City Council Legislative Subcommittee Meeting Agenda

City Manager’s Office – Intergovernmental Affairs

City Hall 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 760-434-2820

City Council Legislative Subcommittee Meeting Agenda

July 13, 2021 – 9:00 a.m.

CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL

PUBLIC COMMENT

SUBCOMMITTEE COMMENTS & ANNOUNCEMENTS

NEW BUSINESS

Item 1. Approval of Minutes Recommendation: Approve the minutes of the June 8, 2021, Subcommittee meeting.

Item 2. State & Federal Legislative Reports Recommendation: Receive updates from representatives of U.S. Congressman Mike Levin, State Senator Patricia Bates and State Assemblymember Tasha Boerner Horvath, and provide feedback.

Item 3. Grants and Funding Opportunities Update Recommendation: Receive an update on state and federal grants and funding opportunities available to, and being pursued by the city, and provide feedback.

Item 4. Legislative Update and Advocacy Report Recommendation: Receive an update on state and federal legislative and budget activity and recent and ongoing advocacy efforts, and provide feedback to staff. Discuss and determine the Subcommittee’s recommended advocacy positions on high priority bills.

Item 5. Subcommittee Meeting Format Recommendation: Discuss the timeline for resuming in-person subcommittee meetings.

SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBER REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

ADJOURN

NEXT REGULAR MEETING: Tuesday, August 17, 2021 @ 9:00 a.m.

• Per State of California Executive Order N-29-20, and in the interest of public health and safety, we are temporarily taking actions to prevent and mitigate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic by holding public meetings electronically or by teleconferencing.

• All public meetings will comply with public noticing requirements in the Brown Act and will be made accessible electronically to all members of the public seeking to observe and address the Legislative Subcommittee.

• Legislative Subcommittee meetings can be watched via livestream on the city website at www.livestream.com/cityofcarlsbad

• You can participate in the meeting by e-mailing your comments to [email protected] prior to commencement of the agenda item. Your comment will be transmitted to the Legislative Subcommittee at the start of the agenda item.

• If you desire to have your comment read into the record at the City Council meeting, please indicate so in the first line of your e-mail and limit your e-mail to 500 words or less.

Reasonable Accommodations Persons with a disability may request an agenda packet in appropriate alternative formats as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Reasonable accommodations and auxiliary aids will be provided to effectively allow participation in the meeting. Please contact the City of Carlsbad City Manager’s Office at 760-434-2800 (voice), 711 (free relay service for TTY users), 760-720-9461 (fax) or [email protected] by noon on the Monday before the meeting to make arrangements.

https://livestream.com/cityofcarlsbad

mailto:[email protected]

City Manager’s Office – Intergovernmental Affairs

City Hall 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 760‐434‐2820

City Council Legislative Subcommittee Meeting Minutes

June 8, 2021 – 9:00 a.m.

CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL Mayor Hall called the meeting to order and all Subcommittee members (Mayor Matt Hall and Council Member Teresa Acosta) were present. Jason Haber, Intergovernmental Affairs Director, and Cindie McMahon, Assistant City Attorney, were also present.

PUBLIC COMMENT None.

SUBCOMMITTEE COMMENTS & ANNOUNCEMENTS Subcommittee Member Acosta stated she has been participating in the Cal Cities Legislative Action Day advocacy meetings.

NEW BUSINESS

Item 1. Approval of Minutes Recommendation: Approve the minutes of the May 11, 2021, Subcommittee meeting.

Subcommittee Member Acosta made the motion to pass the minutes once the date was correct for the next regularly scheduled meeting. Mayor Hall seconded the motion. The item passed unanimously.

Item 2. State Legislative Reports Recommendation: Receive updates from representatives of State Senator Patricia Bates’s and State Assemblymember Tasha Boerner Horvath’s offices, and provide feedback.

Alex Kiwan from Tasha Boerner Horvath’s office gave an update on bills currently going through the legislative process. Cynthia Bryant and Matthew Phy from Senator Pat Bates’s office gave a presentation on the progress of the Senator’s bills for the 2021 legislative session.

Item 3. Legislative Update and Advocacy Report Recommendation: Receive an update on state and federal legislative and budget activity and recent and ongoing advocacy efforts, and provide feedback to staff. Discuss and determine the Subcommittee’s recommended advocacy positions on high priority bills.

