be reduced from two-thirds to 55%...
'ACA 1 will put to the voters of California the question as to whether it is appropriate to reduce
the voter threshold for local infrastructure, housing, and public safety facilities and equipment to
55% from the current two-thirds threshold. ACA 10 would remove special taxes from ACA 1 so
the voters only consider reducing the vote threshold for bonded indebtedness. Over the last
several years, various public safety-specific tax and bond measures have appeared on local
ballots up and down our state and received more than 55% majority vote in support but failed to
attain the existing two-thirds voter approval. If passed by the voters, ACA 1, as amended by
ACA 10, has the potential to radically improve the funding for critical projects throughout the
state, and improve the lives, health, and safety of all Californians.'
Arguments in Opposition
According to the California Stormwater Quality Association in an oppose unless amended
position, 'Many communities can achieve local voter approval at the 55% threshold, yet struggle
to meet the substantially higher barrier of a two-thirds approval. ACA 1 rightfully aligns the
voter approval threshold for new public infrastructure to 55%, consistent with the existing
threshold established in the California Constitution for school districts. Status quo, as proposed
ACA 10
Page 3
by ACA 10, ensures that this critical infrastructure will continue to lag behind, falling short of
providing these fundamental services and meeting local community needs...
'CASQA respectfully requests that ACA 10 be amended to 1) include stormwater in the
definition of public infrastructure and 2) restore the provisions of ACA 1 pertaining to special
taxes. This is aligned with the Legislative intent of ACA 1, approved by a supermajority vote in
the Legislature.'
FISCAL COMMENTS
Unknown.
VOTES
ASM HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 6-2-0
YES: Wicks, Wendy Carrillo, Gabriel, Kalra, Quirk-Silva, Ward
NO: Joe Patterson, Sanchez
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-4-0
YES: Wicks, Arambula, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Grayson, Haney, Hart,
Pellerin, Villapudua
NO: Sanchez, Dixon, Jim Patterson, Ta
UPDATED
VERSION: June 13, 2024
CONSULTANT: Jimmy MacDonald / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958 FN: 0003546
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
ACA 1
THIRD READING
Bill No: ACA 1
Author: Aguiar-Curry (D), Berman (D), Haney (D), Lee (D) and Wicks (D), et
al.
Amended: 9/5/23 in Assembly
Vote: 27
SENATE ELECTIONS & C.A. COMMITTEE: 5-2, 9/11/23
AYES: Glazer, Allen, McGuire, Menjivar, Umberg
NOES: Nguyen, Newman
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 9/12/23
AYES: Portantino, Ashby, Bradford, Wahab, Wiener
NOES: Jones, Seyarto
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 55-12, 9/6/23 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Local government financing: affordable housing and public
infrastructure: voter approval
SOURCE: California Professional Firefighters
California State Building and Construction Trades Council
DIGEST: This constitutional amendment, subject to voter approval, allows a city,
county, or special district, with 55% voter approval, to incur bonded indebtedness
or impose specified special taxes to fund projects for affordable housing,
permanent supportive housing, or public infrastructure, as specified.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) Defines a “general tax” as any tax imposed for general governmental purposes.
2) Defines a “special tax” as any tax imposed for specific purposes, including a tax
imposed for specific purposes, which is placed into a general fund.
ACA 1
Page 2
3) Specifies that all taxes imposed by any local government shall be deemed to be
either general taxes or special taxes. Special purpose districts or agencies,
including school districts, shall have no power to levy general taxes.
4) Prohibits a local government from imposing, extending, or increasing a general
tax unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a
majority vote.
5) Prohibits a local government from imposing, extending, or increasing a special
tax unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a
two-thirds vote.
6) Authorizes a city, county, or special district, by a two-thirds vote of the
qualified electors of such district, to impose special taxes on such district,
except ad valorem taxes on real property or a transaction or sales tax on the sale
of real property within such city, county, or special district.
7) Caps the maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property at 1% of the
property’s full cash value. Provides that this limitation does not apply to ad
valorem taxes or special assessments to pay the interest and redemption charges
on bonded indebtedness for the acquisition or improvement of real property
approved on or after July 1, 1978, by two-thirds of the votes cast by the voters
voting on the proposition, or bonded indebtedness incurred by a school district,
community college district, or county office of education for the construction,
reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of school facilities, approved by
55% of the voters of the district or county. Provides that any such proposition
relating to school facilities must include specified accountability requirements,
including an annual, independent performance audit.
