HomeMy WebLinkAbout08242024 - 3.1
LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE MEMORANDUM 3.1
TO: Mayor and Town Council August 27, 2024
SUBJECT: August Legislative Report
BACKGROUND
The Legislature reconvened from summer recess on August 5. Prior to breaking for
recess, policy committees had until July 3 to advance bills. Appropriations committees
had until August 16 to act on bills marked as having a fiscal impact on the State. 499 bills
(78% of total introduced) made it through the Senate and 933 bills (61%) advanced from
the Assembly. Floor hearings will take place August 19 through August 31, the last day
for each house to pass bills to for the Governor’s consideration. Governor Newsom will
have until September 30 to sign or veto bills passed by the Legislature.
On August 16, Governor Newsom signed 10 bills into law to address rising statewide
retail theft. The Governor stressed the importance of the work done so far and
instrumental partnerships to bring these measures forward, but acknowledged more
work needs to be done in this space. On top of these bills, the state has continued to
dedicate more funding to state and local law enforcement to enhance their response to
retail theft across the state.
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.
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.
August Legislative Update 2 August 27, 2024
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.
Location: This bill will not be moving forward this session.
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: This bill passed through the Legislature and has been approved by the Governor.
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: This measure was held in committee and will not progress to the Senate Floor.
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 a city, county, or city and county 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.
Location: This bill passed through committee and will be scheduled for a floor hearing.
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
August Legislative Update 3 August 27, 2024
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: This bill passed through committee and will be scheduled for a floor hearing.
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: This bill passed through committee and will be scheduled for a floor hearing.
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
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: This bill passed through the Senate Appropriations Committee and will be scheduled for
a floor hearing.
TVC Position: Oppose Unless Amended
August Legislative Update 4 August 27, 2024
AB 2485 (Carillo) Regional housing need: determination
This bill requires the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to
take certain actions in determining the existing and projected housing need for each
region through the regional housing needs determination (RHND) process. It would also
require HCD to post its data and methodologies for its regional housing needs
determination process and invite stakeholders to weigh in on the process.
Location: This measure was held in committee and will not progress to the Senate Floor.
TVC Position: Support
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: This bill passed through the Legislature and has been approved by the Governor.
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, until January 1, 2030, a person to be taken into custody,
pursuant to those provisions, by a licensed mental health professional, as defined. This
bill would require a licensed mental health professional who is not direct staff of, or
contracted by, a county to complete a specified training prior to exercising that authority
and would prohibit those licensed mental health professionals from transporting a
person taken into custody pursuant to the above-described provisions unless specifically
authorized by the county to do so.
Location: This measure was held in committee and will not progress to the Assembly Floor.
TVC Position: Support
SB 905 (Wiener) Crimes: theft from 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
August Legislative Update 5 August 27, 2024
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: This bill passed through the Legislature and has been approved by the Governor.
TVC Position: Support
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: This bill failed to meet the policy committee deadline and is marked as inactive for the
remainder of the legislative session.
TVC Position: Watch
SB 1037 (Wiener) Planning and zoning: housing element: enforcement.
This bill allows the Attorney General to take legal action against a city and seek fines up
to $50K a month for violating unspecified state housing laws that require ministerial
approval of certain housing projects or for failing to adopt a housing element that
substantially complies with the law, even if the jurisdiction is acting in good faith.
Location: This bill passed through the Assembly Appropriations Committee and will be scheduled
for a floor hearing.
TVC Position: Oppose
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: This bill failed to pass out of committee and is marked inactive for the remainder of the
legislative session.
TVC Position: Support
November Ballot Measures
ACA 13 (Ward) Voting thresholds.
With the Taxpayer Protection Act off of the November Ballot pursuant to the CA Supreme
Court’s recent decision, the Legislature passed AB 440, which included a provision that
would delay ACA 13’s appearance from November 2024 to November 2026. ACA 13 was
initially introduced as a strategy to make it difficult for the proponents of the Taxpayer
Protection Act to garner enough signatures on the statewide ballot for passage. This
August Legislative Update 6 August 27, 2024
strategy offers some additional insurance, should the Taxpayer Protection Act
proponents seek to qualify a more narrow version of their original initiative to raise voter
thresholds in 2026.
Federal
In May of 2023, S.1514 and H.R.3170, the Homes for Every Local Protector, Educator, and
Responder Act of 2023, or the HELPER Act of 2023, was introduced into Congress. This
bipartisan bill would amend the National Housing Act to establish a first-time
homebuyers mortgage insurance program for firefighters, paramedics, emergency
medical technicians, law enforcement, and teachers that meet specified criteria.
Additional Advocacy Efforts
The Tri-Valley Cities Mayors will meet again on Monday, September 16.
The Tri-Valley Cities Council will also meet September 16. We will hear a legislative
update from the League of California Cities and Townsend Public Affairs.
Conclusion
It is recommended that the Town Council Legislative Sub-Committee accept this report
and direct any questions and/or direction to Town legislative staff.
Prepared by:
Melysa Vander Mel
Economic Development Specialist
Reviewed by:
Joseph Calabrigo
Town Manager
Attachment A – Bill Summaries/Analysis
Attachment B – E-bike/scooter Reform Request Letter
Attachment C – TVC Letter of Support AB 2485
Attachment D – TVC Letter of Opposition SB 1037
Attachment E - TVC Letter of Support Helper Act
Attachment F – 2025 Legislative Committee Meeting Dates
ATTACHMENT A
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: August 5, 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 perso n 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 3
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 is pending on the Senate floor.
AB 1802 (Jones-Sawyer) removes the sunset date on the organized retail theft statute
and the regional property crimes task force. AB 1802 is pending on the Senate floor.
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
is pending on the Senate floor.
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 is pending on the Senate floor.
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 is pending on the Senate floor.
AB 3209 (Berman) establishes a retail theft restraining order, as specified. AB 3209 is
pending on the Senate floor.
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 on the Assembly floor.
AB 1794 (McCarty) Page 3 of 3
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 on the
Assembly floor.
SB 905 (Wiener) creates the new crime of forcibly entering a vehicle with intent to
commit theft therein, as specified. SB 905 is pending on the Assembly floor.
SB 982 (Wahab) removes the sunset date on the organized retail theft statute. SB 982
is pending on the Assembly floor.
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 on
the Assembly floor.
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. Als o, 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. Measures that result in state prison sentences,
like those proposed by this bill, would delay cost savings associated with capacity
reductions.
-- END --
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
AB 1820
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1820
Author: Schiavo (D), et al.
Amended: 6/5/24 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE: 7-0, 6/11/24
AYES: Durazo, Seyarto, Dahle, Glazer, Skinner, Wahab, Wiener
SENATE HOUSING COMMITTEE: 9-0, 7/2/24
AYES: Skinner, Ochoa Bogh, Blakespear, Caballero, Cortese, Padilla, Seyarto,
Umberg, Wahab
NO VOTE RECORDED: Menjivar
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 72-0, 5/21/24 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Housing development projects: applications: fees and exactions
SOURCE: California Building Industry Association
DIGEST: This bill requires local agencies to provide developers with more
information on fees and exactions at various stages of the housing development
approval process.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) Allows local governments to require applicants for development projects to pay
impact fees.
AB 1820
Page 2
2) Requires, under the Mitigation Fee Act, local officials that are establishing,
increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition of approving a development project
to:
a) Identify the fee's purpose.
b) Identify the fee's use, including the public facilities to be financed.
c) Determine a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the
development.
d) Determine a reasonable relationship between the public facility's need and
the development.
e) Determine a reasonable relationship between the fee's amount and the cost
of the public facility.
f) Hold at least one open and public meeting prior to levying a new fee or
increasing an existing one.
g) If they decide 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.
h) Deposit and spend the fees within five years of collecting them.
i) Refund fees or make specific findings on when and how the fees will be
3) Requires local agencies to deposit mitigation fees to fund a capital improvement
associated with a development in a separate account or fund.
4) Requires local agencies that impose mitigation fees to produce an annual report
within 180 days of the end of the fiscal year that includes specified information.
5) Requires a city, county, or special district that has an internet website to post
and update on their websites specified information, including a current schedule
of housing development project costs, zoning ordinances and development
standards, annual impact fee reports, and an archive of specified impact fee
nexus studies.
6) Requires local agencies to conduct and adopt a nexus study prior to the
adoption of an impact fee, and specified standards and practices.
AB 1820
Page 3
7) Provides that cities and counties cannot collect impact fees before they conduct
the final inspection or issue a certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first.
However, utilities can collect impact fees at the time the utility receives an
application for service, which can happen before a final inspection.
8) Prohibits, pursuant to the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330, Skinner, Chapter
654) a local agency from applying new rules or standards to a project after a
preliminary application containing specified information is submitted. The
local agency must also make any required determinations on whether a project
site is a historic site when a complete preliminary application is filed.