Sharon Gonsalves from Renne Public Policy Group (RPPG), state lobbyists, gave an update on state budget activity, advocacy efforts and priority bills. Subcommittee members agreed to maintain a watch position on SB 16. They also agreed on keeping a watch position on AB 89 and SB 2. Ms. Gonsalves and Subcommittee Member Acosta discussed their meeting with Senator Atkins’s staff regarding SB 9. Dane Hutchings from RPPG shared that he spoke to Assembly Local Government Committee Consultant Hank Brady on SB 9 as well. As a result, Subcommittee members agreed to an oppose unless amended position on SB 9. Subcommittee Members agreed to take a support position on AB 66.

Subcommittee Member Acosta voiced her support for continuing virtual options for meetings to encourage public engagement.

Mayor Hall encouraged staff to apply for available state grants as soon as possible.

July 13, 2021 Item #1 Page 1 of 2

Subcommittee Member Acosta requested additional information on SB 434 and SB 541 from the city’s lobbyists.

SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBER REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Mayor Hall requested an update from staff on state funding opportunities at the next subcommittee meeting.

ADJOURN

Mayor Hall adjourned the duly noticed meeting at 10:56 am.

NEXT REGULAR MEETING

The next regularly scheduled meeting will be held Tuesday, July 13, 2021, at 9:00 a.m.


City Manager’s Office Intergovernmental Affairs

1200 Carlsbad Village Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008 760‐434‐2958 t

CityCouncilLegislativeSubcommittee Meeting Date: July 13, 2021 To: City Council Legislative Subcommittee From: Jason Haber, Intergovernmental Affairs Director Item 3: Legislative Update and Advocacy Report

Recommendation: Receive an update on state and federal legislative and budget activity and recent and ongoing advocacy efforts, and provide feedback to staff. Discuss and determine the Subcommittee’s recommended advocacy positions on high‐priority bills. Discussion: Staff and the Renne Public Policy Group (RPPG) will present an update and overview of state legislative activity (Exhibit 1) and the priority legislation being tracked on behalf of the city (Exhibit 2). The Subcommittee is requested to provide feedback to help city staff and the city’s lobbying consultants focus the city’s advocacy efforts on high‐priority bills and to identify bills for future City Council consideration. Position Letters Submitted to Committees and/or Legislative Offices • AB 1401 (Friedman)‐ Opposition (05/07) • AB 1434 (Friedman)‐ Opposition (05/07) • SB 1 (Atkins)‐ Support (05/07) • SB 612 (Portantino)‐ Support (04/05) • AB 1029 (Mullin)‐ Support (04/07) • AB 377 (Rivas, Robert)‐ Opposition (04/09) • SB 278 (Leyva)‐ Opposition (04/09) • SB 556 (Dodd)‐ Opposition (04/09) • SB 54 (Allen)‐ Support (04/09)

• AB 361 (Rivas, Robert) – Support (06/03) • AB 718 (Cunningham) – Support (06/03) • AB 500 (Ward) – Opposition (06/03) • AB 215 (Chiu) – Opposition (06/03) • AB 66 (Boerner Horvath) – Support (06/16) – Exhibit 3 • SB 9 (Atkins) – Opposition unless Amended (06/16) – Exhibit 4 • SB 344 (Hertzberg) – Support (06/24) – Exhibit 5 • SB 8 (Skinner) – Opposition (07/08) – Exhibit 6 • AB 816 (Chiu) – Opposition (07/08) – Exhibit 7 • SB 478 (Wiener) – Opposition (07/08) – Exhibit 8


July 13, 2021 Page 2

Staff are continuing to identify operational needs and policy priorities that might translate into additional state and federal advocacy initiatives, which will be presented for discussion with and feedback from the Legislative Subcommittee.