8) Provides that every constitutional amendment, bond measure, or other
legislative measure submitted to the people by the Legislature shall appear on
the ballot of the first statewide election occurring at least 131 days after the
adoption of the proposal by the Legislature.
9) Provides that a proposed amendment or revision to the California Constitution,
if approved by a majority of votes cast thereon, takes effect on the fifth day
after the Secretary of State files the statement of the vote for the election at
which the measure is voted on, but the measure may provide that it becomes
operative after its effective date.
ACA 1
Page 3
This constitutional amendment:
1) Allows a city, county, city and county, or special district to incur indebtedness
in the form of general obligation bonds to fund the construction, reconstruction,
rehabilitation, or replacement of public infrastructure, affordable housing, or
permanent supportive housing for persons at risk of chronic homelessness,
including persons with mental illness, or the acquisition or lease of real property
for public infrastructure, affordable housing, or permanent supportive housing
for persons at risk of chronic homelessness, including persons with mental
illness, to be approved by 55% of the voters voting on the proposition on or
after the effective date of the measure adding this provision. This provision
shall apply only if the proposition approved by the voters and resulting in the
bonded indebtedness all of the specified accountability requirements, including:
a) A requirement that the proceeds from the sale of the bonds be used only for
the purposes specified in 1) above, and not for any other purpose, including
city, county, city and county, or special district employee salaries and other
operating expenses. Provides that the administrative costs shall not exceed
5% of the proceeds from the sale of the bonds.
b) The specific local program or ordinance through which projects will be
funded and a certification that the city, county, city and county, or special
district has evaluated alternative funding sources.
c) A requirement that the city, county, city and county, or special district
conduct an annual, independent performance audit to ensure that the funds
have been expended pursuant to the local program or ordinance specified in
b) above.
d) A requirement that the city, county, city and county, or special district
conduct an annual, independent financial audit of the proceeds from the sale
of bonds until all of those proceeds have been expended for the public
infrastructure or affordable housing projects, as applicable.
e) A requirement the above audits be submitted to the California State Auditor
for review.
f) A requirement that the city, county, city and county, or special district post
the audits in a manner that is easily accessible to the public.
g) A requirement that the city, county, city and county, or special district
appoint a citizens’ oversight committee to ensure that bond proceeds are
expended only for the purposes described in the measure approved by the
ACA 1
Page 4
voters. Members appointed to an oversight committee shall receive financial
educational training.
h) A requirement that proceeds from the sale of the bonds only be spent on
projects and programs that serve the jurisdiction of the city, county, city and
county, or special district.
i) A requirement that an entity owned or controlled by a local official that
votes on whether to put a proposition on the ballot will be prohibited from
bidding on any work funded by the proposition.
2) Specifies that a city, county, city and county, or special district may levy a 55%
vote ad valorem tax pursuant to 1), above.
3) Specifies that the imposition, extension, or increase of a sales and use tax, a
transactions and use tax, or a parcel tax imposed by a local government for the
purposes of funding the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or
replacement of public infrastructure, affordable housing, or permanent
supportive housing for persons at risk of chronic homelessness, including
persons with mental illness, or the acquisition or lease of real property for
infrastructure, affordable housing, or permanent supportive housing for persons
at risk of chronic homelessness, including persons with mental illness, is subject
to approval by 55% of the voters in the local government voting on the
proposition, if both of the following conditions are met:
a) The proposition is approved by a majority of the membership of the
governing board of the local government.
b) The proposition contains similar accountability requirements as 1) above.
4) Limits the number of propositions authorized by the measure a local
government can place on the ballot until all funds from a proposition have been
committed, as specified.
5) Authorizes the Legislature, by two-thirds vote, to enact laws establishing
accountability measures in addition to those listed in this measure provided
such laws are consistent with this constitutional amendment.
6) Specifies that the Legislature may, by majority vote, enact laws for the
downpayment assistance programs, as specified.
7) Specifies that a special district, other than a board of education or school
district, shall not incur any indebtedness or liability exceeding any applicable
ACA 1
Page 5
statutory limit, as prescribed by the statutes governing the special district as
they currently read or may thereafter be amended by the Legislature.
