CC SR 20240507 03 - Legislative Update
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 05/07/2024
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration and possible action to take positions on certain legislation being
considered by state law makers.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Authorize the Mayor to sign position letters in support of Assembly Bill (AB) No.
2583 (School Zones and Walk Zones) and AB 2715 (Ralph M. Brown Act: closed
session);
(2) Authorize the Mayor to sign position letters in opposition of AB 1886 (Housing
Element Law: substantially compliant), AB 1893 (Housing Accountability Act), AB
1820 (Housing Development Projects), and Senate Bill (SB) 1037 (Housing
Element Law); and
(3) Adopt Resolution No. 2024-__ supporting the Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and
Theft Reduction Act.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Shaunna Hunter, MPA, Senior Administrative Analyst
REVIEWED BY: Same as below
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Draft letter in support of AB 2583 (page A-1)
B. Draft letter of opposition to AB 1886 (page B-1)
C. Draft letter of opposition to AB 1893 (page C-1)
D. Draft letter of opposition unless amended to AB 1820 (page D-1)
E. Draft letter of opposition to SB 1037 (page E-1)
F. Draft letter in support of AB 2715 (page F-1)
G. Draft Resolution No. 2024-__ in support of Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and
Theft Reduction Act (page G-1)
H. 2024 City Council Legislative Platform
I. Text of AB 2583 (as amended April 8, 2024)
1
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
J. AB 1886 (as amended April 15, 2024)
K. Bill analyses for AB 1886 and AB 2023 (page K-1)
L. AB 1893 (as amended April 18, 2024)
M. AB1820 (as amended April 29, 2024)
N. SB 937 (as amended April 8, 2024)
O. SB 1037 (as amended April 25, 2024)
P. AB 2715 (as amended April 24, 2024)
BACKGROUND:
On December 19, 2023, the City Council adopted the City’s 2024 Legislative Platform
(Attachment H), outlining the policy positions of the City. The platform identifies specific
priority projects which include the Portuguese Bend Landslide Remediation Project and
Civic Center Master Plan along with general priority categories Housing and Local Land
Use, Public Safety, Community Services, Environmental Quality, and Government
Transparency and Effectiveness.
During February and March of this year, some Council member had the opportunity to
meet individually with Renne Public Policy Group (RPPG), the City’s state lobbyist, to
discuss their priorities. In addition, Staff meets regularly with RPPG and receives monthly
reports, bill analyses, updates on amendments proposed to pending legislation , and bill
committee status.
As a member city of the League of California Cities (Cal Cities), the City Council and Staff
receive additional bill analyses, position recommendations, and monthly update bulletins
on pending legislation. Additionally, the City Attorney advises on the impacts of legislation
to department staff.
DISCUSSION:
Based on the 2024 Legislative Platform and direction from the Subcommittee (Mayor
Cruikshank and Councilmember Seo) and the City Manager, Staff has drafted position
letters for the City Council’s consideration on the following pending legislative items:
AB 2583 (Berman) School Zones and Walk Zones (Attachment I)
Position: Support
Bill Category: Public Safety
Bill Summary: Under the existing planning and zoning law, cities and counties are
mandated to adopt a comprehensive general plan, inclusive of various elements such as
a circulation element for transportation route planning. This proposed bill introduces an
additional requirement, following any substantial revision, of the circulation element
beginning January 1, 2025. The proposed bill states that a legislative body of a city or
county must delineate and establish school walk zones for all schools noted in the general
2
plan. These "school walk zones" would encompass all roadways and sidewalks extending
half a mile in all directions from the boundary line of school grounds.
Staff recommends supporting AB 2583 due to the public safety impact such as slower
speeds will have on pedestrian and vehicle traffic near schools. Starting January 1, 2027,
this bill lowers the speed limit in school zones to 20 mph during specific times when
children are likely to be present. It also allows local authorities to establish alternative
times for the speed limit if they are within an hour of school operation. Additionally, it
mandates the identification of school walk zones within a half -mile radius of schools
whenever there's a substantial change to a local authority's circulation plan. This replaces
the existing 25 mph limit within 500 feet of schools. The existing law allows for 25 or 15
mph limits depending on certain factors and defines th e criteria for speed limits near
schools to avoid being classified as speed traps.
AB 1886 (Alvarez) Housing Element Law: substantial compliance: Housing
Accountability Act (Attachment J)
Position: Oppose
Bill Category: Housing and Local Land Use
Bill Summary: The planning and zoning law mandates cities and counties establish a
general plan for land use development within their boundaries, which must include a
housing element. Known as the housing element law, existing legislation sets forth
requirements for the preparation and adherence to a city's or county's housing element.
It also tasks the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
with reviewing and determining whether the housing element substantially complies with
housing element law.
If the department finds that a draft housing element or amendment falls short of
substantial compliance, existing law stipulates that the legislative body must either adjust
the draft to achieve substantial compliance, or adopt the draft housing element or
amendment without changes and provide specific justifications for its compliance despite
the department's findings. Additionally, existing law mandates that a planning agency
promptly submit any adopted housing element or amendment to the department for
review, with the department required to report its findings to the planning agency within
60 days.
The proposed bill necessitates planning agencies to submit specific findings to the
department alongside an adopted housing element or amendment that justifies a
substantial compliance position. See the b ill analyses for AB 1886 prepared by RPPG
(Attachment K).
Staff recommends opposing AB 1886, as this proposed bill introduces a new requirement
for a planning agency to makes findings justifying substantial compliance. Furthermore,
the bill mandates HCD consider these findings in its review of an adopted housing
element or amendment. Moreover, the bill establishes a rebuttable presumption of validity
for the department's determinations regarding whether the adopted element or
amendment substantially complies with housing element law.
3
AB 1893 (Wicks) Housing Accountability Act: Housing Disapprovals: required land
findings (Attachment L)
Position: Oppose
Bill Category: Housing and Local Land Use
Bill Summary: The planning and zoning law mandates that a city or county must establish
a comprehensive plan for land use development within its jurisdiction, including a housing
element. The housing element must adhere to the requirements outlined in the housing
element law, which sets forth guidelines for its preparation and compliance. Additionally,
HCD is tasked with reviewing the housing element to ensure substantial compliance with
housing element law.
Moreover, the Housing Accountability Act, among its provisions, prohibits local agencies
from rejecting or imposing conditions that would render impractical a housing
development project targeting very low, low-, or moderate-income households, unless
specific conditions are met and documented. One such condition under this act is that the
jurisdiction must have a housing element substantially compliant with housing element
law and must have met or exceeded its allocation of regional housing needs for the
proposed income category.
Presently, "housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households" under the
Housing Accountability Act is defined as follows: at least 20% of the total units must be
designated for lower-income households, or all units must be designated for moderate -
income households.
Staff recommends opposing AB 1893, as this proposed bill aims to amend the housing
for very low, low-, or moderate-income households definition by requiring at least 10% of
the units to be allocated for lower-income households, or all units to be designated for
lower-income households at an affordable rent as determined by the California Tax Credit
Allocation Committee. Alternatively, all units can be sold or rented to moderate -income
individuals and families, or the housing development can consist of 10 units or fewer.
Furthermore, the bill seeks to remove the aforementioned condition as a valid reason for
rejecting a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income
households. Additional provisions of this bill address existing laws pertaining to these
matters.
AB1820 (Schiavo) Housing Development Projects: Applications: fees and
exactions (Attachment M)
Position: Oppose unless amended
Bill Category: Government Transparency and Effectiveness
Bill Summary: Current law mandates that a city or county must consider an applica nt for
a housing development project to have officially submitted a preliminary application upon
the provision of specific project details to the respective city or county seeking approval.