Exhibits: 1. RPPG Legislative Monthly Report – June 2021 2. Priority Legislation List – July 2021 3. AB 66 (Boerner Horvath) – Letter of Support 4. SB 9 (Atkins) – Letter of Opposition unless Amended 5. SB 344 (Hertzberg) – Letter of Support 6. SB 8 (Skinner) – Letter of Opposition 7. AB 816 (Chiu) – Letter of Opposition 8. SB 478 (Wiener) – Letter of Opposition


July 13, 2021

To: Mayor Matt Hall, Legislative Subcommittee Member Councilmember Teresa Acosta, Legislative Subcommittee Member

Jason Haber, Intergovernmental Affairs Director City of Carlsbad From: Sharon Gonsalves Director, Government Affairs Renne Public Policy Group Re: Legislative Monthly Report – June 2021

Prior to the upcoming summer recess, which will begin July 16, the month of June saw a flurry

of activity with policy committee hearings, the passage of a budget bill, and subsequent budget

related bills. In addition, the Secretary of State certified the recall petition, and a date for the

Gubernatorial Recall Election has been set.

UPCOMING LEGISLATIVE DEADLINES

July 16‐August 16 – Legislative Summer Recess

September 10 – Last day for any bill to be passed and sent to Governor’s desk

September 14 – Gubernatorial Recall Election

October 10 – Last day for Governor to sign or veto pending legislation

BUDGET

The budget is constitutionally required to be passed by June 15 of every year. In order to meet

that deadline, on June 14, the legislature passed a “placeholder budget” which prevents

lawmakers and legislative staff having their pay withheld.

On June 28, the Senate and the Assembly approved a variety of budget bills that reflect an

agreement between Democratic leadership in both houses and the Administration. Although the

details of the deal continue to be negotiated, there is consensus on most high‐priority areas and

therefore they were able to move forward with a vote on matters that are less controversial or

time‐sensitive, such as funding for the upcoming recall election. In what has become a fluid


budget cycle, Governor Newsom and lawmakers continue to negotiate specifics that will be

inserted into several trailer bills throughout the summer.

RECALL ELECTION

After the Department of Finance completed a cost estimate notifying state lawmakers that the

recall would cost state and county election officials $276 million to administer and the

Secretary of State certified the recall petition, Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis set the

date for the recall election for September 14, a mere 72 hours after the legislative session will

have adjourned for the year.

Typically, the Secretary of State certifies the recall petition, the Department of Finance provides

a cost estimate, and then a legislative financial review is conducted. In late June, Governor Newsom signed a law that waives a 30‐day legislative cost review period if the Legislature

appropriates money for a recall election. Lawmakers earmarked $250 million for state and local

election officials and, as a result, the date of the recall election has been expedited.

During the recall, voters will be asked two questions:

Should the elected official be removed from office?

If the official is removed, who should take the official’s place?

The candidate who is elected will serve the remainder of the term and run for re‐election in

November 2022.

COVID‐19 RESPONSE

On June 2, the Governor released a statement regarding the impact the June 15 reopening will

have on Executive Order N‐29‐20, which allowed state and local agencies and boards to conduct

their business through virtual public meetings during the COVID‐19 pandemic. This statement

was in response to a letter from a coalition of organizations who represent public agencies stating

the need for a transitional period as executive orders are lifted. All of the provisions of Executive

Order N‐29‐20 concerning the conduct of public meetings remain in effect through

September 30, 2021. Absent a further extension, previous state and local laws public meeting

requirements will apply beginning October 1, 2021.

June 15th marked the beginning of reopening the economy and the state. Governor Newsom

lifted pandemic executive orders which includes the end for physical distancing, capacity limits,

and the county tier system. A subset of provisions that facilitate the ongoing recovery, such as

the provision allowing pharmacy technicians to administer vaccinations as the state continues to

vaccinate millions of eligible Californians every week, have remained in place.

To ensure that impacted individuals and entities have time to prepare for the changes, the

provisions will sunset in phases. For example, the suspension of certain licensing requirements

for manufacturers to produce hand sanitizer ended on June 30, as shortages are no longer a


concern. By the end of September, nearly 90 percent of the executive actions taken since March

2020 will have been lifted.

On June 17, following a vote by the Occupational Safety and Health Standards (OSHA) Board to

adopt revised standards that reflect the state’s latest COVID‐19 public health order, Governor

Newsom signed an executive order enabling the revisions to take effect without the normal 10‐

day review period.

The new regulations include:

Employers may allow vaccinated employees to work without face coverings indoors, but

they must document workers’ vaccination status. That documentation process allows

workers to either show written proof of vaccination, such as a CDC vaccine card, or to

“self‐attest” that they are vaccinated without providing documentation.

