HomeMy WebLinkAboutConsider Positions on Legislation Pending Before the State a (11) 2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach,CA
City of Huntington Beach 92648
' SEE ATTACHED ACTION AGENDA
" FOR THE VOTE COUNTS ON
�Iiilrr C -,.,.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS A-R:
File#: 24-443 MEETING DATE: 7/2/2024
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Eric G. Parra, Interim City Manager
VIA: Travis K. Hopkins, Assistant City Manager
PREPARED BY: Shannon Levin, Council Policy Analyst
Subject:
Consider Positions on Legislation Pending Before the State and Federal Legislature, as
Recommended by the Intergovernmental Relations Committee (IRC)
Statement of Issue:
On June 19, 2024, the Intergovernmental Relations Committee (IRC), comprised of Mayor Gracey
Van Der Mark, Mayor Pro Tern Pat Burns, and Council Member Tony Strickland, discussed legislative
items with relevance to Huntington Beach. Following the discussion, the IRC chose to take positions
on State and Federal legislation, which are presented to the City Council for consideration.
Financial Impact:
Not applicable.
Recommended Action:
A) Support Assembly Concurrent Resolution 182 (Dixon) The Great Pacific Garbage Patch
B) Support Senate 3830 (Padilla) to Authorize the Low-Income Household Water Assistance
Program
C) Oppose AB 2485 (Carillo) Regional housing need: determination
D) Oppose AB 2553 (Friedman) Housing development: major transit stops: vehicular impact fees
E) Oppose AB 2597 (Ward) Planning and zoning: revision of housing element: regional housing need
allocation appeals: Southern California Association of Governments
F) Oppose AB 3093 (Ward) Land use: housing element: streamlined multifamily housing
G) Oppose SB 7 (Blakespear) Regional housing need: determination
City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 5 Printed on 6/26/2024
powered Legistarn"
File#: 24-443 MEETING DATE: 7/2/2024
H) Support AB 2574 (Valencia) Alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment programs and
facilities: disclosures
Alternative Action(s):
Do not approve recommended action(s), and direct staff accordingly.
Analysis:
A) Assembly Concurrent Resolution 182 (Dixon) The Great Pacific Garbage Patch
The Resolution promotes and encourages solutions and resources for keeping the oceans and
coastlines healthy and eliminating the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. The Great Pacific Garbage
Patch is a collection of debris, trash, and waste that has collected in the North Pacific Ocean, forming
two giant circulating groups. It is also known as the Pacific trash vortex with a mass of approximately
100,000 tons covering 617,000 square miles, which is twice the size of Texas.
This Resolution commits to reducing pollution in our oceans.
Recommended legislative position: Support
B) Senate 3830 (Padilla)To Authorize the Low-Income Household Water Assistance Program
The Low-Income Household Water Assistance Program (LIHWAP) was previously established by
Congress in December 2020. California was allocated $116 million in one-time funding for LIHWAP to
help reduce the burden of water and wastewater costs for low-income households.
The program was ultimately administered through the California Department of Community Services
and Development and helped approximately 130 Huntington Beach households. The LIHWAP -
program expired in May 2024.
This year, California Senator Alex Padilla submitted Senate Bill 3830 to reopen Low-Income"
Household Water Assistance Program Establishment Act.
Recommended legislative position: Support
C) AB 2485 (Carrillo) Regional housing need: determination
AB 2485 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.
In past housing element cycles, the regional housing needs assessment (RHNA) had been criticized
as being a political rather than a methodologically sound, data-driven process. There have been a
number of changes to the RHND, RHNA, and housing element process over the past several years
to strengthen the law and restrict the ability of local jurisdictions to exercise local control.
This bill would require HCD to publish more of its data sources and methodology factors before
finalizing the RHND. It would also require HCD to assemble and convene advisory panels for each
future RHND process and consult with those panels during the formation of the RHND methodology
and in reviewing all the data points listed above when formulating the existing and projected housing
need of each region for each future housing element cycle. However, ambiguity persists on the
City of Huntington Beach Page 2 of 5 Printed on 6/26/2024
poweredia Legistar1"1
File#: 24-443 MEETING DATE: 7/2/2024
composition of this panel of experts and does not define local and regional appointments to the
panel.
Limiting the panel of experts to academics, theorists, developers, and advocates hand selected by
HCD does not directly reflect the input of local agencies or serve their interests.
Recommended legislative position: Oppose
D) AB 2553 (Friedman) Housing development: maior transit stops: vehicular impact fees
AB 2553 changes the definition of a "major transit stop" from including the intersection of two or more
major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and
afternoon peak commute periods to 20 minutes or less.
HCD determined that California must plan for more than 2.5 million new homes, and no less than one
million of those homes must be affordable to lower-income households, in the 6th Regional Housing
Needs Allocation (RHNA). Major transit thoroughfares, like Beach Boulevard in Huntington Beach,
were part of the basis for RHNA calculations. However, the measure changes the definition of"major
transit stop" not just for the purposes of determining which projects qualify for lower impact fees, but
for any other state law that references this definition. For example, this would mean more projects
would qualify for an exemption to CEQA because they would now fall under the definition of a transit
priority project.
Additionally, it would further limit a local agency's ability to impose parking requirements, since recent
legislation (AB 2097, Friedman, 2022) prohibited public agencies from imposing or enforcing parking
minimums on developments within '/ mile of a major transit stop.
Recommended legislative position: Oppose
E) AB 2597 (Ward) Planning and zoning: revision of housing element: regional housing need
allocation appeals: Southern California Association of Governments
AB 2597 shortens the timeline for local governments to adopt their regional housing needs allocation
(RHNA) plans and revises the statutory housing element adoption deadline for the Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG). Specifically, this bill reduces, from 45 days to 30
days after the RHNA allocation is received, the period during which a local government and
Department of Housing and Community Development may appeal for a revised RHNA share.
AB 2597 erodes jurisdictions of the ability to appeal flawed housing determinations. This bill does not
support and protect the City's local authority related to RHNA and housing element law.
Recommended legislative position: Oppose
F) AB 3093 (Ward) Land use: housing element: streamlined multifamily housing
AB 3093 adds new requirements to the regional housing needs assessment (RHNA) framework with
the goal of better assessing the needs of those experiencing homelessness. However, the bill
duplicates existing planning efforts and lacks critical information cities need to meet these new
obligations.
This bill would require local governments to account for the housing needs of people experiencing
City of Huntington Beach Page 3 of 5 Printed on 6/26/2024
powered4{i LegistarT"
File#: 24-443 MEETING DATE: 7/2/2024
homelessness in their housing elements without funding to develop the plan, implement strategies, or
support the construction of affordable housing. The City opposes State mandates without providing
the funds necessary to carry out programs, or unfunded mandates. This bill will redirect local revenue
away from necessary City operations.
Recommended legislative position: Oppose
G) SB 7 (Blakespear) Regional housing need: determination
SB 7 finds and declares that revising the housing needs assessment to combat the State's housing
crisis is a matter of statewide concern; therefore the bill applies to all cities, including charter cities.
This bill provides that no reimbursement is required by this bill because a local agency or school
district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the
program or level of service mandated by this bill. The City opposes State mandates without providing
the funds necessary to carry out programs, or unfunded mandates. This bill will redirect local revenue
away from necessary City operations.
Recommended legislative position: Oppose
H) AB 2574 (Valencia) Alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment programs and facilities:
disclosures
This bill revises the requirement for certain entities to disclose that they own or control, or have a
financial interest in, a recovery residence, and any contractual relationship with an entity that
regularly provides services to addiction treatment or recovery clients, to also require a general
partner, director, or officer of the licensee to make those disclosures.
This bill will enhance oversight abilities of licensed and certified entities that own or have control of
recovery residences by expanding reporting requirements.
Recommended legislative position: Support
Environmental Status:
This action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections
15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change
in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the
CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for
resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Non Applicable -Administrative Item
Attachment(s):
1. ACR 182 - Draft Letter of Support
2. S3830 LIHWAP - Draft Letter of Support
3. AB 2485 - Draft Letter of Opposition
4. AB 2553 - Draft Letter of Opposition _
5. AB 2597 - Draft Letter of Opposition
City of Huntington Beach Page 4 of 5 Printed on 6/26/2024
powered4S1 Legistarn"
File#: 24-443 MEETING DATE: 7/2/2024
6. AB 3093 - Draft Letter of Opposition
7. SB 7 - Draft Letter of Opposition
8. AB 2574 - Draft Letter of Support
City of Huntington Beach Page 5 of 5 Printed on 6/26/2024
•
powered4g LegistarTM
City Council/ ACTION AGENDA July 2, 2024
Public Financing Authority
Municipal Election for City Officers (three members of the City
Council, a City Clerk, and a City Treasurer)to be held on Tuesday,
November 5, 2024
Recommended Action:
A) Adopt Resolution No. 2024-34, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach, California, calling for the holding of a General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday,
November 5, 2024, for the election of certain officers as required by the provisions of the Laws of
the State of California Relating to Charter Cities;"
and,
B) Adopt Resolution No. 2024-35, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach, California, requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange, California, to
consolidate a General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 5,2024,with the
Statewide General Election to be held on the date pursuant to§ 10403 of the Elections Code."
Approved 7-0
City Manager
9. 24-473 Approved the appointment of Jeanne Paris to the City Celebration
Committee as recommended by City Council Liaisons Casey McKeon
and Tony Strickland
Recommended Action:
Approve the appointment of Jeanne Paris to the City Celebration Committee as recommended by
City Council Liaisons McKeon and Strickland.
Approved 4-3(Moser, Bolton, Kalmick-Abstain)
10. 24-443 Took Positions on Legislation Pending Before the State and
Federal Legislature, as Recommended by the Intergovernmental
Relations Committee (IRC)
Recommended Action:
A) Support Assembly Concurrent Resolution 182(Dixon)The Great Pacific Garbage Patch
Approved 7-0
B) Support Senate 3830(Padilla)to Authorize the Low-Income Household Water Assistance
Program
Approved 7-0
C) Oppose AB 2485 (Carillo) Regional housing need: determination
Approved 4-2-1 (Moser, Kalmick-No;Bolton-Abstain)
D) Oppose AB 2553(Friedman) Housing development: major transit stops:vehicular impact fees
Approved 4-0-3(Moser, Bolton, Kalmick-Abstain)
Page 4 of 6
City Council/ ACTION AGENDA July 2, 2024
Public Financing Authority
E) Oppose AB 2597(Ward)Planning and zoning: revision of housing element: regional housing
need allocation appeals: Southern California Association of Governments
Approved 4-0-3(Moser, Bolton, Kalmick-Abstain)
F) Oppose AB 3093 (Ward) Land use: housing element: streamlined multifamily housing
Approved 4-0-3(Moser, Bolton, Kalmick-Abstain)
G) Oppose SB 7 (Blakespear) Regional housing need: determination
Pulled from consideration
H) Support AB 2574(Valencia)Alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment programs and
facilities: disclosures
Approved 7-0
Community and Library Services
11. 24-468 Approved the naming of the Shipley Nature Center Interpretive
Center located at 17851 Goldenwest Street as the "Shirley Dettloff
Interpretive Center," as recommended by the Community &Library
Services Commission
Recommended Action:
Approve the naming of the Shipley Nature Center Interpretive Center located at 17851
Goldenwest Street, "Shirley Dettloff Interpretive Center," in honor of Shirley Dettloff, as
recommended by the Community& Library Services Commission.
Approved 7-0
Public Works
12. 24-440 Approved and authorized execution of the Agreement for
Acquisition and Escrow Instructions for the purchase of two
Encyclopedia Lots (APNs 110-152-23 and 110-182-11), and
appropriation of funds
Recommended Action:
A) Approve the Agreement for Acquisition and Escrow Instructions; and,
B) Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement and other related documents;
and,
C) Authorize the City Manager to execute any other related escrow documents; and,
D) Authorize the appropriation of up to$72,000 from the Preliminary Park Development Impact-
Non-Residential Fund Account 23545001.81100.
Approved 7-0
Page 5 of 6
___ CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
c4.
a t'- Q 2000 MAIN STREET, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648-2702
IrPe.
-..,eouHtr`o,
GRACEY VAN DER MARK
MAYOR
July 3, 2024
The Honorable Mark McGuire
1021 0 Street, Suite 8517
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Assembly Concurrent Resolution 182 (Dixon) Great Pacific Garbage Patch
Dear Senator McGuire,
The City of Huntington Beach strongly supports ACR 182 (Dixon). Assembly Concurrent Resolution
182 will promote and encourage solutions and resources to keep our oceans and coastlines healthy,
to help eliminate the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.
The Great Pacific Garbage Patch contains approximately 1.8 billion plastic pieces, has a total mass
of about 100,000 tons, and covers over 617,000 square miles,which is an area twice the size of Texas.
This results in extensive environmental, ecological, and economic impacts for our oceans, coastline
and marine life.
Not only does the Patch harm marine life, but 84%of the Patch's plastics and microplastics contain at
least one persistent bio-accumulative toxic chemicals that leach out when certain plastics break down
through photodegradation, negatively impacting seawater. PBTs, BPAs, PCBs and other chemicals
have entered our food supply through bioaccumulation, where animals feeding on plastic ingest
chemicals, and the chemicals are then passed up the food chain, exposing animals and humans. The
removal of this trash is essential to the State's environment and economy. Concerted action must be
taken to mitigate the detrimental impacts of plastic pollution on marine ecosystems, emphasizing the
urgent need for comprehensive strategies, better technologies and resources to protect and preserve
our oceans and coastlines for posterity.