Furthermore, the law stipulates that such a housing development proj ect is to be
4
governed solely by the ordinances, policies, and standards in place at the time of the
submission of the preliminary application. This proposed bill seeks to empower a
development proponent who submits a preliminary application for a housing development
project to request an estimate of preliminary fees and exactions, as defined. The bill also
mandates that the local agency must furnish this estimate within 20 business days of the
submission of the preliminary application. In instances where development fee s are
imposed by an agency other than a city or county, the bill necessitates the development
proponent to solicit the preliminary fee and exaction estimate directly from the agency
imposing the fee. Additionally, this bill includes other pertinent provisi ons and aligns with
existing laws.
Staff recommends opposing AB 1820 unless it is amended to specify that this measure
would only apply to standardized general fees known at the time of the preliminary
application and not apply to project specific fees. Local governments need protections
that the estimated fees and exactions are nonbinding and should be granted the authority
to cover the cost of services provided by the local government for a new development
project.
SB 1037 (Wiener) Planning and Zoning: housing element: enforcement (Attachment
N)
Position: Oppose
Bill Category: Housing and Local Land Use
Bill Summary: The current planning and zoning law mandates cities and counties
formulate a comprehensive general plan for land use development, which must
incorporate a housing element. HCD is tasked with assessing whether the housing
element complies substantially with specified provisions of the law. Should a city, county,
or city and county contravene certain provisions of the law, HCD is obligated to inform
them of their violation, and is empowered to notify the Attorney General's office.
Furthermore, the law stipulates that applications for housing developments meeting
specific objective planning criteria must undergo a streamlined, ministerial approval
process. This proposed bill aims to enhance enforcement measures concerning the
adoption of housing element revisions and compliance with state laws mandating
ministerial approval for housing development projects.
Under this bill, in any legal action initiated by the Attorney General, either on behalf of
HCD or independently, to enforce housing element revisions or any state law
necessitating ministerial approval for housing development projects, the city, county, o r
local agency in violation would be subject to specified penalties. These penalties would
entail a fine ranging from a minimum of $10,000 to a maximum of $50,000 per month per
violation.
Staff recommends opposing AB 1037, as the bill mandates that these civil penalties, as
delineated, be allocated to the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund exclusively to
support the development of affordable housing within the affected jurisdiction, subject to
appropriation by the Legislature. Should a city, county, or local agency fail to remit the
5
imposed civil penalties, the court is empowered to direct the Controller to intercept
available state and local funds, directing them to the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund
to rectify the jurisdiction's non-compliance with payment obligations.
AB 2715 (Boerner) Ralph B. Brown Act: Closed Session (Attachment O)
Position: Support
Bill Category: Government Transparency and Effectiveness
Bill Summary: The Ralph M. Brown Act mandates transparency in the proceedings of
local agency legislative bodies, ensuring open access for all interested individuals. While
current law permits closed sessions on specific issues, such as those endangering
essential public services, this proposed bill seeks to extend this allowance to include
discussions concerning cybersecurity matters. However, it stipulate s that any decisions
made regarding cybersecurity must be finalized in an open session. This bill also
encompasses additional relevant provisions and aligns with existing laws.
Staff recommends supporting AB 2715 to give legislative bodies the authority to address
critical issues of security and safety within the space of a closed session to preserve the
integrity and infrastructure of cyber security.
Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act
Position: Adopt resolution in support of the ballot initiative
Bill Category: Public Safety
Bill Summary: The Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act proposes
comprehensive reforms to address the intertwined issues of homelessness, drug
addiction, and theft in California. Recognizing the detrimental effects of Proposition 47,
which reduced legal consequences for drug possession and theft, the act aims to reverse
the resulting surge in addiction, mental illness, and property crimes. By introducing a new
class of crime termed "treatment-mandated felony," the act offers individuals addicted to
hard drugs, such as fentanyl, the option of participating in drug and mental health
treatment to avoid incarceration.
The act seeks to crack down on drug dealers by imposing harsher penalties, particularly
for those dealing in fentanyl, which has emerged as a deadly threat due to its potency
and prevalence. Additionally, the act reinstates felony charges for repeat theft offenders
and introduces measures to address organized thefts like "smash -and-grabs," providing
enhanced penalties for thefts committed by multiple offenders or resulting in significant
losses. By permitting judges to exercise discretion in sentencing, the act aims to tailor
punishments to fit the severity of the crime while offering diversion programs for non -
violent offenders.
Staff recommends supporting the Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction
Act, as the act strives to break the cycle of addiction and homelessness by providing
access to treatment and support services while holding individuals accountable for their
actions. It represents a concerted effort to address the root causes of these issues and
create safer, more resilient communities across the state.
6
Attached for the City Council’s consideration is a resolution in support of the Act
(Attachment G).
CONCLUSION:
Staff has provided summaries of pending bills and a ballot initiative and has drafted
corresponding position letters and a resolution in line with the 2024 Legislative Platform
for the City Council’s consideration. Staff recommends the City Council authorize the
Mayor to sign the letters as drafted, or with revisions, and adopt the resolution.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative actions are available for
the City Council’s consideration:
1. Identify revised language to add to the letter(s).
2. Do not authorize the Mayor to sign the letter(s).
3. Do not adopt the resolution in support of the Homelessness, Housing, and Retail
Theft Act.
4. Take other action, as deemed appropriate.
7
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD. / RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275-5391 / (310) 544-5207 / FAX (310) 544-5291 / WWW.RPVCA.GOV
May 7, 2024 Via Email
Chair Buffy Wicks
California State Assembly Appropriations Committee
1021 O Street, Suite 8140
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: Notice of Support for Bill AB 2583
Honorable Chair Wicks,
On behalf of the City Council and the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes, I am writing to
express our support for AB 2583, aimed at enhancing safety within school zones by
reducing the speed limit to 20 mph effective January 1, 2027. As stewards of our
community's well-being, we firmly believe that this legislation is crucial for safeguarding
the lives and welfare of our children while also advancing overall road safety.
AB 2583's proposal to implement a lower speed limit during specified hours when schools
are in session aligns with the City’s public safety priorities, ensuring a secure environment
for students traveling to and from school. Extensive research consistently underscores
the efficacy of reduced vehicle speeds in areas with high pedestrian activity, significantly
diminishing the likelihood of accidents and mitigating the severity of injuries in the event
of a collision. By establishing a 20 mph speed limit in school zones, motorists will benefit
from increased reaction time to respond to unforeseen circumstances, such as children
crossing the road or emerging from between parked vehicles.
AB 2583 provides local authorities the flexibility to adjust the timing of the school zone
speed limit to synchronize with school schedules. This adaptive approach ensures safety
measures are finely tailored to meet the unique needs of Rancho Palos Verdes and
neighboring communities. Empowering local leaders to enact measures that best serve
the safety and welfare of our constituents is paramount to achieving our shared goal of
creating a safe and thriving community.
Additionally, the provision in AB 2583 mandating the identification and delineation of
school walk zones within a half-mile radius of educational institutions ensures drivers and
pedestrians alike are aware of the potential hazards and can adjust accordingly.