Workers can decline to state if they are vaccinated or not. However, they will be treated

as if they are unvaccinated.

Unvaccinated workers must wear masks indoors, unless alone in a room or vehicle.

Employers must make approved respirators, such as an N95 mask, available for

unvaccinated workers if they request them.

No face coverings are required outdoors unless there is an outbreak.

If there is a COVID‐19 outbreak, masks will be mandated for all workers indoors, and

outdoors if six‐foot physical distancing can’t be maintained.

No physical distancing or barriers between workers are required, regardless of

employees’ vaccination status, although employers can re‐evaluate the need if an

outbreak occurs. Distancing and barriers will be mandated if a “major outbreak” of 20 or

more cases occurs.

Fully vaccinated workers with no COVID‐19 symptoms do not need to be tested or

quarantined after they are exposed to the virus.

Employees cannot face retaliation for wearing a mask, even if they are not required to do

so.

EVICTION MORATORIUM

On June 25, Governor Newsom and the legislature announced an agreement to extend the

statewide eviction moratorium to September 30, 2021. The state will use $5.2 billion rent relief

from the federal government to pay full back rent and rent going forward. Assembly Bill (AB) 832

(Chiu) was approved by the Assembly and Senate Monday, June 21 and was later signed by

Governor Newsom that night just before the existing protections were set to expire June 30.

Tenants would have a defense in court should their landlord evict them over non‐payment of

rent through September 30. They still have to submit a declaration saying they are unable to pay

full rent and pay at least 25% of their monthly rent since September 1, 2020, in installments or in


bulk, by September 30, to avoid eviction. Tenants will still need to abide by their lease in order

to avoid eviction for reasons other than non‐payment for rent.

Landlords will be unable to evict tenants over non‐payment of rent through September 30. To

file an eviction lawsuit after that, the landlord must provide evidence to the court they applied

for rental assistance. The case can only proceed if the tenant does not complete their application

or qualify for aid.

The state approved an additional $2.6 billion of rental assistance, plus an existing $2.6 billion, all

from federal relief funding. That’s $5.2 billion available to cover the missed back rent and up to

three months of forward rent.

###


Updated on July 07, 2021. RENNE PUBLIC POLICY GROUP| 1100 11th Street, Suite 200-231, Sacramento, Ca, 95814 www.publicpolicygroup.com

Priority Legislation List July 2021

Housing and Land Use

SB 6 (Caballero) Local Planning: Housing: Commercial Zones (As amended 04/12) This bill would deem a housing development project, as defined, an allowable use on a neighborhood lot, which is defined as a parcel within an office or retail commercial zone that is not adjacent to an industrial use. The bill would require the density for a housing development under these provisions to meet or exceed the density deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for lower income households according to the type of local jurisdiction, including a density of at least 20 units per acre for a suburban jurisdiction. Status: At Assembly Desk, awaiting committee assignment. Client Position: Watch SB 8 (Skinner) Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (As amended 07/05) This bill would clarify, for various purposes of the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, that “housing development project” includes projects that involve no discretionary approvals, projects that involve both discretionary and nondiscretionary approvals, and projects that include a proposal to construct a single dwelling unit. This bill would define “concurrently” to mean that the action is approved at the same meeting of the legislative body or, if the action that would result in a net loss of residential capacity is requested by an applicant for a housing development project, within 180 days. This bill would extend the operation of the act until January 1, 2030. By extending the duties of local officials and a crime with respect to housing, this bill would impose a state‐mandated local program. The bill would specify that this clarification is declaratory of existing law. Status: Passed out of Assembly Local Government Committee. Vote: Y:7 N:1 Do pass as amended and re‐refer to Assembly Appropriations Committee. Client Position: Oppose (Position letter submitted 07/08/21)

SB 9 (Atkins) Housing Development: Approvals (As amended 04/27) Requires “ministerial approval” (means no public hearings) of up to five units on an existing single‐family parcel. Permits existing home to be split into a duplex that can be sold separately. Allows two more units to be built under (ADU) “accessory dwelling unit” law. Then allows 40 percent of the parcel to be split‐off where two more units can be built and sold separately. Limits local parking and set‐back requirements and avoids compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Does not currently apply within homeowner associations, but that could always change. “Owner occupied” provisions expire in 5 years. Status: Passed out of Assembly Housing & Community Development Committee. Vote: Y:5; N:1; A:2. Do pass and re‐refer to Assembly Appropriations Committee.



