REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Al Zelinka, City Manager
VIA: Travis K. Hopkins, Assistant City Manager
PREPARED BY: Shannon Levin, Council Policy Analyst
Subject:
title
Consider positions on legislation pending before the State Legislature, as recommended by the Intergovernmental Relations Committee (IRC).
body
Statement of Issue:
On June 21, 2023 the IRC, comprised of Mayor Tony Strickland, Mayor Pro Tem Van Der Mark, and Council Member Pat Burns, is recommending positions on legislative items including State bills and an Assembly Constitutional Amendment, which are presented to the full City Council for consideration.
Financial Impact:
Not applicable
Recommended Action:
recommendation
Approve one or more of the following positions on State legislation:
A) OPPOSE AB (Ward) Change of Gender and Sex Identifier
B) OPPOSE AB 957 (Ward) Family Law: Gender Identity
C) OPPOSE SB 58 (Wiener) Controlled Substances: Decriminalization of Certain Hallucinogenic Substances
D) OPPOSE SB 253 (Wiener) Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act
E) OPPOSE SB 770 (Wiener/McGuire) Health Care: Unified Health Care Financing
F) OPPOSE AB 1287 (Alvarez) Density Bonus Law
G) OPPOSE SB 7 (Blakespear) The Homeless Housing Obligation Act
H) OPPOSE SB 555 (Wahab) Stable Affordable Housing Act of 2023
I) OPPOSE SB 584 (Limon/Caballero) Laborforce housing: Short-Term Rental Tax Law
J) OPPOSE SB 50 (Bradford) Vehicles: Enforcement
K) OPPOSE SB 838 (Menjivar) Victim Compensation: Use of Force by a Law Enforcement Officer
L) OPPOSE Assembly Constitutional Amendment (ACA) 4- Eligibility to Vote
end
Alternative Action(s):
Do not approve one or more recommended actions and direct staff accordingly.
Analysis:
On June 21, 2023, the IRC comprised of Mayor Strickland, Mayor Pro Tem Van Der Mark, and Councilmember Burns voted to recommend to the City Council the following positions on legislative issues.
The following is a summary of the items voted upon and positions taken by the IRC.
1. AB 223 (Ward) Change of gender and sex identifier.
This bill provides for specified records to be kept confidential by the courts where minors petition for a change of gender and sex identifier.
In 2017, SB 179 (Atkins, Ch. 853, Stats. 2017) restructured the processes for individuals to change their names and genders to conform with their gender identity and to have these changes reflected on their birth certificates. In addition, a streamlined process was established for changing one’s name and gender and having an updated birth certificate issued as part of a single petition. Specific guidelines and required procedures were laid out for petitioners.
A number of bills last session further honed these processes and fine-tuned the applicable provisions, in part in response to issues identified by the Judicial Council of California. Special procedural rules apply when the petitioner is a minor. In response to concerns about the privacy and wellbeing of these minor petitioners, this bill requires petitions and associated papers to be kept confidential by the courts when a minor petitions for a change of gender and sex identifier or a name change and recognition of the petitioner’s gender and sex identifier. The court is required to limit access to the records to only the minor and specified representatives of the minor, including the
minor’s parents or guardians and any legal representatives.
Status: July 12, 2023- 3rd reading in Senate Judiciary Committee.
IRC voted 3-0 to OPPOSE AB 223.
2. AB 957 (Wilson) Family law: gender identity.
This bill clarifies that a family court, when determining the best interest of the child in a proceeding to determine custody or visitation for a child, shall consider, as part of the consideration of the health, safety, and welfare of the child, a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity.
Under California law, the overarching principle in a court’s determination in a parental custody or visitation case is the best interest of the child. What constitutes the best interest of the child is an intensely fact-specific determination that requires the court to look at the child’s health, safety, and welfare, the child’s relationship with each parent, and other factors that may contribute to the overall wellbeing of the child. The Legislature has, over the past few decades, added more specific factors for courts to consider (such as in cases where there have been allegations of domestic violence) and expressly prohibited courts from considering other factors (such as the immigration status of a parent) to ensure that the child’s best interest remains paramount. The consideration of a parent’s affirmance, or lack thereof, will not be determinative in the court’s custody or visitation order; the bill intends to clarify that gender-affirmance should be considered as part of the comprehensive determination of the child’s best interest.
Status: July 5, 2023- ordered to 3rd reading in Senate Judiciary Committee.
IRC voted 3-0 to OPPOSE AB 957.