Encouraging pedestrian travel to school not only promotes physical activity and reduces
A-1
CITY OF
JOHN CRU ll<SHAN I<, MAYOR
ERIC A LEGR IA, MAYOR PRO T EM
DAVID L. BRADLEY, COUNC ILMEMBER
BARBARA FERRARO, COUNC ILMEMBER
PAU L SEO, COUNC IL MEMBER
i,;~
"'<> "' ~ RANCHO PALOS VERDES
Chair Buffy Wicks
May 7, 2024
Page 2
traffic congestion, but enhances pedestrian safety by establishing designated routes
equipped with appropriate infrastructure and signage.
In conclusion, we urge you to join us in advocating for the swift passage of AB 2583. By
prioritizing the safety of our children and implementing measures to reduce vehicle
speeds in school zones, we can cultivate safer, more resilient communities and prev ent
tragic accidents.
Thank you for your attention to this critical matter.
Sincerely,
John Cruikshank
Mayor
cc: Marc Berman, Assemblymember, 23rd Assembly District
Greg Wallis, Assemblymember, 47th Assembly District
Al Muratsuchi, Assemblymember, 66th Assembly District
Ben Allen, Senator, 24th State Senate District
Jeff Kiernan, Cal Cities
Marcel Rodarte, California Contract Cities Association
Sharon Gonsalves, Renne Public Policy Group
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council and City Manager
A-2
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD. / RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275-5391 / (310) 544-5207 / FAX (310) 544-5291 / WWW.RPVCA.GOV
May 7, 2024 Via Email
Chair Buffy Wicks
California State Assembly Appropriations Committee
1021 O Street, Suite 8140
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: Notice of Opposition to AB 1886
Honorable Chair Wicks,
On behalf of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council and its residents, I am writing to
express our city's opposition to AB 1886, currently under consideration. While we
recognize the importance of clarifying housing element compliance, we believe that this
bill raises significant concerns that could impact local decision-making and community
planning efforts.
AB 1886 proposes to establish a presumption of validity for findings made by the
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) regarding a local agency's
housing element. While the intent may be to streamline processes and provide clarity, we
have reservations about the consistency and objectivity of HCD's reviews. Granting such
broad authority without adequate oversight could undermine the principles of local
governance and diminish our ability to address the unique housing needs of our
community.
Furthermore, the bill seeks to redefine the criteria for determining compliance with the
housing element law, particularly concerning the application of the builder ’s remedy
provision. By tying compliance solely to HCD's findings, AB 1886 overlooks the
importance of local context and community input in housing planning and development.
It risks limiting our ability to make decisions that reflect the unique preferences and
priorities of particular to Rancho Palos Verdes.
We urge you to reconsider the provisions of AB 1886 and engage in a more
comprehensive dialogue with local governments and stakeholders to address concerns
and explore alternative approaches. It is essential to strike a balance between state
oversight and local autonomy to effectively address housing challenges while preserving
the character and integrity of our communities.
B-1
CITY OF
JOHN CRU ll<SHAN I<, MAYOR
ERIC A LEGR IA, MAYOR PRO T EM
DAVID L. BRADLEY, COUNC ILMEMBER
BARBARA FERRARO, COUNC ILMEMBER
PAU L SEO, COUNC IL MEMBER
i,;~
"'<> "' ~ RANCHO PALOS VERDES
Chair Buffy Wicks
May 7, 2024
Page 2
Thank you for considering our perspective on this matter. We hope to collaborate with
you to develop solutions that prioritize the interests of Rancho Palos Verdes and ensure
a sustainable future for our City.
Sincerely,
John Cruikshank
Mayor
cc: George Alvarez, Assemblymember, 78th Assembly District
Al Muratsuchi, Assemblymember, 66th Assembly District
Ben Allen, Senator, 24th State Senate District
Jeff Kiernan, Cal Cities
Marcel Rodarte, California Contract Cities Association
Sharon Gonsalves, Renne Public Policy Group
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council and City Manager
B-2
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD. / RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275-5391 / (310) 544-5207 / FAX (310) 544-5291 / WWW.RPVCA.GOV
May 7, 2024 Via Email
Chair Buffy Wicks
California State Assembly Appropriations Committee
1021 O Street, Suite 8140
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: Opposition to AB 1893: Housing Accountability Act (HAA)
Honorable Chair Wicks,
On behalf of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and its residents, I am writing to express
our strong opposition to Assembly Bill No. 1893 (AB 1893), which we believe poses
significant risks to our community and fails to address the root causes of our state's
housing challenges. Outlined below are the areas proposed in the revision that are of
concern for Rancho Palos Verdes:
Reduction of Lower Income Units: AB 1893 proposes to reduce the requirement for lower
income units in mixed-income projects from 20% to 10%. This revision primarily benefits
market developers seeking to lower their costs by providing fewer affordable units. It fails
to prioritize the needs of lower-income individuals and families who are already struggling
to find affordable housing in our community.
Encouragement of Chaotic Development: The bill allows developers to circumvent local
housing elements and build almost anywhere, exceeding local densities and avoiding
local inclusionary policies. This undermines the authority of local governments and could
lead to haphazard development patterns that erode local control and are not in line with
our community plans and zoning regulations.
Punitive Measures Against "Good Actor" Communities: AB 1886 unfairly penalizes
communities that have complied with housing element requirements and exceeded their
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). By stripping these communities of their
discretion to deny projects that conflict with local plans and imposing arbitrary density
penalties, the bill undermines the efforts of responsible jurisdictions like ours.
Ineffectiveness in Resolving Builder's Remedy Disputes: The provisions of AB 1886 do
little to address disputes over housing projects that fail to comply with local plans and
C-1
CITY OF
JOHN CRU ll<SHAN I<, MAYOR
ERIC A LEGR IA, MAYOR PRO T EM
DAVID L. BRADLEY, COUNC ILMEMBER
BARBARA FERRARO, COUNC ILMEMBER
PAU L SEO, COUNC IL MEMBER
i,;~
"'<> "' ~ RANCHO PALOS VERDES
Chair Buffy Wicks
May 7, 2024
Page 2
zoning. Instead, the bill further weakens the position of local agencies and fails to provide
a meaningful resolution process for conflicts between developers and communities.
Ignoring Larger Issues Affecting Housing Challenges: AB 1893 hyper-focuses on state
plan reviews without addressing broader issues such as declining housing production,
rising construction costs, and scarce state funding for affordable housing initiatives. This
narrow policy approach overlooks the systemic factors contributing to California's housing
crisis.
In conclusion, we urge you to reconsider AB 1893 and instead focus on comprehensive
solutions that prioritize the needs of our community, promote equitable access to
affordable housing, and address the underlying factors driving our state's housing
challenges. Thank you for considering our concerns.
Sincerely,
John Cruikshank
Mayor
cc: Al Muratsuchi, Assemblymember, 66th Assembly District
Ben Allen, Senator, 24th State Senate District
Jeff Kiernan, Cal Cities
Marcel Rodarte, California Contract Cities Association
Sharon Gonsalves, Renne Public Policy Group
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council and City Manager
C-2
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD. / RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275-5391 / (310) 544-5207 / FAX (310) 544-5291 / WWW.RPVCA.GOV
May 7, 2024 Via Email
Chair Buffy Wicks
California State Assembly Appropriations Committee
1021 O Street, Suite 8140
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: Notice of Opposition to AB 1820 (unless amended)
Honorable Chair Wicks,
On behalf of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council and its residents, I am writing to
express our opposition to Assembly Bill No. 1820 (AB 1820) in its current form, and I urge
you to consider amendments to address several key concerns.
While the intent of AB 1820 to provide transparency in the fee estimation process for
housing development projects is commendable, there are aspects of the bill that require
careful reconsideration and adjustment.