8) Allows the voter approval thresholds specified above in 1) and 3), above, to
apply to a local measure imposing, extending, or increasing a sales and use tax,
a transactions and use tax, a parcel tax, or general obligation bonded
indebtedness for the purposes specified above, submitted to voters at the same
election as ACA 1.
9) Provides that in the event that this constitutional amendment and another
measure or measures relating to state or local requirements for the imposition,
adoption, creation, or establishment of taxes, charges, and other revenue
measures shall appear on the same statewide election ballot, the other measure
or measures shall be deemed to be in conflict with this measure. In the event
that this constitutional amendment receives a greater number of affirmative
votes, the provisions of this measure shall prevail in their entirety, and the
provisions of the other measure or measures shall be null and void.
Background
Special Taxes. The California Constitution states that taxes local governments
levy are either general taxes, subject to majority voter approval, or special taxes,
subject to two-thirds vote (Article XIII C), which local agencies use for specified
purposes. Proposition 13 (1978) required a two-thirds vote of each house of the
Legislature for state tax increases, and two-thirds vote for local special taxes.
Proposition 62 (1986) prohibited local agencies from imposing general taxes
without majority approval of local voters. Proposition 218 (1996) extended those
vote thresholds to charter cities and limited local agencies’ powers to levy new
assessments, fees, and taxes.
Bonds. Article XVI, Section 18 of the California Constitution generally prohibits
cities, counties, and school districts from incurring any debt or liabilities exceeding
any year’s revenues without two-thirds voter approval. One of the most common
reasons local agencies incur debt is to raise sufficient capital for a project or cost
that the local agency does not have sufficient cash on hand to immediately finance,
such as a public infrastructure project, and promise to pay off the principal and
interest on that debt over time. General obligation bonds, in the local government
context, refer to bonds payable from ad valorem property tax revenue. These
typically require two-thirds voter approval. However, Proposition 39 (2000)
amended the Constitution to decrease the two-thirds approval requirement to 55%
percent for school districts, community college districts, or county offices of
ACA 1
Page 6
education, to issue general obligation bonds for the construction or rehabilitation of
school facilities.
Comments
According to the author, under current law, local officials propose a local bond or
special tax, and then it is up to the voters in that community to decide whether they
support the idea or not. Local governments and local voters know best what their
communities need. In some neighborhoods, this means a new library or fire
station; in others this means an increase in the affordable housing stock, or
connecting their constituents to municipal broadband service. These investment
initiatives often fail to reach the legal requirement of a two-thirds vote, a threshold
under which opponents’ votes count twice as much as those community members
who support infrastructure investments.
ACA 1 will empower local governments to address local priorities without needing
to wait for state and federal funding initiatives. Voters would still need to
overwhelmingly support a bond or special tax in order for it to be approved with 55
percent of the vote.
ACA 1 will level the playing field and create parity between school districts and
cities, counties, and special districts, so that all local governments have a viable
financing tool to address community needs. It also contains historic transparency
and accountability measures, including a specific expenditure plan for the projects
and programs proposed, annual financial and performance audits which are
reviewed by the Bureau of State Audits, monitoring by a citizens’ commission with
members who’ve received financial training to assure resources are being spent as
proposed, and a cap on the administrative expenses at 5%.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, this constitutional amendment
would result in one-time General Fund costs to the Secretary of State in the range
of $738,000 to $984,000, likely in 2023-24, for printing and mailing costs to place
the measure on the ballot in a statewide election. Actual costs may be higher or
lower, depending on the length of required elements and the overall size of the
ballot.
SUPPORT: (Verified 9/12/23)
California Professional Firefighters (co-source)
California State Building and Construction Trades Council (co-source)
AARP California
ACA 1
Page 7
Abode Communities
Abundant Housing LA
Affirmed Housing
AIDS Healthcare Foundation
All Home
Alta Housing
American Council of Engineering Companies, California
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO
American Planning Association
American Society of Civil Engineers
Associated General Contractors, California Chapter
Association of Bay Area Governments – Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Brilliant Corners
California Alliance for Jobs
California Asphalt Pavement Association
California Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies
California Association of Recreation and Park Districts
California Association of Resource Conservation Districts
California Conference of Carpenters
California Construction and Industrial Materials Assoc.