Client Position: Oppose unless amended. (Position letter submitted on 06/23)

SB 10 (Wiener) Planning and Zoning: Housing Development: Density (As amended 07/05) This bill would, notwithstanding any local restrictions on adopting zoning ordinances, authorize a local government to adopt an ordinance to zone any parcel for up to 10 units of residential density per parcel, at a height specified in the ordinance, if the parcel is located in a transit‐rich area or an urban infill site, as those terms are defined. The bill would prohibit a local government from adopting an ordinance pursuant to these provisions on or after January 1, 2029. The bill would specify that an ordinance adopted under these provisions, and any resolution to amend the jurisdiction’s General Plan, ordinance, or other local regulation adopted to be consistent with that ordinance, is not a project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. The bill would prohibit an ordinance adopted under these provisions from superseding a local restriction enacted or approved by a local initiative that designates publicly owned land as open‐space land or for park or recreational purposes. The bill would require an ordinance to be adopted by a 2/3 vote of the members of the legislative body if the ordinance supersedes any zoning restriction established by local initiative. The bill would prohibit a residential or mixed‐use residential project consisting of 10 or more units that is located on a parcel zoned pursuant to these provisions from being approved ministerially or by right or from being exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, except as specified. Status: Read second time. Ordered to third reading. Client Position: Watch SB 15 (Portantino) Housing Development Incentives: Rezoning of Idle Retail Sites (As amended

05/20)

Current law establishes, among other housing programs, the Workforce Housing Reward Program, which requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to make local assistance grants to cities, counties, and cities and counties that provide land use approval to housing developments that are affordable to very low and low‐income households. This bill, upon appropriation by the Legislature in the Budget Act or other act, would require the department to administer a program to provide incentives in the form of grants allocated as provided to local governments that rezone idle sites used for a big box retailer or a commercial shopping center to instead allow the development of housing, as defined. Status: At Assembly Desk, awaiting committee assignment. RPPG Recommended Position: Support

AB 1401 (Friedman) Residential and Commercial Development: Remodeling, Renovations, and

Additions: Parking Requirements (As amended 07/05)

This bill would prohibit a public agency in a county with a population of 600,000 or more from imposing a minimum automobile parking requirement, or enforcing a minimum automobile parking requirement, on residential, commercial, or other development if the development is located on a parcel that is within 1/2 mile, as specified, of public transit, as defined. The bill would prohibit a public agency in a city with of 75,000 or more located in a county with a population of less than 600,000 from imposing a minimum automobile parking requirement, or enforcing a minimum automobile parking requirement, on residential, commercial, or other development if the project is located within 1/4 mile, as specified, of public transit, as defined. The bill would create authorizations in this regard for a city or a county to which these prohibitions do not apply. The bill would exempt certain



commercial parking requirements from these provisions if the requirements of the bill conflict with an existing contractual agreement of the public agency that was executed before January 1, 2022, as specified. This bill would prohibit a public agency from imposing any new minimum parking requirement on a project to remodel, renovate, or add to a single‐family residence, provided that any addition to the single‐family residence does not cause the single‐family residence to exceed any floor‐to‐area ratio restriction imposed by the public agency. Status: Set for hearing in Senate Housing Committee on July 8. Client Position: Oppose (Letter submitted 07/02/2021)

AB 1029 (Mullin) Housing Elements: Prohousing Local Polices (As amended 04/16)

This measure would add the preservation of affordable housing units through the extension of existing project‐based rental assistance covenants to avoid the displacement of affected tenants and a reduction in available affordable housing units to the list of specified Prohousing local policies. Status: Set for hearing in Senate Appropriations hearing on July 15. Client Position: Support (Letter Submitted 07/02/2021) AB 500 (Ward) Local planning: permitting: coastal development: housing (As amended 06/30) This bill would additionally require that housing opportunities for persons and families of low and moderate income, as defined, be protected, encouraged, and provided under those provisions. The bill would prohibit the California Coastal Commission from expressly demonstrating preference for housing projects or policies that directly compete with visitor‐serving facilities. The bill would also, in nonhazardous areas, require that new development in areas with adequate public transit preserve and enhance the supply of higher density residential, multifamily residential, and mixed‐use development. This bill would require a local government lying, in whole or in part, within the coastal zone that has a certified land use plan or a fully certified local coastal program to adopt, by January 1, 2024, an amendment to that plan or program, as applicable, specifying streamlined permitting procedures for the approval of (1) accessory dwelling units or junior accessory dwelling units, consistent with specified requirements relating to the rental of those units, and (2) projects in which a specified percentage of the units will be affordable to lower income households or designated for supportive housing, as those terms are defined. The bill would require that the amendment be submitted to, and processed and approved by, the commission consistent with the above‐described requirements for the amendment of a local coastal program. The bill would require the local government to include provisions in that amendment for the issuance of administrative permits, coastal development permit waivers, other streamlined permitting procedures in nonhazardous areas where coastal resources and public access will not be negatively impacted by that development. The bill, by July 1, 2022, would require the commission to provide guidance that includes sample language to all local governments subject to these requirements for use and consideration to comply with the bill’s requirements. Status: Passed out of Senate Natural Resources & Water. Vote: Y:6; N:2; A:1. Re‐referred to Senate Governance and Finance Committee. Set for hearing on July 8. Client Position: Oppose (Position letter submitted on 07/02) AB 215 (Chiu) Housing Element: Regional Housing Need: Relative Progress of Determination (As amended 06/23) This bill, starting with the 6th housing element revision, would require the department to determine the relative progress toward meeting regional housing needs of each jurisdiction, council of



governments, and subregion, as specified. The bill would require the department to make this determination based on the information contained in the annual reports submitted by each jurisdiction, as specified. The bill would require the department to make this determination for all housing and for lower income housing by dividing the applicable entity’s progress toward meeting its share of the regional housing need by its prorated share of the regional housing need, as specified. The bill would require the department to post the determinations of relative progress on its internet website by July 1 of the year in which relative progress is determined. The bill would require a jurisdiction, in consultation with the department, as a part of this midcycle housing element consultation, to review and update its scheduled programs and ensure that all programs have enforceable actions and concrete timelines. The bill would require the department to find that a housing element is not in substantial compliance with the Planning and Zoning Law if the department determines that the jurisdiction has not complied with these provisions. Status: Set for hearing in Senate Appropriations Committee on July 15. Client Position: Oppose (Position letter submitted on 07/02) SB 791 (Cortese) California Surplus Land Unit (As amended 07/05) This bill would, upon appropriation by the Legislature, establish the California Surplus Land Unit within the Department of Housing and Community Development with the primary purpose of facilitating the development and construction of residential housing on local surplus land, as defined. In this regard, the bill would authorize the unit to, among other things, facilitate agreements between housing developers and local agencies that seek to dispose of surplus land; provide advice, technical assistance, and consultative and technical service to local agencies with surplus land and developers that seek to develop housing on the surplus land; and collaborate with specified state agencies to assist housing developers and local agencies with obtaining grants, loans, tax credits, credit enhancements, and other types of financing that facilitate the construction of housing on surplus land. The bill would authorize the unit to convene a stakeholder group, consisting of specified stakeholders, affordable housing developers, and state agencies and departments that provide funding for affordable housing, to provide recommendations as to whether the department should explore ownership of local surplus lands as a strategy to further the development of housing on surplus land. Status: Set for hearing in Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee on July 12. RPPG Recommendation: Watch SB 478 (Wiener) Planning and Zoning Law: Housing development projects (As amended 07/05)

This bill would prohibit a local agency, as defined, from imposing a floor‐to‐area ratio standard that is less than 1.0 on a housing development project that consists of 3 to 7 units, or less than 1.25 on a housing development project that consists of 8 to 10 units. The bill would prohibit a local agency from imposing a lot coverage requirement that would physically preclude a housing development project from achieving the floor‐to‐area ratios described above. The bill would prohibit a local agency from denying a housing development project located on an existing legal parcel solely on the basis that the lot area of the proposed lot does not meet the local agency’s requirements for minimum lot size. The bill would only apply to housing development projects that meet specified requirements, including, among other things, that the project be located in a multifamily residential zone or a mixed‐use zone, as specified. The bill would additionally require the department to identify violations by a local government of these provisions, as described above.