As a city with 8.5 miles of coastline, the City of Huntington Beach believes it is crucial to continue to
protect our coastlines, our oceans and marine mammal life for generations to come. With the various
beaches in our city, it is important to ensure safety among the residents and 11 million annual visitors
who visit Huntington Beach. We offer our support to further encourage solutions and resources to help
eliminate the Great Garbage Patch.
We strongly urge your support for Assembly Concurrent Resolution 182 (Dixon)!
Sincerely,
`-C45tijall/k ,Slii\n/-'0%.(e---
Gracey Van Der Mark
Mayor
Cc: Assemblymember Diane Dixon
Senator Janet Nguyen
Office:714.536.5553
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE-2023--24 REGULAR SESSION
Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 182.
Introduced by Assembly Member Dixon
(Coauthors:Assembly MembersAlanis,.Chen,Davies,Flora,Lackey,
Ortega,Pellerin, and Waldron)
(Coauthor: Senator Newman)
April 22,2024
Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 182—Relative to ocean
pollution.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
ACR 182, as introduced,Dixon. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch.
This measure would provide for the promotion and encouragement
of solutions and resources for keeping the oceans and coastlines healthy
and eliminating the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.
Fiscal committee: no.
1 WHEREAS, The Great Pacific Garbage Patch.(Patch) is a
2 collection of marine debris in the North Pacific Ocean and it is the
3 largest of the five offshore plastic accumulation zones in the
4 world's oceans; and
5 WHEREAS,The Patch,also known as the Pacific trash vortex,
6 consists of two distinct collections of spinning debris bounded by
7 the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre: the Western Garbage Patch,
8 located near Japan,and the Eastern Garbage Patch,located between
9 Hawaii and California; and
10 WHEREAS, The Patch contains approximately
11 1,800,000,000,000 plastic pieces,has a total mass of about 100,000
Revised 6-3-24—See last page. 99
44
ACR 182 —2—
1 tons,and covers over 617,000 square miles,which is an area twice
2 the size of Texas; and
3 WHEREAS,Nonbiodegradable debris accumulates in the Patch,
4 including,but not limited to,plastics that break down into pieces
5 called microplastics, which are too small to see without
6 magnification; and
7 WHEREAS, The presence of the Patch is causing extensive
8 environmental, ecological, and economic impacts; and
9 WHEREAS,Loggerhead sea turtles often eat plastic bags after
10 mistaking them for jelly fish, and albatross mistake resin pellets
11 for fish eggs and feed them to their chicks, which then die of
12 starvation or ruptured organs; and
13 WHEREAS,Sea turtles caught in fisheries operating within and
14 around the Patch can have up to 74 percent,by dry weight,of their
15 diets composed of ocean plastics and Laysan albatross chicks from
16 Kure Atoll and Oahu Island have around 45 percent of their wet
17 mass composed of plastics; and
18 WHEREAS, Eighty-four percent of the Patch's plastics and
19 microplastics contain at least one persistent bioaccumulative toxic
• 20 (PBT) chemical, such as bisphenol A (BPA), which leaches out
21 when certain plastics break down through photodegradation,
22 negatively impacting seawater; and
23 WHEREAS, PBTs, BPAs, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
24 and other chemicals have entered our food supply through a process
25 called bioaccumulation, where animals feeding on plastic ingest
26 chemicals,and the chemicals are then passed up the food chain to
27 humans, exposing animals and humans to the maleffects of the
28 chemicals; and
29 WHEREAS, Marine plastic is estimated to have an annual
30 economic cost of$6,000,000,000 to $19,000,000,000, stemming
31 from impacts on tourism,cleanups,fisheries,and aquaculture,but
32 not including the costs associated with the impacts on human health
33 and the marine ecosystem; and
34 WHEREAS, The Patch's microplastic mass concentration is
35 increasing exponentially,with an estimated 1,150,000 to 2,410,000
36 tons of plastic entering the world's oceans each year from rivers;
37 and
38 WHEREAS,Intercepting plastic in rivers is more cost effective
39 than removing plastics once they are in the ocean waters; and
99
45
-3— ACR 182
1 WHEREAS, Technology and innovation provide the best
2 solutions to creatively capture plastic and trash that flow from
3 rivers to the ocean; and
4 WHEREAS, The Department of Public Works for the County
5 of Los Angeles has developed a pilot project to test in Marina del
6 Rey a fully automated, solar powered trash collection device
7 designed to capture floating plastic, trash, and litter before they
8 reach the ocean; and
9 WHEREAS,In 2023,the State of California approved funding
10 for the Newport Bay Pollution Control Project,which will remove
11 human-made pollutants before they enter the Pacific Ocean; and
12 WHEREAS,Efforts to eliminate the Patch address the pressing
13 need to safeguard our oceans and coastlines for future generations;
14 and
15 WHEREAS,Central to these efforts is combating the pervasive
16 threat posed of millions of tons of plastic pollution that inundates
17 our oceans annually and that predominantly enter the oceans from
18 rivers; and
19 WHEREAS, At the forefront of this crisis lies the Eastern
20 Garbage Patch, situated between Hawaii and California; and
21 WHEREAS, It is imperative that concerted action be taken to
22 mitigate the detrimental impacts of plastic pollution on marine
23 ecosystems, emphasizing the urgent need for comprehensive
24 strategies,better technologies,and resources to protect and preserve
25 our oceans and coastlines for posterity;now,therefore,be it
26 Resolved by the Assembly of the State of California, the Senate
27 thereof concurring, That the Legislature promote and encourage
28 solutions and resources for keeping the oceans and coastlines
29 healthy and eliminating the Great Pacific Garbage Patch; and be
30 it further
31 Resolved,That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit copies
32 of this resolution to the author for appropriate distribution.
33
34
35 REVISIONS:
36 Heading—Line 2.
37
0
99
46
��NTINC/� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
(4‘1%1;
2000 MAIN STREET, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648-2702
�4.
GRACEY VAN DER MARK
MAYOR
July 3, 2024
The Honorable Alex Padilla
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Re: S3830 Low-Income Household Water Assistance Program
Dear Senator Padilla,
The City of Huntington Beach, representing drinking water and wastewater systems is pleased to
endorse the "Low-Income Household Water Assistance Program Establishment Act." The
legislation represents an important step toward permanently enshrining low-income water and
wastewater ratepayer aid. Communities across the country face extreme costs in the coming
decades to maintain and upgrade their water and wastewater systems. These investments will be
needed to confront aging infrastructure, changing climactic conditions, and to protect consumers
from emerging contaminants.
Despite the historic federal investments in water infrastructure made through the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law, which will help reduce the expense, the vast majority of water and wastewater
system investment will continue to be borne by local water ratepayers — posing significant
challenges to individuals and households at the lower end of the income scale. Today the cost of
basic water service already imposes hardships on many low-income households.
However, LIHWAP was only established as a temporary program, and its initial appropriation
expired at the end of the 2023 fiscal year. As a result, without further congressional action water
rate assistance will no longer be part of the federal safety net, putting many Huntington Beach
households at risk of losing their water service.
The "Low-Income Household Water Assistance Program Establishment Act" would address this
problem by providing a long-term authorization for LIHWAP, allowing HHS to continue its
important work of allocating funding to states and tribes for distribution to drinking water and
wastewater systems to offset the bills and arrearages of qualifying low-income customers.
Again, our City strongly support congressional action to provide for the uninterrupted funding and
operation of LIHWAP, and we appreciate that the "Low Income Household Water Assistance
Program Establishment Act"would achieve this goal.
Sincerely,4.1\,. .t/Ii,t,61,- -
Gracey
Van Der Mark
Mayor
Cc: West Orange County Water Board
Office: 714.536.5553
118TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
S. 3830
To authorize the Low-Income Household Water Assistance Program, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
FEBRUARY 28, 2024
Mr.PADILLA introduced the following bill;which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health,Education,Labor,and
Pensions
A BILL
To authorize the Low-Income Household Water Assistance Program, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in
Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "Low-Income Household Water Assistance Program Establishment
Act".
SEC.2.LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLD WATER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
(a)DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
(1)ADMINISTRATOR.—The term"Administrator"means the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
(2)HOUSEHOLD.—The term"household"means any individual or group of individuals
who are living together as 1 economic unit.
(3)LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLD.—The term"low-income household"means a
household—
(A) in which 1 or more individuals are receiving—
(i)assistance under the State program funded under part A of title IV of the
Social Security Act(42 U.S.C. 601 et seq,);
48
(ii) supplemental security income payments under title XVI of the Social
Security Act(42 U.S.C. 1381 et seqA);
(iii) supplemental nutrition assistance program benefits under the Food and
Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq);
(iv)payments under—
(I) section 1315, 1521, 1541, or 1542 of title 38,United States Code; or
(II) section 306 of the Veterans'and Survivors'Pension Improvement Act
of 1978 (38 U.S.C. 1521 note; Public Law 95-588); or
(v) assistance under the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981; or
(B)that has a household income that, as determined by the State or Indian tribe, does
not exceed the greater of—
(i)an amount equal to 150 percent of the poverty level;
(ii) an amount equal to 60 percent of the State median income for that State or
the State in which the Indian tribe is primarily located; or
(iii) an amount equal to 60 percent of the area median income for the area in
which the household is located.
(4) POVERTY LEVEL.—The term"poverty level"means the poverty line determined
pursuant to section 673 of the Community Services Block Grant Act(42 U.S.C. 9902).
(5)PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM.—The term"public water system"has the meaning given
the term in section 1401 of the Safe Drinking Water Act(42 U.S,C. 3001).
(6) QUALIFIED NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION.—The term"qualified nonprofit
organization" includes a nonprofit organization described in section 680(a)(3)(B) of the
Community Services Block Grant Act(42 U.S.C. 9921(0.(3).(1)).
(7) SECRETARY.—The term"Secretary"means the Secretary of Health and Human
Services.
(8) STATE.—The term"State"means any of the 50 States,the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam,the United States Virgin Islands,American Samoa, and
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
(9) TREATMENT WORKS.—The term"treatment works"has the meaning given the
term in section 212 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act(33 U.S.C. 1292).
(b)ESTABLISHMENT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator, shall establish
the Low-Income Household Water Assistance Program to award grants, in accordance with
paragraph (3),to eligible entities described in paragraph(2)to provide funds to owners and
operators of public water systems or treatment works to assist low-income households in paying
arrearages and other rates charged to such households for drinking water or wastewater
services. 49
(2)ELIGIBLE ENTITIES.—An eligible entity described in this paragraph is a State, or
Indian tribe,that is eligible to receive or previously received a grant under the Low-Income
Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8621 et seq.:).
(3)FORMULA.—In awarding grants under this subsection to eligible entities,the •
Secretary shall—
(A) allot amounts made available for grants under this subsection to an eligible entity
that is a State or Indian tribe based on •
—
(i)the percentage of households in the State, or under the jurisdiction of the
Indian tribe,with income equal to or less than 150 percent of the poverty level; or
(ii)the percentage of households in the State, or under the jurisdiction of the
Indian tribe,that spend more than 30 percent of monthly income on housing; and
(B)reserve up to 3 percent of amounts made available for grants under this
subsection to eligible entities that are Indian tribes.
(c)RURAL, UNDERSERVED, AND INDIAN TRIBE ACCESS GRANTS.—The Secretary shall
provide grants to qualified nonprofit organizations to assist owners or operators of public water
systems or treatment works, in rural or underserved areas or in the jurisdiction of an Indian tribe, in
accessing funds through the Low-Income Household Water Assistance Program.
(d)APPLICATIONS.—Each eligible entity seeking a grant under subsection(b) shall submit an
application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the
Secretary shall require.
(e)LIMITATIONS.—A recipient of a grant under subsection(b) or(c)—
(1) shall not use the funds from the grant to supplant any other funds for any program that
assists low-income households in maintaining access to affordable drinking water or
wastewater services; and
(2)may use the funds from the grant to supplement or otherwise enhance any such
program that satisfies the requirements under this section.
(f) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.—The Secretary shall
provide technical assistance to eligible entities receiving a grant under subsection(b)for such
eligible entities to establish data sharing agreements to streamline categorical eligibility
requirements for low-income households.
(g) TRANSFER TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.—
(1)IN GENERAL.—On the date on which the final report described in section 50109(d)
of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act(42 U.S.C. 300j-19a note; Public Law 117-58;
135.Stat. 1148) is submitted to Congress under such section,the Secretary, in coordination with
the Administrator, shall transfer the Low-Income Household Water Assistance Program
established under this section to the Environmental Protection Agency for administration of
such program by the Administrator in accordance with this section.
(2)ADMINISTRATION.-
50
(A)IN GENERAL.—Beginning on the date described in paragraph(1)—
(i)the Administrator shall carry out all functions of the Secretary under this
section; and
(ii) for purposes of administering the program established under this section,
each reference in subsections (b)(3), (c), (d), and(f)to the Secretary shall be deemed
a reference to the Administrator.
(B) GRANTS PREVIOUSLY AWARDED.—Notwithstanding paragraph(1)and
subparagraph(A),.the Secretary shall continue, after the transfer under paragraph(1),
administering each grant awarded under this section prior to such transfer until the
expiration of the term of such grant.