9) Requires local agencies to exhaustively list all information needed to make a
development application complete under the Permit Streamlining Act, limits
that list to only those items on the checklist for application required by state
law, and prohibits the local agency from requiring additional information. The
checklist information must also be posted online.
This bill:
1) Provides when a local government requests the fees and exactions associated
with a housing development project, the request shall clearly state that the
development proponent is not required to respond to the request and will not be
subjected to any consequences for not responding or for the content of the
response.
2)
of fees and exactions expected to be imposed in connection with the project.
3) Authorizes a development proponent who submits a preliminary application to
include a request for a preliminary fee and exaction estimate, which the local
government shall provide within 30 business days of the submission of the
preliminary application.
4) Provides that the fee and exaction estimate is for informational purposes and
shall not be legally binding or otherwise affect the scope, amount, or time of
payment of any fee or exaction that is otherwise determined by other provisions
of law.
5) Provides that a proponent may request a fee schedule from a local government
or special district for specified fees or for the cost of providing electrical or gas
service from a local publicly owned utility.
AB 1820
Page 4
6) Requires, upon approval of a housing development project, the local
government to provide the housing development proponent with an itemized list
and a good faith estimate of the total sum amount of all fees and exactions that
will apply to the project within 30 business days.
7) Requires the development proponent to request the good faith estimate of the
total sum amount of all fees and exactions imposed by the agency that will
apply to the project, and the agency shall provide the information within 30
business days. This estimate shall be on the average amount of the fees
imposed in similar projects. This estimate shall be for informational purposes
only.
Background
1) 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.
AB 1820
Page 5
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.
2) Mitigation Fee Act. When imposing a fee as a condition of approving a
development project, the Mitigation Fee Act also requires local officials to
ost of
the public facility. In its 1987 Nollan decision, the U.S. Supreme Court said
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.
Comments
1) Purpose of the bill.
transparency measure that allows housing developers to have knowledge of
development fees prior to commit
2) No free lunch. This bill 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 this bill, 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.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
SUPPORT: (Verified 8/5/24)
California Building Industry Association (Source)
Abundant Housing LA
Bay Area Council
Buildcasa
California Apartment Association
California Builders Alliance
AB 1820
Page 6
California Chamber of Commerce
California Community Builders
California Council for Affordable Housing
California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
California YIMBY
Circulate San Diego
Civicwell
East Bay Leadership Council
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
Fremont for Everyone
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
LeadingAge California
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
AB 1820
Page 7
Sand Hill Property Company
Santa Cruz YIMBY
Santa Rosa YIMBY
Shingle Springs/Cameron Park Chamber of Commerce
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
South Bay YIMBY
Southern California Association of Non-profit Housing
Southside Forward
SPUR
Streets for People
United Chamber Advocacy Network
Urban Environmentalists
Valley Industry and Commerce Association
Ventura County YIMBY
YIMBY Action
Yuba Sutter Chamber of Commerce
OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/5/24)
City of Oceanside
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 72-0, 5/21/24
AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Berman,
Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Chen,
Connolly, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Gallagher,
Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer,
Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor,
Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Joe
Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Luz
Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting,
Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood,
Zbur, Robert Rivas
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bains, Bennett, Cervantes, Megan Dahle, Friedman,
Gabriel, Holden, Mathis
Prepared by: Jonathan Peterson / L. GOV. / (916) 651-4119
8/6/24 16:10:38
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
AB 1886
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1886
Author: Alvarez (D), et al.
Amended: 7/1/24 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE HOUSING COMMITTEE: 8-2, 6/18/24
AYES: Skinner, Blakespear, Caballero, Cortese, Menjivar, Padilla, Umberg,
Wahab
NOES: Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 52-3, 5/20/24 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Housing Element Law: substantial compliance: Housing
Accountability Act
SOURCE: California Building Industry Association
SPUR
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;
AB 1886
Page 2
b)
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 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)
prior to the adoption of its draft element or draft amendment, and provides that
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
AB 1886
Page 3
findings that explain the reasons the legislative body believes that the draft
element or draft amendment substantially complies with housing element
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.
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
AB 1886
Page 4
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:
a)
b) ty to grant zoning changes
and/or variances;
c)
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)
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
AB 1886
Page 5
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
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
subsequent court decision or by statute.
4) Provides, for purposes of the HAA, that for purposes
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.
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
AB 1886
Page 6
or be in the process of finalizing their sixth housing element. 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
-
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.
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
tantial 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. Lastly, if a local government fails to adopt a substantially compliant
.
Housing Accountability Act (HAA) 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
disapprove, or require density reductions in, certain types of residential projects.
AB 1886
Page 7
One such constraint on local governments authority to disprove housing is the
denying a housing development that includes 20% lower-income housing that does
not conform to
has not adopted a compliant housing element.
Comments
1) Self-certification clarification. In order to avoid the penalties and consequences
for failing to comply with housing element law, some local governments have
-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 eliminates arguments made by
local gove -
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 16, 2023,
findi
that its adopted element is in substantial compliance but may provide reasoning
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
SUPPORT: (Verified 8/5/24)
California Building Industry Association (co-source)
SPUR (co-source)
Abundant Housing LA
California Apartment Association
California Building Industry Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Community Builders
AB 1886
Page 8
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 Leadership Council
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
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: (Verified 8/5/24)
California State Association of Counties
Catalysts for Local Control
Cities Association of Santa Clara County
AB 1886
Page 9
City of Belmont
City of Beverly Hills
City of Brentwood
City of Carlsbad
City of Cloverdale
City of Corona
City of Eastvale
City of Elk Grove
City of Fairfield
City of Fullerton
City of Grass Valley
City of Huntington Beach
City of Lake Forest
City of Lakeport
City of Madera
City of Manhattan Beach
City of Norwalk
City of Oakdale
City of Palm Desert
City of Piedmont
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 Solana Beach
City of Torrance
City of Visalia
City of Walnut Creek
City of Yorba Linda
League of California Cities
Livable California
Los Angeles County Division, League of California Cities
Marin County Council of Mayors and Council members
Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC)
Save Lafayette
Town of Danville
Tri-Valley Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon
AB 1886
Page 10
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The author writes espite being a powerful tool
to incentivize housing in cities that are refusing to build enough, the so-called
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
Unfortunately, we are
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
projects remain eligible if the application was submitted while the city was not in
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: Several cities are opposed to this bill because
-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.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 52-3, 5/20/24
AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Bains, Bennett, Berman, Bonta,
Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Connolly, Mike Fong,
Friedman, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Hoover, Jackson,
Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor,
Ortega, Papan, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Rodriguez,
Blanca Rubio, Santiago, Schiavo, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Ward, Weber,
Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas
NOES: Essayli, Gallagher, Muratsuchi
NO VOTE RECORDED: Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Boerner, Cervantes, Chen,
Megan Dahle, Davies, Dixon, Flora, Vince Fong, Gabriel, Irwin, Lackey,
Mathis, Stephanie Nguyen, Pacheco, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Reyes, Luz
Rivas, Sanchez, Soria, Ta, Waldron, Wallis
Prepared by: Alison Hughes / HOUSING / (916) 651-4124
8/6/24 16:10:40
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
AB 2021
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2021
Author: Bauer-Kahan (D)
Amended: 6/17/24 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 4-1, 6/25/24
AYES: Wahab, Bradford, Skinner, Wiener
NOES: Seyarto
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 72-0, 4/18/24 (Consent) - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Crimes: selling or furnishing tobacco or related products and
paraphernalia to underage persons
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill creates 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 $500 for the first offense,
$1,000 for the second offense, and $5,000 for any subsequent offense.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) 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,
AB 2021
Page 2
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).)
2) 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).)
3) 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).)
4) Declares
and eventually eliminate the illegal purchase
and consumption of tobacco products by any person under 21. (Bus. & Prof.
Code, § 22950 et seq.)
5) Requires all moneys collected as civil penalties by the California Department of
Public Health (CDPH) 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.)
6) 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.)
7) 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
AB 2021
Page 3
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 $500 for the first
offense, $1,000 for the second offense, and $5,000 for any subsequent offense.
Background
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
identification if the person reasonably appears to be under 21. (Bus. & Prof. Code,
§ 22956.) CDPH 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, CDPH must notify the State Board
of Equalization which must then assess a $250 civil penalty and suspend or revoke
8, 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.)
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. For example, a
$1,000 fine for a 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.
AB 2021
Page 4
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
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 8/5/24)
California District Attorneys Association
City of Alameda
CleanEarth4kids.org
County Health Executives Association of California
OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/5/24)
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
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
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,
AB 2021
Page 5
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.
ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION:
According to the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice:
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. Under the
theory of respondeat superior, a small business owner would face a
fine for the actions of a reckless employee working a register. The
mall
business owners, many of whom operate in marginalized communities
with underserved populations. Additionally, there are often sting
operations that are carried out. It would be more beneficial to focus
these enforcement efforts on larger businesses as opposed to someone
who runs a small business who may not be able to absorb the financial
impact. CACJ suggests that AB 2021 be amended to only apply to
businesses with ten or more employees.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 72-0, 4/18/24
AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett,
Berman, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies,
Dixon, Flora, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia,
Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer,
Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor,
Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Joe
Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Luz
Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting,
Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood,
Zbur, Robert Rivas
NO VOTE RECORDED: Arambula, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Cervantes, Megan
Dahle, Essayli, Mathis
AB 2021
Page 6
Prepared by: Stephanie Jordan / PUB. S. /
8/6/24 16:10:42
**** END ****
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Anna Caballero, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular Session
AB 2243 (Wicks) - Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022: objective
standards and affordability and site criteria
Version: August 5, 2024 Policy Vote: HOUSING 8 - 0, L. GOV. 5 -
1
Urgency: No Mandate: Yes
Hearing Date: August 12, 2024 Consultant: Mark McKenzie
Bill Summary: AB 2243 would expand and modify provisions of the Affordable
Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022.
Fiscal Impact:
The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) estimates costs to
implement this bill would be minor. HCD staff would likely need to coordinate with
local governments, provide guidance and technical assistance, and manage
enforcement activities related to the expanded universe of projects that would be
eligible for streamlining under the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of
2022 (AB 2011). (General Fund)
The Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) would incur unknown annual ongoing
costs for oversight and enforcement activities related to prevailing wage and
apprenticeship standards on projects constructed pursuant to the expanded
provisions of this bill. There would also be unknown penalty revenue gains to
partially offset these costs. Actual costs and penalty revenues would depend upon
the number of qualifying projects constructed under this bill’s expanded applicability
and the number of complaints and referrals to the Division of Labor Standards and
Enforcement that require enforcement actions, investigations, and appeals. (State
Public Works Enforcement Fund)
Unknown local mandated costs. While the bill would impose new costs on local
agencies to revise planning requirements and considerations for an expanded pool
of projects that would be eligible for streamlining under the Affordable Housing and
High Road Jobs Act of 2022, these costs are not state-reimbursable because local
agencies have general authority to charge and adjust planning and permitting fees to
cover their administrative expenses associated with new planning mandates. (local
funds)
Background: HCD determined in the 6th Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA),
that California must plan for more than 2.5 million new homes, one million of which must
be affordable to lower-income households. By contrast, housing production in the past
decade has been under 100,000 units per year – including less than 10,000 units of
affordable housing per year.
Numerous bills have been enacted in recent years to address land use and regulatory
constraints of new housing production by providing for streamlined, ministerial approval
AB 2243 (Wicks) Page 2 of 5
of certain projects deemed to be a “use by right,” regardless of local zoning. Notable
among these was AB 2011 (Wicks), Chap. 647/2022, which authorizes, until 2033, 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. It also makes a development that meets
those criteria to be a use by right and subject to one of two streamlined, ministerial
review processes depending on, among other things, the affordability requirements
applicable to the project, as specified. Project proponents must ensure that certain
labor standards are met, including specified prevailing wage, apprenticeship, and
healthcare expense requirements.
Projects proposed for streamlining under AB 2011 that are not exclusively composed of
affordable units can only be located along commercial corridors that are between 70
and 150 feet wide, and the projects must meet specified height and density
requirements. Projects that comprise 100 percent affordable units receive add itional
benefits, including that they do not have to be located on a commercial corridor or meet
height or density requirements. AB 2011 limited the sites where the bill could apply to
avoid specified sensitive environmental sites, as well as sites within 500 feet of a
freeway or 3,200 feet of an active oil or gas extraction facility, as specified.
Proposed Law: This bill would expand and modify provisions of AB 2011, as follows:
Changes to AB 2011’s applicability
Expands the existing definition of “commercial corridor” so that the provisions of AB
2011 apply to some streets that are 50 feet wide (instead of a minimum of 70 feet in
current law), 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 feet and not greater than 150 feet is required.
Make 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, or (2) the site, as of January 1, 2022, allowed residential uses as a principally
permitted use on the site.
Revise the existing definition of “industrial use” to include any use that requires a
permit from an air quality district and 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.
Exempt certain undeveloped portions of the Coastal Zone from AB 2011.
Amend 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.
Allow AB 2011’s to apply to larger sites than the 20-acre limitation in existing law if it
is a regional mall that is (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, (3) at least two of
the permitted retail uses on the site that are at least 10,000 square feet, and (4) the
project on the site will meet specified objective standards, including that the average
AB 2243 (Wicks) Page 3 of 5
size of a block, as defined, cannot exceed three acres, at least 5 percent of the site
shall be dedicated to open space; and 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 percent of the frontage.
Add to AB 2011 a project that will convert an existing office building to housing if it is
at least 50,000 square feet.
Expand application of AB 2011 to developments that include housing located within
500 feet of a freeway or within 3,200 feet of oil and gas extraction facilities, so long
as these projects meet specified criteria.
Extend existing historic site protection provisions that apply to mixed-income
developments to 100 percent affordable developments.
Density changes to mixed-income projects
Require projects in a very low vehicle travel area, as defined, to have a minimum
density of 80 units an acre, similar to the existing requirements for projects near a
major transit stop, but also reduces the minimum density that a housing
development project must meet in order to qualify for AB 2011 streamlining as
follows: (1) for a housing development project with an application that is deemed
complete on or before January 1, 2027: reduced by 25 percent for project sites
located in a very low vehicle travel area or within one-half mile of a major transit
stop, as defined, and reduced by 50 percent for all other eligible project sites, and
(2) for any housing development project with an application that is deemed complete
on or after January 1, 2027: reduced by 25 percent.
Remove residential density limits for AB 2011 projects that convert existing buildings
into residential uses, unless the development project adds at least 20 percent new
square footage to an existing building.
Provide that a development proponent can 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 process changes
Make several changes to the process for public agencies to ministerially approve
100 percent affordable and mixed-income housing development projects.
Require a local government to determine if a project is consistent or inconsistent
with objective planning standards: (1) within 60 days of submittal of an application if
the development contains 150 or fewer housing units, (2) within 90 days of submittal
of an application if the development contains more than 150 housing units, and (3)
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.
Require a local government to provide the development proponent with an
exhaustive list of standards the development conflicts with, as specified.
Establish the following timelines under which the local government must approve the
development proposal once it determines that a proposal complies with applicable
objective standards: 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.
AB 2243 (Wicks) Page 4 of 5
Consistent with SB 423 (Wiener, 2023), which revised an existing ministerial
approval process, this bill would 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. It also would specify 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 density bonus law shall not constitute a basis to find
the project inconsistent with a local coastal program.
Require 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.
Modify the requirements to conduct certain environmental assessments to:
o Delete language that required development proponents to conduct specified
environmental assessments as condition of eligibility for accessing AB 2011
streamlining provisions, as specified.
o Require 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.
o Require 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.
Limitations on local standards that can apply
Impose the following limitations on the ability of local agencies to impose some
objective standards on AB 2011 projects, specifically to prohibit (1) local affordable
housing requirements that exceed the requirements in the bill, unless the local
government makes written findings that would allow a reasonable person, based on
clear and convincing evidence, to conclude that the proposed housing development
project is economically feasible if it is subject to the requirement, and (2) new
common open space requirements for AB 2011 projects that convert existing space
from nonresidential buildings to residential uses.
Preclude local objective design standards that either (1) prevent developments from
being built to the maximum allowable density established by the bill, or (2) require
the development to reduce unit size to meet the objective standard.
Require 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, but provides that it does not supersede or in any way alter or lessen the
effect of the Mitigation Fee Act.
Other changes
Allow 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.
AB 2243 (Wicks) Page 5 of 5
Provide that the Housing Accountability Act applies to development proceedings that
move forward under AB 2011, and specifies that this amendment is declaratory of
existing law.
Make additional technical, clarifying, and conforming changes and include findings
and declarations to support its purposes.
Related Legislation: AB 3068 (Haney), which is currently pending on the Senate Floor,
would establish a streamlined, ministerial approval process for certain adaptive reuse
projects on infill sites, regardless of local zoning, as specified.
SB 423 (Weiner), Chap. 778/2023, extended the sunset, amended the labor standards,
and made other changes to SB 35 (Wiener), Chap. 366/2017.
SB 4 (Weiner, Chapter 771, Statutes of 2023) establishes the Affo rdable 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), Chap. 647/2022, required specified housing development projects to
be a use by right on specified sites zoned for retail, office, or parking, and specified
certain labor standards, including requirements to pay prevailing wages, for projects
subject to the bill’s streamlining provisions.
SB 6 (Caballero), Chap. 659/2022, the Middle Class Housing Act of 2022, establishes
housing as an allowable use on any parcel zoned for office or retail uses, and specified
certain labor standards, including the use of a skilled and trained workforce, for projects
subject the bill’s streamlining provisions.