1. Timeliness of Response: The requirement for local agencies to provide a
preliminary fee estimate within 20 business days may not be feasible for all
jurisdictions. The diverse nature of local governments necessitates a more flexible
timeframe to ensure accurate and thoughtful responses.
2. Legal Liability: Similar to the provisions in AB 602 (Grayson), Chapter 347, Statutes
of 2021, there should be safeguards in place to protect local governments from
liability regarding the accuracy of fee information provided. Clarifying language
should be included to ensure that agencies are not held accountable for changes
made by other public entities without their knowledge.
3. Scope and Application: Further clarification is needed regarding the types of
developments to which the bill applies. Additionally, consideration should be given
to the inclusion of parkland or fee-in-lieu calculations, such as those governed by
the Quimby Act, in the fee estimation process.
4. Flexibility and Adaptability: The final summation of fees and exactions provided to
developers should be understood as estimates subject to adjustment based on
actual project changes. Including language to underscore this point will ensure
flexibility in the development process.
Given these concerns, I urge you to consider the following amendments to AB 1820:
D-1
CITY OF
JOHN CRU ll<SHAN I<, MAYOR
ERIC A LEGR IA, MAYOR PRO T EM
DAVID L. BRADLEY, COUNC ILMEMBER
BARBARA FERRARO, COUNC ILMEMBER
PAU L SEO, COUNC IL MEMBER
i,;~
"'<> "' ~ RANCHO PALOS VERDES
Chair Buffy Wicks
May 7, 2024
Page 2
• Extend the period for providing preliminary fee estimates to 30 business days.
• Include language to clarify that preliminary fee estimates are non-binding and
subject to change.
• Ensure that local agencies are not held liable for inaccuracies in fee information
provided.
• Provide further clarification on the types of developments covered by the bill,
including the treatment of parkland fees.
• Emphasize the flexibility of final fee summations based on project changes.
We join Cal Cities and other local agencies in requesting amendments to this bill which
will increase transparency in the housing development process while addressing the
practical realities faced by local governments. We trust that you will carefully weigh the
implications of AB 1820 and its potential impact on housing development in California.
Sincerely,
John Cruikshank
Mayor
cc: Pilar Schiavo, Assemblymember, 40th Assembly District
Timothy Grayson, Assemblymember, 15th Assembly District
Alex Lee, Assemblymember, 24th Assembly District
Al Muratsuchi, Assemblymember, 66th Assembly District
Ben Allen, Senator, 24th State Senate District
Jeff Kiernan, Cal Cities
Marcel Rodarte, California Contract Cities Association
Sharon Gonsalves, Renne Public Policy Group
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council and City Manager
D-2
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD. / RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275-5391 / (310) 544-5207 / FAX (310) 544-5291 / WWW.RPVCA.GOV
May 7, 2024 Via Email
Chair Anna Caballero
California State Senate Appropriations Committee
1021 O Street, Suite 7620
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: Notice of Opposition to SB 1037
Honorable Chair Caballero,
On behalf of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council and its residents, I am writing to
express our City's opposition to Senate Bill No. 1037 (SB 1037), proposed by Senator
Wiener. We are deeply concerned about the potential negative fiscal impacts this bill could
have on our community and other local governments across the state.
First and foremost, I want to highlight that Rancho Palos Verdes is united with the
California Contract Cities Association in opposition to SB 1037. This bill, if enacted, would
introduce significant changes to existing laws governing the enforcement of housing
element compliance, particularly in relation to penalties imposed on local governments.
While we recognize the importance of enforcing state housing laws to address California's
housing crisis, SB 1037 introduces penalties that are disproportionate and could have
severe consequences for local jurisdictions. The bill seeks to impose civil pena lties
ranging from $10,000 to $50,000 per month on local governments found to be in violation
of housing element laws. These penalties, accruing from the date of the violation until
compliance is achieved, could pose an immense financial burden on cities and counties.
Furthermore, SB 1037 fails to adequately consider the challenges faced by local
governments, especially smaller municipalities, in navigating the complexities of housing
laws and ensuring compliance. The California Contract Cities Association rightly point s
out that many localities, including ours, may struggle to stay abreast of evolving state
housing requirements and rely on support and guidance from the state to fulfill their
obligations effectively.
The proposed amendments to existing law outlined in SB 1037 do not provide sufficient
safeguards for local jurisdictions acting in good faith to correct any unintentional violations
or misunderstandings of the law. While we acknowledge the need for accountability,
imposing harsh penalties without consideration for mitigating circumstances or genuine
E-1
CITY OF
JOHN CRU ll<SHAN I<, MAYOR
ERIC A LEGR IA, MAYOR PRO T EM
DAVID L. BRADLEY, COUNC ILMEMBER
BARBARA FERRARO, COUNC ILMEMBER
PAU L SEO, COUNC IL MEMBER
i,;~
"'<> "' ~ RANCHO PALOS VERDES
Chair Anna Caballero
May 7, 2024
Page 2
efforts to comply could exacerbate existing challenges and deter productive cooperation
between state and local entities.
As Mayor of Rancho Palos Verdes, I urge you to reconsider SB 1037 and work toward
solutions that promote collaboration and support between state and local governments in
addressing the housing crisis. We remain committed to fulfilling our responsibilities under
state law, but we also implore the Legislature to approach enforcement with fairness and
understanding of the diverse circumstances faced by California's cities and counties.
Thank you for considering our concerns regarding SB 1037. I am available to discuss this
matter further and welcome the opportunity to engage in constructive dialogue on this
important issue.
Sincerely,
John Cruikshank
Mayor
cc: Scott Wiener, Senator, 11 th State Senate District
Ben Allen, Senator, 24th State Senate District
Al Muratsuchi, Assemblymember, 66th Assembly District
Jeff Kiernan, Cal Cities
Marcel Rodarte, California Contract Cities Association
Sharon Gonsalves, Renne Public Policy Group
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council and City Manager
E-2
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD. / RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275-5391 / (310) 544-5207 / FAX (310) 544-5291 / WWW.RPVCA.GOV
May 7, 2024 Via Email
Chair Juan Carrillo
California State Assembly Local Government Committee
1020 N Street, Suite 157
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: Notice of Support for AB 2715
Honorable Chair Carrillo,
On behalf of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council and its residents, I express strong
support for Assembly Bill No. 2715 (AB 2715), amending Section 54957 of the
Government Code. This bill is vital for safeguarding public facilities, essential services,
and critical infrastructure, especially in addressing cybersecurity threats.
AB 2715 grants local legislative bodies the flexibility needed to address security concerns
while maintaining public transparency. Closed sessions, as proposed in the bill, are
crucial for discussing matters posing significant threats to public safety and essential
services.
Of particular importance is the provision allowing closed sessions to address
cybersecurity threats. In today's digital age, these risks are omnipresent and can have
severe consequences for public infrastructure. Closed sessions empower legislative
bodies to deliberate on sensitive cybersecurity matters confidentially, enabling informed
decisions to mitigate risks effectively. The bill defines terms like "critical infrastructure
controls" to ensure discussions remain focused on protecting public interests. This
precision is essential to ensure closed sessions are used appropriately.
The proactive approach of AB 2715 in addressing cybersecurity threats is commendable.
By enacting this bill, California can enhance its resilience against cyber threats, protecting
public facilities and services for all residents. This bill is a critical step toward
strengthening community security and ensuring the continuity of essential public services.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your commitment to serving
Californians.
F-1
CITY OF
JOHN CRU ll<SHAN I<, MAYOR
ERIC A LEGR IA, MAYOR PRO T EM
DAVID L. BRADLEY, COUNC ILMEMBER
BARBARA FERRARO, COUNC ILMEMBER
PAU L SEO, COUNC IL MEMBER
i,;~
"'<> "' ~ RANCHO PALOS VERDES
Chair Juan Carillo
May 7, 2024
Page 2
Sincerely,
John Cruikshank
Mayor
cc: Tasha Boerner, Assemblymember, 77th Assembly District
Al Muratsuchi, Assemblymember, 66th Assembly District
Ben Allen, Senator, 24th State Senate District
Jeff Kiernan, Cal Cities
Marcel Rodarte, California Contract Cities Association
Sharon Gonsalves, Renne Public Policy Group
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council and City Manager
F-2
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA,
EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE
HOMELESSNESS, DRUG ADDICTION, AND THEFT
REDUCTION ACT
WHEREAS, Proposition 47 aimed to make California’s criminal justice system
fairer, but unintended consequences have emerged over the past decade ; and
WHEREAS, These unintended consequences include an increase in repeat and
organized retail theft, closures of city stores, and challenges in encouraging individuals
to seek drug and mental health treatment; and
WHEREAS, Addressing these unintended consequences requires modest
amendments to Proposition 47, which can only be achieved through voter support at the
ballot box; and
WHEREAS, Initiative 23-0017A1, the Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft
Reduction Act, is currently gathering signatures to qualify for the 2024 November
General Election; and
WHEREAS, The Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act is a
bipartisan initiative offering sensible, targeted reforms to Proposition 47 that legislative
proposals alone cannot achieve; and
WHEREAS, Rampant retail theft is negatively impacting businesses and
residents in Rancho Palos Verdes, the Peninsula, and all of California, as perpetrators
believe they can act with impunity; and
WHEREAS, This measure will hold repeat offenders accountable, enhancing
community safety by preventing their return to the streets; and
WHEREAS, The fentanyl crisis has reached alarming levels, contributing to 20
percent of youth deaths in California; and
WHEREAS, The Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act will
classify fentanyl as a hard drug, impose accountability on individuals involved in
G-1
Resolution No. 2024-__
Page 2 of 3
fentanyl trafficking, and provide judges with greater discretion in sentencing traffickers ;
and
WHEREAS, Addressing the cycle of repeat offenders necessitates tackling the
underlying causes of retail theft; and
WHEREAS, The Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act offers
vital mental health services, drug treatment programs, and job training opportunities
within our justice system for homeless individuals grappling with mental illness or
substance abuse; and
WHEREAS, Meaningful reforms to our justice system are imperative to ensure
community safety.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
California, does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1. All of the above-stated recitals are true and correct and incorporated
herein by reference.
Section 2. The City Council hereby formally expresses support for the
Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act and recognizes its potential to
enhance community safety.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 7th day of May 2024.
___________________________
John Cruikshank, Mayor
Attest:
___________________________
Teresa Takaoka, City Clerk
State of California )
County of Los Angeles ) ss
City of Rancho Palos Verdes )
G-2
Resolution No. 2024-__
Page 3 of 3
I, Teresa Takaoka, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the
above Resolution No. 2024-__ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said
City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on May 7, 2024.
____________________________
Teresa Takaoka, City Clerk
G-3
1
April 3, 2024
To: Ara Mihranian, City Manager
Shaunna Hunter, Administrative Analyst
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
From: Sharon Gonsalves
Director of Government Affairs
Renne Public Policy Group
RE: AB 2023 (Quirk Silva) & AB 1886 (Alvarez) – Penalizing Local Agencies Over Housing Element
Compliance
Summary: AB 2023 and AB 1886 take slightly different approaches, but with the same objective:
penalizing local agencies which elect to exercise their statutory rights, under subdivision (65585
(f)(1)&(2)i, to adopt housing elements that they believe substantially comply with the law despite HCD’s
findings, and to insert prejudicial bias against local agencies in Court reviews.
Note: AB 1886 (Alavarez) was amended on 04/01. Upon initial review we determined that these
amendments simply clarify that the provision of this bill still apply to a local agency whether they have
an approved housing element or not. Moreover, this side-by-side analysis and all RPPG comments are
not intended to serve as legal advice. Please consult legal counsel on agency-specific legal implications.
Existing Law AB 2023 (As
Amended 03/21)
AB 1886 (As
Introduced)
RPPG Comments
Establishes a
comprehensive
process under
the supervision
of a Court to
address
questions of
whether a
housing element
substantially
complies with the
law.
Under this
process, local
agencies that are
deemed by a
Court to not be in
compliance must
change the
Creates a legal
“presumption of
invalidity” for either
of following:
a) In any action to
challenge the
validity of a
housing element,
where the
Department of
Housing and
Community
Development
(HCD) finds,
pursuant to Section
65585 ii, that the
housing element or
amendment to the
housing element
does not
States that in any
legal proceedings,
that HCD’s
findings pursuant
to subdivision
“65585(h)” (its
final review) and
its initial review
under 65585(b),
shall create a
rebuttable
presumption of
validity as to
whether the
adopted element
or amendment
complies with the
article.
Both AB 2023 and AB 1886 are attempting to
bias a Court review of a local agency’s
element.
It is challenging to find any precedents the
American legal system to the “presumption
of invalidity,” which is akin to a (presumption
of guilt). Such an approach raises concerns
concerning the basic due process rights for
public agencies. Moreover, if approved, such
an approach may lead to troubling
precedents in other areas of law that directly
impact local agency governance and
autonomy.
Existing law already has a comprehensive
dispute resolution process, adopted by the
Legislature in 2019, that offers both
accountability and neutral due process.
K-1
2
element to
address the
Court’s concerns,
or be subject to
extensive fines
and penalties. In
instances,
however, where
a Court deems a
local agency’s
element in
compliance, HCD
must accept that
determination.
Statute has also
long provided a
“presumption of
validity” to a
housing element
that HCD deems
in substantial
compliance with
the law.
substantially
comply with the
requirements of
this article iii.
b) In any legal action
challenging a local
government action
or failure to act,
when HCD has
determined that
the action or
failure to act by a
local agency does
not comply with:
(a) Its adopted
housing element,
or (b) Its
obligations to
identify adequate
sites pursuant to
Section 65583. iv
Moreover, Courts do not consider HCD
infallible: In the recent 5th Appellate Court
decision, Martinez v Clovis, the Court held
that an HCD determination of substantial
compliance was in error: “…given the
language of section 65583.2(h), the HCD’s
approval of the RHN Overlay was clearly
erroneous.”
Nor do Court’s cede their authority to HCD
on matters of interpreting compliance with
the law:
In Martinez, the Court reiterated its
supremacy to interpret matter of legal
compliance: “…the HCD’s informal
interpretation of statutory requirements is
not binding on us. (Fonseca,supra, 148
Cal.App.4th at p. 1193.) Thus, any deference
that might be due the HCD’s interpretation is
overcome by the plain meaning of section
65583.2(h)’s text.(See Kaanaana v. Barrett
Business Services, Inc.(2021) 11 Cal.5th 158,
178 [“ultimate responsibility for statutory
interpretation rests with the courts”];”
https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-
of-appeal/2023/f082914.html
If HCD finds that
the local revision
or draft
amendment does
not substantially
comply with the
law, then the
local agency must
take one of the
following actions:
i. Change the
draft revision
or amendment
to
substantially
comply with
the law (as
determined by
HCD’s
findings). Local
agencies that
adopt housing
Proposes new
penalties under the
Housing
Accountability Act
(HAA), to any local
agency that
exercises its valid
statutory option
self-certify a
housing element in
accordance Section
65585 (f)(2), by:
1) Declaring that a
housing element
is only
considered in
substantial
compliance if is
either deemed
compliant by
This provision in AB 1886 is intended to
immediately expose a local agency to
penalties and sanctions before any Court
determination of non-compliance. In other
words, the local agency is considered
“guilty,” and subject to penalties before,
during, and until the completion of any Court
review. This is much different than existing
law, which would require the Attorney
General, HCD, or another litigant to challenge
the validity of the local agency’s element.
Prohibiting local agencies from denying or
conditioning projects under Sec. 65589(d) of
the HAA, appears intended to bolster legal
strategies surrounding the use of the
“builder’s remedy,” and force local agencies
to approve projects that don’t comply with
the general plan or zoning for the entire time
K-2
3
elements
where HCD
has
determined
that the
element
“substantially
complies” with
the law, are
provided a
legal
“presumption
of validity”
under Section
65589.3 for
their housing
element in any
future legal
challenges of
the housing
element.1
ii. Adopt the
draft element
or amendment
without
changes, and
include local
findings which
explain the
reasons that
the local
agency
believes that
the draft
revision of
amendment to
the housing
element
substantially
complies with
the law
despite the
findings of the
department.
Following either
of the above
actions, the local
HCD, or by a
Court.
2) Prohibiting a
local agency
(under
65589.5(d) of
the HAA)
denying or
conditioning the
approval of low
or moderate
income housing
development or
emergency
shelter, including
for non-
compliance with
local zoning.v)
3) Prohibiting local
agencies from
imposing
“objective”
conditions on
housing
development
projects and
emergency
shelters, if their
housing element
is not deemed
(by a Court or
HCD) to be in
compliance.
4) Prohibiting
agencies that do
not have an
element in
compliance on
the date the
preliminary or
complete
application was
submitted, from
conditioning or
denying projects
a local agency may be waiting for its day in
Court.
Today, locals have some potential legal
protections from the builder’s remedy claims,
when they self-certify their elements under
65585(f)(2), because it can require a Court
ruling to establish that their element does
not substantially comply with the law. This
bill seeks to remove that safety net, and
immediately penalize local agencies.
It is unclear what policy goals are furthered
when a local agency is prohibited from being
able to impose “objective” conditions on
housing development. Clarification as to
rationale of this should be requested.
This provision also appears related to
builder’s remedy issues by attempting to
clarify that locals do not have any authority
to deny or condition projects under the HAA
(when they lack HCD or Court-certified
elements) from the date that the preliminary
application or complete application was
submitted.
K-3
4
agency must
promptly submit
a copy to HCD.
Within 60 days,
HCD must review
the final actions
of the local
agency and
report its findings
to the local
agency.
under
65589.5(d).
After receiving
HCD’s findings on
their draft
element, local
agencies are
authorized to
adopt the final
version of their
housing element
in one of two
ways:
1) “Change the
draft element or
draft amendment
to substantially
comply with this
article.”
65585(f)(1).
2) “Adopt the draft
element or
amendment
without changes.
The legislative
body shall
include in its
resolution of
adoption written
findings that
explain the
reasons the
legislative body
believes that the
draft element or
Requires any
“change” made to an
adopted housing
element under Sec.
65585(f)(1), must be
completed in
accordance with the
existing 90+ day
process for local
agencies to submit
drafts and receive
findings from HCD.
The language states
that this provision
does not constitute a
change, but is
declaratory of existing
law.
This change appears intended to preclude
any future “plain reading” by a Court of the
language in Sec. 65585(f)(1), which provides
that a local agency may “change” the
element/amendment to “substantially
comply with this article.”
The concern here seems to be to remove any
potential local agency discretion, by looping
them back into the 90-day process for
submitting and receiving comments on draft
element/amendments from HCD.
This statutory change would likely preclude a
local agency from attempting to use this
provision to adopt an element which varied
with HCD’s findings on its draft element,
because from a timing standpoint they would
more likely run afoul of the statutory
deadline to adopt their housing element, and
thus be exposed to other penalties and
sanctions both in existing law and these bills.
The effect of this provision seems to be to
force local agencies to adopt any
element/amendment “without changes”
under Sec. 65585(f)(2). In other words, the
choices being presented are “all or nothing”
either:
1) Completely agree to every finding by
HCD, or restart a 90-day submittal
process, or
2) Do not adopt any of HCD’s findings,
and make local findings why they all
K-4
5
amendment
substantially
complies with
this article
despite the
findings of the
department.”
are disagreed with, while being
exposed to penalties and sanctions.
The goal here appears to be to limit
reasonable levels of disagreement between
local agencies and HCD, because in most
cases a local agency may only differ with HCD
on several items, not all of them.
Requires, under
Sec. 65585(g),
the planning
agency to
“promptly”
submit a copy of
an adopted
element or
amendment to
HCD
Provides that that any
change to a draft
element or
amendment in
accordance with Sec.
65585((f)(1), shall be
completed in
accordance with the
90-day process
described above. The
language states that
this does not
constitute a change,
but is declaratory of
existing law. vi
This provision appears to be an effort to
preclude local agencies from adopting and
submitting elements/amendments to HCD
under Sec. 65585(f)(1), that vary with HCD’s
comments on the draft document.
Under existing
law, a housing
element deemed
in substantial
compliance by
HCD receives a
“presumption of
validity” against
future legal
challenges.
When a local
agency elects to
self-certify its
element under
Section
65585(f)(2), it
does not receive
the presumption
of validity, if
challenged, and
there is an
established
Provides that a
housing element
that is deemed in
substantial
compliance shall
remain so until
the end of the
planning cycle, or
either HCD or a
Court determine
the housing
element is no
longer in
substantial
compliance.
This provision in AB 1886, can appear as
simply reflecting the focus of the bill in re-
defining substantial compliance.
The wording of this section, however,
presents some concerns for local agencies
which obtain certification by a Court. The bill
says that this certification remains in effect
until HCD or a Court, determines that it no
longer complies. For Court-certified
elements, this language potentially exposes
local agencies to a future determination by
HCD of invalidity, and to the HAA and other
penalties proposed by these bills.
Since the reason for Court-certification likely
involved a prior disagreement with HCD, it
may be concerning to public agencies to
potentially allow HCD discretion to
unilaterally unravel a Court-certified element,
without first receiving approval by the Court.
K-5
6
process in law for
the AG or HCD to
challenge in
Court.
Existing law (Sec.
65583(c )(1) (A)
requires sites for
all income
categories to be
rezoned within
three years, from
earlier of the
following two
dates:
• Within three
years of the
earlier of either
the date the
housing
element is
adopted
pursuant to
subdivision
65585(f), or 90
days after
receiving
comments from
HCD on its draft
element.vii
• Within one year
of the statutory
deadline (in
65588) for local
agencies that
fail to adopt an
element that
HCD has
deemed in
substantial
compliance
within 120 days
of the statutory
deadline in
Section 65588.
Provides that the
(three/one-year)
process described
existing law shall
continue to be applied
for the adopting of
the sixth revision of
the housing element.
Provides, however,
for the seventh, and
all subsequent
revisions of the
housing element that
all rezoning must
occur within one year
(instead of three
years) of the (65588)
statutory deadline
unless a local agency
does all of the
following:
1) Submit its draft
element to HCD for
review at least 90
days prior to the
applicable
statutory deadline
(in Sec. 65588) to
adopt a housing
element.
2) Receive findings
from HCD that the
draft element
substantially
complies with the
law, on or before
the applicable
deadline in Sec.
65588.
3) Adopt a draft
element or draft
amendment that
HCD has found to
The differences proposed in this bill between
the sixth and seventh cycles appear to be
this:
1) In the sixth cycle, a local agency has to
adopt an element HCD has determined to
be in substantial compliance within 120
days of the Sec. 65588 statutory deadline.
2) In the seventh and subsequent cycles, to
avoid being subject to the one-year
rezoning requirement, the local agency
must comply with more rigorous timing
and other criteria:
A) Comply with the 90-day statutory
deadline to submit an element or
amendment to HCD. (If it misses that
deadline and submits say within 85
days of the deadline, then they are
subject to the one-year rezoning
standard, even if they are otherwise
compliant.)
B) Receive HCD approval of their element
prior to the statutory deadline in Sec.
65588. (If a delay is caused for any
reason, locals become subject to the
one-year rezoning standard.
C) Adopt “the draft element or
amendment” that HCD found to
substantially comply with the article
within 120 days of the statutory
deadline in Section 65588. Locals must
only adopt the draft element or
amendment that HCD found in
compliance. This means that there is
no room for disagreement, and even if
local agency elements are certified by
a Court, they are not exempt from the
one-year rezoning requirement.
The above changes appear to be designed to
increase the pressure on local agencies from
deviating from HCD’s timelines and approval.
K-6
7
substantially
comply with the
law no later than
120 days after the
statutory deadline
in Sec. 65588.
Existing law
established by AB
1398 (Bloom),
Ch. 358 of 2021,
requires local
agencies that
failed to adopt a
housing element
that HCD deemed
in substantial
compliance
within 120 days
of the statutory
deadline to
rezone (within
one year, instead
of three years)
for by-right
approval projects
designating at
least 20 percent
of units for lower
income
households on
either:
A) non-vacant
sites that were
included in a
prior housing
element, and
designated for
(but not
approved to
develop) lower
income units,
or
B) vacant sites
that were
included in
two or more
consecutive
housing
Deletes reference to
the three-year
rezoning period, and
cross-references to
“the applicable
deadline for rezoning”
as modified for this
bill for the sixth and
seventh and
subsequent elements
(as described above).
This change appears to be conforming with
the bill’s other provisions.
K-7
8
elements, and
designated for
(but not
approved to
develop) lower
income units.
Additional RPPG Comments
i. Presumption of Invalidity Undermines Due Process Rights: Attempting to assign a “presumption
of invalidity” to a legal review of a local agency’s housing element, is contrary to basic principles
of legal due process. A housing element remains a local law, adopted under the police power of
a local agency. Courts must remain neutral forums, and local agencies should not be subject to
prejudicial bias and penalties and sanctions before entering the courthouse. Under such a legal
construct, those accused of crimes would be presumed guilty. This consideration should be
strongly considered proposal should be rejected as a violation of basic due process rights for
affected local agencies, and for the troubling precedents it may invite.
Housing element law has become incredibly complex. Communities face unique local
circumstances and challenges, and often have to spend heavily on consultants attempting to
understand and interpret the law. Reasonable people can differ when attempting to interpret
this complex statute. HCD’s plan reviewers have expertise and opinions, but they are not
empowered to unilaterally dictate the contents of local laws. The legal question is whether a
local housing element, a locally adopted law, substantially complies with the wording in statute.
State plan reviewers are not judges, and just because they disagree with a local agency over
whether a housing element complies with the law, does not mean that a local agency must then
surrender its governmental role, discretion, and authority to a state administrative department.
Determining compliance with the law is appropriately the function of Courts who are designed
to be the neutral “check and balance” of the Legislature and Executive Branch.
ii. Not Appropriate to Apply Penalties and Sanctions Prior to Legal Determination: Existing law
already details a comprehensive process (agreed to by the Newsom Administration in 2019 and
described below in comment v.) for addressing questions over the legality of a housing element
when a local agency adopts an element at variance with HCD’s findings. Under these measures,
however, the following sanctions would immediately apply to a local agency prior to a legal
vetting of the issue:
a. Under AB 2023:
i. A local agency’s element would be presumed invalid.
ii. The local agency would be subject to the one-year (instead of three) rezoning
requirement if the element is not adopted in accordance with HCD’s process
and timelines. (No accommodation is made to this provision if a Court later
certifies the element)
b. Under AB 1886, the following sanctions would immediately apply to a local agency for a
window period, between the date the element was adopted that HCD disagreed with,
until the date that either HCD or a Court determines the element is in substantial
compliance with the law.viii The immediate penalties include:
K-8
9
i. Loss of local ability to condition or deny housing developments, under the
Housing Accountability Act, including for the “Builder’s Remedy” issue of non-
compliance with local zoning. Even if a Court later certifies the element locals
would still be unable to condition or deny projects where a preliminary or
complete application was submitted during the window period.
ii. Loss of ability to impose “objective” conditions on affected projects.
iii. 5th Appellate Court Confirms in Martinez HCD Can Get It Wrong: The details of the recent
Martinez v Clovis, 5th District Court of Appeal (2023),ix are instructive in several ways on the
policy issues raised by these bills:
a. Martinez involves an instance where HCD found a housing element in substantial
compliance with the law, then the Court disagreed. A local housing advocacy group
challenged the HCD-approved element and the Court held that HCD was wrong on
interpreting the statute, …”HCD’s approval of the RHN Overlay was clearly erroneous.”
b. To the argument that the statutory “presumption of validity” should apply because HCD
approved it, the Court quickly dispensed with this stating…” the HCD’s informal
interpretation of statutory requirements is not binding on us.”
c. To the issue of where the ultimate authority lies to interpret compliance with the law,
the Court cited precedence that: …“ultimate responsibility for statutory interpretation
rests with the courts.”
iv. Significant Sanctions and Remedies Already Exist: Many sanctions and remedies already exist
affecting non-compliant housing elements. These include:
i. Locals must complete rezoning within one year. (65583(c)(1)(A)
ii. Housing element cannot be certified after one year until zoning is complete.
(65588(e)(4)(C)(iii))
iii. Locals exposed to “builder’s remedy.” (65589.5(d))
iv. Locals lose access to various state grants.
v. Locals can be sued by the AG, and court can levy heavy fines and other
sanctions to compel compliance (65585)
vi. General plans can be challenged for internal inconsistency. (65754)
v. Existing Comprehensive Housing Element Dispute Resolution Process: Section 65585 already
contains a comprehensive dispute resolution process to address instances where a local
government and state plan reviewers are in disagreement over whether a housing element
complies with the law. This process was adopted in 2019 during the second year of Governor
Newsom’s administration.x This process both ensures accountability for local agencies which
violate the law, while also providing important due process before a Court for local agencies
with bonified disputes over questions of compliance. Retaining neutral due process for local
agencies is critical given that HCD plan reviewers may insert personal bias and subjective
judgement into their determinations, and may also be influenced by external parties HCD may
consult with (but is not required to publicly disclose) while reviewing a local agency’s element.
HCD plan reviewers are program staffers with various levels of education and experience; they
are not independent judges.
Disputes over compliance of a housing element can occur in either of the following two
circumstances: (A) when the local agency adopts an updated revision or amendment to its
K-9
10
housing element, or (B) when HCD believes that a local action or failure to act by a local agency
to implement its adopted housing element has occurred. Here is a summary of the process:
a. At least 90 days before revising a housing element, and 60 days prior to amending an
element, local agency must send a draft to HCD.
b. HCD shall review the draft and report its written findings as to whether the draft
“substantially complies” with the law within 90 days of receipt of a draft revision, and
within 60 days of receipt of a draft amendment.
c. If HCD finds that the local revision or draft amendment does not substantially comply
with the law, then the local agency must take one of the following actions:
i. Change the draft revision or amendment to substantially comply with the law
(as determined by HCD’s findings). Local agencies that adopt housing elements
where HCD has determined that the element “substantially complies” with the
law, are provided a legal “presumption of validity” funder Section 65589.3 for
their housing element in any future legal challenges of the housing element.xi
ii. Adopt the draft element or amendment without changes and include local
findings which explain the reasons that the local agency believes that the draft
revision of amendment to the housing element substantially complies with the
law despite the findings of the department.
d. Following the above actions, the local agency must promptly submit a copy to HCD.
e. Within 60 days, HCD must review the final actions of the local agency and report its
findings to the local agency.
f. During the term of an adopted housing element, HCD may review local actions to
implement an adopted housing element and determine that a local action or failure to
act is inconsistent with its adopted housing element, including the failure to implement
any program actions within the local agency’s element. In these instances, HCD shall:
i. Issues written findings to the local agency on whether the local agency’s action,
or failure to act, substantially complies with the law.
ii. The local agency is required to respond to HCD’s findings within 30 days.
iii. Following the response by the local agency, if HCD finds that the local agency’s
action or failure to act does not substantially comply with this law, HCD may
revoke its earlier findings that a local agency’s housing element substantially
complies with the law.
g. HCD may notify the office of Attorney General when it finds that either: (A) a local
housing element or amendment, or (B) a local action or failure to act to implement a
housing element, fails to substantially comply with the law.
h. Prior to the Attorney General filing a lawsuit over housing element compliance, HCD is
required to offer a local agency two meetings either in person or by telephone to
discuss the alleged violation.
i. In actions filed by the Attorney General relating to housing element compliance, the
Attorney General may request, if the Court determines that the element does not
substantially comply with the law, that the Court issue an order or judgement directing
the local agency to bring its housing element into compliance. The Court is also required
to retain jurisdiction to ensure its order is carried out. In addition to any other remedies,
the Court is empowered by statute to apply significant penalties against a local agency
in violation of a Court’s order:
i. A status conference shall be called by the Court following 12 months from the
Court’s order. Upon a determination by the Court that the local agency failed to
follow its order compelling substantial compliance with the law, the Court shall
K-10
11
fine the local agency between $10,000 to $100,000 per month until the local
agency complies. In the event the local agency fails to pay the fines, the
Controller is authorized to intercept any available state or local funds.
ii. If the local agency has not complied with the Court’s order within three months
of the status conference, the Court may multiply the fine by a factor of three.
iii. If the local agency has not complied with the Court’s order within six months of
the status conference, the Court may multiply the original fine by a factor of six,
and appoint an agent of the Court to take all governmental action necessary to
bring the local agency into compliance.
iv. The Court is authorized to take various mitigating circumstances into account
when considering applying the above fines, including whether the local
jurisdiction is facing substantial hardships and/or making a good-faith effort to
comply with the Court’s order.
v. HCD is authorized to appoint or contract with other counsel to bring suit under
the above provisions when the Attorney General declines to represent HCD in
such actions.
vi. A three-year statute of limitations applies for the Attorney General, or other
appointed counsel acting on HCD’s behalf, following the referral of the matter
to the Attorney General.
j. If the Court, however, determines that the local agency’s housing element substantially
complies with the law, it shall have the same force and effect of elements determined in
compliance by HCD.xii
i Under existing law (Sec. 65585 (f)(1) & (2)), local agencies are required to take one of the following actions: (1) Change the
draft element/amendment to substantially comply with this article (65585(f)(1), or (2) Adopt the draft/element without
changes, and include findings stating the reasons the legislative body believes the element substantially complies with the law
despite HCD’s findings.
ii Sec. 65585 apples to the process for HCD’s review and determination of whether a local housing element substantially
complies with the law.
iii Both the existing statute and this bill reference failure to comply with this “article.” The word “law” is substituted for “article”
in this analysis to simplify the explanation.
iv Sec. 65583 applies to the local obligation to assess local housing needs based on multiple factors, analyze governmental and
nongovernmental constraints, identify sufficient “adequate sites” to meet its assigned Regional Housing Needs Assessment
(RHNA) allocation, develop “quantified objectives” which establish anticipated housing production levels based upon local
conditions and available affordable housing resources, adopt a “schedule of actions” the local agency will complete during the
planning period. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV§ionNum=65583.
1) v unless it makes findings based on the preponderance of evidence that:
a. It has adopted a housing element in substantial compliance with the article, and the jurisdiction has met or
exceeded its RHNA allocation for the income category…etc.
b. Project would have a “specific, adverse impact” on the public health or safety
c. Denial of the project is required to comply with a specific state or federal law.
d. Project is on land surrounded by ag/conservation land on two sides, or lack adequate water or wastewater
to serve project.
e. Project is inconsistent with both General Plan’s land use designation and Zoning ordinance, and jurisdiction
has a housing element in in substantial compliance on the date application deemed complete. This provision
can’t be used by a local agency to deny:
i. low/mod projects that are identified in the housing element as suitable, and the consistent with
density specified in the element.
ii. If the local agency has failed to identify adequate sites in its housing element, then housing
developments may not be denied on sites designated for residential or commercial uses (where
residential uses are conditionally permitted).
K-11
12
iii. If local agency has failed to identify zones where emergency shelters can be built by right.
vi Section 65585(h) is a stand-alone subdivision that requires local planning agencies to “promptly” submit a copy of the local
agency’s element or amendment to HCD. HCD then has 60 days, under Sec. 65585(h), to opine on the final adopted housing
element and report its findings to the local agency. With AB 2023’s changes, however, the local agency:
1) Would be prohibited from interpreting 65585(h) as a stand-alone option for the local agency to adopt its final
element and amendment and send it promptly to HCD for its 60 day review.
2) Would be required to make its findings under either:
a. Subdivision 65585 (f)(1), which as now amended by AB 2023 would require a redo of the entire 90-day
housing element submission process if any “change” from the draft element/amendment is made. By
forcing local agencies to adopt findings The changes made by AB 2023, essentially render any flexibility for
local agencies moot.
b. Subdivision 65585 (f)(2), unchanged by AB 2023, which authorizes the draft element/amendment to be
adopted without changes, and include findings stating the reasons the legislative body believes the element
substantially complies with the law despite HCD’s findings.
vii 90-day process to submit elements and receive HCD’s comments under 65585(b).
viii Under existing law, the HAA provisions refer to “substantial compliance with this article.” This language provides a level of
legal defense for a local agency which adopts an element that HCD disagrees with. A local agency can assert that its element is
in substantial compliance with the law, until it is challenged in a Court by the AG, HCD or another party. With AB 1886,
however, by defining “substantial compliance,” as only occurring when an element is approved by HCD or a Court, it seeks to
remove any legal defense in the window period between the date of adoption and a Court determination.
ix https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2023/f082914.html
x These housing element dispute resolution provisions were contained in two budget trailer bills: AB 101, Ch. 159, statutes of
2019, and SB 113, Ch. 668, Statutes of 2019.
xi This “presumption of validity” has been a long-standing feature of the statute.
xii Local Government staff in the Assembly Speaker’s office, as well as the Office of the Senate President Pro Tem, participated in
the discussions and negotiations involving the development of the changes adopted in 2019.
K-12