(3)UNOBLIGATED BALANCES.—On the date described in paragraph (1) and subject
to section 1531 of title 31, United States Code,the Secretary shall initiate transfer of all
unobligated balances of appropriations, authorizations, allocations, or other funds available to
the Low-Income Household Water Assistance Program established under this section(except
for any such balances related to grants awarded prior to the transfer under paragraph(1))to the
Administrator.The amounts of any such unobligated balances so transferred shall be used only
for the purposes for which the amounts were originally authorized and appropriated.
(h)AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated such
sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.
51
Q''w�nGToyBr CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
�»:a:- ;;-). 2000 MAIN STREET, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648-2702
yyC�U` rlOQ
6.\ �\� GRACEY VAN DER MARK
MAYOR
July 3, 2024
The Honorable Nancy Skinner
Senate Housing Committee Chair
1021 0 Street, Suite 8630
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 2485 (Carrillo) Regional housing need: determination
Dear Senator Skinner:
The City of Huntington Beach is respectfully opposed to AB 2485.
This measure would require the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to
publish data sources, analyses, and methodology before finalizing regional housing need
determinations, and to assemble an advisory panel for subsequent revisions, ensuring
transparency and expert consultation in the process.
However, local representation of jurisdictions should be of the highest priority in drafting and
finalizing proposed legislation. HCD should establish a panel of experts to include Southern
Califiornia Association of Government's (SCAG) member jurisdictions and selected experts in
data science and demography. Limiting the panel of experts to academics, theorists, developers,
and advocates hand selected by HCD does not directly reflect the input of local agencies or serve
the interests of the jurisdictions that comprise SCAG. The proposed legislation should reflect the
needs, input, and requirements of SCAG's member jurisdictions to ensure that the practical
implementation of the legislation, including details regarding trade and transfer, is possible and
amenable to local agencies.
AB 2485 should empower cities to participate and be represented throughout a meaningful
housing planning process to ensure that regional housing needs assessments reflect the realities
and priorities of local communities.
For these reasons, the City of Huntington Beach Opposes 2485 (Carrillo).
Sincerely,
AP
• 1\562/1/\&\,\-1".-\CU .
Gracey Van Der Mark
Mayor
Cc: Assembly Member Juan Carillo
Senator Janet Nguyen
Assembly Member Dian Dixon
Office: 7 1 4.536.5553
AB 2485
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2485 (Juan Carrillo)
As Amended March 19, 2024
Majority vote
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.
Major Provisions
1) Requires HCD to publish on its website the data sources, analyses, and methodology to be
used by the department to determine the RHND, including specified assumptions and
factors used in and applied to the Department of Finance (DOF)projections and
engagement process with the council of governments (COG),prior to finalization of the
RHND.
2) Requires HCD, for the seventh and subsequent housing element cycles,to assemble and
convene an advisory panel to advise HCD on its assumptions and the methodology it shall
use for purposes of the RHND.Requires the panel to be composed of all of the following:
a) A United States Census Bureau-affiliated practitioner;
b) An expert on specified data; and
c) A representative from the COG.
3) Requires HCD to consult with the advisory panel before making determinations in writing
on specified data assumptions and the methodology it shall use for the RHND, and to
provide the written determinations to the COG and publish them on HCD's website.
rs /:i.y 6., x..o
+ .Cats ; �.... ,.. ,..�,. ,• � -..__ � y .m,
California's Housing Crisis: California is in the midst of a severe housing crisis. Over two-thirds
of low-income renters are paying more than 30%of their income toward housing, a "rent
burden"that means they have to sacrifice other essentials such as food,transportation, and health
care.1 In 2023, over 181,000 Californians experienced homelessness on a given night,with a
sharp increase in the number of people who became homeless for the first time.2 The crisis is
driven in large part by the lack of affordable rental housing for lower income people.According
to the California Housing Partnership's (CHP)Housing Need Dashboard, in the current market,
nearly 2 million extremely low-income and very low-income renter households are competing
for roughly 687,000 available and affordable rental units in the state. Over three-quarters of the
state's extremely low-income households and over half of the state's very low-income households
are severely rent burdened,paying more than 50%of their income toward rent each month. CHP
estimates that the state needs an additional 1.3 million housing units affordable to very low-
https://chpc.net/housingneeds/
https:/./chpc.net/housingneeds/
2 https://www.hudusengov/portal/datasets/ahar/2023-ahar-part-l-pit-estimates-of-homelessness-in-the-us.html
53
AB 2485
Page 2
income Californians to eliminate the shortfa11.3 By contrast,production in the past decade has
been under 100,000 housing units per year—including less than 10,000 units of affordable
housing per year.4
Adoption and Implementation of Housing Elements: One important tool in addressing the state's
housing crisis is to ensure that all of the state's 539 cities and counties appropriately plan for new
housing. Such planning is required through the housing element of each community's General
Plan,which outlines a long-term plan for meeting the community's existing and projected
housing needs. Cities and counties are required to update their housing elements every eight
years in most of the high population parts of the state, and five years in areas with smaller
populations. Localities must adopt a legally valid housing element by their statutory deadline for
adoption.Failure to do so can result in certain escalating penalties, including exposure to the
"builder's remedy" as well as public or private lawsuits,financial penalties,potential loss of
permitting authority, or even court receivership.
Among other things,the housing element must demonstrate how the community plans to
accommodate its share of its region's housing needs allocation(RHNA),which is a figure
determined by HCD through a demographic analysis of housing needs, existing housing stock,
and population projections in consultation with DOF and the COG. HCD establishes its
determination of each COG's regional housing targets across the state for the next five-or eight-
year planning cycle.Each COG(or in some areas,HCD acting directly as COG)then sub- --
allocates the RHNA to each local government within the COG's jurisdiction, and in turn each
jurisdiction uses its housing element to show how it will accommodate that number of new
housing units, split out by income level and with a focus on certain special needs housing types
and on affirmatively furthering fair housing.
It is critical that local jurisdictions adopt legally compliant housing elements on time in order to
meet statewide housing goals and create the environment for the successful construction of
desperately needed housing at all income levels.Unless communities plan for production and
preservation of affordable housing,new housing will be slow or extremely difficult to build.
Adequate zoning, removal of regulatory barriers,protection of existing stock and targeting of
resources are essential to obtaining a sufficient permanent supply of housing affordable to all
economic segments of the community.Although not requiring the community to_develop the
housing,housing element law requires the community to plan for housing. Recognizing that
local governments may lack adequate resources to house all those in need,the law nevertheless
mandates that the community do all that it can and not engage in exclusionary zoning practices.
RHND/RHNA Methodology: The RHND/RHNA process is used to determine how many new
homes,and the affordability level of those homes, each local government must plan for in its
housing element to cover the duration of the next eight-year planning cycle. The RHND is
assigned at the COG level,while RHNA is suballocated to subregions of the COG or directly to
local governments. RHNA is assigned via four income categories:very low-income (0-50%of
AMI), low-income (50-80%of AMI),moderate income(80-120%of AMI), and above moderate
income (120%or more of AMI).
https://chpc.net/housingneeds/
4 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/housing-challenges.shtml
54
AB 2485
Page 3
The cycle begins with HCD and the Department of Finance projecting new RHND numbers
every five or eight years, depending on the region. DOF produces population projections and the
COG also develops projections during its RTP forecast. Then,26 months before the housing
element due date for the region,HCD must meet and consult with the COG and share the data
assumptions and methodology that they will use to produce the RHND. The COG provides HCD
with its own regional data on several criteria, including:
1) Anticipated household growth associated with projected population increases;
2) Household size data and trends in household size;
3) The percentage of households that are overcrowded, as defined,and the overcrowding
rate for a comparable housing market, as defined; -
4) The rate of household formation, or headship rates,based on age,gender, ethnicity, or
other established demographic measures;
5) The vacancy rates in existing housing stock, and the vacancy rates for healthy housing
market functioning and regional mobility, as well as housing replacement needs, as
specified;
6) Other characteristics of the composition of the projected population;
7) The relationship between jobs and housing, including any imbalance between jobs and
housing;
8) The percentage of households that are cost burdened and the rate of housing cost burden
for a healthy housing market, as defined; and
9) The loss of units during a declared state of emergency during the planning period
immediately preceding the relevant housing element cycle that have yet to be rebuilt or
replaced at the time of the data request.
HCD can take this information and use it to modify its own methodology, if it agrees with the
data the COG produced, or can reject it if there are other factors or data that HCD feels is better
or more accurate. Then, after a consultation with the COG,HCD makes written determinations
on the data it is using for each of the factors bulleted above, and provides that information in
writing to the COG.HCD uses that data to produce the final RHND. The COG must then take
the RHND and create an allocation methodology that distributes the housing need equitably
amongst all the local governments in its region. •
In past housing element cycles,RHNA had been criticized as being a political rather than a
methodologically sound, data-driven process. In the past,jurisdictions with a higher share of
wealthier,whiter residents were more likely to have received lower allocations of moderate and
lower income housing,while more diverse cities sometimes received higher allocations of those
categories. The Legislature made a number of changes to the RHND,RHNA, and housing
element process over the past several years to strengthen the law and restrict the ability of •
jurisdictions to evade their housing obligations.
55
AB 2485
Page 4
2022 RHNA Audit: A March 2022 audit identified a handful of issues with HCD's RHND data
and review processes. In response to the audit's findings,HCD committed to, and completed,the _
following actions:
10)Instituting a process for performing multiple reviews of data included in the RHND
assumptions to improve quality control;
11)Creating additional process documents to provide evidence of adequate consideration of
all factors required by state law in its needs assessment;
12)Completing a formal analysis of healthy vacancy rate trends to support their use of a 5%
vacancy target rate for healthy housing markets; and
13)Formalizing a technical assistance document to use when reviewing COG data on
comparable regions and healthy housing markets.
Policy Considerations: This bill would require HCD to publish more of its data sources and
methodology factors before finalizing the RHND. It would also require HCD to assemble and
convene advisory panels for each future COG's RHND process and consult with those panels
during the formation of the RHND methodology and in reviewing all the data points listed above
when formulating the existing and projected housing need for each region for each future
housing element cycle. This consultation is in addition to the existing consultation requirements
that currently exist with the COGs themselves. The panel would have to be comprised of a US
Census Bureau-affiliated practitioner, a data expert, and a representative from the COG. This
would build in another layer of consultation and review to the RHND process,which may be
somewhat duplicative given the department's existing COG consultation obligations, and could
cause delays in the development of the final RHND,which HCD must provide to the COG no
later than two years prior to the scheduled revision of the housing element. Though the panel
consultation would be folded into the existing RHND timeline, it is unclear what HCD's
obligations would be to respond to the advisory panel's feedback.
According to the Author
"There are more than 181,000 Californians who are unhoused. I believe we have made good
progress at both the state and local levels when it comes to planning for more housing, and with
each RHNA cycle,we are refining the process. But we must do better. The California State
Auditor's report published in March 2022 on HCD's RHNA determination process highlighted
the need for accountability and transparency on HCD's methodology and assumptions. HCD's
assumptions and methodology should be clear and accessible to stakeholders to ensure
confidence in the process. That is why AB 2485 is focused on embedding inclusivity and
transparency in HCD's engagement and outreach efforts which are critical to fostering the
collaboration and trust that are essential to housing production in California."
Arguments in Support
According to the California Association of COGs, "On behalf of the state's Councils of
Governments that are a key partner to HCD in the Regional Housing Need Allocation(RHNA)
process,we support AB 2485 for improvements it would make to the RHNA determination
process. ... One of the challenges of the RHNA process is that those that must implement it do
not always understand the basis for the numbers. As a result, it is often panned as a mere state
mandate even by those that understand the need to address the state's housing crises.A process
56
AB 2485
Page 5
that connects the housing determination to the state goal in an evidence-based way will lead to
better policy implementation."
Arguments in Opposition
None on file.
cie �A ..;. � , �aLvh 3-7, ' .fir
,.., ',<w. .. "�1 z,�,,,,��
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee,HCD estimates ongoing General Fund
costs of$200,000 annually for one staff position to accommodate the additional workload.
Specific duties include convening and moderating advisory panels for 20 COGs, documenting
HCD's determinations, and coordinating updates to the department's website.
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.
....'F,w....�v�d"*-y�,
ASM HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 8-0-1
YES: Ward, Joe Patterson, Grayson,Kalra, Quirk-Silva,Reyes, Sanchez,Wilson
ABS,ABST OR NV: Lee
ASM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: 8-0-1
YES: Juan Carrillo,Waldron,Valencia,Kalra,Pacheco,Ramos, Ward, Wilson
ABS,ABST OR NV: Essayli
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-0
YES: Wicks, Sanchez,Arambula, Bryan, Calderon,Wendy Carrillo,Dixon,Mike Fong,
Grayson,Haney,Hart, Jim Patterson,Pellerin,Ta,Villapudua
VERSION: March 19, 2024
CONSULTANT: Nicole Restmeyer/H. & C.D./(916)319-2085 FN: 0003079
57
�;, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
V �F
,, �; :_;,)4 2000 MAIN STREET, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648-2702
yyC � OQ�
N..f
GRACEY VAN DER MARK
MAYOR
July 3, 2024
The Honorable Nancy Skinner
Chair, Senate Housing Committee
1021 0 Street, Suite 8630
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 2553 (Friedman) Housing development: major transit stops: vehicular impact fees
Dear Senator Skinner,
AB 2553 requires a local government to include urban sites that are serviced by on-demand transit to
be included as part of the areas considered for lower rates of vehicular traffic impact fees."On-demand
transit service" is undefined in existing law and could be broadly interpreted. Reduced transit impact
fees create incentive to build more densely along major transit stops and transit corridors. And On-
demand transit may undermine that goal by providing this incentive to projects that are not within half
a mile of transit stops.
AB 2553 changes the definition of a "major transit stop"from including the intersection of two or more
major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and
afternoon peak commute periods to 20 minutes or less. However, the measure changes this definition
not just for the purposes of determining which projects qualify for lower impact fees, but for any other
state law that references this definition. For example, this would mean more projects would qualify for
an exemption to CEQA because they would now fall under the definition of a transit priority project.
Additionally, it would further limit a local agency's ability to impose parking requirements, since recent
legislation (AB 2097, Friedman, 2022) prohibited public agencies from imposing or enforcing parking
minimums on developments within '/z mile of a major transit stop. Finally, this change in definition
would also affect recent housing laws including some that require streamlined approval of housing
development project.
For these reasons, the City of Huntington Beach respectfully opposes AB 2553.
Sincerely,
0 tjCv..eVtirc>.\t/VV\grk_,,t'C--
Gracey Van Der Mark
Mayor
Cc: Assemblymember Friedman
Senator Janet Nguyen
Assemblymember Diane Dixon
Office: 714.536.5553
SENATE COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Senator Maria Elena Durazo, Chair
2023 -2024 Regular
Bill No: AB 2553 Hearing Date: 6/11/24
Author: Friedman Fiscal: No
Version: 4/15/24 Consultant: Peterson
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT: MAJOR TRANSIT STOPS: VEHICULAR TRAFFIC
IMPACT FEES
Requires cities and counties to set lower traffic impact mitigation fees for transit-oriented
housing developments near major transit stops, instead of just at transit stations, and changes
the definition of a major transit stop.
Background
Local government finance after Proposition 13. A series of propositions have drastically cut
into local revenue sources,requiring local governments to look elsewhere to fund services that
the public demands. First,Proposition 13 (1978) capped property tax rates at 1%of assessed
value(which only changes upon new construction or when ownership changes) and required 2/3
voter approval for special taxes; as a result local governments turned to general taxes to avoid the
higher voter threshold. When Proposition 62 (1986)required majority voter approval of general
taxes, local agencies imposed assessments that were more closely tied to the benefit that an
individual property owner receives. Subsequently, Proposition 218 (1996)required voter
approval of parcel taxes, assessments, and property-related fees.
In response to the reduction in property tax revenues from Proposition 13 and the difficulty of
raising taxes, local agencies have turned to other sources of funds for general operations,
including sales taxes and transient occupancy taxes, also known as hotel taxes. Commercial
enterprises generate sales tax and hotel tax revenue, and simultaneously pay property taxes and
demand relatively few services(such as public safety or parks). Residential developments,by
contrast, do not directly generate sales or hotel tax revenue, and the new residents demand a
wider variety of more intensive services. As a result, cities and counties face a disincentive to
approve housing because of the higher net fiscal cost of residential development,particularly if
they have the option to instead permit commercial development that may produce net fiscal
benefits, also known as the fiscalization of land use.
Since they cannot impose broad-based taxes without great difficulty, cities and counties follow a
simple principle: new developments should pay for the impacts they have on the community and
the burden they impose on public services.
Mitigation Fee Act. When approving development projects, counties and cities can require the
applicants to mitigate the project's effects by paying fees—known as mitigation fees, impact
fees, or developer fees. The California courts have upheld impact fees for sidewalks,parks,
school construction, and many other public purposes.
59
AB 2553 (Friedman)4/15/24 Page 2 of 7
When establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition of approving a development
project,the Mitigation Fee Act requires local officials to:
• Identify the fee's purpose;
• Identify the fee's use, including the public facilities to be financed;
• Determine a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the development; and
• Determine a reasonable relationship between the public facility's need and the
development.
When imposing a fee as a condition of approving a development project,the Mitigation Fee Act
also requires local officials to determine a reasonable relationship between the fee's amount and
the cost of the public facility. In its 1987 Nollan decision,the U.S. Supreme Court said there
must be an"essential nexus"between a project's impacts and the conditions for approval. In the
1994 Dolan decision,the U.S. Supreme Court said that conditions on development must have a
"rough proportionality"to a project's impacts.
In the 1996 Ehrlich decision, the California Supreme Court distinguished between"legislatively •
enacted"conditions that apply to all projects and"ad hoc" conditions imposed on a project-by-
project basis. Ehrlich applied the "essential nexus"test from Nollan and the"rough
proportionality"test from Dolan to"ad hoc' conditions. The Court did not apply the Nollan and
Dolan tests to the conditions that were"legislatively enacted." In other words, local officials
face greater scrutiny when they impose conditions on a project-by-project basis.
As a result of these decisions and the Mitigation Fee Act, local agencies must conduct a nexus -
study to ensure any proposed impact fees meet these legal tests for most impact fees. Other
requirements in the Mitigation Fee Act ensure that impact fees are appropriately levied and
spent, including that a local agency must:
• Hold at least one open and public meeting prior to levying a new fee or increasing an
existing one; .
• If it decides to adopt capital improvement plans, indicate the approximate location, size,
time of availability, and estimates of cost for all facilities or improvements to be financed
with the fees;
• Deposit and spend the fees within five years of collecting them; and
• Refund fees or make specific findings on when and how the fees will be spent for
construction, if the fees are not spent within five years of collection.
If a local agency levies an impact fee to fund a capital improvement associated with a
development,it must deposit the fees with any other fees for that improvement in a separate
account or fund.
Local officials must also produce an annual report within 180 days of the end of the fiscal year
that includes information on the fee amounts,how they used the revenue, and any unspent funds,
broken up by each separate fund. The local agency must review this information at the next
regularly scheduled public meeting at least 15 days from when it makes the information available
to public. It must also provide notice to the public at least 15 days prior to the meeting.
Impact fee audit requirements. Any person may request an independent audit of how the impact
fees have been collected and spent,including an assessment of whether the fees exceed the
amount reasonably necessary to cover the costs of the stated projects or services. If a person
60
AB 2553 (Friedman)4/15/24 Page 3 of 7
makes that request,the local agency retains an independent auditor to conduct the audit,provided
that an audit has not been performed on the same fee within the previous 12 months and the
requestor deposits funds necessary to cover the estimated cost for the audit with the local agency.
A local agency must adjust its fees if the audit finds that the fees are set too high.
Traffic mitigation impact fees. Cities and counties must set lower traffic impact mitigation fees
for specified transit-oriented housing developments unless the city or county makes a finding
that the development will not generate fewer automobile trips than a non-transit oriented housing
development(AB 3005, Jones, 2008). Specifically, this lower fee applies to housing
developments that meet all of the following criteria:
• The development is located within one-half mile of a transit station, and have direct
access to the transit station along a barrier-free walkable pathway;
• The development is located within one-half mile of convenience retail uses, including a
store that sells food;
• At least 50 percent of the floor space of the development is for residential use; and
• The development provides either the minimum number of parking spaces required by the
local ordinances, or no more than one onsite parking space for zero to two bedroom units,
and two onsite parking spaces for three or more bedroom units,whichever is less.
The lower fee must reflect the lower rate of automobile trip generation associated with such
housing developments in comparison with housing developments without these characteristics.
Under AB 3005,transit stations include any rail or light-rail station, ferry terminal,bus hub, or
bus transfer station, including and any of these stations that are scheduled to be completed prior
to the scheduled completion and occupancy of the housing development.
Major transit stop. The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)requires lead agencies
with the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a proposed discretionary project to
prepare a negative declaration,mitigated declaration, or environmental impact report(EIR) for
this action,unless the project is exempt from CEQA. CEQA exemptions expedite construction
of a particular type of project and reduce costs by bypassing the process that other projects must
go through. CEQA provides various exemptions, including for residential or mixed-use
residential"transit priority projects," if the project is consistent with the use designation, density,
building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the project area in either an approved
sustainable communities strategy or alternative planning strategy. To be a transit priority
project,the project must be within one-half mile of a"major transit stop" and meet other
requirements. Under CEQA, a major transit stop refers to any of the following:
• An existing rail or bus rapid transit station;
• A ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service; or
• The intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of
15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.
The author wants to expand the projects that qualify for lower traffic impact mitigation fees.
Proposed Law
Assembly Bill 2553 changes the requirement for cities and counties to set lower traffic impact
mitigation fees for transit-oriented housing developments to apply to any major transit stops
61
AB 2553 (Friedman)4/15/24 Page 4 of 7
scheduled to be completed before the housing development is completed,including major transit
stops included in the applicable regional transportation plan.
The measure changes the defmition of a major transit stop to refer to stops with frequency of
service intervals of 20 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods,
instead of 15 minutes.
Comments
1. Purpose of the bill. According to the author, "Many local agencies have very high traffic
impact fees,posing an impediment to the production of housing and over-charging transit
proximate housing developments that would have minimal traffic impacts.
"Furthermore,the COVID-19 pandemic caused a significant reduction in transit ridership. Many
transit agencies responded by cutting routes and reducing service frequency. As a result,there
are fewer locations that meet the definition of`major transit stop.' Notwithstanding service
reductions, development projects proximate to existing and planned transit generate fewer
vehicle trips and have more transit riders than projects located further from transit with benefits
to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.
"AB 2553 solves these problems by removing impediments to the production of transit
proximate housing. AB 2553 clarifies when local jurisdictions must impose lower traffic impact
fees on transit proximate housing developments and updates the defmition of`major transit stop'
to reflect post-COVID service levels."
2. Winners and losers. AB 2553 expands the projects that qualify for lower traffic impact
mitigation fees to include those near major transit stops instead of just transit stations. This
would add the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval
of 20 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. Currently, only
projects near bus hubs or bus transfer stations qualify as transit stations. Additionally,the
change would remove ferry terminals without bus or rail transit service. Altogether,these
changes expand the projects that qualify for reduced traffic impact mitigation fees. This means
local agencies will collect less revenue to make public improvements to mitigate the traffic
impacts of additional development. This could mean the local agency makes fewer public
improvements, or takes longer to complete them. Allowing lower fees on these projects could
make it more likely they pencil out,but it will come at the cost of local government revenue.
3. The best intentions. AB 2553 allows projects near planned major transit stops whose
construction is projected to be completed before the housing development to benefit from lower
fees. However,the measure does not appear to apply the same requirement for a project to be
projected to be completed before the housing development to major transit stops identified in a
regional transportation plan. This is problematic because a proposed housing development near
a planned stop will not generate fewer automobile trips if the station does not get built or is
delayed. The Committee may wish to consider amending the bill to clarify that major transit
stops in the applicable regional transportation plan also need to be scheduled to be completed
prior to the scheduled completion and occupancy of the housing development to benefit from
reduced vehicle mitigation impact fees.
4. Unintended consequences. AB 2553 changes the definition of a"major transit stop"from
including the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of
62
AB 2553 (Friedman) 4/15/24 Page 5 of 7
15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods to 20 minutes or
less. However,the measure changes this definition not just for the purposes of determining
which projects qualify for lower impact fees,but for any other state law that references this
definition. For example,this would mean more projects would qualify for an exemption to
CEQA because they would now fall under the definition of a transit priority project.
Additionally, it would further limit local agencies ability to impose parking requirements, since
recent legislation(AB 2097, Friedman, 2022)prohibited public agencies from imposing or
enforcing parking minimums on developments within Y2 mile of a major transit stop. Finally,
this change in definition would also affect recent housing laws including some that require
streamlined approval of housing development project. To avoid unintended changes to other
statutes,the Committee may wish to consider amending the bill to ensure that the change to the
definition of a major transit stop only applies to vehicle mitigation impact fees.
5. Choppy waters ahead? The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided Sheetz vs. County of El
Dorado. In this case, an El Dorado County resident challenged the county's legislatively enacted
traffic impact mitigation fee arguing the county should only charge him based on the impact
associated with his specific parcel. In other words, legislatively enacted fees should be subject to
the same standards as ad hoc fees. The decision concluded that the federal constitution does not
distinguish between legislatively enacted and ad hoc fees, and remanded the case back to the
California Court of Appeals' Third District for a decision in line with its holding. Should the
Committee consider Mitigation Fee Act legislation before the California Court of Appeals makes
its fmal decision?
6. The song that never ends. The Legislature is considering several other pieces of legislation
concerning the Mitigation Fee Act:
• SB 937(Wiener, 2024), which this Committee approved on a 6-0 vote at its April 3`d
hearing,makes various changes to the process for local agencies to collect development
impact fees, and extends development entitlements. The measure is awaiting referral in
the Assembly.
• SB 1210(Skinner, 2024),which this Committee approved on a 5-2 vote at its April 17th
hearing,requires electrical, gas, sewer, and water service utilities to post fee schedules
and estimated timeframes for new service connections and capacity upgrades needed to
connect new housing construction projects. The measure is awaiting referral in the
Assembly.
• AB 1820(Schiavo, 2024)requires a city or county to provide an estimate of fees and
exactions for the project within 30 days of receiving a preliminary application for a
housing development project upon a request from the project applicant for an estimate.
The measure is also scheduled for this Committee's June 11 m hearing.
• AB 2663 (Grayson, 2024)requires local agencies to post certain information regarding
affordable housing impact fees on their websites. The measure is also scheduled for this
Committee's June 11`s hearing.
• AB 2729 (Joe Patterson,2024)removes the requirement on local agencies that fees must
be paid prior to the date of final inspection or issuance of the certificate of occupancy,
whichever occurs first. The measure is also scheduled for this Committee's June 11 t
hearing.
• AB 3012 (Grayson,2024)requires cities and counties to create a fee estimate tool that the
public can use to calculate an estimate of fees and exactions for a proposed housing
development project available on its intemet website. It also requires the Department of
63
AB 2553 (Friedman)4/15/24 Page 6 of 7
Housing and Community Development to create a fee schedule template, develop best
practices for displaying fees, and gives the department the option to create a fee estimate
tool. The measure is also scheduled for this Committee's June 11 th hearing.
• AB 3177 (W. Carrillo, 2024)prohibits land dedications for the purpose of mitigating
vehicular traffic on housing developments. The measure is also scheduled for this
Committee's June 1161 hearing.
• AB 3276 (Ramos,2024)requires local agencies to post certain impact fee information on
their websites by the end of the 2029-30 fiscal year for the previous five years,which it
must do every five years thereafter. The measure is also scheduled for this Committee's
June 11 th hearing.
7. Coming and going. The Senate Rules Committee has ordered a double referral of AB 2553:
first to the Senate Local Government Committee to hear issues related to local government fee
authority, and second to the Senate Housing Committee.
Assembly Actions
Assembly Local Government Committee: 9-0
Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee: 9-0
Assembly Floor: 73-0
Support and Opposition (6/7/24)
Support: Abundant Housing LA
Association of Environmental Professionals
California Community Builders
California Yimby
Circulate San Diego
Civicwell
East Bay Yimby
Grow the Richmond
Habitat for Humanity California
Leadingage California
Midpen Housing
Monterey Bay Economic Partnership
Mountain View Yimby
Napa-Solano for Everyone
Northern Neighbors
Peninsula for Everyone
Progress Noe Valley
San Francisco Yimby
San Luis Obispo Yimby
Sand Hill Property Company
Santa Cruz Yimby
Santa Rosa Yimby
South Bay Yimby
Southside Forward
Spur
Streets for People
64
AB 2553 (Friedman)4/15/24 Page 7 of 7
Urban Environmentalists
Ventura County Yimby
Yimby Action
Opposition:None received.
--END--
65
04,
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
y ;"
2000 MAIN STREET, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648-2702
FCduNN
GRACEY VAN DER MARK
MAYOR
July 3, 2024
Honorable Anna Caballero
Chair, Senate Appropriations Committee
1021 0 Street, Suite 7620
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: AB 2597 (Ward) Planning and zoning: revision of housing element: regional housing
need allocation appeals: Southern California Association of Governments
Dear Senator Caballero,
The City of Huntington Beach respectfully opposes AB 2597.
AB 2597 will erode the ability for jurisdictions to exercise local control while bolstering
HCD's flawed regional housing determination.
This bill purports that Department of Housing and Community Development can
implement a regional housing needs assessment process with enhanced unsupported
discretionary, arbitrary, and gratuitous allocations of housing units at the cost of existing
neighborhoods, open spaces, and the business community. Moreover, this bill strips
these jurisdictions of their ability to appeal flawed housing allocations.
For these reasons the City of Huntington Beach opposes AB 2597.
Sincerely,
Gracey Van Der Mark
Mayor
Cc: Assembly Member Christopher Ward
Senator Janet Nguyen
Assembly Member Diane Dixon
Office: 714.536.5553
AB 2597
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 8, 2024
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Buffy Wicks, Chair
AB 2597 (Ward)—As Amended April 1,2024
Policy Committee: Housing and Community Development Vote: 9-0
Local Government 9 -0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill revises the housing element statutory adoption deadlines, for the seventh and
subsequent housing element cycles, for local governments within the regional jurisdiction of the
Southern California Association of Governments(SCAG), except for the County of Los Angeles
and all local governments within the County of Los Angeles.
Specifically,this bill:
•
Provides that each local government within the regional jurisdiction of SCAG and that has a
compliant housing element as of the adoption of the second regional transportation plan(RTP)
update, as specified, excluding the County of Los Angeles and all local governments within the
County of Los Angeles, must adopt a housing element 30 months after the adoption of every
second RTP update for the seventh revision and subsequent revisions of the housing element, or
as otherwise provided in law.
FISCAL EFFECT:
The Housing and Community Development Department(HCD)indicates this bill has no fiscal
impact to the department.
COMMENTS:
1) Purpose.According to the author:
[This bill] is a good government measure intended to help local
governments, interested stakeholders, and HCD have more capacity and
time to produce, edit, and review the close to 200 housing elements that
are simultaneously due on each housing element cycle for jurisdictions
within the Southern California Association of Governments. The bill does
this by creating two `phases' of housing element due dates for SCAG—so
that the workload spike is much more manageable for all parties and good
quality housing elements can be drafted, reviewed by HCD, and adopted
with less strain in the future.
2) Background.Existing law requires each city and county's legislative body to adopt a general
plan for land use within its jurisdiction. Each general plan must include a housing element
detailing existing housing conditions within the jurisdiction,the need for new housing and
the strategy the jurisdiction will use to address that need. Local governments must adopt a
67
AB 2597
Page 2
new housing element every eight years, although some rural jurisdictions must do so every
five years.
Among other things, the housing element must demonstrate how the community plans to
accommodate its share of its region's housing needs allocation(RHNA), a figure determined
by HCD through a demographic analysis of housing needs and population projections. HCD
establishes each council of government's(COG's)regional housing targets across the state
for the next five-or eight-year planning cycle. Each COG then sub-allocates the RHNA to
each local government within the COG's jurisdiction, and in turn each jurisdiction uses its
housing element to show how it will accommodate that number of new housing units.
Housing element adoption dates are staggered across the state depending on certain timelines
for each COG. SCAG is by far the largest COG in the state, encompassing six counties—
Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange,Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura—and 191 cities in
an area covering more than 38,000 square miles.
According to the author,when 197 jurisdictions simultaneously submit a draft housing
element roughly 90 days prior to the same due date,HCD faces a tremendous workload
"spike"to timely review and deliver written feedback by its own 90-day deadlines.
This bill smooths this workload spike by creating two housing element adoption due dates for
SCAG jurisdictions in future cycles: Los Angeles County and jurisdictions within Los
Angeles County remain on the current 18-month adoption period(effectively one year after
RHNA suballocations are assigned),while all other jurisdictions in SCAG have 30 months
after the second RTP (effectively two years after RHNA suballocations are assigned)to
adopt a compliant housing element. A jurisdiction outside of Los Angeles County that does
not have a compliant housing element as of the adoption of the second RTP instead remains
on the 18-month cycle.
Analysis Prepared by: Jennifer Swenson/APPR./(916)319-2081
68
_f, NGTpy
,, ,, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
,� z 2000 MAIN STREET, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648-2702
t.
pOUNTY gyp•
GRACEY VAN DER MARK
MAYOR
July 3, 2024
The Honorable Nancy Skinner
Chair, Senate Housing Committee
1021 0 Street, Room 3330
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 3093 (Ward) Land use: housing element: streamlined multifamily housing
Dear Senator Skinner,
The City of Huntington Beach opposes AB 3093 (Ward). Currently, AB 3093 would require
local governments to account for the housing needs of people experiencing
homelessness in their housing elements without funding to develop the plan, implement
strategies, or support the construction of affordable housing.
Specifically, AB 3093 adds two new income categories to the Regional Housing Needs
Assessment (RHNA) framework: acutely low-income (ALI) and extremely low-income
(ELI). While these new categories are intended to help assess the needs of homeless
residents, they fall within the existing very low-income category, which already accounts
for the needs of individuals in our cities earning between 0% and 50% of the area median
income.
The City of Huntington Beach is concerned that this will only lead to duplicating planning
efforts since existing housing element law already requires cities to analyze the special
housing needs of homeless residents and assist in developing adequate housing to meet
the needs of extremely low-income households. Housing element law also currently
requires cities to identify sites and encourage the development of a variety of housing,
including supportive housing and transitional housing. Through these processes, cities
are doing more than ever to plan for the needs of unhoused residents in their
communities.
Despite recent amendments, the City of Huntington Beach continues to be concerned
that the new income categories added by AB 3093 go beyond the suggested intent of the
measure. As drafted, AB 3093 requires site inventory for ALI and ELI households and
lacks critical information about how these sites should differ from the housing cities are
planning for already through the very low-income category. Without amendments to clarify
these concerns, cities will be set up to fail, leading to even more housing elements being
deemed out of compliance.
AB 3093 was introduced on the heels of the Governor's May Revise, which proposed
deep cuts to affordable housing and homelessness programs. While the Legislature and
Office: 714 536 5553
the Governor continue negotiating the final budget deal, AB 3093 has been fast-tracked
through the legislative process without funding to realize these plans or spur much-
needed development.
The City of Huntington Beach shares the goal of preventing and reducing homelessness
in our community. However, real progress will require ongoing funding that allows for the
development of long-term, ambitious plans that support unhoused residents and prevent
more individuals from losing their homes. In the absence of ongoing funding to address
homelessness, the complicated requirements included in AB 3093 fail to expand or
develop local governments' capacity to address immediate homelessness challenges
across California.
Cities across California are planning and approving millions of new homes at all income
levels despite new bills introduced every year that have changed the rules mid-stream,
significantly altering cities' housing element certification process. These complex,
multiyear housing plans are laborious, time-consuming, and costly. With many cities still
navigating the state's certification process for the sixth cycle, now is not the time to create
new vague requirements that will only further these delays in certification.
For these reasons, the City of Huntington Beach is opposed to AB 3093.
SincerelyS)n `", /\,, _,., 4.0
Gracey Van Der Mark
Mayor
cc: The Honorable Chris Ward
Senator Janet Nguyen
Assembly Member Diane Dixon
Office: 714.536.5575
AB 3093
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 3093 (Ward)
As Amended May 6,2024
Majority vote
Creates two new income categories,Acutely Low Income (ALI) and Extremely Low Income
(ELI), in the Regional Housing Needs Determination(RHND),Regional Housing Needs
Allocation(RHNA), and Housing Element Law.
Major Provisions
1) Defines the following household income categories for purposes of the RHND,RHNA, and
other provisions of Housing Element Law:
a) Acutely Low Income (ALI), meaning those earning between 0%and 15%of the area
median income (AMI);
b) Extremely Low Income (ELI),meaning those earning between 15%and 30%of the AMI;
c) Very Low Income (VLI), meaning those earning between 30% and 50%of the AMI;
d) Lower Income (LI),meaning those earning between 50%and 80%of the AMI;
e) Moderate Income(MI), meaning those earning between 80% and 120%of the AMI; and,
f) Above Moderate Income,meaning those earning more than 120%of the AMI.
2) Identifies ALI and ELI households as households with special housing needs for purposes of
Housing Element Law.
3) Removes the existing calculation methodology for ELI households for purposes of Housing
Element Law and replaces it with the calculation determined by the Department of Housing
and Community Development(HCD)through the RHND process.
4) Requires local housing elements to include programs that will assist in the development of
housing for ALI households in addition to the existing requirement for all other incomes.
5) Requires ALI and ELI housing needs to be accounted for in the sites inventories of local
housing elements, and any required rezonings if there are insufficient sites to meet those
housing needs.
6) Requires HCD to include ALI and ELI households in the RHND.
7) Requires regional Councils of Governments(COGs)to provide HCD with data on the
housing needs of individuals and families experiencing homelessness for the purpose of
determining the RHND.
8) Adds the ALI and ELI income categories to the proportionate reduction provisions permitted
between county and cities within the county when one or more of those cities agree to
71
AB 3093
Page 2
increase their share of the RHNA during the period of time between the adoption of a final
RHNA and the due date of the housing element update.
9) Subjects a local government to a streamlined, ministerial approvals process for certain
housing projects if the jurisdiction does not meet the housing needs of ALI and ELI
households, as reported in Annual Progress Reports (APRs)to HCD.
10)Finds that the changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern, and
therefore apply to all cities, including charter cities.
Adoption and Implementation of Housing Elements: One important tool in addressing the state's
housing crisis is to ensure that all of the state's 539 cities and counties appropriately plan for new
housing. Such planning is required through the housing element of each community's General
Plan,which outlines a long-term plan for meeting the community's existing and projected
housing needs. Cities and counties are required to update their housing elements every eight
years in most of the high population parts of the state, and five years in areas with smaller
populations. Localities must adopt a legally valid housing element by their statutory deadline for
adoption.Failure to do so can result in certain escalating penalties.
Among other things,the housing element must demonstrate how the community plans to
accommodate its share of RHNA.Local jurisdictions must adopt legally compliant housing
elements on time to meet statewide housing goals and create the environment for the
construction of housing at all income levels.Unless communities plan for production and
preservation of housing,both in terms of land availability and implementing programs to
facilitate housing production, new housing will be slow or extremely difficult to build.Adequate
zoning,removal of regulatory barriers,protection of existing stock, and targeting of resources are
essential to obtaining a sufficient permanent supply of housing affordable to all economic
segments of the community.Although it does not require the community to actually develop the
housing,Housing Element Law requires the community to plan for it and implement those plans.
RHND/RHNA: The RHND/RHNA process is used to determine how many new homes, and the
affordability level of the homes,that each local government must plan for in its housing element
to meet the housing needs of current and future residents. The RHND is assigned by HCD to
each region in the state at the COG level,while RHNA is suballocated to subregions of the COG
or directly to local governments. This process currently includes four income categories: very
low-income (0-50%of AMI), low-income (50-80%of AMI),moderate income(80-120%of
AMI), and above moderate income (120%or more of AMI).Local governments must include an
analysis of the housing needs of extremely low-income households (0-30%of AMI) in their
housing elements, but extremely low-income is not currently a category in the RHND/RHNA
process.
The state is currently in the sixth RHNA cycle.Each new RHNA cycle begins with HCD and the
Department of Finance (DOF)projecting new RHND numbers every five or eight years,
depending on the region. DOF produces population projections and the COG also develops
projections during its Regional Transportation Plan(RTP) forecast. Then, 26 months before the
housing element due date for the region, HCD must meet and consult with the COG and share
the data assumptions and methodology that they will use to produce the RHND. The COG
provides HCD with its own regional data on several criteria, including:
72
AB 3093
Page 3
1) Anticipated household growth associated with projected population increases;
2) Household size data and trends in household size;
3) The percentage of households that are overcrowded, as defined, and the overcrowding rate
for a comparable housing market, as defined;
4) The rate of household formation, based on age, gender, ethnicity, or other established
demographic measures;
5) The vacancy rates in existing housing stock, and the vacancy rates for healthy housing
market functioning and regional mobility, as well as housing replacement needs, as specified;
6) Other characteristics of the composition of the projected population;
7) The relationship between jobs and housing, including any imbalance between jobs and
housing;
8) The percentage of households that are cost-burdened and the rate of housing cost burden for
a healthy housing market,as defined; and
9) The loss of units during a declared state of emergency during the planning period
immediately preceding the relevant housing element cycle that have yet to be rebuilt or
replaced at the time of the data request.
HCD can take this information and use it to modify its own methodology, if HCD agrees with
the data the COG produced, or HCD can reject it if there are other factors or data that HCD
believes to be better or more accurate. Then, after consultation with the COG,HCD makes
written determinations on the data it is using for each of the factors bulleted above, and provides
that information in writing to the COG. HCD uses that data to produce the final RHND.Each
COG must then take the RHND and create an allocation methodology that distributes the
housing need equitably amongst all the local governments in its region.The RHNA methodology
is statutorily obligated to further all of the following objectives:
1) Increase the housing supply and mix of housing types,tenure, and affordability in all cities
and counties within the region in an equitable manner,which must result in each jurisdiction
receiving an allocation of units for low-and very low-income households;
2) Promote infill development, socioeconomic equity,the protection of environmental and
agricultural resources, and achievement of regional climate change reduction targets;
3) Promote an improved intraregional relationship between jobs and housing, including an
improved balance between the number of low-wage jobs and the number of housing units
affordable to low-wage workers in each jurisdiction;
4) Allocate a lower proportion of housing need to an income category when a jurisdiction
already has a disproportionately high share of households in that income category; and
5) Affirmatively further fair housing.
73
AB 3093
Page 4
California's Housing Future 2040: The Next RHNA: Health and Safety Code(HSC) Section
50515.05 directed HCD, in collaboration with the Office of Planning and Research(OPR), and
after engaging in stakeholder participation,to develop recommendations to improve the RHNA
process and methodology. In April 2024,HCD released those recommendations in a new report,
California's Housing Future 2040: The Next RHNA.1 This bill would implement Topic#1:
Account for the Housing Needs of People Experiencing Homelessness, of the Determination-
Related Recommendations to the Legislature contained in that report.
This bill would require the state to identify the housing needs of Californians experiencing
homelessness and require local governments to plan to meet those housing needs in their local
housing elements.Adding ELI and ALI income categories to the RHND/RHNA process will
help to determine and accommodate the needs of households earning up to 30%of AMI and up
to 15%of AMI,respectively.As an example, an ALI household may consist of a single adult
with a disability who relies on an SSI check as their sole source of income.An ELI household
may include an adult couple with two young children,working hourly,minimum-wage jobs with
inconsistent hours, resulting in a variable month-to-month income. These populations are
currently lumped together in the VLI income category of RHNA,which serves households
earning between 0%and 50%of AMI.Because 0%to 50%is such a large range, deed-restricted
VLI homes typically serve the higher end of that range (around 50%of AMI) and may render
permanent housing in this income category unaffordable for Californians with the lowest
incomes, including those without any income.
Creating these ELI and ALI categories will require regions and local governments to develop
targeted programs and strategies in their housing elements that cater to the needs of Californians
at the lowest end of the income spectrum, including homeless individuals and those at risk of
homelessness. This bill would set a baseline that cities and counties will be measured against to
ensure that every locality is doing its part to meet the housing needs of Californians experiencing
homelessness. It will also provide local governments with the opportunity to track and highlight
compelling local programs and innovations that are successfully addressing homelessness.
Furthermore,this bill would ensure that HCD's RHND is augmented by the best available local
homelessness data,provided by COGs,to ensure the accuracy of the figures in the newly created
income categories. Combining the best data sources available will help create a more accurate
understanding of homelessness housing needs throughout California. Potential data sources
identified by HCD in California's Housing Future 2040: The Next RHNA includes:
1) Coordinated School Health and California Basic Educational Data;
2) HUD Point-In-Time (PIT) Count Data; and
3) Homeless Data Integration System(HDIS)Data
According to the Author
"AB 3093 will ensure that our housing planning processes are inclusive of the most vulnerable
Californians-those experiencing homelessness and those who are on the brink of it. By
introducing Extremely Low-Income and Acutely Low-Income categories into the Regional
Housing Needs Allocation,we can recognize and plan for the housing needs of individuals
I https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/regional-housing-needs-allocation
74
AB 3093
Page 5
earning the lowest incomes in the state. This recognition is crucial for crafting effective and
targeted housing policies that will cater to individuals earning up to 30%and 15%of the Area
Median Income, respectively. The state cannot fix what it does not track.
AB 3093 stems from the alarming increase in homelessness across our state,which has risen by
53%since 2013. On any given night, 181,000 Californians experience homelessness. Despite
significant investments to combat this crisis,the persistent increase in Californians experiencing
homelessness underscores the need for a more comprehensive approach to our housing policies.
This bill will require local governments to integrate these new income categories into their
housing elements, ensuring that they effectively plan for, and implement, strategies to meet the
needs of our most at-risk Californians.By doing so,AB 3093 will promote equity in local
housing elements and foster innovative local solutions that address the root causes of
homelessness,ultimately leading us toward a future where every Californian has access to safe,
affordable housing."
Arguments in Support
According to Housing California, "Despite rising homelessness in California, state law does not
require local jurisdictions to plan for the housing needs of those who are unhoused or who have
the lowest incomes. Current law requires local governments to plan for four income categories:
very low-income households, low-income households,moderate-income households, and above
moderate-income households. The very low-income category includes households with incomes
up to 50%of area median income(AMI)despite significant variation within that category in
terms of ability to afford housing. This makes it harder for local jurisdictions to adequately plan
to meet the housing needs of California's most vulnerable residents and for the state to hold local
jurisdictions accountable for failing to do so.
Explicitly requiring local jurisdictions to plan for the housing needs of Californians with the
lowest incomes, including extremely low-income (ELI, 15-30%of AMI) and acutely low-
income(ALI, 0-15%of AMI) is critical to ensure that the needs of Californians who are
unhoused or at risk of experiencing homelessness are met. If the RHNA and housing element
processes do not specifically require local governments to target these groups,their housing
needs will go unmet because housing them requires the deepest public subsidies and they often
face landlord discrimination. Additionally,high-quality local homelessness data is necessary in
order for the state to ensure the accuracy of the newly created income categories and for local
jurisdictions to design programs that meet the needs of those who are unhoused.
AB 3093 will play an important role in helping local governments prevent and address
homelessness and in holding them accountable when they fail to do so.By adding ELI and ALI
categories to the RHNA process and requiring each region to submit accurate data to the state on
the needs of individuals and families experiencing homelessness,the bill will help communities
comprehensively plan to address homelessness."
Arguments in Opposition
None on file.
According to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations:
1) HCD estimates minor and absorbable costs.
75
AB 3093
Page 6
2) Local costs resulting from this bill are not reimbursable by the state because local agencies
have general authority to charge and adjust planning and permitting fees to cover their
administrative expenses associated with new planning mandates.
ASM TRANSPORTATION: 15-0-0
YES: Wilson,Davies,Aguiar-Curry, Juan Carrillo, Hart,Hoover,Jackson, Ortega,Papan,
Sanchez, Ting,Valencia, Wallis,Ward, Wicks
ASM HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 7-1-1
YES: Ward, Grayson,Kalra,Lee, Quirk-Silva,Reyes, Wilson
NO: Sanchez
ABS,ABST OR NV: Joe Patterson
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 12-2-1
YES: Wicks,Arambula,Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo,Mike Fong, Grayson,Haney,Hart,
Jim Patterson,,Pellerin,Villapudua
NO: Sanchez,Dixon
ABS,ABST OR NV: Ta
it a
D'' �
VERSION: May 6,2024
CONSULTANT: Dori Ganetsos/H. &C.D./(916) 319-2085 FN: 0002957
76
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
nw��, � 2000 MAIN STREET, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648-2702
.
GRACEY VAN DER MARK
MAYOR
July 3, 2024
The Honorable Juan Carillo
Chair, Assembly Local Government Committee
1021 0 Street, Suite 4320
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SB 7 (Blakespear) The Homeless Housing Obligation Act Notice of Concerns
Dear Assemblymember Carillo,
The City of Huntington Beach writes to express concerns regarding SB 7 (Blakespear), which
would create a new and uncertain housing obligation for cities and counties. Specifically, SB
7 would require local governments to plan for and provide housing for homeless individuals
within its jurisdiction based on point-in-time (PIT) counts. This obligation is duplicative of
existing housing element law, which already requires cities to assess the need for emergency
shelter based on the most recent PIT count and assist in developing adequate housing to
meet the needs of extremely low-income households.
Housing element law also currently requires cities to identify sites and encourage the
development of a variety of housing, including supportive housing and transitional housing.
Rather than duplicate existing planning efforts, the Legislature should focus on providing
funding directly to cities to realize these plans and spur much waded development.
The City of Huntington Beach has a comprehensive continuum of care to serve those
experiencing homelessness. The City's PIT count continues to drop significantly.
The City urges the author to clearly identify an ongoing source of funding and determine how
these dollars will be allocated. Given the potential of billions of dollars in costs to local
governments to implement SB 7, cities that do not receive state funding cannot be expected
to fulfill this new obligation.
For these reasons, the City of Huntington Beach respectfully opposes SB 7.
Sincerely,
Gracey Van Der Mark
Mayor
Cc: Senator Blakespear
Senator Janet Nguyen
Assembly Member Diane Dixon
Office:714.536.5553
0/Le.e61 77
SB 7
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 26, 2024
•
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Juan Carrillo, Chair
SB 7 (Blakespear)—As Amended June 10,2024
SENATE VOTE: Not Relevant.
SUBJECT: Regional housing need: determination.
SUMMARY: Makes a number of technical changes to the regional housing needs
determination(RHND)process conducted by the Department of Housing and Community
Development(HCD) and the regional housing needs allocation(RHNA)process conducted by
HCD or Councils of Governments (COGs). Specifically, this bill:
1) Prohibits a city or county from filing an objection to the RHND in regions in which HCD is
required to act as the COG and distribute the RHND.
2) Repeals provisions that allow HCD to use an alternative process to determine the existing
and projected need for housing for a region.
3) Requires a COG or delegate subregion to solicit participation by household with special
housing needs, as defined,in the development of the proposed methodology for distributing
the RHNA.
4) Allows HCD to review a COG or delegate subregion's adopted methodology for distributing
the RHNA and report its findings to the COG or delegate subregion within 45 days of
adoption,rather than 90 days in existing law. '
5) Allows a COG to distribute a draft RHNA allocation plan to each local government in the
region or subregion and to HCD, and to publish the draft allocation on its website,upon
adoption of the final methodology reviewed and adopted by HCD.
6) Requires HCD, in regions without a COG where HCD must distribute the.REND,to act in
accordance with the process for determining the existing and projected need for housing for
regions with a COG.
7) Requires, for purposes of the RHND,the date of the next scheduled revision of the housing
element to be deemed to be the estimated adoption date of the regional transportation plan
(RTP)update described in the notice provided to the Department of Transportation plus 18
months,provided that the date is no more than eight years later than the deadline for adoption
of the previous eight-year housing element.
8) Finds and declares that revising the housing needs assessment to combat the state's housing
crisis is a matter of statewide concern;therefore the bill applies to all cities, including charter
cities.
9) Provides that no reimbursement is required by this bill because a local agency or school
district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the
program or level of service mandated by this bill.
78
SB 7
Page 2
EXISTING LAW:
1) Provides that each community's fair share of housing be determined through the
RHND/RHNA process. Sets out the process as follows: (a)Department of Finance(DOF)
and HCD develop regional housing needs estimates; (b) COGs allocate housing within each
region based on these determinations, and where a COG does not exist, HCD conducts the
allocations; and(c) cities and counties incorporate these allocations into their housing
elements. [Government(GOV) § 65584 and 65584.01)
2) Requires HCD,in consultation with each COG,to determine the RHND for each region
using population projections produced by DOF and regional population forecasts used in
preparing RTP updates, in consultation with each COG. (GOV § 65584.01(a))
3) Requires HCD, at least 26 months prior to the housing element adoption deadline for the
region and prior to developing the existing and projected housing need for a region,to meet
and consult with the COG regarding the assumptions and methodology to be used by HCD to
determine the RHND. Requires the COG to provide data assumptions from their projections,
including, if available,the following data for the region:
a) Anticipated household growth associated with projected population increases;
b) Household size data and trends in household size;
c) The percentage of households that are overcrowded,as defmed, and the overcrowding
rate for a comparable housing market, as defmed;
d) The rate of household formation, or headship rates,based on age, gender, ethnicity, or
other established demographic measures;
e) The vacancy rates in existing housing stock, and the vacancy rates for healthy housing
market functioning and regional mobility, as well as housing replacement needs, as
specified;
f) Other characteristics,of the composition of the projected population;
g) The relationship between jobs and housing, including any imbalance between jobs and
housing;
h) The percentage of households that are cost burdened and the rate of housing cost
burden for a healthy housing market, as defined; and
i) The loss of units during a declared state of emergency during the planning period
immediately preceding the relevant housing element cycle that have yet to be rebuilt or
replaced at the time of the data request. [GOV § 65584.01(b)(1)]
4) Requires HCD, after consultation with the COG,to make a determination of the region's
existing and projected housing need based upon the assumptions and methodology
determined in 3). Requires the RHND to reflect the achievement of a feasible balance
between jobs and housing within the region using the regional employment projections in the
• applicable regional transportation plan. [GOV § 65584.01(c)(1)]
79
SB 7
Page 3
5) Requires HCD to determine the RHND for each region at least two years prior to the
scheduled revision of the housing element, and requires the appropriate COG, or HCD for
cities and counties without a COG,to adopt a fmal RHNA that allocates a share of the
regional housing need to each city, county, or city and county at least one year prior to the
scheduled revision for the region. [GOV § 65584(b)]
6) Allows HCD to determine the RHND by subregion as an alternative to 2)through 5). (GOV
§ 65584.02)
7) Requires each COG or delegate subregion, at least two years before a scheduled revision of
the housing element,to develop, in consultation with HCD, a proposed methodology for
distributing the RHNA to cities, counties, and cities and counties within the region or
subregion. [GOV § 65584.04(a)]
8) Requires each COG or delegate subregion, at least one and one-half years before a scheduled
revision of the housing element,to distribute a draft RHNA allocation plan to each local
government in the region or subregion, and HCD,based on the methodology in 6) above, and
publish the draft allocation on its website. [GOV § 65584.05(a)] •
9) 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, including a quantification of the locality's existing and
projected housing needs for all income levels; an inventory of land suitable and
available for residential development; an analysis of potential and actual governmental
and nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance,improvement, or development
of housing for all income levels; and a demonstration of local efforts to remove
constraints that hinder the locality from meeting its share of the regional housing need,
among other things;
b) A statement of the community's goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative to
affirmatively furthering fair housing and to the maintenance,preservation,
improvement, and development of housing; and
c) A program that sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, and
timelines for implementation,that the local government is undertaking to implement
the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element,including
actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with
appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to
accommodate that portion of the local government's share of RHNA for each income
level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the sites inventory without
rezoning, among other things. [GOV § 65583(a)-(c)]
FISCAL EFFECT: This bill is keyed fiscal and contains a state mandated local program.
80
SB 7
Page 4
COMMENTS:
1) Bill Summary. Existing law requires HCD, in consultation with the COG, to determine the
existing and projected need of housing for each region as specified in Planning and Zoning
Law.Not all regions of the state have COGS,,in these cases,HCD provides the RHND. This
bill prohibits a city or county from filing an objection to the RHND when HCD acts as a
COG and provides the RHND. This bill strikes the provision in existing law that allows
RHNDs to be determined for sub-regions.
SB 7 expands solicitation requirements to include specified households with special housing
needs. The bill would also reduce the time allotted for the department to report its findings
regarding the adopted allocation methodology from 90 days to 45 days. Additionally,the bill
authorizes a council of government to distribute the draft allocation plan upon adoption of the
final methodology reviewed and adopted by the department under certain circumstances.
This bill is sponsored by the Inner City Law Center.
2) Author's Statement.According to the author, "SB 7 will make minor improvements to the
Regional Housing Needs Allocation(RHNA)development process. These improvements
were recommended to the Legislature by the written findings of the Department of Housing
and Community Development regarding its RHNA evaluation, as can be found in its March
2024 report, California's Housing Future 2040: The Next RHNA. California is suffering from
a housing shortage that has been decades in the making. Between 2010 and 2023,
homelessness increased approximately 47 percent. 40 percent of Californians pay more than
30 percent of their income to their monthly housing costs. This state of affairs is the direct
result of the state's failure to maintain an overall rate of housing production proportional to
the growth of its economy and population.
"The state and Councils of Governments,with input from cities, counties, and the general
public,have the responsibility to periodically determine how many housing units local
governments should plan for and permit to meet projected housing needs. This is known as
the RHNA process. Local governments have the sole authority and responsibility to plan for
and permit, at minimum,the housing units they are assigned by RHNA. SB 7 will create
changes to RHNA statute that will increase participation of people with special housing
needs in the RHNA methodology development process,make RHNA statute consistent with
how it is applied, and simplify steps in the process required by statute. This will strengthen
the development process of future regional allocations."
3) Adoption and Implementation of Housing Elements. One important tool in addressing the
state's housing crisis is to ensure that all of the state's 539 cities and counties appropriately
plan for new housing. Such planning is required through the housing element of each
community's General Plan, which outlines a long-term plan for meeting the community's
existing and projected housing needs. Cities and counties are required to update their housing
elements every eight years in most of the high population parts of the state, and five years in
areas with smaller populations. Localities must adopt a legally valid housing element by their
statutory deadline for adoption. Failure to do so can result in certain escalating penalties,
including exposure to the"builder's remedy"—meaning the jurisdiction cannot use its zoning
or general plan standards to disapprove any housing project that meets certain affordability
requirements—as well as public or private lawsuits, financial penalties,potential loss of
81
SB7
Page 5
permitting authority, or even court receivership.
Among other things,the housing element must demonstrate how the community plans to
accommodate its share of its RHNA, which is a figure determined by HCD through a
demographic analysis of housing needs,existing housing stock, and population projections in
consultation with DOF and the COG.HCD establishes its determination of each COG's
regional housing targets across the state for the next five-or eight-year planning cycle. Each
COG(or in some areas,HCD acting directly as COG)then sub-allocates the RHNA to each
local government within the COG's jurisdiction, and in turn each jurisdiction uses its housing
element to show how it will accommodate that number of new housing units, split out by
income level and with a focus on certain special needs housing types and on affirmatively
furthering fair housing.
4) RHND/RHNA Methodology. The RHND/RHNA process is used to determine how many
new homes, and the affordability level of those homes, each local government must plan for
in its housing element to cover the duration of the next eight-year planning cycle. The RHND
is assigned at the COG level,while RHNA is suballocated to subregions of the COG or
directly to local governments. RHNA is assigned via four income categories: very low-
income(0-50% of AMI), low-income(50-80%of AMI),moderate income(80-120%of
AMI), and above moderate income(120%or more of AMI).
The cycle begins with HCD and the Department of Finance(DOF)projecting new RHND
numbers every five or eight years, depending on the region. DOF produces population
projections and the COG also develops projections during its RTP forecast. Then, 26 months
before the housing element due date for the region, HCD must meet and consult with the
COG and share the data assumptions and methodology that they will use to produce the
REND. The COG provides HCD with its own regional data on several criteria,including:
a) Anticipated household growth associated with projected population increases;
b) Household size data and trends in household size;
c) The percentage of households that are overcrowded, as defined, and the overcrowding
rate for a comparable housing market, as defined;
d) The rate of household formation, or headship rates,based on age, gender, ethnicity, or
other established demographic measures;
e) The vacancy rates in existing housing stock, and the vacancy rates for healthy housing
market functioning and regional mobility, as well as housing replacement needs, as
specified;
f) Other characteristics of the composition of the projected population;
g) The relationship between jobs and housing, including any imbalance between jobs and
housing;
h) The percentage of households that are cost burdened and the rate of housing cost burden
for a healthy housing market, as defined; and
82
SB 7
Page 6
i) The loss of units during a declared state of emergency during the planning period
immediately preceding the relevant housing element cycle that have yet to be rebuilt or
replaced at the time of the data request.
HCD can take this information and use it to modify its own methodology, if it agrees with the
data the COG produced, or can reject it if there are other factors or data that HCD feels is
better or more accurate. Then, after a consultation with the COG, HCD makes written
determinations on the data it is using for each of the factors bulleted above, and provides that
information in writing to the COG. HCD uses that data to produce the final RHND. The
COG must then take the RHND and create an allocation methodology that is intended to
distribute the housing need equitably amongst all the local governments in its region. The
RHNA methodology is statutorily obligated to further all of the following objectives:
a) Increase the housing supply and mix of housing types,tenure, and affordability in all
cities and counties within the regional in an equitable manner, which must result in each
jurisdiction receiving an allocation of units for low-and very low-income households;
b) Promote infill development, socioeconomic equity,the protection of environmental and
agricultural resources, and achievement of regional climate change reduction targets;
c) Promote an improved intraregional relationship between jobs and housing, including an
improved balance between the number of low-wage jobs and the number of housing units
affordable to low-wage workers in each jurisdiction;
d) Allocate a lower proportion of housing need to an income category when a jurisdiction
already has a disproportionately high share of households in that income category; and
e) Affirmatively further fair housing.
In past housing element cycles,RHNA had been criticized as being a political rather than a
methodologically sound; data-driven process. In the past,jurisdictions with a higher share of
wealthier,whiter residents were more likely to have received lower allocations of moderate •
and lower income housing,while more diverse cities sometimes received higher allocations
of those categories. The Legislature made a number of changes to the RHND,RHNA, and
housing element process over the past several years to strengthen the law and restrict the
ability of jurisdictions to evade their housing obligations.
This bill makes a number of technical modifications to the RHND/RHNA process, as
recently recommended in HCD's April 2024 report, "California's Housing Future 2040: The
Next Regional Housing Needs Allocation."
5) Related Legislation. AB 2485 (Juan Carrillo)of the current legislative session would require
HCD to take certain actions in determining the existing and projected housing need for each
region through the RHND process. AB 2485 is currently pending before the Senate Housing
Committee.
AB 2597 (Ward) of the current legislative session would modify future housing element due
dates for the Southern California Association of Governments by creating two split phases of
adoption due dates and shorten timelines for COGs to review appeals to the RHNA allocation
plan. This bill is currently pending before the Senate Housing Committee.
83
SB 7
Page 7
6) Previous Legislation. SB 828 (Wiener), Chapter 974, Statutes of 2018:Made a number of
changes to the RHND and RHNA process, including adding more specificity to certain
information regarding overcrowding rates,vacancy rates, and adding a requirement to
include data on the percentage of cost burdened households in the RHND.
7) Arguments in Support. The California Apartment Association writes in support, "Given
California's housing crisis, it has never been more imperative for local governments to make
meaningful progress towards meeting their community's fair share of housing. SB 7 is a
commonsense solution because it requires local governments without a council of
governments to accept HCD's projected housing need without undue delays that an appeals
process would bring. This will avoid one way housing production is slowed down—the
failure of local governments to adequately account for their share of their regional housing
needs. That way developers can then utilize one of the many of the streamlining tools to get
California's housing production back on track."
8) Arguments in Opposition. An individual wrote in opposition, "The provisions in this bill
are actually monumental changes to the RHNA process that will subject cities and other
jurisdictions to enhanced unsupported discretionary, arbitrary, and gratuitous allocations of
housing units based on special interest lobbying with the only outcomes being opportunistic
profiteering by developers and the meaningless destruction of neighborhoods, their open
spaces and commercial infrastructure. Moreover, this bill strips these jurisdictions of their
ability to appeal defectively determined allocations (Legislative Counsel's Digest¶2)."
9) Double-Referral.This bill was double-referred to the Assembly Housing and Community
Development Committee,where it passed on a 7-1 vote on June 19,2024.
REGISTERED SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:
Support
Inner City Law Center(Sponsor)
California Apartment Association
Valley Industry and Commerce Association(VICA)
Opposition
1 Individual
Analysis Prepared by: Linda Rios/L. GOV. /(916) 319-3958
84
oriPOI 114;7� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
��Q 2000 MAIN STREET, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648-2702
GRACEY VAN DER MARK
MAYOR
July 3, 2024
The Honorable Richard Roth
Chair, Senate Health Committee
1021 0 Street, Room 3310
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 2574 (Valencia) Alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities.
Dear Senator Roth,
The City of Huntington Beach is pleased to support AB 2574 (Valencia), which seeks to better
regulate recovery residences.
Specifically, AB 2574 would expand reporting requirements for licensed recovery home operators
to enhance the Department of Health Care Services' oversight of sober living homes that are
operating as an integral part of a licensed drug treatment facility located elsewhere in the
community.
Residential recovery housing provides a wide range of benefits to some of California's most
vulnerable residents, and it is critical that their needs are prioritized over profits. Compliance with
state licensing laws administered through the Department of Health Care Services is essential to
safeguarding residents' well-being and maintaining quality care.
There have been cases where a licensed facility provides services to the residents of a sober
living home but does not include the sober living home in the facility's licensure. AB 2574 would
provide much-needed transparency to ensure that if a recovery residence is operated as a
business with a licensed treatment facility, it is regulated like a business, not a residential home.
AB 2574 would document the networks of sober living homes and related businesses in
Huntington Beach, provide transparency for compliance with State and local laws, and provide an
additional layer of protection to the Huntington Beach community.
This measure would protect residents and hold providers accountable for maintaining high-quality
treatment and care. For these reasons, the City of Huntington Beach supports AB 2574.
Sincerely,
q3; VOvv-\,
Gracey Van Der Mark
Mayor
cc: The Honorable Avelino Valencia
The Honorable Janet Nguyen
The Honorable Diane Dixon
Office: 714.536.5553
SENATE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH
Senator Richard Roth,Chair
BILL NO: AB 2574
AUTHOR: Valencia
VERSION: April 25,2024
HEARING DATE: June 12, 2024
CONSULTANT: Reyes Diaz
SUBJECT: Alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment programs and facilities:
disclosures
SUMMARY: Revises the requirement in existing law for certain entities to disclose that they
own or control, or have a financial interest in, a recovery residence, and any contractual
relationship with an entity that regularly provides'services to addiction treatment or recovery
clients to also include a general partner, director, or officer of the licensee.
Existing law:
1) Grants the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS)the sole authority in state
government to administer, license, certify, and regulate all substance use disorder(SUD)
functions and programs. [HSC §11750, et seq.]
2) Requires DHCS to license and regulate residential alcoholism or drug abuse(or substance
use disorder[SUD])recovery or treatment facilities (RTFs). [HSC §11834.02, et seq.]
3) Grants DHCS the authority to implement a program certification procedure for alcohol and
other drug treatment recovery services and to develop standards and regulations for the
alcohol and other drug treatment recovery services describing the minimal level of service
quality required of the service providers to qualify for and obtain state certification.
[HSC §11830.1]
4) Requires all programs certified,or RTFs licensed by DHCS,to disclose ownership or control
of, or fmancial interest in, a recovery residence(RR) and any contractual relationship with an
entity that regularly provides professional services or addiction treatment or recovery
services to clients of programs certified or RTFs licensed by DHCS,if the entity is not part of
the certified program or licensed RTF. [HSC §11833.05]
5) Prohibits a DHCS licensed RTF or certified program, and specified individuals associated
with or employed by those facilities and programs, from giving or receiving remuneration or
anything of value for the referral of a person who is seeking alcoholism or drug abuse
recovery and treatment services, as specified. Permits DHCS to investigate allegations of
violations and take action, such as revocation of licensure or certification, or assessment of
penalties. [HSC §11831.6 and 11831.7]
This bill: Revises the disclosure requirement in 4) above of existing law to require a general
partner, director, or officer of the licensee to make those disclosures when they operate, conduct,
own, or maintain a certified program or licensed RTF.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee,this bill results in
minor and absorbable costs to DHCS.
86
AB 2574 (Valencia) Page 2 of 5
PRIOR VOTES:
Assembly Floor: 71 - 0
Assembly Appropriations Committee: 15 - 0
Assembly Health Committee: 16- 0
COMMENTS:
1) Author's statement. According to the author,this bill will enhance DHCS's oversight
abilities of licensed and certified entities that own or have control of RRs by expanding
reporting requirements. While state law requires DHCS to license and/or certify and regulate
residential and outpatient facilities that provide treatment services,DHCS does not have
oversight of RRs that only provide housing, even though some illegally provide treatment
and even medical services. This bill aims to address this gap and provide a greater
understanding of the relationships between the treatment facilities under DHCS's purview
and RRs that operate within our communities by requiring the disclosure of specified
financial relationships.
2) Licensed and certified programs. RTFs licensed by DHCS,based on what is commonly
referred to as the"social model,"provide recovery,treatment, or detoxification services.
(The Department of Public Health licenses medical model RTFs,known as chemical
dependency recovery hospitals.)The services provided by social model RTFs include group
and individual counseling, educational sessions, and alcoholism or drug abuse recovery and
treatment planning. Social model RTFs are allowed to provide clients first aid and emergency
care, and since the passage of AB 848 (Mark Stone, Chapter 744, Statutes of 2015), RTFs
can apply to DHCS for an additional license to provide incidental medical services by a
licensed physician or other health care practitioner. SB 823 (Hill, Chapter 781, Statutes of
2018)requires DHCS to adopt American Society of Addiction Medicine treatment criteria as
the minimum standard of care for licensed RTFs. DHCS is also responsible for certification
of a business entity with a physical location in the state,that provides one or more of the
following services to clients: treatment,recovery, or detoxification services, or medications
for addiction treatment. DHCS also provides program certification for facilities that are
licensed by the Department of Social Services that serve adolescents. As part of their
licensing and certification functions,DHCS conducts reviews of licensed and certified
programs every two years, or as necessary; checks for compliance with statute,regulations,
and certification standards to ensure the health and safety of clients; investigates all
complaints; and has the authority to suspend or revoke a program's license or certification for
a violation of statutes,regulations, and certification standards. DHCS states that they have
the sole authority to conduct site visits to their licensed and certified facilities. As compliance
reviews require DHCS to review resident or client information and files,which is protected
information to ensure confidentiality under Title 42, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 2, any
onsite visits by any other entity to ensure licensure or certification compliance could violate
these protections.
3) Recovery residences (RRs)/sober living homes (SLHs). A 2010 report on the National
Institutes of Health(NIH)website, "Sober Living Houses for Alcohol and Drug Dependence:
18-month Outcomes," states that SLHs are not formal treatment programs and are not
obligated to comply with state or local regulations applicable to treatment. However,NIH
does not provide a formal definition of a SLH. The report also mentions that it is difficult to
determine how many SLHs there are in California because they are outside of the purview of
state licensing authorities. The NIH report cites the protection that the federal FHA affords
87
AB 2574 (Valencia) Page 3 of 5
SLHs to be located in residentially zoned areas,personal privacy under the Fourth
Amendment, and the right of people with disabilities to live together for a shared purpose,
such as mutually assisted recovery and maintenance of an abstinent lifestyle.
According to DHCS's website, some types of residences do not provide alcohol and other
drug services and therefore do not require licensure by DHCS, including cooperative living
arrangements with a commitment or requirement to be free from alcohol and other drugs,
sometimes referred to as RRs, SLHs,transitional housing, or alcohol-and drug-free housing.
DHCS states that while SLHs are not required to be licensed by DHCS,they may be subject
to other types of permits, clearances,business taxes, or local fees,which may be required by
the cities or counties in which they are located. If a SLH is providing licensable services to
adults,then it must obtain a valid RTF license. Licensable services can include,but are not
limited to, detoxification services, group sessions, individual sessions, one-on-one
counseling, educational sessions, or recovery,treatment, or discharge planning. If a SLH is
providing just one of the mentioned services,then it should be classified as a RTF and must
obtain a license from DHCS.
DHCS's Drug Medi-Cal Organized Delivery System waiver allows counties to use recovery
SLHs in their continuum of services if they adhere to the following guidelines: do not
provide SUD services that would require licensure by DHCS; all residents of an RR are
actively engaged in medically necessary recovery support services to be provided off-site;
and, each county develops guidelines for contracted RR providers and provide monitoring
and oversight.
4) Informational hearing on patient brokering and subsequent legislation. On January 31,
2018,this Committee held an informational hearing to examine the SUD treatment system
with a focus on treatment and services provided in licensed RTFs; insurance coverage;
patient referrals; and the state's regulation and oversight of the system, including the inability
to impose restrictions on unregulated sober living homes. The hearing provided an overview
of issues that had been affecting the state regarding unscrupulous facility operators, and gave
an opportunity for state regulators to highlight efforts they have undertaken to combat the
exploitation of the SUD system, including CDI's enforcement of unscrupulous sober living
home operators that had been unlawfully providing services. The goal of the hearing was to
examine the issues and to seek strategies and policies that would prevent unscrupulous
individuals from exploiting the various industries that are supposed to help treat those with
SUDs; to recognize federal and state protections for those with disabilities, including their
housing rights and options for supportive housing at sober living homes; and to ensure that
policies are not enacted, either at the local or state level,that will limit the number of
recovery or treatment options for those who need them.
The Legislature passed, and Governor Brown signed, a package of bills that aimed to address
the emerging issues in the SUD treatment and recovery realm. SB 1228 (Lars, Chapter 792,
Statutes of 2018)prohibits facilities that are licensed or certified by DHCS,and anyone
associated with them, from gaining financially for referring a person to treatment, also
known as"patient brokering." SB 992 (Hernandez, Chapter 784, Statutes of 2018)and AB
3162 (Friedman, Chapter 775, Statutes of 2018)made several changes to licensing statute for
RTFs,particularly requiring RTFs and other facilities under DHCS's purview to disclose
certain business relationships, including with sober living homes, and requiring all RTF
licensed services to be provided within the structures notated on an RTF's license.
88
AB 2574 (Valencia) Page 4 of 5
5) Troubling trends in the SUD field. Various media reports over the years have documented
how unscrupulous individuals have found ways to exploit the SUD treatment system. Senate
Health Committee staff, at the time around the 2018 informational hearing on patient
brokering,had received reports of emerging trends and requested DHCS confirm that some
of the issues expressed were in fact occurring in licensed RTFs, including:
a) Denying individuals admission to RTFs who had valid prescriptions from health care
professionals for medications to aid in their recovery;
b) RTF operators holding various licenses that were found to endanger the health and safety
of residents at one RTF continued to operate the other RTFs while DHCS worked to
suspend or revoke all of the licenses; and,
c) RTF'licensees who had a license suspended or revoked often reapplied for and
subsequently were issued licensure just after only two years.
While the package of SUD bills from 2018 were intended to address these troubling trends,
some of the bad actors who claim to be part of the SUD industry,to this day, often operate
multiple residences and claim they do not require licensure by DHCS because they do not
provide any treatment services, even though often times this is found not to be the case.
Media reports, as well as anecdotes from advocates, claim that these are the operators who
shuffle clients among their various businesses as a means to skirt licensing laws.
6) Related legislation. AB 2081 (Davies)requires entities licensed or certified by the DHCS to
include on their websites and intake paperwork a disclosure stating an individual may check
DHCS's website to confirm any actions taken against the entity.AB 2081 is set for hearing
on June 12, 2024, in this Committee.
7) Prior legislation. SB 823 (Hill, Chapter 781, Statutes of 2018)requires DHCS to adopt
ASAM treatment criteria as the minimum standard of care for licensed RTFs.
SB 992 (Hernandez, Chapter 784, Statute of 2018), among other things, implemented the
requirement that DHCS-licensed or certified programs disclose relationships with RRs.
SB 1228 (Lara, Chapter 792, Statutes of 2018)prohibits certain persons,programs, or
entities, and persons employed by, or working for, that program, from giving or receiving
remuneration or anything of value for the referral of a person who is seeking SUD recovery
and treatment services.
AB 3162 (Friedman, Chapter 775, Statutes of 2018)made various changes regarding licensed
RTFs including: making initial licenses provisional for one year; requiring services offered
by the RTF to be specified on the license and provided within the licensed RTF; and,
increasing civil penalties for the violation of licensing law.
AB 848 (Mark Stone, Chapter 744, Statutes of 2015), implemented law that permits RTFs to
apply for an additional license to provide incidental medical services by a licensed physician
or other health care practitioner to the residents of an RTF.
8) Support. The League of California Cities states residential recovery provides a wide range of
benefits to some of California's most vulnerable residents, and it is critical that their needs
are prioritized over profits. Compliance with state licensing laws administered through
DHCS is essential to safeguarding residents' well-being and maintaining quality care. There
89
AB 2574 (Valencia) Page 5 of 5
have been cases where a licensed RTF provides services to the residents of a sober living
home but does not include the sober living home in the facility's licensure. This bill would
protect residents and hold providers accountable for maintaining high-quality treatment and
care.
SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION:
Support: League of California Cities (sponsor)
Oppose: None received
--END--
so
Mr.Amory Hanson
8102 Ellis Avenue
Apartment 121
Huntington Beach CA 92646
July 2, 2024
The Mayoress of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach CA 92648
My Dear Madam Mayoress,
I would like to express my support for Item XA.
Sincerely Yours,
Mr.Amory Hanson
CC:The Honorable Patrick Burns
CC:The Honorable Rhonda Bolton
CC:The Honorable Daniel Kalmick
CC:The Honorable Casey McKeon
CC:The Honorable Natalie Moser
CC:The Honorable Anthony Strickland
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeting pate: 3121 2
Agenda Item No.; I C) ( 2L- 4u 3)