California Democratic Party
California Fire Chiefs Association
California Housing Consortium
California Housing Partnership
California IATSE Council
California Labor Federation
California Library Association
California School Employees Association
California Special Districts Association
California State Association of Counties
California State Association of Electrical Workers
California State Council of Laborers
California Stormwater Quality Association
California Transit Association
California YIMBY
Canal Alliance
Circulate San Diego
City and County of San Francisco
City of Alameda
City of Belmont
ACA 1
Page 8
City of Emeryville
City of Fremont
City of Glendale
City of Half Moon Bay
City of Hayward
City of Kingsburg
City of Long Beach
City of Oakland
City of Palo Alto
City of Petaluma
City of Redwood City
City of San Diego
City of San Luis Obispo
City of Santa Monica
City of Santa Rosa
City of Soledad
City of Tulare
City of Walnut Creek
City of West Hollywood
City of West Sacramento
City of Winters
CivicWell
College Democrats of Sacramento State University
Council of Community Housing Organizations
County of Marin
County of Mono
County of Santa Clara
County of Yolo
Desert Recreation District
Destination: Home
Devine & Gong, Inc.
District Hospital Leadership Forum
EAH Housing
East Bay for Everyone
East Bay Housing Associations
East Bay Municipal Utility District
East Bay YIMBY
Eden Housing
Enterprise
Evolve California
ACA 1
Page 9
Fire Districts Association of California
Generation Housing
Grow the Richmond
Habitat for Humanity California
Housing Crisis Action
Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County
Housing Trust Silicon Valley
How To ADU
International Union of Operating Engineers, Cal-Nevada Conference
League of California Cities
League of Women Voters of California
Local Initiatives Support Corporation Bay Area
Mercy Housing California
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
MidPen Housing Corporation
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Mission Housing Development Corporation
Monterey Bay Economic Partnership
Mountain View YIMBY
Move LA
Mutual Housing California
Napa-Solano for Everyone
Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California
Nor Cal Carpenters Union
North Bay Leadership Council
Northern Neighbors
Old Valley Homes and Loans
PATH
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board
Peninsula for Everyone
People for Housing Orange County
Professional Engineers in California Government
Progress Noe Valley
Public Policy Advocates
Rebuild SoCal Partnership
Regional Asthma Management and Prevention
Resources for Community Development
Rural County Representatives of California
San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association
San Francisco Foundation
ACA 1
Page 10
San Francisco Housing Accelerator Fund
San Francisco Housing Development Corporation
San Francisco YIMBY
San Joaquin Valley Housing Collaborative
San Luis Obispo YIMBY
San Mateo County Transit District
San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Santa Cruz YIMBY
Santa Rosa YIMBY
Save the Bay
Seifel Consulting, Inc.
Sierra Business Council
SLO Co YIMBY
Solano Transportation Authority
Sonoma County Area Agency on Aging
South Bay YIMBY
South Side Forward
Southern California Contractors Association
St. Mary’s Center
State Building and Construction Trades Council of California
Streets for People
SV@HomeActionFund
Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corp.