Staff Comments: The bill’s mandated local costs would not be subject to state
reimbursement because local agencies have the authority to charge and adjust planning
and permitting fees as necessary to cover administrative costs. Existing law authorizes
planning and zoning fees to “include the costs reasonably necessary to prepare and
revise the plans and policies that a local agency is required to adopt before it can make
any necessary findings and determinations.” Case law and previous decisions by the
Commission on State Mandates support the position that local governments’ planning
costs are not reimbursable when the state imposes new planning mandates.
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Anna Caballero, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular Session
AB 2485 (Juan Carrillo) - Regional housing need: determination
Version: July 3, 2024 Policy Vote: HOUSING 9 - 0
Urgency: No Mandate: No
Hearing Date: August 5, 2024 Consultant: Mark McKenzie
Bill Summary: AB 2485 would require the Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) to convene and engage specified stakeholders to consider
improvements to the process of determining the housing needs for each region, as
specified. The bill would also require HCD to publish specified data and information on
its website regarding the decision-making process used to determine regional housing
needs.
Fiscal Impact:
HCD estimates ongoing costs of approximately $205,000 annually for 1.0 PY of staff
to convene and moderate stakeholder meetings to consider improvements to the
RHNA process, and to publish specified information on the department’s website.
(General Fund)
Background: Existing law requires cities and counties to prepare a general plan
comprised of seven mandatory elements, including a housing element that identifies
existing and projected housing needs. The housing element must include an inventory
of adequate sites zoned for housing at all income levels (very low, low, moderate, and
above moderate income) and to accommodate a jurisdiction’s share of the regional
housing needs that is sufficient to account for population growth and to overcome
existing housing deficiencies over the planning period. Housing elements must be
updated every eight years in urban areas, and every five years in more rural areas.
The regional housing needs assessment (RHNA) process is composed of three main
stages: (1) development of regional housing need estimates by HCD and the
Department of Finance (DOF), in consultation with regional councils of governments
(COGs); (2) allocation of housing within each region by the COGs, or by HCD in an area
not within a COG; and (3) incorporation of RHNA allocations into city and county
housing elements. If the city or county does not have enough sites within its existing
inventory of residentially zoned land to accommodate its share of the regional housing
needs, it must adopt a program to rezone land within the first three years of the planning
period. Every city and county must submit an annual progress report by April 1 of each
year to HCD and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research on its implementation
and progress towards meeting its RHNA amount and removing governmental obstacles
to housing development, among other things.
Existing law specifies the process for HCD, in consultation with each COG, to determine
the existing and projected need for housing in each region. The determination must be
based on population projections produced by DOF and regional population forecasts
developed by COGs in the preparation of regional transportation plans. If the COG’s
estimate is within 1.5% of the DOF estimate, then HCD must use the COG’s estimate.
AB 2485 (Juan Carrillo) Page 2 of 2
If the difference is greater than 1.5%, HCD and the COG meet to discuss variances in
methodology used for population projections and seek agreement on a projection to use
for making a regional housing needs determination. If agreement is not reached, then
DOF’s population projection is used, and may be modified by HC D as a result of
discussions with the COG.
Existing law requires HCD to meet and consult with each COG regarding the
assumptions and methodology to be used by HCD to determine regional housing needs
at least 26 months prior to the housing element adoption deadline, and prior to
developing a region’s housing needs. The COG must provide specified data
assumptions, which HCD may accept or reject, or modify its own assumptions or
methodology based on the COG’s information. After consultation with a COG, HCD
must make a determination of the region’s existing and projected housing need. The
COG may file an objection to HCD’s determination, as specified, within 30 days, which
HCD must consider within 45 days and make a final written determination of the
region’s housing needs that includes an explanation of the information upon which the
determination was made. The COG must use HCD’s final determination to create an
allocation methodology that distributes the housing need equitably amongst all the local
governments in its region.
Proposed Law: AB 2485 would require HCD, for the eighth and subsequent revisions
of the housing element, to do the following:
Convene and engage stakeholders, including demographers, data experts, and
COGs, to consider improvements to the process of determining the existing and
projected need for housing for each region, including to the accuracy and
transparency of the assumptions and methodologies used to determine a region’s
housing need. This engagement process must occur before determining any
region’s housing needs.
Publish on its internet website the data sources, analyses, and methodology,
including assumptions and factors used in and applied to the DOF projections and
COG engagement process, and a summary of the information and determinations
described above, prior to finalization of a region’s housing needs.
Related Legislation: AB 3093 (Ward), which is currently pending in this Committee,
would establish two new categories, acutely low income and extremely low income, that
must be accounted for in the RHNA process and housing element law, as specified.
Staff Comments: In March 2022, the State Auditor examined the RHNA process and
identified several errors in HCD’s housing projections, resulting in a decrease in the
housing amounts assigned to some jurisdictions. The Auditor attributed HCD’s
miscalculations to a lack of oversight in staff data entry and a failure to consider all
factors required by state law in its estimates. Additionally, the Auditor found these
shortcomings risk eroding public confidence in HCD’s ability to provide accurate
information to COGs about housing needs. The report recommended a formal review
process and thorough documentation measures to ensure all RHNA calculations
provided to COGs by HCD are accurate.
-- END --
é é
SB 402
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 7, 2024
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Buffy Wicks, Chair
SB 402 (Wahab) – As Amended July 3, 2024
Policy Committee: Health Vote: 16 - 0
Judiciary 10 - 0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY:
This bill authorizes, for a “5150 hold,” a licensed mental health professional (LMHP) who is not
direct staff of, or contracted by, a county to take into custody a person who, as result of a mental
health disorder, is a danger to self or others, or gravely disabled, under certain conditions and
expands related requirements regarding information collection and publication.
Specifically, this bill:
1) Authorizes, until January 1, 2030, an LMHP who is designated by a county but is neither
direct staff of, or contracted by, the county to take a person into custody for a 5150 hold,
meaning an involuntary detention for evaluation and treatment of a person who, as result of a
mental health disorder, is a danger to self or others, or is gravely disabled.
2) Defines “licensed mental health professional” as a psychiatrist, psychologist, licensed clinical
social worker, licensed marriage and family therapist, or licensed professional clinical
counselor who holds a current and active license in good standing and has completed the
supervised clinical experience required for the license.
3) Prohibits an LMHP who is not direct staff of, or contracted by, a county from transporting a
person who is being taken into custody for a 5150 hold, unless specifically authorized by the
county to do so.
4) Requires the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) to collect the following, in
addition to what it already collects quarterly and publishes annually:
a) The number of individuals designated by each county to perform functions under Section
5150 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and the profession of each individual,
including license type, practice discipline, or clinical experience, and whether they are
direct staff of, or contracted by, the county.
b) The number of such holds initiated per profession, including the license type, practice
discipline, and clinical experience.
c) The number of designations denied or revoked by a county, and the profession of each
individual subject to such denial or revocation, including license type, practice discipline,
or clinical experience and whether they are direct staff of, or contracted by, the county.
d) The number of holds initiated by a peace officer.
SB 402
Page 2
5) Requires each law enforcement agency to submit, as required by DHCS and without patient
name identifiers, the number of holds initiated by a peace officer.
FISCAL EFFECT:
1) DHCS estimates General Fund costs of $184,000 in fiscal year (FY) 2024-25, $287,000 in
FY 2025-26, $1,291,000 in FY 2026-27 and $1,237,000 in FY 2027-28 and ongoing. DHCS
states it will need eight permanent full-time staff members to do the following: draft all-
county letters, provider bulletins, and policies and procedures for the various data
requirements and consequences of failure to report; ensure compliance; collect and process
data; manage and interpret data; monitor data to ensure quality; translate technical needs to
collect the required data; provide technical assistance to data submitters; transform data into
suitable formats for ongoing reporting; and create visualizations with additional data
elements.
2) The County Behavioral Health Directors Association (CBHDA) estimates annual ongoing
costs of $3.4 million to $4.6 million for counties to hire additional staff to meet new data
collection and reporting requirements, increase the number of trainings for newly designated
mental health providers, and provide licensing and supervised clinical experience verification
to the increased number of designees. Fund sources would be local funds and Mental Health
Services Fund.
3) Costs to local law enforcement agencies for data collection is likely negligible.
If the Commission on State Mandates determines the reporting requirement of this bill constitute
a state-mandated local program, a local agency could claim General Fund reimbursement of
those costs.
According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, 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:
SB 402 is vital legislation that will allow for appropriately trained and
licensed mental health professionals to initiate the placement of an
individual experiencing a mental health crisis on a 72 hour...5150 hold.