3. SB 58 (Wiener) Controlled substances: decriminalization of certain hallucinogenic substances. This bill makes lawful the possession, preparation, obtaining, transfer, as specified, or transportation of, specified quantities of psilocybin, psilocyn, dimethyltryptamine (DMT), ibogaine, and mescaline, for personal use or facilitated or supported use, as defined, by and with persons 21 years of age or older.
Existing law classified controlled substances into five schedules according to their danger and potential for abuse. Schedule I controlled substances have the greatest restrictions and penalties including prohibiting the prescribing of a Schedule I controlled substance. The law classifies several hallucinogenic substances including DMT, ibogaine, mescaline, psilocybin, and psilocin as Schedule I substances.
Schedule I substances are defined as those controlled substances having no medical utility and that have a high potential for abuse. There is research, however, that indicates that many of these substances have therapeutic benefits. Efforts to deprioritize the policing or prosecution of conduct related to certain hallucinogens and to acknowledge the therapeutic value of hallucinogens have gained support in recent years. Since 2019, local measures to deprioritize the policing or prosecution of conduct related to hallucinogens have passed in Oakland, Santa Cruz, Ann Arbor, Denver, and Washington D.C, among others.
This bill provides that all of the following is lawful for a natural person 21 years of age or older and is not a violation of state or local law:
a) The possession, preparation, obtaining, or transportation of DMT, ibogaine, psilocybin, and psilocyn for personal use or for facilitated or supported use.
b) The ingesting of DMT, ibogaine, psilocybin, and psilocyn.
c) The possession, planting, cultivating, harvesting, or processing of plants capable of producing DMT, ibogaine, psilocybin, or psilocyn, on property owned or controlled by a person, for personal use or for facilitated or supported use by that person, and possession of any product produced by those plants including spores or mycelium capable of producing mushrooms or other material which contain psilocybin or psilocin for that purpose.
d) The assisting of another person, 21 years of age or older, with any of the above acts.
Status: July 11, 2023-referred to Appropriations Committee.
IRC voted 3-0 to OPPOSE SB 58.
4. SB 253 (Wiener) Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act.
This bill would require any partnership, corporation, limited liability company, or other U.S. business entity with total annual revenues in excess of one billion dollars and that does business in California to publicly report their annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as specified by the California Air Resources Board (ARB).
Existing law requires ARB, pursuant to California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 to adopt a statewide GHG emissions limit equivalent to 1990 levels by 2020, and requires corporations in California to report specified operating information to the Secretary of State.
This bill establishes the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act and requires, on or before January 1, 2025, ARB to develop and adopt regulations to require a reporting entity to annually disclose to the emissions reporting organization and verify all of the reporting entity’s Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions.
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, this bill would result in unknown ongoing costs, likely in the millions of dollars annually (General Fund) for ARB to implement the provisions of this bill. These costs would be offset by revenues from an annual filing fee on reporting entities.
Status: July 10, 2023- referred to Appropriations Committee
IRC voted 3-0 to OPPOSE
5. SB 770 (Wiener/McGuire) Health care: unified health care financing
This bill directs the Secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency to pursue waiver discussions with the federal government with the objective of a unified health care financing system that incorporates specific features, including a comprehensive package of medical, behavioral health, pharmaceutical, dental, and vision benefits, without cost sharing for essential services and treatments.
This bill requires the Secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency (CalHHS) to pursue discussions with the federal government to obtain a waiver to enable creation of a comprehensive health care system with unified financing (UF). The bill specifies that the health care system will include comprehensive benefits, including medical, behavioral health, drug, dental, vision, and long-term care services; no cost sharing for essential services; greater freedom for patients to choose providers; UF; cost-effectiveness by leveraging purchasing power; a program to ensure a just transition for individuals whose jobs are disrupted by the creation of a single payer system; sufficient reserves to guarantee solvency during public health emergencies and other economic disruptions; and other features.
The bill also requires the Secretary of CalHSS (Secretary) to establish a Waiver Development Workgroup (workgroup) to advise the Governor on federal negotiations, and requires the Secretary to report to the Legislature, no later than June 1, 2024, recommendations regarding the elements to be included in a formal waiver application, and all legislative actions necessary to proceed with the application and establish a UF system consistent with the outcomes of CalHHS’s discussions with the federal government.
According to CalHHS, establishing the workgroup, conducting quarterly meetings, providing quarterly updates, and submitting a report to the Legislature with recommendations by June 2024 will cost CalHHS an indeterminate amount, potentially in the low millions of dollars for fiscal year 2023-24 and ongoing (General Fund).
Status: July 12, 2023- first reading in Assembly Appropriations Committee.