Transportation California
Tri-Valley Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and the Town of
Danville
United Contractors
United Way Bay Area
Urban Counties of California
Urban Environmentalists
Valley Water
Ventura County YIMBY
Washington Hospital Healthcare System
Western Center on Law and Poverty
Western Regional Association for Pavement Preservation
YIMBY Action
OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/12/23)
Affordable Housing Management Association – Pacific Southwest
ACA 1
Page 11
Alameda County Taxpayers Association
Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles
Apartment Association of Orange County
Apartment Owners Association of America, California
Building Owners and Managers Association
California Association of Realtors
California Attractions and Parks Association
California Business Properties Association
California Cattlemen’s Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Independent Petroleum Association
California Land Title Association
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
California Railroads
California Rental Housing Association
California Retailers Association
California Self Storage Association
California Taxpayer Association
California Taxpayer Protection Committee
Catalysts for Local Control
Central Coast Taxpayers Association
Central Valley Taxpayers Association
Coalition of Labor, Agriculture, and Business, Santa Barbara County
Coalition of Sensible Taxpayers
Contra Costa Taxpayers Association
East Bay Rental Housing Association
Escrow Institute of California
Family Business Association of California
Glendora Chamber of Commerce
Greater San Fernando Valley Chamber of Commerce
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Kern County Taxpayers Association
Laguna Niguel Chamber of Commerce
NAIOP: Commercial Real Estate Development Association
National Federation of Independent Businesses
Orange County Business Council
Orange County Taxpayers Association
Placer County Taxpayers Association
San Diego Tax Fighters
San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership
ACA 1
Page 12
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association
Solano County Taxpayers Association
Southern California Rental Housing Association
Sutter County Taxpayers Association
United Hospital Association
Valley Industry and Commerce Association
Ventura County Taxpayers Association
Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 55-12, 9/6/23
AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alvarez, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman,
Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes,
Connolly, Mike Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Haney, Hart, Holden,
Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein,
McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan,
Pellerin, Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio,
Santiago, Ting, Villapudua, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert
Rivas
NOES: Alanis, Megan Dahle, Dixon, Essayli, Vince Fong, Gallagher, Hoover,
Mathis, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Sanchez, Ta
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bains, Chen, Davies, Flora, Grayson, Lackey, Petrie-
Norris, Ramos, Schiavo, Soria, Valencia, Waldron, Wallis
Prepared by: Scott Matsumoto / E. & C.A. / (916) 651-4106
9/13/23 11:29:20
**** END ****
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
June 10, 2024
The Honorable David Alvarez California State Assembly 1021 O Street, Suite 5320 Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 1886 (Alvarez) Housing Element Law: Substantial Compliance: Housing Accountability Act Tri-Valley Cities Coalition – Notice of Opposition
Dear Assembly Member Alvarez,
On behalf of the Tri-Valley Cities Coalition, we regretfully oppose AB 1886 (Alvarez), which aims
to change existing law concerning cities' compliance with housing element requirements. We believe this bill will ultimately hinder cities' efforts to create comprehensive housing plans.
For decades, cities have worked closely with the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to develop extensive housing plans that address their fair share of housing needs across all income levels. These complex plans often take years to complete, involving significant public participation and environmental reviews. Despite occasional disagreements with HCD, cities strive to ensure their housing elements substantially comply with the law. Current law acknowledges these efforts by allowing cities to "self-certify" their housing elements or seek a judicial determination of compliance.
The Builder's Remedy, intended as a powerful tool to encourage housing in cities that are not building enough, was largely unused for decades. This provision prevents a city without a compliant housing element from denying a project based on its zoning code or general plan.
Recently, support for more housing has shifted the power dynamic between local governments and developers, leading to a significant increase in Builder's Remedy projects. Unfortunately, this has also led to lawsuits when cities erroneously reject projects using self-certification arguments,
a problem stemming from unclear compliance codes.
AB 1886 seeks to address this issue by clarifying that HCD's determination of compliance triggers
the Builder's Remedy. Under this bill, development standards only apply if a city is in compliance, and Builder's Remedy projects remain eligible if the application was submitted while the city was not in compliance. However, by eliminating self-certification, AB 1886 encourages the proliferation of Builder's Remedy projects, allowing developers to bypass designated sites for affordable housing and construct projects inconsistent with a city's general plan and zoning. This bill facilitates such projects even when cities have a valid, evidence-based disagreement with HCD.
The Tri-Valley Cities Coalition believes that AB 1886 is counterproductive and does not address the core issue: the need for HCD to collaborate with cities to provide clear, actionable guidance for finalizing housing elements.
For these reasons, the Tri-Valley Cities Coalition opposes AB 1886 (Alvarez).
ATTACHMENT B
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
Sincerely,
______________________ ____________________
City of Pleasanton City of San Ramon Mayor Karla Brown Mayor David E. Hudson
cc: Senator Steve Glazer Assembly Member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
__________________ ____________________ ____________________ Town of Danville City of Dublin City of Livermore Mayor Karen Stepper Mayor Michael McCorriston Mayor John Marchand
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
June 10, 2024
The Honorable Buffy Wicks
California State Assembly
1021 O Street, Suite 8140
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: AB 2243 (Wicks) Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022: objective
standards and affordability and site criteria (As Amended 4.18.2024)
Tri-Valley Cities Coalition – Letter of Opposition Unless Amended
Dear Assembly Member Wicks,
On behalf of the Tri-Valley Cities Coalition which includes the cities of Dublin, Livermore,
Pleasanton, San Ramon, and the Town of Danville, we wish to express our respectful opposition
to AB 2243, unless amended to address some of the concerns we have listed below.