Currently, mental health professionals are significantly limited in
providing support to vulnerable populations...This proposal seeks to
rectify this by authorizing a broader spectrum of licensed mental
health professionals—such as Licensed Marriage & Family Therapists
(LMFT), Licensed Clinical Social Workers (LCSW), and Licensed
Professional Clinical Counselors (LPCC)—to intervene promptly in
mental health emergencies…This strategic expansion aligns with
contemporary best practices, ensures more inclusive crisis response,
reduces the burden on law enforcement, and ultimately enhances
public safety. This bill can save lives.
SB 402
Page 3
2) Background.
The Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act 5150 Holds. The LPS Act provides for involuntary
detentions for varying lengths of time for the purpose of evaluation and treatment, if 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 may 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 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. Under certain conditions, the detained person may 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 some counties), and ultimately, a conservatorship, which is typically for
up to a year and may be extended as appropriate.
County Designation. The LPS Act allows a county behavioral health director to develop
procedures for designating and training people other than peace officers to initiate
involuntary holds.
3) Concerns. The Assembly Health Committee analysis of this bill raises numerous concerns
about this bill, contrasting the bill’s language with the author’s stated intent. The Assembly
Health Committee analysis contends:
a) Existing law already allows a county to develop procedures to designate and train people
who will be authorized to perform functions for 5150 holds, this bill does not change the
authority, and this bill unnecessarily proposes a narrow definition of LMHPs who may
be, and in many counties already are, designated to initiate 5150 holds.
b) Nothing in this bill will reduce law enforcement involvement in either 5150 holds or
crisis response, in spite of the author’s assertion otherwise.
c) Existing law already permits any “professional person” to be designated by the county –
there are no requirements that the professional work for or be contracted with the county.
4) Prior Legislation.
a) SB 929 (Eggman), Chapter 539, Statutes of 2022, expands DHCS’ responsibility to
collect and publish information about involuntary detentions under the LPS Act to
include additional information, such as clinical outcomes, services provided, and
availability of treatment beds, and requires DHCS to convene a stakeholder group to
make recommendations on how to provide this information. SB 929 also requires each
entities involved in LPS Act to provide data to DHCS upon request, and requires DHCS
to annually report to the Legislature information concerning the LPS system.
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
SB 402
Page 4
the City of Sacramento and who meet specified criteria to involuntarily detain
individuals.
Analysis Prepared by: Allegra Kim / 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
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
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 Are
SB 1031
Page 6
metropolitan planning organization and state-designated regional transportation
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
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,
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
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
created by the COVID-
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
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.
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. I
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.
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 ****
SB 1037
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 1037 (Wiener)
As Amended June 13, 2024
Majority vote
SUMMARY
Creates new legal remedies that can be used by the Attorney General (AG) to enforce the
adoption of housing element revisions or to enforce any state law that requires a local
government to ministerially approve any planning or permitting application related to a housing
development project.
Major Provisions
1) Provides that in any action brought by the AG, on behalf of the Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) or in an independent capacity, to enforce the adoption of
housing element revisions, as specified, or to enforce any state law that requires a city,
county, or local agency to ministerially approve, without discretionary review, any planning
or permitting application related to a housing development project, the city, county, or local
agency shall be subject to the following remedies:
a) A civil penalty of, at minimum, $10,000 per month, and not exceeding $50,000 per
month, for each violation, accrued from the date of the violation until the violation is
cured;
b) All costs of investigating and prosecuting the action, including expert fees, reasonable
attorney's fees, and costs, whenever the AG prevails in a civil action to enforce any state
laws under this bill, with awards paid to the Public Rights Law Enforcement Special
Fund, as specified; and
c) Other relief as the court deems appropriate, including equitable and injunctive relief,
provisional or otherwise; any injunction ordered by the court under this bill must be
deemed to be prohibitory, and not affirmative.
2) Applies the penalties in this bill only when the agency's acts or omissions in 1), above, are
arbitrary, capricious, entirely lacking in evidentiary support, contrary to established public
policy, unlawful, or procedurally unfair.
3) Establishes the purpose of the bill is to ensure adequate remedies are available to ensure that
state laws mandating streamlined, ministerial approvals related to housing development
projects, and the timely adoption of housing element revisions, are promptly and faithfully
followed.
4) Requires any civil penalty levied under the bill to be deposited into the Building Homes and
Jobs Trust Fund (the Fund) for the sole purpose of supporting the development of affordable
housing located in the affected jurisdiction.
5) Requires the expenditure of any penalty moneys deposited into the Fund to be subject to
appropriation by the Legislature.
SB 1037
Page 2
6) Prohibits any penalty imposed under this bill from being paid out of funds already dedicated
to affordable housing, including, but not limited to, very low, low-, and moderate-income
households.
7) Allows the court, in the event a city, county, or local agency fails to pay civil penalties
imposed by the court, to require the Controller to intercept any available state and local funds
and direct those funds to the Fund to correct the jurisdiction's failure to pay, to the extent
permitted under the California Constitution.
8) Notwithstanding 4) and 5), above, if the penalty moneys have not been expended five years
after deposit, allows the penalty moneys to be used, upon appropriation, to finance newly
constructed affordable housing units in the state without any geographic restrictions.
9) Provides that the liability, penalties, and remedies imposed by this bill are in addition to any
other liability, penalties, and remedies imposed by any other law.
10) Provides that the remedies available to the AG under this bill do not limit or affect the
remedies available to any other party seeking to enforce specified laws.
11) Applies the provisions of this bill to all cities, including charter cities.
COMMENTS
Background: In recent years, the Legislature has implemented many policy changes to address
the housing deficit, including streamlined, ministerial approval of housing and requiring local
governments to plan and zone for more housing via the housing element process. For many years
prior to the enactment of these and other laws, local governments often treated the housing
element and other housing requirements as a "paper exercise" because the state lacked strong
enforcement tools to ensure compliance.
AB 72 (Santiago, Chapter 370, Statutes of 2017) established a process for HCD to enforce state
housing laws. AB 72 requires HCD to notify a local government, and allows HCD to notify the
AG, if HCD finds that a local government's housing element does not substantially comply with
state law, or if any local government has taken an action in violation of specified housing laws.
In addition to the expanded authority under AB 72, HCD has created and staffed a Housing
Accountability Unit, which provides education and technical assistance as well as oversight and
enforcement of housing element laws to ensure local governments comply with specified state
housing laws. Violations of these laws may lead to a variety of consequences for local
governments, including referral to the AG for further civil action.
In 2022, AG Bonta created a Housing Strike Force within the Department of Justice. The Strike
Force is a cross-sectoral team of attorneys who work with state agencies and partners to enforce
statewide housing laws. Last year, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed AB 1485
(Haney, Chapter 763, Statutes of 2023), which granted HCD and the AG the unconditional right
to intervene in any suit brought to enforce specified housing laws. The purpose of that bill was to
strengthen the state's ability to enforce housing laws and ensure that the state's interests are heard
as a matter of right in private litigation dealing with the application of those laws.
SB 1037
Page 3
Furthermore, many of the laws referenced above also provide a mechanism for private third
party actors for example, developers, advocacy organizations, and members of the public to
file their own lawsuits to challenge local land use planning and permitting decisions.
Housing Accountability Act (HAA): In 1982, in response to the housing crisis, which was viewed
as threatening the economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California, the
Legislature enacted the HAA. The purpose of the HAA is to help 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 localities share of the regional
housing needs assessment.
The HAA provides a private right of action to parties, including the development proponent, a
person who would be eligible to live in the proposed development, or a housing organization,
who wish to challenge a local government that denied approval or imposed severely burdensome
conditions for approval on a housing development project.
If a locality denies approval or imposes conditions that have a substantial adverse effect on the
viability or affordability of a housing development for very low-, low-, or moderate-income
households, and the denial or imposition of conditions is subject to a court challenge, the burden
is on the local government to show that its decision is consistent with specified written findings.
If a court finds that a locality violated the HAA, a court must issue an order or judgment
compelling compliance with the HAA within 60 days, including, but not limited to, an order that
the locality take action on the housing development project or shelter. The plaintiff is entitled to
attorney's fees unless the court find that awarding fees would not further the purposes of the
HAA. If a locality fails to comply within 60 days, the court must impose fines, a minimum of
$10,000 per housing unit in the housing development project, which must be deposited in a local
housing trust fund. The court may also directly approve the housing development project. If the
court finds the locality acted in bad faith, in addition to other remedies, the court must multiply
the fine by a factor of five.
More Teeth: Despite the recent actions by the state to facilitate housing construction at the local
level, some local governments continue to violate state law. For example, some cities have been
reluctant to process qualifying applications ministerially and others have placed obstructionist
requirements to attempt to stop those developments altogether. According to the sponsor, AG
Bonta, his office has taken action against some of the most egregious actors, but the remedies
available under existing law which provide lengthy off-ramps for curing even after a court
finds a state law violation are not effective at deterring bad behavior.
This bill seeks to impose fines with a finding of a state law violation more quickly to try to deter
bad behavior from occurring in the first place, and also to deter a bad actor from "running out the
clock" on the cure period, which may be done in hopes that the delays will harm or render
infeasible the housing development in question. This bill imposes on a local government, in
addition to any other liability, fines, or remedies imposed by any other law, specific penalties for
a finding of a violation of state housing element law, or violation of state law authorizing the
SB 1037
Page 4
streamlined, ministerial approval of a housing development project, in a lawsuit brought by the
AG. Specifically, the local government would be subject to a civil penalty of between $10,000
and $50,000 per month, for each violation, accrued from the date of the violation until the date
the violation is cured; all costs associated with investigating and prosecuting the action; and any
other relief the court may deem appropriate. Additionally, the bill clarifies that the remedies
provided in this bill do not preclude the imposition of other remedies authorized under existing
law. Civil penalty funds would be deposited in the Building Homes and Jobs Fund, specifically
to develop affordable housing in the affected jurisdiction. If the affected jurisdiction fails to
expend the money in five years, the money would revert to the state for purposes of building
affordable housing anywhere in California.
Recent amendments provide that these heightened penalties will not be applied to jurisdictions
that a court finds are attempting to comply in good faith with the law's requirements or who face
substantial undue hardships that are delaying compliance. The bill will only be available to the
AG and courts in situations where local acts or omissions to violate state housing laws are found
to be arbitrary, capricious, entirely lacking in evidentiary support, contrary to established public
policy, unlawful, or procedurally unfair.
According to the Author
"Senate Bill 1037 will enhance the Attorney General's ability to seek civil penalties against local
governments that are found by a court to have violated state housing law. Currently, the Attorney
General can bring an action for violation of a ministerial approval law, but even if the Attorney
General prevails in court, the local government has sixty days to cure its violation and thus avoid
all penalties. As a result, local governments have little incentive to comply with the law. Cities
should face immediate consequences after entry of a court judgment for violating state housing
laws, and SB 1037 accomplishes this goal. SB 1037 will allow the Attorney General to seek
between $10,000 and $50,000 in civil penalties per violation each month as a remedy in legal
actions against local governments for noncompliance with housing element law or violating state
ministerial approval laws."
Arguments in Support
AG Bonta, the bill's sponsor, writes in support, "
ability to seek civil penalties in court against local governments that violate existing state
housing laws, specifically housing element law and ministerial approval laws. Currently, when a
court finds a local government in violation of these state housing laws, monetary penalties can
only be imposed 60 days, or in some cases up to a year, after a court has ordered compliance and
the violation continues. In the meantime, housing development projects are delayed, which often
is enough to block a project from ever moving forward. SB 1037 would allow the Attorney
General to instead seek new penalties that are assessed from the date that the housing law
when the Attorney General warns local governments that they are out of compliance. Penalty
money would be earmarked to support the development of affordable housing located in the
affected jurisdiction."
Arguments in Opposition
According to the League of California Cities, "Unfortunately, as currently drafted, SB 1037 does
not provide an opportunity for cities to correct an honest mistake or address a genuine difference
in interpreting the law. Even those jurisdictions acting in good faith could be subject to
significant fines and be required to pay the Attorney General for all costs investigating and
SB 1037
Page 5
prosecuting the action, including expert witness fees and attorney's fees. In addition, the
language used to define when penalties apply is vague, particularly the use of the following
terms 'The penalties set forth in this section shall only apply when local land use decisions or
actions are contrary to established public policy, unlawful, or procedurally unfair.' These
subjective standards can be interpreted in numerous ways, leading to inconsistent enforcement
and unpredictable legal outcomes. This lack of clarity could result in frequent legal challenges as
cities attempt to navigate the uncertain parameters set forth by the measure. Consequently, local
governments may find themselves entangled in costly legal disputes, diverting resources away
from providing essential services to the community and local housing development efforts."
FISCAL COMMENTS
According to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations:
1) The Attorney General's Office (Department of Justice) anticipates negligible costs.
2) Cost savings to the courts (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) to the extent more
immediate penalties compel compliance more expeditiously than the processes in current
law, resulting in avoided proceedings.
VOTES
SENATE FLOOR: 24-9-7
YES: Ashby, Atkins, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer,
Gonzalez, Hurtado, Laird, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Padilla, Roth, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas,
Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener
NO: Dahle, Grove, Jones, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto, Wilk
ABS, ABST OR NV: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Becker, Limón, Portantino, Rubio
ASM HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 8-1-0
YES: Ward, Joe Patterson, Grayson, Kalra, Lee, Quirk-Silva, Reyes, Haney
NO: Sanchez
ASM JUDICIARY: 8-2-2
YES: Kalra, Bryan, Connolly, Haney, Maienschein, McKinnor, Joe Patterson, Reyes
NO: Dixon, Sanchez
ABS, ABST OR NV: Bauer-Kahan, Pacheco
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: Nicole Restmeyer / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085 FN: 0003707
SB 1060
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 26, 2024
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON INSURANCE
Lisa Calderon, Chair
SB 1060 (Becker) – As Amended June 18, 2024
SENATE VOTE: 29-8
SUBJECT: Property insurance underwriting: risk models
SUMMARY: Attempts to address insurers using risk models for underwriting purposes.
Specifically, this bill:
1) Allows a property insurer who uses risk models for underwriting to account for wildfire risk
reduction associated with hazardous fuel reduction, home hardening, defensible space, and
fire prevention activities for properties, communities, and landscapes.
2) Requires an insurer using risk models for underwriting purposes (considering factors in (1)
above) to report to the California Department of Insurance (CDI) beginning January 15, 2026
and on or before January 15 thereafter on:
a) Extent to which models used for underwriting purposes account for the categories of risk
mitigation (identified in (1) above) including:
i) Types and numbers of policy applications and renewals by ZIP Code, that account for
categories of risk mitigation identified in (1) above; and,
ii) Any other information CDI deems necessary.
3) Requires CDI to post the report, minus confidential or proprietary information, on their
website.
4) Provisions sunset on January 1, 2036.
5) Defines “defensible space” as the same meaning as defined in Section 51177 of the
Government Code.
6) Defines “fire prevention activities” as the same meaning as defined in Section 4124 of the
Public Resources Code.
7) Defines “hazardous fuel reduction” as the same meaning as defined in Section 4464 of the
Public Resources Code.
8) Defines “home hardening” as the same meaning as defined in Section 4291.5 of the Public
Resources Code.
9) Makes findings and declarations.
SB 1060
Page 2
EXISTING LAW:
1) Provides for the regulation of insurers, agents and brokers, and other insurance-like
organizations by the Insurance Commissioner, and imposes a broad range of financial
solvency, licensing and market behavior requirements, as set forth in the Insurance Code.
2) Establishes the Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan and the Wildfire and Forest
Resilience Action Plan implementation strategy.
3) Establishes the “Safer from Wildfires” Framework. (Section 2644.9 of Title 10 of the
California Code of Regulations)
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS:
1) Purpose: According to the author: “The devastating impacts of increasingly frequent and
severe wildfires have accelerated insurance rate increases, non-renewals, and market
instability, causing an insurance crisis in California. In an effort to save lives, protect
property, and address the insurance crisis, California has prioritized efforts to prevent
wildfires and reduce their severity. The state, local governments, and individual property
owners have spent billions of dollars on hazardous fuel reduction, home hardening, and
creating defensible space – all recognized approaches for reducing the severity of wildfires.
However, the underwriting models used by insurers to decide whether to renew policies or
offer new policies usually do not account for the risk reduction benefits of these activities.
That means that communities are not seeing the benefits of these risk mitigation efforts
reflected in the cost and availability of insurance coverage. SB 1060 encourages property
insurers to incorporate wildfire risk reduction associated with hazardous fuel reduction, home
hardening, and defensible space in the models they use for underwriting, to decide whether to
renew a policy or offer coverage to a new customer. Accounting for those wildfire risk
mitigation actions in underwriting models will ensure that insurers give credit for the billions
of dollars that California has invested in wildfire resilience, forest health, and community
protection and will result in more available insurance coverage for Californians.”
2) CDI Safer from Wildfires Framework: In 2022, CDI announced the “Safer from Wildfires”
framework, which directs insurers to provide discounts to consumers and businesses if they
take specified mitigation measures. In crafting this regulation, CDI worked with emergency
preparedness agencies in the Governor’s Administration, including CAL FIRE, Cal OES, the
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, and the California Public Utilities Commission.
The framework provides a list of home and community wildfire mitigation measures that
consumers and business can take to provide protection for the structure, the immediate
surroundings, and the community. Under the regulation, the more “Safer from Wildfires”
steps a consumer takes the more they may be able to save on their insurance.
The regulation required insurance companies to submit new rate filings incorporating the
wildfire safety standards created by CDI and also requires insurance companies to provide
consumers with their property’s “wildfire risk score” and a right to appeal that score. Once
the regulation is fully implemented it should help protect consumers. Steps a consumer can
take to help mitigate their property under this framework include:
SB 1060
Page 3
Class-A fire rated roof: Most roofs qualify including asphalt shingles, concrete, brick, or
masonry tiles, and metal shingles or sheets.
5-foot ember resistant zone, including fencing: Removing greenery and replacing wood
chips with stone or decomposed granite 5 feet around your home prevents fire from
getting a foot in the door.
Ember- and fire-resistant vents: Installing 1/16 to 1/8 inch noncombustible, corrosion-
resistant metal mesh screens over exterior vents can keep wind-blown embers out of your
house.
Non-combustible 6 inches at the bottom of exterior walls: Having a minimum of 6
vertical inches measured from the ground up and from any attached horizontal surface
like a deck can stop embers from accumulating and igniting your walls. Noncombustible
materials include brick, stone, fiber-cement siding or concrete.
Enclosed eaves: Installing soffits under your eaves can prevent heat and embers from
getting trapped and igniting. When enclosing eaves, non-combustible or ignition resistant
materials are recommended.
Upgraded windows: Multi-paned windows are more resistant to breaking during a
wildfire, which helps keep flames from entering. Multi-paned glass or added shutters all
qualify.
Cleared vegetation, weeds and debris from under decks: Noncombustible materials like
concrete, gravel, or bare soil are permitted.
Removal of combustible sheds and other outbuildings to at least a distance of 30 feet:
These include sheds, gazebos, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), open covered structures
with a solid roof, doghouses and playhouses.
Defensible space compliance: Following state and local laws requiring defensible space
including trimming trees and removal of brush and debris from yard.
3) California’s Risk Modeling and Advisory Workgroup: The Risk Modeling Advisory
Workgroup (Workgroup) provides a means to understand and model wildfire risk for a
community and specified parcels through the input of mitigating factors. The Workgroup
provides a forum for subject matter experts in wildfire related fields to address wildfire risk
modeling issues of statewide concern. CAL FIRE is tasked with posting the
recommendations on how to understand and model risk for a community and specific parcel
on the internet website. The Workgroup reports to the Wildfire Mitigation Advisory
Committee and acts in an advisory capacity to the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection in consultation with the State Fire Marshal and the California Insurance
Commissioner on wildfire risk modeling.
The Workgroup released a report on September 9, 2023 outlining many obstacles but also
providing recommendations. One recommendation included the need for data collection.
SB 1060
Page 4
As stated in the report, “To accurately gauge the most current state of wildfire risk is WUI
communities, there needs to be a common data set upon which consumers of data can rely.
The Workgroup recommends the establishment of a “Wildfire Open Data Commons” to
overcome many of the challenges associated with the availability of and access to wildfire
risk data. The Workgroup believes that there is a widespread agreement among users of
wildfire risk data, including catastrophic modelers, fire managers, the insurance industry, and
public and private wildfire research organizations on the value of this type of shared data.”
This measure doesn’t take approaches/recommendations outlined in this report.
4) The Sustainable Insurance Strategy (SIS): Following the Governor’s Executive
Order in September 2023, the Insurance Commissioner announced historic
insurance reforms. These reforms should be complete by December 2024. The
Insurance Commissioner has already released a number of proposed regulations that
will address the rate filing process, catastrophe modeling, and distressed areas. The
distressed area reform is the most recent announcement and an important piece to
highlight. This specific piece of the SIS is intended to incentivize insurers to write
policies in identified high “risk’ areas. The Insurance Commissioner is in the thick
of things as far as attempting to stabilize the insurance market. A number of
informational hearings have taken place monitoring the progress of these reforms to
ensure balance is found between stabilizing the market and maintaining consumer
protections.
5) Concerns with this bill: This measure has manifested throughout the legislative process
since being introduced in February. More questions remain as to the purpose and intent. In
print now, the measure states, if an insurer uses risk models for underwriting purposes, the
insurer can account for wildfire risk reduction associated with hazardous fuel reduction,
home hardening, defensible space and fire prevention activities. The next provision
mandates insurers that use risk models for underwriting to report to CDI on an annual basis
for 10 years on the risk mitigation categories described above. The bill is inconsistent with
one provision permissive and the other required- hence confusing. Additionally, while this
may not seem damaging as a whole, the topic of insurer’s underwriting is not a subject matter
previously legislated (although litigated) and much thought and time must be provided
considering the current insurance crisis this state is in. (This measure does not help stabilize
the insurance market.) It is unclear if the insurers have the ability to provide the information
requested in the measure and more importantly, whether the models have the ability to
provide what is asked in this measure. It’s also unclear, if CDI even knows which insurers
use which risk models for what purposes. While the author of this measure would like to
focus on insurers underwriting, this may actually further exasperate the insurance availability
crisis. The author may wish to propose an informational hearing on the topic of
underwriting and discuss what appropriate and useful data to CDI should be collected prior to
moving any legislation forward that could further impact insurance availability.
Furthermore and rightfully so, a lot of time, energy, and state/federal funding has been spent
on risk mitigation and home hardening to prevent and prepare for the next
wildfire. Unfortunately, homeowners are still struggling to obtain and maintain
insurance. It’s unclear still, if the Safer from Wildfires Framework is working as intended so
perhaps the focus should be on ensuring policyholders receive a discount before we move
onto pointing to underwriting as a hindrance. SB 1060 could have an adverse effect and send
SB 1060
Page 5
the wrong signal and it is not worth calling anyone’s bluff to find out. Putting forth what
could be perceived as additional barriers for homeowners to get insurance is not an
option. As reported in a number of recent articles including CalMatters (California home
insurance: Regulators require more policy-writing- CalMatters) “California can’t legally
require insurers to write either residential or commercial property policies.”
Solutions and focus should be on making California insurable, not uninsurable.
6) Related legislation: AB 1933 (Calderon) Requires CDI to report to the Assembly Committee
on Insurance and the Senate Committee on Insurance regarding wildfire risk models, on or
before, January 1, 2026, and annually thereafter. Pending before the Senate Insurance
Committee.
AB 2416 (Connolly) Requires by December 31, 2027, and every three years thereafter, CDI
to evaluate whether to update the Safer from Wildfires regulations to include certain building
hardening measures. Pending before the Senate Insurance Committee.
7) Previous legislation: AB 642 (Friedman) (Chaptered by Secretary of State, Chapter 375,
Statutes of 2021) This measure required the Workgroup (discussed above) to act in an
advisory capacity to CAL FIRE, in consultation with the State Fire Marshal and the
Insurance Commissioner on wildfire risk modeling.
8) Arguments in support: According to Consumer Watchdog, “SB 1060 would have required
that underwriting models used by insurance companies take into account the wildfire risk
reductions resulting from hazardous fuel reduction, home hardening, defensible space, and
fire prevention activities for properties, communities and landscapes. While that mandate has
been removed, we support the bill to continue that critical conversation.”
9) Arguments in opposition: According to the “Trades” (the Personal Insurance Federation of
California, the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, the National Association
of Mutual Insurance Companies, and the Pacific Association of Domestic Insurers): “…this
bill is premature and impossible to implement given the real-world data constraints, and it is
inconsistent with the critical efforts led by the Governor and Insurance Commissioner to
restore a healthy and competitive insurance market that increases insurance availability and
reliability for Californians…”
10) Recommended committee amendments: The following amendments change the focus of the
bill to the Safer from Wildfires Framework (discounts for mitigation) established and
enforced by CDI.
Add the following language to Insurance Code 12964.5 or other section within that article.
3000.
As used in this article:
(a) “Defensible space” has the same meaning as defined in Section 51177 of the
Government Code.
(b) “Fire prevention activities” has the same meaning as defined in Section 4124 of the
Public Resources Code.
SB 1060
Page 6
(c) “Hazardous fuel reduction” has the same meaning as defined in Section 4464 of the
Public Resources Code.
(d) “Home hardening” has the same meaning as defined in Section 4291.5 of the Public
Resources Code.
3001.
If an admitted property insurer uses risk models pursuant to Section 2644.9 of Title 10 of the
California Code of Regulations for underwriting purposes, those risk 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.
3002.
(a) If an admitted insurer usesing risk models pursuant to Section 2644.9 of Title 10 of the
California Code of Regulationsfor underwriting purposes, as described in Section 3001,
shall, beginning January 15, 2026, and on or before each January 15 thereafter, may report to the
department the extent to which risk models used for underwriting purposes account for the
categories of risk mitigation identified in Section 3001, 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 identified in Section 3001. and any other
information the department deems necessary. The department shall post the information
contained in the report, excluding any confidential or proprietary information, on the
department’s internet website.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
City of Laguna Niguel
City of Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao
City of Yorba Linda
Consumer Watchdog
County of Monterey
United Policyholders (Support if Amended)
Opposition
American Property Casualty Insurance Association
National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies
Pacific Association of Domestic Insurance Companies
Personal Insurance Federation of California
Analysis Prepared by: Kathleen O'Malley / INS. / (916) 319-2086
“Small Town Atmosphere
Outstanding Quality of Life”
5 0 0 L A G O N D A W A Y, D A N V I L L E , C A L I F O R N I A 9 4 5 2 6
Administration Building Engineering & Planning Transportation Maintenance Police Parks and Recreation
(925) 314-3388 (925) 314-3330 (925) 314-3310 (925) 314-3320 (925) 314-3450 (925) 314-3700 (925) 314-3400
s
July 10, 2024
The Honorable Steve Glazer
California State Senate
1021 O Street, Suite
Sacramento, CA 95814
The Honorable Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
California State Assembly
1021 O Street, Suite
Sacramento, CA 95814
The Honorable Tim Grayson
California State Assembly
1021 O Street, Suite
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Request for Future Legislation to Enact Electric Bicycle and Scooter Safety
Reforms
Dear Senator Glazer, Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan, and Assembly Member Grayson
On behalf of the Town of Danville, I am writing to express concerns about the growing
popularity and presence of electric and quasi-motorized bicycles and scooters (e-bicycles
and e-scooters) on our streets and sidewalks. There have been an increasing number of
complaints and safety concerns reported to the Danville Police Department from
residents, businesses, and property owners throughout town regarding the use of e-
bicycles and e-scooters. In most instances, these concerns feature youth riders who lack
a fundamental understanding of the rules of the road to operate these devices safely.
E-bikes, e-scooters, and mopeds possess capabilities that far exceed those of regular
bicycles. They are heavier, faster, and equally accessible to our youth. While we recognize
the importance of active forms of transportation in creating walkable and accessible
communities and in achieving our greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals, we must also
prioritize the safety of our community. The Town of Danville believes the first step is
ensuring clear labeling of operator requirements.
However, with the growing accessibility of these devices for personal use, the Town of
Danville has observed an increase in the usage of motorized bicycles and scooters,
defined under CVC 406(a) and 407.5(a). These statutes require operators to be in
possession of a valid California Driver’s License or permit, a process that supports a
fundamental understanding of the rules of the road. Additionally, these statutes require
ATTACHMENT B
July 10, 2024
Page 2
each device to have an affixed label specifying insurance and liability consequences,
along with age and permitting requirements. These requirements and warnings aid in
law enforcement response capabilities, however, the application of these tools can be
expanded to curb youth-related incidents. The Town of Danville and its public safety
officers seek to expand these requirements to e-bikes, which currently lack a robust
regulation regime within the law. Specifically, our Town would like to see there be age,
permitting, and enhanced labeling requirements to aid law enforcement in mitigating the
risks associated with operating these quasi-motorized devices.
As we look ahead to the 2025-26 Legislative Session, we would like to request a meeting
to kick off conversations on how to tackle this public safety concern and discuss potential
policy solutions. Please do not hesitate to reach out to Cat Bravo, Management Analyst
(CBravo@danville.ca.gov), and the Town’s Legislative Advocate, Carlin Shelby
(CShelby@townsendpa.com) with any questions.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
___________________________
KAREN G. STEPPER, MAYOR
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
August 12, 2024
The Honorable Juan Carrillo
California State Capitol
1021 O Street, Suite 4320
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 2485 (Carrillo) Regional housing need: determination.
Tri-Valley Cities Coalition – Notice of Support
Dear Assembly Member Carrillo,
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 support of AB 2485,
which seeks to enhance transparency in the Department of Housing and Community
Development’s (HCD) regional housing needs calculation process by creating an advisory panel
and requiring the publication of methodologies used on HCD’s website.
AB 2485 aims for transparency in the RHNA determination process by providing local
governments, COGs, housing stakeholders, members of the public, and all interested parties with
information on the data sources, analyses, and calculation methods used by HCD. This bill would
establish a formal review process by creating an expert panel to advise HCD on its assumptions,
data, and analyses prior to a final RHNA determination.
This bill will increase local government stakeholder engagement on the RHNA allocations for
future cycles of the housing element revision process. This in turn will increase transparency and
ensure that HCD is responsible for its methodologies in assessing regional housing needs
allocations.
For these reasons, the Tri-Valley Cities Coalition is pleased to support AB 2485.
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
ATTACHMENT C
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
CC: Senator Steven Glazer
Assembly Member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
August 12, 2024
The Honorable Scott Wiener
California State Senate
1021 O Street, Room 8620
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SB 1037 (Wiener) Planning and Zoning: Housing Element: Enforcement
Tri-Valley Cities Coalition – Notice of Opposition
Dear Senator Wiener,
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 opposition to Senate
Bill 1037 (Wiener), which allows the Attorney General to take legal action against a local
government, and seek fines up to $50,000 a month, for failure to adopt a compliant housing
element, or if the city does not follow State laws that require ministerial approval of certain housing
projects.
Under existing law, local governments may incur substantial fines and penalties for breaching
specific housing statutes. Prior to the imposition of fines, a city is afforded the chance to rectify
the violation. Furthermore, escalated fines are only enforced if the city neglects to comply with a
court directive or demonstrates bad faith in its actions.
Regrettably, SB 1037 presently lacks provisions allowing local governments to rectify inadvertent
errors or resolve authentic disparities in legal interpretation. Even jurisdictions acting in utmost
good faith could potentially face substantial fines and the obligation to cover all expenses incurred
by the Attorney General in investigating and prosecuting the matter, encompassing fees for expert
witnesses and attorneys.
In lieu of enacting new fines and penalties, as provided in SB 1037, lawmakers and the
Department of Housing and Community Development should offer municipalities precise
directives and technical support to facilitate the completion of their housing elements; to in turn
enable the implementation of essential housing construction initiatives.
For these reasons, the Tri-Valley Cities Coalition respectfully opposes SB 1037.
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
ATTACHMENT D
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
cc: Assembly Member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Senator Steven Glazer
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
August 12, 2024
The Honorable Patrick McHenry
Chairman
United States House of
Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable Sherrod Brown
Chairman
United States Senate Washington,
D.C. 20510
The Honorable Maxine Waters
Ranking Member
United States House of
Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable Tim Scott
Ranking Member
United States Senate Washington,
D.C. 20510
Dear Chairman McHenry, Chairman Brown, Ranking Member Waters, and Ranking Member
Scott:
On behalf of the Tri-Valley Cities Coalition which includes the cities of Dublin, Livermore,
Pleasanton, San Ramon, and the Town of Danville, we write to reemphasize our strong support
of S.1514 and H.R.3170, the Homes for Every Local Protector, Educator, and Responder
(HELPER) Act, introduced by U.S. Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL), John Ossoff (D-GA), Sherrod
Brown (D-OH), Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-
NV), and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and U.S. Representatives John Rutherford (R-FL) and
Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ).
The HELPER Act would create a home loan program within the Federal Housing Administration
to help our law enforcement officers, firefighters, EMTs, paramedics, and preK-12 teachers (“first
responders”) by making homeownership more affordable. Too often, our civil servants struggle to
afford their first home. Because of this, we are writing in support of the HELPER Act, which would
help our civil servants access the housing they need to serve their communities.
First responders dedicate their lives to protecting and serving their fellow Americans. The COVID-
19 pandemic has only made clearer the ongoing challenges that these brave first responders
face. It is time we honor them for their service. To that end, the HELPER Act program will function
similarly to the home loan program managed by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Managed by
the Federal Housing Administration, it will allow law enforcement officers, firefighters, EMTs,
paramedics, and preK-12 teachers to obtain a low-interest, fully insured home loan with no down
payment and no monthly mortgage insurance costs for a first-time home purchase.
Our nation’s first responders have demonstrated their unwavering commitment to their
communities. Even amidst a deadly pandemic, these heroes have served without hesitation. We
believe they have earned access to affordable housing so that they can provide for their families
and continue to serve their communities. We write to request that this legislation receive a
committee markup hearing during the 118th Congress and receive full consideration by your
respective committees.
ATTACHMENT E
Tri-Valley Cities
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON
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
DATE: August 27, 2024
TO: Councilmember Morgan, Councilmember Storer
FROM: Melysa Vander Mel, Economic Development Specialist
SUBJECT: 2025 Legislative Committee Dates
The following are the dates for the 2025 Town of Danville Legislative Committee
Meetings:
January 28, 2025
February 25, 2025
March 25, 2025
April 22, 2025
May 27, 2025
June 24, 2025
July 22, 2025
August 26, 2025
September 23, 2025
October 28, 2025
November 25, 2025
*December 16, 2025
*All dates are the 4th Tuesday of the month at 9:00 a.m. with the exception of December
due to town furlough.
ATTACHMENT F