IRC voted 3-0 to OPPOSE
6. AB 1287 (Alvarez) Density Bonus Law.
Requires a city, county, or city and county to grant additional density, concessions, and incentives if an applicant agrees to include additional low or moderate-income units on top of the maximum amount of units for lower, very low, or moderate-income units.
State law, known as density bonus law, grants certain benefits to developers who build affordable units in order to encourage greater affordable housing production. Density bonus law requires cities and counties to grant a density bonus when an applicant for a housing development of five or more units seeks and agrees to construct a project that will contain at least one of the following:
• 10% of the total units of a housing development for lower income households;
• 5% of the total units of a housing development for very low-income households;
• A senior citizen housing development or mobile home park;
• 10% of the units in a common interest development (CID) for moderate-income households;
• 10% of the total units for transitional foster youth, disabled veterans, or homeless persons; or • 20% of the total units for lower income students in a student housing development.
If a project meets one of these conditions, the city or county must allow an increase in density on a sliding scale from 20%-50% over the otherwise maximum allowable residential density under the applicable zoning ordinance and land use element of the general plan, depending on the percentage of affordable units.
Density bonus law also grants certain reductions in minimum parking requirements and grants “incentives or concessions” that can be used to modify development policies that add costs or reduce the number of units a developer can build on a site. The number of incentives or concessions a project may be eligible for is based on the percentage of affordable units contained in the project, up to a maximum of four. Incentives and concessions can vary widely based on the individual projects, but examples can include reduced fees, waivers of zoning codes, or reduced parking requirements. Density bonus law also allows developer waivers of any development standards that physically prevents the developer from constructing a project at the density allowed, along with the incentives or concessions, under density bonus law.
Assembly Bill 1287 expands density bonus for certain projects that already qualify for bonuses. First, AB 1287 increases the number of incentives or concessions for 100% affordable projects from four to five. Second, AB 1287 grants projects that include at least 16% of units for very low-income households, or at least 45% for moderate income in a development in which the units are for sale, four incentives or concessions. Third, AB 1287 requires a local agency to grant additional density bonus when an applicant proposes to construct a housing development that does the following:
• Dedicates at least 10% of total units for lower-income households;
• Includes additional rental or for-sale units for very low- or moderate-income households; and • Meets any of the following:
§ For projects with base density units of 10% for lower-income households, provides 24% of total units to lower-income households;
§ For projects with base density units of 5% of total units for very low-income households, provides 15% of total units to very low-income households;
§ For projects with base density units of 10% of total units for sale to moderate income households, provides 44% of total units to moderate-income units.
Status: July 10, 2023- Referred to Senate Appropriations Committee
IRC voted 3-0 to OPPOSE
7. SB 7 (Blakespear) The Homeless Housing Obligation Act.
SB 7 would require the regional housing needs assessment (RHNA) to include homeless as an income category for local housing element planning purposes, and enact the Homeless Housing Obligation Act, which requires each city and county to develop a housing obligation plan to provide housing opportunities for each homeless person within its jurisdiction by January 1, 2030, as specified. The bill would also require the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to develop and administer a new program, upon appropriation of funding by the Legislature, to provide grants to cities, counties, and nonprofit housing entities to fulfill the obligations to provide housing opportunities for homeless persons.
Status: May 15, 2023- placed in Suspense File.
IRC voted 3-0 to OPPOSE
8. SB 555 (Wahab) Stable Affordable Housing Act of 2023.
This bill creates the Stable Affordable Housing Act of 2023 (Act) for the purposes of planning for the development of social housing through a mix of acquisition and new production.
SB 555 sets a 10-year goal for the state to create 1.2 million units of social housing through a mix of acquisition and new production; Sets a five-year goal for the state to create 600,000 units of social housing through a mix of acquisition and new production, of which no less than 200,000 units are affordable to extremely low-income and very low-income households; and requires the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), no later than January 1, 2025, to develop, adopt, and submit to the Legislature a Social Housing Plan for achieving the social housing unit goals set forth in the Act.
The bill requires HCD to submit an annual report to the Governor and the Legislature, beginning January 1, 2026, on the state’s progress toward achieving the goals of the Act, the implementation status and outcomes of all programs and actions, and recommendations for executive and legislative action.
Fiscal effects to the state are unknown.
Status: June 29, 2023 - referred to Assembly Appropriations Committee.
IRC voted 3-0 to OPPOSE
9. SB 584 (Limon/Caballero) Laborforce housing: Short-Term Rental Tax Law
This bill requires a 15% state short-term rental (STR) occupancy tax to be collected, as specified, and allocates the funds for the construction, acquisition and rehabilitation of affordable housing and renter protection programs, as specified. This bill creates a new program at HCD, which would finance “laborforce” housing units and provide grants to cities, counties, local housing authorities, and eligible non-profits.