This bill will make changes to the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022 (AB 2011)
including expanding where it applies. As you know, our respective community development
departments have been working tirelessly to learn and implement elements of AB 2011 and a
myriad of other housing and land use-related bills from the past couple of years. Making such
comprehensive changes and additions to a bill that was recently chaptered will add a significant
amount of additional burden on our respective cities. Nevertheless, we believe some of the
proposed language in SB 2243 could be tweaked in order to make this bill slightly more palatable
for local governments implementing its provisions, while keeping true to the overall intent and
spirit of the bill.
Our concerns with the bill that we hope to see remedied include the following:
1.The bill prohibits the imposition of new common open space requirements for AB
2011 projects that convert existing space from nonresidential buildings to
residential uses:
a.This presents a real quality of life issue if projects don't provide common open space
areas.
b.The Legislation should not be so restrictive as to completely prohibit these types of
requirements.
ATTACHMENT C
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
2.Regional Mall definition:
a.Change the definition of "Regional Mall" to increase its minimum size requirements
and ensure a single operator.
b.Specifically, amendments as follows:
(s) “Regional mall” means a site that meets all of the following criteria on the date that
a development proponent submits an application pursuant to this chapter:
(1) The permitted uses on the site include at least 250,000 500,000 square feet of
retail use.
(2) At least two-thirds of the permitted uses on the site are retail uses.
(3) At least two of the permitted retail uses on the site are at least 10,000 20,000
square feet and of a regional-serving nature.
(4) The site, buildings, and common areas are owned, operated, and managed by a
single commercial entity, but individual tenant spaces may be leased, rented or
otherwise sublet to other parties.
3.Use by right definition:
a.Ensure that a project is only ministerial if the project does not cause public health
and safety impacts, as determined by a local Building Official.
b.Specifically, amendments as follows:
(u) “Use by right” means a development project for which all both of the following are
true:
(1) The development project is not subject to a conditional use permit, planned unit
development permit, or any other discretionary local government approval, permit, or
review process.
(2) No aspect of the development project is a “project” for purposes of Division 13
(commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.
(3) The development project would not have a specific, adverse impact, as defined in
paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon public health and safety, as
determined by a local government Building Official.
4.CEQA:
a.Ensure that any Ordinance a city adopts to comply with this bill is not subject to
CEQA.
b.Specifically, amendments as follows:
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
(i) If the development is consistent with all objective subdivision standards in the local
subdivision ordinance, an application for a subdivision pursuant to the Subdivision
Map Act (Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410)) shall be exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing
with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code).
(j) A local government may, by ordinance adopted to implement this article, exempt a
parcel from this section before a development proponent submits a development
application on a parcel pursuant to this article.
(1) The adoption of an ordinance to implement this article shall not constitute a
“project” for purposes of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public
Resources Code.
(2) if the local government makes A local government may adopt such an ordinance
only after making written findings establishing all of the following:
5. Change the definition of "Office Building" to ensure the site contains only office
uses and is located in an office zone:
a. It is imperative that we do not get rid of space where there is the opportunity for
development outside of office use, even if office space is the principal usage. Our
communities deserve to retain a degree of creativity to revitalize spaces for community
benefit, aside from only housing uses.
b. Specifically, amendments to Section 65912.121 of the Government Code as follows:
(c) The project site complies with either of the following:
(1) The project site abuts a commercial corridor and has a frontage along the
commercial corridor of a minimum of 50 feet.
(2) The project site is located in a zone where office uses are principally permitted,
contains an existing office building, and only contains office uses.
Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to engaging further with you and your staff
on the concerns we have.
Sincerely,
______________________ ____________________
City of Pleasanton City of San Ramon
Mayor Karla Brown Mayor David E. Hudson
__________________ ____________________ ____________________ Town of Danville City of Dublin City of Livermore
Mayor Karen Stepper Mayor Michael McCorriston Mayor John Marchand
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
CC: Senator Steven Glazer
Assembly Member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan