HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-08-17; City Council Legislative Subcommittee; ; Legislative Update and Advocacy ReportCity Council Legislative Subcommittee
Meeting Date: August 17, 2021
To: City Council Legislative Subcommittee
From: Jason Haber, Intergovernmental Affairs Director
Item 3: Legislative Update and Advocacy Report
Recommendation: Receive an update on state and federal legislative and budget activity and
recent and ongoing advocacy efforts, and provide feedback to staff. Discuss and determine the
Subcommittee's recommended advocacy positions on high-priority bills.
Discussion:
Staff and the Renne Public Policy Group (RPPG) will present an update and overview of state
legislative activity (Exhibit 1) and the priority legislation being tracked on behalf of the city
(Exhibit 2). The Subcommittee is requested to provide feedback to help city staff and the city's
lobbying consultants focus the city's advocacy efforts on high-priority bills and to identify bills
for future City Council consideration.
Position Letters Submitted to Committees and/or Legislative Offices
•AB 1401 (Friedman)- Opposition (05/07)
•AB 1434 (Friedman)- Opposition (05/07)
•SB 1 (Atkins)- Support (05/07)
•SB 612 (Portantino)- Support (04/05)
•AB 1029 (Mullin)- Support (04/07)
•AB 377 (Rivas, Robert)- Opposition (04/09)
•SB 278 (Leyva)- Opposition (04/09)
•SB 556 (Dodd)- Opposition (04/09)
•SB 54 (Allen)- Support (04/09)
•AB 361 (Rivas, Robert) — Support (06/03)
•AB 718 (Cunningham) — Support (06/03)
•AB 500 (Ward) — Opposition (06/03)
•AB 215 (Chiu) — Opposition (06/03)
•AB 66 (Boerner Horvath) — Support (06/16)
•SB 9 (Atkins) — Opposition unless Amended (06/16)
•SB 344 (Hertzberg) —Support (06/24)
•SB 8 (Skinner) — Opposition (07/08)
•AB 816 (Chiu) — Opposition (07/08)
Aug. 17, 2021 Item #3 Page 1 of 22
Staff are continuing to identify operational needs and policy priorities that might translate into
additional state and federal advocacy initiatives, which will be presented for discussion with
and feedback from the Legislative Subcommittee.
Exhibits:
1.RPPG Legislative Monthly Report —July 2021
2.Priority Legislation List — August 2021
3.RPPG Updated Analysis on SB 9 (Atkins)
Aug. 17, 2021 Item #3 Page 2 of 22
(City of
Carlsbad
California
August 13, 2021
To: Mayor Matt Hall, Legislative Subcommittee Member
Councilmember Teresa Acosta, Legislative Subcommittee Member
Jason Haber, Intergovernmental Affairs Director
City of Carlsbad
From: Sharon Gonsalves
Director of Government Affairs
Renne Public Policy Group
Re: Legislative Monthly Report — July 2021
On July 15, the Legislature adjourned for summer recess. As a result, the month of July was
relatively quiet in Sacramento as members spent time in their districts focused on local events
and connecting with constituents.
Upon the return of the legislature on August 16, the push to move legislation during the final
month of the session will begin. Lawmakers will have until September 10th to address opposition
to their bills and navigate through the remaining committees and necessary floor votes.
UPCOMING LEGISLATIVE DEADLINES
August 16— Legislature reconvenes from Summer Recess
September 10 — Last day for any bill to be passed and sent to Governor's desk
September 14 — Gubernatorial Recall Election
October 10 — Last day for Governor to sign or veto pending legislation
HOMELESSNESS
The Governor has spent his time touring the state to highlight key investments made through the
state budget under the California Comeback Plan.
On July 19 Governor Newsom signed AB 140, a $12 billion investment over two years to confront
the homelessness crisis, helping individuals move off the streets and into housing with wrap-
around services. Highlights of the budget bill include:
Aug. 17, 2021 Item #3 Page 3 of 22
•$5.8 billion for Homekey over two years, creating more than 42,000 new homeless
housing units
•$2.75 billion for the Department of Housing and Community Development
•$3 billion for the Health and Human Services Agency to create clinically enriched
behavioral health housing and funding for the renovation and acquisition of
Board and Care Facilities and Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly.
•$2 billion in Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention Program (HHAP) grants over
two years with new accountability requirements for local governments
•$1.75 billion to unlock up to 7,200 units of housing in the pipeline for extremely low-
income families and people exiting homelessness
•$150 million to stabilize participants in Project Roomkey hotels
•$50.6 million for encampment resolution efforts
•$45 million for services and housing for homeless veterans
In addition to these investments, the plan includes $1.1 billion to clean up the streets of California
by partnering with local governments to pick up trash and beautify downtowns, freeways and
neighborhoods across California.
BROADBAND
The budget package also included SB 156, providing $6 billion for broadband infrastructure. Key
investments will be made in the following areas:
•$3.25 billion to build, operate and maintain an open access, state-owned middle mile
network — high-capacity fiber lines that carry large amounts of data at higher speeds
over longer distances between local networks.
•$2 billion to set up last-mile broadband connections that will connect homes and
businesses with local networks. The legislation expedites project deployment and
enables Tribes and local governments to access this funding.
•$750 million for a loan loss reserve fund to bolster the ability of local governments and
nonprofits to secure financing for broadband infrastructure
Funding through the Broadband Infrastructure Grant Account must be encumbered by
December 31, 2026, and funding through the Federal Funding Account will be available through
June 30, 2023.
Aug. 17, 2021 Item #3 Page 4 of 22
COVID-19 VACCINATION REQUIREMENTS
Governor Newsom announced a first-in-the-nation standard to require all state workers and
workers in health care and high-risk congregate settings to either show proof of full vaccination
or be tested at least once per week
Citing the rise in cases caused by the Delta variant and the existence of other variants of concern,
Governor Newsom's order applies to public and private health care settings, congregate settings
such as jails and homeless shelters, and all individuals employed by the State of California.
On August 11, as California schools begin to reopen to full time in-person learning, the Governor
extended the vaccination requirement to teachers and school staff members. The policy applies
to staff members serving students in kindergarten through 12th grade and went into effect on
August 12, with the deadline for full compliance being October 15.
###
Aug. 17, 2021 Item #3 Page 5 of 22
Priority Legislation List August 2021
(City of
Carlsbad
California
Housing and Land Use
SB 6 (Caballero) Local Planning: Housing: Commercial Zones (As amended 04/12)
This bill would deem a housing development project, as defined, an allowable use on a neighborhood
lot, which is defined as a parcel within an office or retail commercial zone that is not adjacent to an
industrial use. The bill would require the density for a housing development under these provisions
to meet or exceed the density deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for lower income
households according to the type of local jurisdiction, including a density of at least 20 units per acre
for a suburban jurisdiction.
Status: At Assembly Desk, awaiting committee assignment. (Two-year bill)
Client Position: Watch
SB 8 (Skinner) Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (As amended 07/05)
This bill extends the sunset on the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (HCA) by five years from 2025 to 2030.
Other proposed changes to the HCA include language to specify that the HCA applies to both
discretionary and ministerial projects, and to projects to construct single dwelling units.
Status: Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Assembly Appropriations Committee.
Client Position: Oppose (Position letter submitted 07/08/21)
SB 91Atkins) Housing Development: Approvals (As amended 04/27)
Requires "ministerial approval" (means no public hearings) of up to five units on an existing single-
family parcel. Permits existing home to be split into a duplex that can be sold separately. Allows two
more units to be built under (ADU) "accessory dwelling unit" law. Then allows 40 percent of the parcel
to be split-off where two more units can be built and sold separately. Limits local parking and set-
back requirements and avoids compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Does
not currently apply within homeowner associations, but that could always change. "Owner occupied"
provisions expire in 5 years.
Status: Do pass and re-refer to Assembly Appropriations Committee.
Client Position: Oppose unless amended. (Position letter submitted on 06/23/21)
SB 10 (Wiener) Planning and Zoning: Housing Development: Density (As amended 07/05)
This bill would, notwithstanding any local restrictions on adopting zoning ordinances, authorize a
local government to adopt an ordinance to zone any parcel for up to 10 units of residential density
per parcel, at a height specified in the ordinance, if the parcel is located in a transit-rich area or an
urban infill site, as those terms are defined. The bill would prohibit a local government from adopting
an ordinance pursuant to these provisions on or after January 1, 2029. The bill would specify that an
Aug. 17. 2021 Item #3 Page 6 of 22
ordinance adopted under these provisions, and any resolution to amend the jurisdiction's General
Plan, ordinance, or other local regulation adopted to be consistent with that ordinance, is not a
project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. The bill would prohibit an ordinance
adopted under these provisions from superceding a local restriction enacted or approved by a local
initiative that designates publicly owned land as open-space land or for park or recreational purposes.
The bill would require an ordinance to be adopted by a 2/3 vote of the members of the legislative
body if the ordinance supersedes any zoning restriction established by local initiative. The bill would
prohibit a residential or mixed-use residential project consisting of 10 or more units that is located
on a parcel zoned pursuant to these provisions from being approved ministerially or by right or from
being exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, except as specified.
Status: Read second time. Ordered to Assembly third reading.
Client Position: Watch
SB 15 (Portantino) Housing Development: Incentives: Rezoning of Idle Retail Sites (As amended
05/20)
Current law establishes, among other housing programs, the Workforce Housing Reward Program,
which requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to make local assistance
grants to cities, counties, and cities and counties that provide land use approval to housing
developments that are affordable to very low and low-income households. This bill, upon
appropriation by the Legislature in the Budget Act or other act, would require the department to
administer a program to provide incentives in the form of grants allocated as provided to local
governments that rezone idle sites used for a big box retailer or a commercial shopping center to
instead allow the development of housing, as defined.
Status: At Assembly Desk, awaiting committee assignment. (Two-year bill)
AB 1401 (Friedman) Residential and Commercial Development: Remodeling, Renovations, and
Additions: Parking Requirements (As amended 07/05)
This bill would prohibit a public agency in a county with a population of 600,000 or more from
imposing a minimum automobile parking requirement, or enforcing a minimum automobile parking
requirement, on residential, commercial, or other development if the development is located on a
parcel that is within 1/2 mile, as specified, of public transit, as defined. The bill would prohibit a public
agency in a city with of 75,000 or more located in a county with a population of less than 600,000
from imposing a minimum automobile parking requirement, or enforcing a minimum automobile
parking requirement, on residential, commercial, or other development if the project is located
within 1/4 mile, as specified, of public transit, as defined. The bill would create authorizations in this
regard for a city or a county to which these prohibitions do not apply. The bill would exempt certain
commercial parking requirements from these provisions if the requirements of the bill conflict with
an existing contractual agreement of the public agency that was executed before January 1, 2022, as
specified. This bill would prohibit a public agency from imposing any new minimum parking
requirement on a project to remodel, renovate, or add to a single-family residence, provided that any
addition to the single-family residence does not cause the single-family residence to exceed any floor-
to-area ratio restriction imposed by the public agency.
Status: Passed out of Senate Housing Committee. Vote: Y: 6; N:2; A:1. Do pass and re-refer to Senate
Appropriations Committee. Set for hearing on August 16.
Client Position: Oppose (Letter submitted 07/13/21)
Aug. 17. 2021 Item #3 Page 7 of 22
AB 1029 (Mullin) Housing Elements: Prohousing Local Polices (As amended 07/09)
This measure would add the preservation of affordable housing units through the extension of
existing project-based rental assistance covenants to avoid the displacement of affected tenants and
a reduction in available affordable housing units to the list of specified Prohousing local policies.
Status: Passed out of Senate Appropriations Committee on Consent (Senate Rule 28.8). Ordered to
Senate Second Reading.
Client Position: Support (Letter Submitted 07/02/21)
AB 500 (Ward) Local Planning: Coastal Development: Affordable Housing (As amended 07/13)
This bill would require the California Coastal Commission to conduct and complete a study on or
before January 1, 2023, that identifies recommendations for policy changes that advance affordable
housing in the coastal zone. The bill would provide that the study may include recommendations
regarding the commission's authority related to the development of lower income housing and
recommendations regarding streamlining of local government and commission review of affordable
housing projects.
Status: Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Senate Appropriations Committee. Set for
hearing on August 16.
Client Position: Oppose (Position letter submitted on 07/02/21)
AB 215 (Chiu) Housing Element: Regional Housing Need: Relative Progress of Determination (As
amended 07/16)
This bill, starting with the 6th housing element revision, would require the department to determine
the relative progress toward meeting regional housing needs of each jurisdiction and governments,
as specified. The bill would require the department to make this determination based on the
information contained in the annual reports submitted by each jurisdiction, as specified. The bill
would require the department to make this determination for all housing and for lower income
housing by dividing the applicable entity's progress toward meeting its share of the regional housing
need by its prorated share of the regional housing need, as specified. The bill would require the
department to post the determinations of relative progress on its internet website by July 1 of the
year in which relative progress is determined. The bill would require the department to notify each
jurisdiction that is required to conduct a midcycle housing element review and to publish a list of
jurisdictions on its internet website, as specified. The bill would require the jurisdictions to undertake
a midcycle housing element consultation to, within 6 months of receiving notice, provide the
department with an analysis of the implementation status and efficacy of the scheduled programs of
its housing element and any draft amendment to the schedule of programs in its housing element, as
specified. The bill would require the department to review and provide written findings for a
submitted analysis and any draft amendment, as specified.
Status: Passed out of Senate Housing Committee. Vote: Y:5; N:2; A:2. Read second time, amended,
and re-referred to Senate Appropriations Committee. Set for hearing on August 16.
Client Position: Oppose (Position letter submitted on 07/02/21)
SB 791 (Cortese) California Surplus Land Unit (As amended 07/14)
This bill would, upon appropriation by the Legislature, establish the California Surplus Land Unit
within the Department of Housing and Community Development with the primary purpose of
facilitating the development and construction of residential housing on local surplus land, as defined.
Aug. 17. 2021 Item #3 Pane 8 of 22
In this regard, the bill would authorize the unit to, among other things, facilitate agreements between
housing developers and local agencies that seek to dispose of surplus land; provide advice, technical
assistance, and consultative and technical service to local agencies with surplus land and developers
that seek to develop housing on the surplus land; and collaborate with specified state agencies to
assist housing developers and local agencies with obtaining grants, loans, tax credits, credit
enhancements, and other types of financing that facilitate the construction of housing on surplus
land. The bill would authorize the unit to convene a stakeholder group, consisting of specified
stakeholders, affordable housing developers, and state agencies and departments that provide
funding for affordable housing, to provide recommendations as to whether the department should
explore ownership of local surplus lands as a strategy to further the development of housing on
surplus land.
Status: Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Assembly Appropriations Committee.
RPPG Recommendation: Watch
SB 478 (Wiener) Planning and Zoning Law: Housing Development Projects (As amended 07/05)
This bill would prohibit a local agency, as defined, from imposing a floor-to-area ratio standard that
is less than 1.0 on a housing development project that consists of 3 to 7 units, or less than 1.25 on a
housing development project that consists of 8 to 10 units. The bill would prohibit a local agency from
imposing a lot coverage requirement that would physically preclude a housing development project
from achieving the floor-to-area ratios described above. The bill would prohibit a local agency from
denying a housing development project located on an existing legal parcel solely on the basis that the
lot area of the proposed lot does not meet the local agency's requirements for minimum lot size. The
bill would only apply to housing development projects that meet specified requirements, including,
among other things, that the project be located in a multifamily residential zone or a mixed-use zone,
as specified. The bill would additionally require the department to identify violations by a local
government of these provisions, as described above.
Status: Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Assembly Appropriations Committee.
Client Position: Watch
Homelessness
AB 816 (Chiu) Homelessness: Housing Trust Fund: housing projects (As amended 07/16)
This bill would require the department to prioritize funding for projects that serve people
experiencing homelessness, to the extent that a sufficient number of projects exist. The bill would
authorize the department to alter priority for funding to align eligibility for possible benefits, including
Medi-Cal benefits that are intended to assist people experiencing homelessness.
Status: Passed out of Senate Human Services Committee. Vote: Y:4; N:1. Read second time, amended,
and re-referred to Senate Appropriations Committee. Set for hearing on August 16.
Client Position: Oppose (Position letter submitted 07/08/21)
SB 344 (Hertzberg) Homeless Shelter Grants: Pets and Veterinary Services. (As amended 05/25)
This bill would require the Department of Housing and Community Development subject to an
appropriation in the annual Budget Act, to develop and administer a program to award grants to
qualified homeless shelters, as described, for the provision of shelter, food, and basic veterinary
services for pets owned by people experiencing homelessness. The bill would authorize the
Aug. 17. 2021 Item #3 Page 9 of 22
department to use up to 5% of the funds appropriated in the annual Budget Act for those purposes
for its costs in administering the program.
Status: Re-referred to Assembly Appropriations Committee.
Client Position: Support (Position letter submitted on 06/24/21)
Transportation
SB 640 (Becker) Transportation Financing: Jointly Funded Projects (As amended 05/20)
Current law provides for the deposit of various funds, including revenues from certain increases in
fuel taxes and vehicle fees, for the program into the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account.
After certain allocations for the program are made, existing law requires the remaining funds
available for the program to be continuously appropriated 50% for allocation to the department for
maintenance of the state highway system or for the State Highway Operation and Protection Program
and 50% for apportionment to cities and counties by the Controller pursuant to a specified formula.
Current law requires a city or county to submit to the California Transportation Commission a list of
proposed projects, as specified, to be eligible for an apportionment of those funds. This bill would
authorize cities and counties to propose projects to be jointly funded by the cities and counties'
apportionments of those funds, as specified.
Status: Chaptered and signed into law by the Governor on July 16.
RPPG Recommended Position: Watch
Brown Act/Public Records Act/ Employee Relations
SB 278 (Leyva) Public Employees' Retirement System: Disallowed Compensation: Benefit
Adjustments (As amended 03/23)
This bill would establish new procedures under PERL for cases in which PERS determines that the
benefits of a member or annuitant are, or would be, based on disallowed compensation that conflicts
with PEPRA and other specified laws and thus impermissible under PERL. The bill would also apply
these procedures retroactively to determinations made on or after January 1, 2017, if an appeal has
been filed and the employee member, survivor, or beneficiary has not exhausted their administrative
or legal remedies. At the threshold, after determining that compensation for an employee member
reported by the state, school employer, or a contracting agency is disallowed, the bill would require
the applicable employer to discontinue the reporting of the disallowed compensation.
Status: Placed on Assembly Appropriations Suspense File.
Client Position: Oppose (Letter submitted on 06/25/21)
AB 361 (Rivas, Robert) Open Meetings: Local Agencies: Teleconferences (As amended 07/06)
This bill, until January 1, 2024, would authorize a local agency to use teleconferencing without
complying with the teleconferencing requirements imposed by the Ralph M. Brown Act when a
legislative body of a local agency holds a meeting during a declared state of emergency, as that term
is defined, when state or local health officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote
social distancing, during a proclaimed state of emergency held for the purpose of determining, by
majority vote, whether meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of
attendees, and during a proclaimed state of emergency when the legislative body has determined
Aug, 17. 2023. Item #3 Page 10 of 22
that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees, as
provided. The bill would prohibit the legislative body from closing the public comment period and the
opportunity to register to provide public comment, until the public comment period has elapsed or
until a reasonable amount of time has elapsed, as specified. This bill would exclude from that
prohibition, a registration requirement imposed by a third-party internet website or other online
platform not under the control of the legislative body.
Status: Passed out of Senate Judiciary Committee. Vote: Y:10; N:1; A:1. Read second time. Ordered
to Senate third reading.
Client Position: Support (Position letter submitted on 06/25/21)
Public Safety
AB 48 (Gonzalez) Law Enforcement: Kinetic Energy Projectiles and Chemical Agents (As amended
03/16)
This bill would prohibit the use of kinetic energy projectiles or chemical agents by any law
enforcement agency to disperse any assembly, protest, or demonstration, and would prohibit their
use solely due to a violation of an imposed curfew, verbal threat, or noncompliance with a law
enforcement directive.
Status: Passed out of Senate Public Safety Committee. Vote: Y:4; N:1. Do pass and re-refer to
Senate Appropriations Committee.
RPPG Recommended Position: Watch
AB 89 (Jones-Sawyer) Peace Officers: Minimum Qualifications (As amended 07/15)
This bill would require the certification program to also include peace officers employed by the state
in agencies that participate in the POST program. The bill would require the commission to work
collaboratively with specified stakeholders to develop a list of courses to include as requirements for
obtaining a basic certificate. The bill would require the commission to, in developing these courses,
to, among other things, work with the California Community Colleges towards developing a full
associate degree for transfer in modern policing, and would require the commission to report to the
Legislature on that program on or before June 1, 2023. The bill would additionally require the
commission, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to develop a program to provide financial support
for a higher education degree for individuals pursuing a law enforcement career, and to establish a
statewide print and radio media campaign for the purposes of bringing awareness to these programs.
This bill would, for specified peace officers, increase the minimum qualifying age from 18 to 21 years
of age and would, on and after January 1, 2025, require those officers to complete the curriculum or
degree program developed by the commission or to have a bachelor's degree or other advanced
degree from an accredited college or university, except as specified.
Status: Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Senate Appropriations Committee.
RPPG Recommend Position: Watch
AB 718 (Cunningham) Peace Officers: Investigations of Misconduct
Aug. 17. 2021 Item #3 Page 11 of 22
This bill would require a law enforcement agency or oversight agency to complete its investigation
into an allegation of the use of force resulting in death or great bodily injury, sexual assault, discharge
of a firearm, or dishonesty relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime or
misconduct by another peace officer or custodial officer, despite the peace officer's or custodial
officer's voluntary separation from the employing agency. The bill would require the investigation to
result in a finding that the allegation is either sustained, not sustained, unfounded, or exonerated, as
defined. The bill would also require an agency other than an officer's employing agency that conducts
an investigation of these allegations to disclose its findings with the employing agency no later than
the conclusion of the investigation.
Status: Referred to Senate Appropriations Suspense File.
Client Position: Support (Position letter submitted on 06/24/21)
SB 2 (Bradford) Peace Officers: Certification: Civil Rights (As amended 07/07)
The bill would eliminate certain immunity provisions for peace officers and custodial officers, or
public entities employing peace officers or custodial officers sued under the act. This bill would
prohibit a person who has been convicted of a felony, as specified, from regaining eligibility for peace
officer employment based upon any later order of the court setting aside, vacating, withdrawing,
expunging or otherwise dismissing or reversing the conviction, unless the court finds the person to
be factually innocent of the crime for which they were convicted at the time of entry of the order.
This bill would require the Department of Justice to provide the commission with necessary
disqualifying felony and misdemeanor conviction data for all persons known by the department to
be current or former peace officers, as specified. The bill would require the commission to issue a
proof of eligibility or basic certificate, as specified, to certain persons employed as a peace officer on
January 1, 2022, who do not otherwise possess a certificate. The bill would create the Peace Officer
Standards Accountability Division within the commission to review investigations conducted by law
enforcement agencies and to conduct additional investigations into serious misconduct that may
provide grounds for decertification, as specified. The bill would require the commission to review the
recommendation made by the board based on whether there is evidence that reasonably supports
the board's recommendation and, if action is to be taken against an officer's certification, return the
determination to the division to commence formal proceedings consistent with the Administrative
Procedure Act.
Status: Passed out of Assembly Public Safety Committee. Vote: Y:6; N:2. Do pass and be referred to
Assembly Appropriations Committee.
Client Position: Watch
SB 16 (Skinner) Peace Officers: Release of Records (As amended 07/08)
This bill would make every incident involving force that is unreasonable or excessive, and any
sustained finding that an officer failed to intervene against another officer using unreasonable or
excessive force, subject to disclosure. The bill would require records relating to sustained findings of
unlawful arrests and unlawful searches to be subject to disclosure. The bill would also require the
disclosure of records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law
enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in conduct
involving prejudice or discrimination on the basis of specified protected classes. The bill would make
the limitations on delay of disclosure inapplicable until January 1, 2023, for the described records
Aug. 17, 2021 Item #3 Page 12 0 22
relating to incidents that occurred before January 1, 2022. For purposes of releasing records, the bill
would exempt from protection under the lawyer-client privilege, the disclosure of factual information
provided by the public entity to its attorney, factual information discovered by any investigation by
the public entity's attorney, or billing records related to the work done by the attorney.
Status: Passed out of Assembly Judiciary Committee. Vote: Y:8; N:2; A:1. Read second time and
amended. Re-referred to Assembly Appropriations Committee.
Client Position: Watch
Environmental Quality and Wildfire
SB 1 (Atkins) Coastal Resources: Sea Level Rise (As amended 06/24)
This bill would require the California Coastal Commission to also include, as part of the procedures to
adopt, recommendations and guidelines for the identification, assessment, minimization, and
mitigation of sea level rise within each local coastal program, as provided. The bill would delete the
current 90 day timeframe specified in current law by which the commission is required to adopt these
procedures.
Status: Placed on Assembly Appropriations Suspense File.
Client Position: Support (Letter submitted 06/25/21)
SB 52 (Dodd) State of Emergency: Local Emergency: Planned Power Outage (As amended 04/12)
This measure would expand the definition of "sudden and severe energy shortage" to include a
"deenergization event," defined as a planned power outage, as specified, and would make a
deenergization event one of those conditions constituting a state of emergency and a local
emergency.
Status: Passed out of Assembly Emergency Management Committee. Vote: Y:7; N:0. From consent
calendar on motion of Assemblymember Aguiar-Curry. Ordered to Assembly third reading.
Client Position: Watch
AB 66 (Boerner Horvath) Coastal Resources: Research: Landslides and Erosion: Early Warning
System: County of San Diego (As amended 07/08)
This bill would, upon appropriation by the Legislature, require the Scripps Institution of
Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, to conduct research on coastal cliff landslides
and erosion in the County of San Diego, as provided. The bill would require the research to be
completed by January 1, 2025. The bill would require by no later than March 15, 2025, the institution
to provide a report to the Legislature with recommendations for developing a coastal cliff landslide
and erosion early warning system based on available research. The bill would exempt the Regents of
the University of California from civil liability for any harm resulting from measurements, predictions,
or warnings regarding bluff failure, cliff landslides, or erosion contained in the report or from the
research or related to the recommendations, unless those damages are the result of willful or wanton
misconduct.
Status: Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Senate Appropriations Committee. Set for
hearing on August 16.
Client Position: Support (Position letter submitted on 07/09/21)
Aug. 17, 2021 Item #3 Pane 13 of 22
Utilities and Public Works
SB 222 (Dodd) Water Rate Assistance Program (As amended 07/15)
This bill would establish the Water Rate Assistance Fund in the State Treasury to help provide water
affordability assistance, for both drinking water and wastewater services, to low-income ratepayers
and ratepayers experiencing economic hardship in California. The bill would require the Department
of Community Services and Development to develop and administer the Water Rate Assistance
Program established by the bill. The bill would require the department to, among other things,
coordinate with the commission to cease existing rate assistance programs offered by investor-
owned water utilities and transition the customers to the program through a process established by
the commission.
Status: Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Assembly Appropriations Committee.
Client Position: Watch
SB 323 (Caballero) Local Government: Water or Sewer Service: Legal Actions (As amended 07/07)
This bill would require any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, validate, or
annul an ordinance, resolution, or motion adopting, modifying, or amending water or sewer service
fees or charges adopted after January 1, 2022, to be commenced within 120 days of the date of final
passage, adoption, or approval of the ordinance, resolution, or motion, except as provided. This bill
would require a water or sewer agency mailing a written notice to the record owner of a parcel
affected by a proposed fee or charge pursuant to Article XIII D to include a statement that there is a
120-day statute of limitations for challenging any new, increased, or extended fee or charge. This bill
would provide that the provisions of this bill do not apply to a judicial action arising from billing errors,
as provided, due to the defective implementation of an ordinance, resolution, or motion adopting,
modifying, or amending a fee or charge for water or sewer service. Because this bill would require an
agency issuing a notice pursuant to Article XIII D to include additional information in the notice, it
would impose a state-mandated local program.
Status: Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Assembly Appropriations Committee.
RPPG Recommended / Client Position: Watch
SB 378 (Gonzalez) Local Government: Broadband Infrastructure Development Project Permit
Processing: Micro Trenching Permit Processing Ordinance. (As amended 06/29)
This bill would require a local agency to allow, except as provided, microtrenching for the installation
of underground fiber if the installation in the microtrench is limited to fiber. The bill would also
require, to the extent necessary, a local agency with jurisdiction to approve excavations to adopt or
amend existing policies, ordinances, codes, or construction rules to allow for microtrenching. The bill
would provide that these provisions do not supersede, nullify, or otherwise alter the requirements to
comply with specified safety standards. The bill would authorize a local agency to impose a fee for its
reasonable costs on an application for a permit to install fiber, as provided. By imposing new duties
on local agencies with regard to the installation of fiber, the bill would impose a state-mandated local
program. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of
statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter
cities. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Aug. 17. 2021 Item #3 Pane 14 of 22
Status: Passed out of Assembly Communications and Conveyance Committee. Vote: Y:12; N:0; A:1.
Do pass and re-refer to Assembly Appropriations Committee.
RPPG Recommended / Client Position: Watch
SB 556 (Dodd) Street Light Poles, Traffic Signal Poles: Small Wireless Facilities Attachments (As
amended 06/28)
This measure would prohibit a local government or local publicly owned electric utility from
unreasonably denying the leasing or licensing of its street light poles or traffic signal poles to
communications service providers for the purpose of placing small wireless facilities on those poles.
The bill would require that street light poles and traffic signal poles be made available for the
placement of small wireless facilities under fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory fees, as provided.
The bill would authorize a local government or local publicly owned electric utility to condition access
to its street light poles or traffic signal poles on reasonable terms and conditions, including reasonable
aesthetic and safety standards. This bill would require mobile telephony service providers, on or
before December 31, 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025, to measure and report to the Legislature their
progress towards meeting the goal of universal broadband access for each census tract in the state
in which the mobile telephony service provider provides wireless broadband service, by reporting the
percentage of each census tract it provides wireless broadband service. The bill would authorize
mobile telephony service providers to aggregate and submit that information through a third party.
Because the described reporting requirement would be part of the Public Utilities Act and a failure to
comply with those requirements would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local
program by creating a new crime.
Status: Passed out of Assembly Communications and Conveyance Committee. Vote: Y:11; N:1; A:1.
Do pass and re-refer to Assembly Appropriations Committee.
Client Position: Oppose (Letter submitted on 07/09/21)
SB 612 (Portantino) Electrical Corporations and Other Load-Serving Entities: Allocation of Legacy
Resources (As amended 05/20)
This bill would require an electrical corporation, by July 1, 2022, and not less than once every 3 years
thereafter, to offer an allocation of certain electrical resources to its bundled customers and to other
load-serving entities, including electric service providers and community choice aggregators, that
serve departing load customers who bear cost responsibility for those resources. The bill would
authorize a load-serving entity within the service territory of the electrical corporation to elect to
receive all or a portion of the vintaged proportional share of those legacy resources allocated to its
end-use customers and, if it so elects, would require it to pay to the electrical corporation the
commission-established market price benchmark for the vintage proportional share of the resources
received.
Status: Hearing postponed by the Assembly Utilities and Energy Committee. (Two-year bill)
Client Position: Support (Letter submitted 6/24/21)
Full Bill Text to any measure can be
found by going to the State's legislative
Information website: That can be
accessed by Clicking HERE
Aug. 17. 2021 Item #3 Page 15 of 22
SB 9 (Atkins) As Amended, 4127/21
Statewide Rezoning of Single-Family Neighborhoods & Urban Parcel Splits
Prepared by RPPG Senior Policy Advisor, Dan Carrigg**
Senate Bill 9 (Atkins) as amended (04/27) proposes to rezone by state statute, virtually all parcels
within single-family residential zones in California allowing for the creation of (when combined
with state Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) law) at least four units, and under several scenarios up
to six' units (see endnote below). Further, the measure authorizes urban lot splits, without any
local discretionary public hearing or review—including compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)i", as follows:
•Single-Family Residential Zones: Permits the division, partial or full tear down of an
existing single-family home to create two separate residential units, eligible to be sold
separately". Since the measure also operates in conjunction with ADU law, it will allow at
least two more units to be built on the parcel without public review. All local ordinanceel
that would physically preclude construction of the two units cannot be enforced. ADU law
has separate authority enabling the construction of additional units. Parking is limited to
one space per unity'', and must be eliminated entirely if within one-half mile of transit or if
there is a car share vehicle within one block.
•Urban Parcel Splits: Permits urban lot splits in residential zones to create two new"
parcels no smaller than 1,200 square feet, provided that one parcel shall not be less than
40 percent of the lot area of the original parcel proposed for subdivision". Prohibits the
application of local requirements that would physically preclude the construction of two
units to be built on each split lotx. Authorizes a local government to impose a one-year
owner occupancy requirement to utilize the lot-split provision. However, as drafted there
is a sunset date which eliminates the owner-occupancy provision in five years"'. Note: This
is the only sunset provision in the measure.
•Area Limitations: Parcels must be located in a US Census designated urban area or
urban cluster'''. Parcels within the Coastal Zone are also includedxhi. Limitations apply for
hazardous waste sites, land designated for conservation, or within a historic district, as
those various terms are defined. If a parcel is located in an earthquake fault zone,
floodplain or regulatory floodway, the development shall be constructed in compliance with
applicable state and local requirements.
•High Fire Hazard Zones: Units can be built under SB 9 within a fire hazard zone if they
comply with state fire hazard mitigation measures and applicable building standards"'".
•Parcel Occupancy Limitations: The development cannot affect units occupied by a
tenant within the prior three years", units subject to local rent control, units that have been
withdrawn (Ellis Act) from rental housing within the prior 15 years, or units restricted by
covenant for low- and moderate-income households.
•Single-Family Home Demolishing: A single family home may be demolished entirely if
a tenant has not lived in the home during the prior three years, otherwise only 25 percent
may be demolished, unless a greater percentage is allowed by local ordinance.
Aug. 17. 2021 Item #3 Page 16 of 22
•Setbacks: Provides that local building setbacks cannot be greater than what is applied to
an existing structure and requires those same setbacks to be applied to a structure
constructed in the same location and the same dimension as the existing structure'".
Related conditions include:
o Stipulates that a proposal shall not be rejected solely because it proposes adjacent
or connected structures that meeting building code safety standards and are
sufficient to allow a separate conveyance'.
o Permits local governments to require four-foot setbacks from the rear and side lot
lines in other circumstancesxv.
o Requires units that are proposed to be connected to an on-site waste treatment
system to have a percolation test completed within the prior five years, or if
percolation has been recertified, within 10 years.
•Parking: Authorizes a local agency to require parking of one space per unit, but prohibits
a parking requirement if:
o The project is within one-half mile of a high-quality transit corridor, or a major transit
stop, as defined'.
o There is a car-share vehicle" located within one block of the parcel.
•Zoning: Authorizes the proposed development to comply with local "objective" zoning,
subdivision and design standards, but states that such standards cannot have the effect
of precluding"' the development of two units. Defines these terms to mean standards that
are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion
and involve no personal and subjective judgement by a public official. Stipulates that local
agency shall require that any units constructed under this provision that are to be rented
shall be for a term longer than 30 days. (Avoids vacation rentals)°<"
o Prohibits a local agency from being required to permit an accessory dwelling unit
on parcels where an applicant constructs units in compliance with this section and
also subdivides the lot into two separate parcels.xx"i
o Authorizes a local agency to adopt an ordinance to implement these provisions but
stipulates that the adoption of the ordinance shall not be considered a project
under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).xx'v
Comments:
1) Voters Deserve a Voice on Proposed Elimination of Single-Family Zoning: It is
difficult to conceive of a more aggressive law the Legislature could attempt to pass
affecting the nearly seven million California homeowners who have scrimped and saved
to acquire and maintain their piece of the California Dream, a single-family home. The
Legislature should not leap to the enactment of a sweeping statewide law without the
proper reflection, due diligence and true public transparency on what such a proposal
really means for millions of Californians and the state's future economy. SB 9 deserves
much more public sunshine than is permitted in the COVID-impacted Legislature where
public transparency and access has become even more limited. Enacting such a law
without broader transparency and consultation with the voters would be reckless. The
origin of this bill supposedly is based on recent experiments in Minneapolis and Oregon.
A primary narrative being used in support of this measure is centered around the
characterization that all single-family home development is derived from racially motivated
biases that tie back to the abhorrent practice of "redlining" tactics. Polarizing and divisive
messaging such as this often overshadows the rationale policy-based arguments being
expressed by local agencies. If such a proposal has merit, then all affected Californian's
Aug. 17. 2021 Item #3 Pane 17 of 22
deserve an opportunity to fully understand it and weigh in via an advisory ballot measure
put to the voters in November 2022.
2)Inequitable Impacts: A March 2021 nationwide study found that the share of single-
family rentals owned by institutional investors rose to 24.5% in 2015 from 17.3% in 2001.
Combined across all housing types, institutional investors now own a majority (52%) of
the country's 47.5 million rental units and their share has been growing. It is likely that
the disruption caused by SB 9 will have inequitable impacts depending on wealth. Flipping
homes to duplexes and splitting parcels down to 1,200 square feet are likely to affect
middle/low-income neighborhoods and homeowners more than wealthier individuals—
creating more market rate rental units and less new home ownership opportunities.
3)Lack of Due Process and Transparency: Much is made in the Legislature of the value
of public engagement and transparency when local governments make decisions. Local
officials must comply with rigorous transparency requirements under the Brown Act. The
benefits of CEQA are also strongly defended, to ensure that both the public and decision
makers are fully informed and have the opportunity to mitigate environmental impacts.
Yet, SB 9 discards public transparency and environmental principles. Without any due
process for those affected, including an opportunity for local hearings, community input,
or even compliance with CEQA, the Legislature will allow most single-family
neighborhoods to become the target of "buy, flip and split" speculators who are free to
demolish homes and replace them with units jammed up against four-foot setbacks, with
little to no parking, while avoiding compliance with local laws and ordinances that apply to
others. It is inequitable to upend single family zoning and destabilize existing
neighborhoods without adequate due process to those locally affected.
4)What about New Subdivisions, and State Policy to Preserve Homeowner Equity?
The premise behind SB 9 is to eliminate single family zoning. But then why does SB 9
not specifically address new subdivisions? It is inconsistent to upend existing single-family
neighborhoods, while allowing new subdivisions to be created under the one home per
parcel model. Developers and home sellers should also be required to disclose whether
the provisions of SB 9 apply to a neighborhood. State housing policies that mention single-
family homes in a positive way, would also need to be revised or repealed, such as Section
50007 (HSC) : The Legislature finds and declares that the large equities that the majority
of California residents in most economic strata have now accumulated in single-family
homes must be protected and conserved."
6) Upends State Housing Element Planning: The state already has numerous housing
laws in place that ensure that the California's housing needs are incorporated into local
plans, via local zoning. Recent changes in laws governing the Regional Housing Needs
Assessment (RHNA) have drastically increased housing allocations in the 6th Cycle to
most communities. Local housing plans (elements), in turn, must be approved by the
Department of Housing and Community Development. Over 98 percent of cities and
counties have obtained such approvals, and the state recently significantly strengthened
enforcement provisions to ensure full accountability. The expanded zoning of single-
family parcels in SB 9 is completely disconnected from the local housing element planning
process. Uncoordinated development will create strains on local infrastructure, impact
response times, and create distrust among the public in the validity of local housing plans.
6) Destabilizing Economic Impacts: The purchase of a home is typically an individual's
largest investment. Establishing a state policy that permits 4-6 multi-unit development on
Aug. 17. 2021 Item #3 age 18 of 22
adjacent single-family parcels with no public process will destabilize single-family
neighborhoods. Developers focused on market opportunities will out-bid average families
and drive-up prices in desired areas. Those families concerned about protecting the value
of their investment, and/or seeking to obtain/preserve the traditional benefits of single-
family neighborhoods (less noise, traffic, etc.) will opt to move to more rural settings
exempt from SB 9—contributing to additional sprawl--or add to economic and social
divisions by increasing demand for living in homeowner's associations where such
activities would be prohibited via CC&R's. Business location and retention decisions may
be affected as well, since local quality-of-life for those making the decision is a major
factor.
7) Governor's Position on SB 9 Will Likely Determine Outcome: Governor Newsom
holds the power on this measure. Last year, SB 1120, a virtually identical bill, made it all
the way through the Legislature. It passed both the Senate and the Assembly, and only
stalled from being taken up on the last night of session because of a midnight procedural
deadline had passed. SB 9 is authored by the Senate Pro Tern Atkins; it already made it
through the Legislature once, as SB 1120, and is anticipated to do so again. That means
the fate of this measure will likely come down to a decision by Governor Newsom. While
the Governor clearly supports additional housing production, he has opted—so far—to do
so in a measured way, by increasing accountability for cities and counties to adopt state
approved housing element plans and allocating billions in state funding to address
homelessness and support affordable housing development. In his most recent budget
proposal, he also proposed a special unit at the Department of Housing and Community
Development to monitor local housing activities. Furthermore, the Governor has already
addressed this policy issue area by signing (AB 725 (Wicks), Ch. 193 of 2020) which
requires metropolitan jurisdictions to zone for at least 25 percent of allocated units for
moderate and above moderate-income housing on parcels allowing at least four units in
the next (7th) RHNA Cycle, which allows for such requirement to be incorporated into local
planning. Moreover, the Governor's own life choices support the referral of the SB 9
proposal for an advisory vote by California voters. When Governor Newsom was
inaugurated, he opted to purchase a single-family home on several acres in the suburbs,
reported to be the most expensive home ever sold within the region, rather than living in
the Governor's mansion in downtown Sacramento. California voters deserve a similar
opportunity to decide whether they want to continue to have the opportunity to achieve
and maintain benefits of single-family home and associated quality of life for their own
families.
** Dan Carrigg is a Senior Policy Advisor with the Renne Public Policy Group. As the retired
Deputy Executive and Legislative Director with the League of California Cities, Carrigg brings a
wealth of experience to the firm in legislative analysis, policy development, strategy, and
advocacy on a wide range of issues affecting local government. His expertise in California
housing and land use policy is truly unmatched—having spent nearly 30 years as a land use
legislative advocate and former Assembly Housing and Community Development Policy
Committee Consultant.
US Census data indicates there are nearly 6.9 million detached homes in California. State and local historic zones are proposed
to be exempted, but most other limitations are of relatively minor impact to the massive and sweeping scope of this bill. This
Aug. 1 , 2021 Item #3 Pane 19 of 22
measure is silent on how/if it applies to homes within common interest developments, or homeowner's associations, where
development is tightly regulated by codes, covenants and restrictions (CC&R's) that are agreed to by contract and administered
by local association boards under the Davis-Stirling Act. California homeowners can take little comfort in the reliability of any
potential exceptions in this bill. The Legislature's objective of eliminating single-family zoning statewide is clear, so this law can
be expected to be amended in the future to further its intent. The passage of multiple bills in recent years to expand ADU laws
are an example of how the Legislature can be expected to quickly widen this law once it is established.
ii While the bill continues to be represented as allowing a total of four units, the language fails to clearly impose such a cap, and
does not recognize scenarios when more than one unit may already be on a parcel prior to using SB 9. All of these issues could
be addressed with language added to SB 9 that clarified a hard cap of four units. Here are several scenarios where more than
four units could be created on a parcel:
1)Getting to 5 units: A developer buys a SF home, adds an ADU and a JADU to the property (using existing ADU/JADU
laws), then seeks a lot split to build two more units under SB 9 Sec. 66411.7. Nothing in Sec. 66411.7 appears to
prohibit a developer from building two more units as part of a lot split. The language in Sec. 65852.21 does not apply
because in this case the developer did not apply to split the SF home into a duplex.
2)Getting to 6 units: A developer buys a SF home, adds an ADU and JADU to the property (using existing ADU/JADU
laws), then uses SB 9 to split the SF home into a duplex. So far, so good. This would be a total of 4 units on the parcel.
As this bill is represented, that would be it, and the lot-split section should not be used. But where in the bill is that
clear? A close reading of the language does not appear to prohibit the developer from also applying for a lot spilt and
building two more units. A weakness in the language referencing ADU's in Sec. 65852.21 (e) is that it only appears to
contemplate a developer proposing ADUs in concert with an application under SB 9. The language states that a local
agency "shall not be required to permit..." ADUs if both sections in SB 9 are used. But what if the ADUs were previously
approved several years earlier and are already on the parcel? This is a problem created by not having a hard cap of
four units in the bill. Since all such interpretations are ministerial, disputes over vague language will have to be settled
in court.
3)Duplex and ADU/JADU Wildcard: Because there is not a hard cap of four units in SB 9, another scenario presents itself
involving interpretations of ADU/JADU Law and duplexes. A developer buys a SF home and applies to convert it into a
duplex under SB 9. Each duplex unit under SB 9 is eligible to be separately sold. So...how will ADU and JADU law be
interpreted to apply to each individual duplex unit? This is not clear either in the law or in SB 9. If ADU and JADU law
interpreted to allow for two units for each unit in a duplex, then that would be another way to get to six units. Under
this scenario, however, SB 9 (Sec. 65852.2 (e)) does appear to prohibit adding both ADUs and using the lot split section.
All this confusion could be addressed with amendments imposing a hard 4-unit cap.
"i SB 9 prohibits local agencies from requiring the dedication of a right of way to a newly created parcel created in a backyard.
Easements for public services and facilities, or access to a public right of way may be required. Presumably, for a parcel with no
access to the street, the residents would park on the street and cross the front parcel on a path along the property line. Section
66411.7 (a) (3) (A) in SB 9, limits lot splits to parcels within single-family zones.
jv It is hard to imagine a bigger CEQA exemption than proposed by SB 9. If a city or county proposed such zoning changes locally
CEQA analysis would apply. SB 9 is designed to work around environmental analysis by dictating specific zoning criteria in state
statute and requiring locals to approve applications "ministerially" without public review. Thus, the state Legislature is avoiding
environmental reviews in a proposal that rezones virtually all of the single-family lots in the state
v It is not legally necessary to formally divide the parcel to create two units. Condominiums or townhouses could be created
that can be sold separately. It is unclear how ADU/JADU law will be applied in this circumstance.
vi Many local ordinances that can be ignored by developers under this law can result in significant environmental and
community impacts. Applying such an edict statewide with no understanding of the myriad of conditions that may apply to an
individual existing parcel makes no sense. For example, some communities have ordinances seeking to preserve heritage trees,
maintain views, or allow space for a community bike path. SB 9 preempts the application of such any such ordinances that
physically preclude the development of units.
SB 9 has been represented and understood as allowing for an existing single-family parcel to be split to allow one new parcel
where two units can be built. The problem is, however, that the language does not quite say that. Sec. 66411.7 (a) (1) says: "
The parcel map subdivides an existing parcel to create "two new parcels" ...provided that one parcel shall not be smaller than 40
percent of the lot area of the original parcel proposed for subdivision." In the following paragraph (2) it refers to "both newly
created parcels." This language leaves room for a future dispute over whether a developer could maintain that a total of three
parcels can be created: the existing/original parcel, plus two new parcels. This language should be tightened up.
1' Major social equity issues are raised with this provision. 1,200 square foot parcels are shockingly small, and will be further
limited by four-foot setbacks for ingress and fire access. This will result in units crammed together with no green space, areas
for children to play and certainly no parking. This small square footage will likely have the most impact in poorer
Aug. 17, 2021 Item #3 Pane 20 of 22
neighborhoods with small lots that are already densely developed. Executive homes on larger parcels, however, will be less
impacted. For instance, a half-acre parcel that is split would have more room for greenspace and parking.
x SB 9 prohibits a lot that has been split pursuant to its provisions from being split again. It also prohibits an owner of a parcel,
or, and any person acting in concert with the owner, to split adjacent lots. These provisions are of no comfort to those
concerned about retaining neighborhood integrity. Unlike a local city or county, the Legislature is removed from any direct
implications from what this bill actually means to a neighborhood or a homeowner. If SB 9 is allowing parcels as small as 1,200
square feet, why wouldn't legislators entertain changes next year to this provision on behalf of developers who have their eyes
on larger lots? Also, for those who think that 1,200 square feet is a minimum, consider that SB 9 requires locals to allow two
800 sq. ft. units on that lot. Also, the limitation on a developer splitting adjacent lots enables multiple work arounds for savvy
investors and attorneys who can maintain separate ownership of adjacent parcels, and nothing stops an investor or
development corporation from freely targeting every other parcel on a block for this activity. The prohibition in the bill on
converting properties that are/have been occupied by tenants within three years, will focus investor attention on acquiring
owner-occupied properties to convert into rentals, thus accelerating the conversion of a neighborhood from ownership to
rental housing.
xi The homeownership provision is touted as an improvement on the bill from last year's version, but such a provision is of little
value since it sunsets on January 1, 2027, while the law itself has no such sunset date. Savvy investors can simply buy a desired
property, build a duplex and wait-out this short timeline before applying for a lot split.
" This exception will increase demand for living on rural parcels outside of these urban census tracts and contribute to further
sprawl. Those that have more resources will likely pay a premium to live on parcels not subject to the uncertainties of SB 9.
Realtors will likely have to disclose whether a property is within an SB 9 zone.
"iii It is surprising that the Coastal Act is included in this bill. How this measure interacts with the application of the Coastal Act,
approved by the voters, deserves additional examination.
xi" At a time of increasing wildfire dangers, this provision makes little policy sense. Fire hazard areas often have narrow roads
with limited ingress and egress. Allowing between four to six units on parcels in these areas with limited parking may impede
equipment access and increase public safety hazards. Here is the cross-referenced language: "Within a very high fire hazard
severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 51178, or within a high or
very high fire hazard severity zone as indicated on maps adopted by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to
Section 4202 of the Public Resources Code. This subparagraph does not apply to sites excluded from the specified hazard zones
by a local agency, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 51179, or sites that have adopted fire hazard mitigation measures
pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the development."
"This limitation is of minor relevance. The economic potential offered by SB 9, far exceeds the impacts of purchasing a desired
property and living in for several years, while plans to develop it are prepared. Still given the delay, developers will likely avoid
a rental occupied home in a neighborhood and focus on owner-occupied homes, which will accelerate the conversion of a
neighborhood to rental properties.
'v This allows for the full teardown, including the garage.
XVII "Conveyance" in real estate terminology means "sale."
xviii This allows the entire back half of the property to be used without any open space, other than walking paths. This also will
create privacy issues when windows look onto adjoining properties, or other disputes when building remove heritage trees and
block views.
"ix Corridor with bus service at 15 minute intervals during peak commute hours, and includes existing rail or bus transit stations,
ferry terminals served by bus or rail transit, or major transit stops included in regional transportation plan. These distances
bear no real correlation with reality. Most residents living in units subject to SB 9 will have cars. Most Californian's need cars
to get to work, take children to school, shop, visit doctor's offices etc. In most areas of California, outside of urban core areas,
transit is insufficient for the variety of most needs. Many also consider transit to be unsafe, and (more recently with COVID)
unhealthy.
" This reference in the bill only mentions a "car share vehicle" within one block but does not mention a car share parking space.
A clever developer could park a car share vehicle permanently on the property, or on the street in front of it, and argue that no
other parking is required.
"i There is no way of fulling knowing what this exemption from applicable local ordinances really means. Such an exemption
means that the laws of a community will apply unequally. For instance, a family that wants to add more room to an existing
house cannot do so because of a view ordinance, but a developer who buys the property next door is free to use SB 9 to split
the lot and put multiple units on the property blocking the views of others in violation of the ordinance. How is this equitable?
"4 Likely difficult to enforce with numerous tenants inhabiting properties.
odiI Footnotes 2 describes ways this can be worked around.
"ivLocals are provided little real authority in this measure. No doubt, they will be heavily blamed by residents for the
widespread impacts of SB 9 and the absence of any due process for those affected.
Aug. 17. 2021 Item #3 Page 21 of 22
,ow Myklebust et al. Cashing in on Our Homes: Billionaire Landlords Profit as Millions Face Eviction (Mar. 2021) Bargaining for the
Common Good; Institute for Policy Studies; Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund https://ips-dc.org/wp-
content/uploads/2021/03/Cashing-in-on-Our-Homes-FINAL-revised.pdf (as of Aug. 5, 2021) at p. 7
Aug. 17, 2021 Item #3 Page 22 of 22