The City of Huntington Beach imposes a transient occupancy tax (TOT) of 10%. Both tourism and hospitality are essential economic drivers and TOT is a primary source of General Fund revenue.
Imposing a 15% statewide tax, combined with the 10% local rate, would result in a total tax rate of 25% for Huntington Beach.
Laborforce housing administration and funding uses:
• Authorizes public entities, local housing authorities, and nonprofit housing provides to receive funding from the Fund.
• Authorizes HCD to use any funds for administration purposes.
• Requires no less than 65% of the funds to be allocated to the creation of laborforce housing through new construction.
• Requires no more than 30% of the funds to be used for the creation of laborforce housing through the acquisition and rehabilitation of existing housing.
• Requires a maximum of 5% of the funds to be used to meet the operating needs of projects and for planning and implementation of local housing or renter protection programs, and authorizes up to 5% to be utilized for administration.
Status: June 15, 2023- referred to Assembly Committees on Housing & Community Development and Revenue & Taxation.
IRC voted 3-0 to OPPOSE
10. SB 50 (Bradford) Vehicles: enforcement
This bill prohibits peace officers from initiating a traffic stop for specified low-level infractions unless a separate, independent basis for a stop exists, and to authorize local authorities to enforce traffic violations through the use of non-sworn government employees.
Existing law provides that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable seizures and searches may not be violated; and a warrant may not issue except on probable cause.
SB 50 prohibits a peace officer from stopping or detaining the operator of a motor vehicle or a bicycle for a low-level infraction unless there is a separate independent basis to initiate the stop, or unless more than one low-level infraction is observed. This bill would define “low-level infraction” as any violation related to vehicle registration or vehicle equipment, the position or number of license plates, vehicle lighting not illuminating if it is a single light or single bulb, bumper equipment and bicycle equipment or operation. While the bill does limit the permissible bases for a traffic stop to some degree, there are still hundreds of traffic violations for which an officer could initiate a stop, even as a pretext to investigate other potential crimes. For violations where an officer does not have grounds to stop or detain a motorist or bicyclist, and the officer can identify the owner of the vehicle, this bill would allow the officer to send a citation or fix-it ticket to the motorists home address.
Status: July 11, 2023- referred to Assembly Appropriations Committee.
IRC voted 3-0 to OPPOSE
11. SB 838 (Menjivar) Victim compensation: use of force by a law enforcement officer
SB 838 would revise the definition of “crime” for purposes of the Victim Compensation Program (VCP) to include an incident in which an individual sustains serious bodily injury or death as the result of a law enforcement officer’s use of force. This bill would allow compensation claims for incidents in which an individual sustains serious bodily injury or death as the result of a law enforcement officer’s use of force.
Status: Placed in Suspense File.
IRC voted 3-0 to OPPOSE
12. Assembly Constitutional Amendment 4- Eligibility to Vote
Repeals a constitutional requirement for the Legislature to provide for the disqualification of electors while serving a state or federal prison term for the conviction of a felony, subject to the approval of the voters.
California law does not restrict the voting rights of people who are on probation or parole, or who are on other types of supervision as a result of a criminal proceeding (such as mandatory supervision, post-release community supervision, or federal supervised release). Until 2020, California law prohibited a person who was on parole for the conviction of a felony from registering to vote or voting. ACA 6 (McCarty), Chapter 24, Statutes of 2020, proposed an amendment to the state constitution to allow a person who is on parole for the conviction of a felony to register to vote and to vote. ACA 6 was approved by the Assembly by a 54-19 vote and appeared on the ballot at the November 2020 statewide general election as Proposition 17. According to the final official election results prepared by the Secretary of State, Proposition 17 was approved by the voters with 58.6% of ballots cast in favor of the amendment.
State law does not restrict the voting rights of individuals who are in a local detention facility while doing any of the following: 1) serving a misdemeanor sentence, 2) serving jail time as a condition of probation, 3) serving a felony jail sentence, or 4) awaiting trial. A person who is in a local detention facility while serving a state prison term is not eligible to vote under existing law.
As a constitutional amendment, this measure requires the approval of the voters to take effect.
Status: May 18 ordered to 3rd reading in Assembly Appropriations Committee.
IRC voted 3-0 to OPPOSE
Environmental Status:
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5), administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment do not constitute a project.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Financial Sustainability, Public Safety or Other
Attachment(s):
1. IRC Position Letters