Status: Passed out of Assembly Local Government Committee. Vote: Y:5; N:2; A:1. Read second time

and amended. Re‐referred to Assembly Appropriations Committee.

Client Position: Oppose

Homelessness

AB 816 (Chiu) State and local agencies: homelessness plan: Housing Trust Fund: housing projects (As amended 06/23) This measure would, on or before January 1, 2023, require each local agency to submit to HCD an actionable county‐level plan for meeting specific annual benchmarks, with the goal of reducing homelessness by 90% by 2029. Additionally, this measure would allow the Inspector General to bring an action against the state, a local agency, or a city to compel compliance with the homelessness action plan. This bill would require the department to prioritize funding for projects that serve people experiencing homelessness, to the extent that a sufficient number of projects exist. The bill would authorize the department to alter priority for funding to align eligibility for possible benefits, including Medi‐Cal benefits that are intended to assist people experiencing homelessness. Status: Passed out of Senate Human Services Committee. Vote: Y:4; N:1. Do pass, but first be re‐

referred to Senate Appropriations Committee.

Client Position: Oppose

SB 344 (Hertzberg) Homeless Shelter Grants: Pets and Veterinary Services. (As amended 05/25)

This bill would require the Department of Housing and Community Development subject to an

appropriation in the annual Budget Act, to develop and administer a program to award grants to

qualified homeless shelters, as described, for the provision of shelter, food, and basic veterinary

services for pets owned by people experiencing homelessness. The bill would authorize the

department to use up to 5% of the funds appropriated in the annual Budget Act for those purposes

for its costs in administering the program.

Status: Set for hearing in Assembly Housing and Community Development on July 12.

Client Position: Support (Position letter submitted on 06/24)

Transportation

SB 640 (Becker) Transportation Financing: Jointly Funded Projects (As amended 05/20)

Current law provides for the deposit of various funds, including revenues from certain increases in

fuel taxes and vehicle fees, for the program into the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account.

After certain allocations for the program are made, existing law requires the remaining funds

available for the program to be continuously appropriated 50% for allocation to the department for

maintenance of the state highway system or for the State Highway Operation and Protection Program

and 50% for apportionment to cities and counties by the Controller pursuant to a specified formula.

Current law requires a city or county to submit to the California Transportation Commission a list of

proposed projects, as specified, to be eligible for an apportionment of those funds. This bill would

authorize cities and counties to propose projects to be jointly funded by the cities and counties’

apportionments of those funds, as specified.

Status: Read second time. Ordered to consent calendar.



RPPG Recommended Position: Watch

Brown Act/Public Records Act/ Employee Relations

SB 278 (Leyva) Public Employees’ Retirement System: Disallowed Compensation: Benefit

Adjustments (As amended 03/23)

This bill would establish new procedures under PERL for cases in which PERS determines that the benefits of a member or annuitant are, or would be, based on disallowed compensation that conflicts with PEPRA and other specified laws and thus impermissible under PERL. The bill would also apply these procedures retroactively to determinations made on or after January 1, 2017, if an appeal has been filed and the employee member, survivor, or beneficiary has not exhausted their administrative or legal remedies. At the threshold, after determining that compensation for an employee member reported by the state, school employer, or a contracting agency is disallowed, the bill would require the applicable employer to discontinue the reporting of the disallowed compensation. Status: Placed on suspense in Assembly Appropriations Committee on July 7. Client Position: Oppose (Letter submitted on 06/25/2021) AB 361 (Rivas, Robert) Open Meetings: Local Agencies: Teleconferences (As amended 07/06)

This bill, until January 1, 2024, would authorize a local agency to use teleconferencing without

complying with the teleconferencing requirements imposed by the Ralph M. Brown Act when a

legislative body of a local agency holds a meeting during a declared state of emergency, as that term

is defined, when state or local health officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote

social distancing, during a proclaimed state of emergency held for the purpose of determining, by

majority vote, whether meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of

attendees, and during a proclaimed state of emergency when the legislative body has determined

that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees, as

provided. The bill would prohibit the legislative body from closing the public comment period and the

opportunity to register to provide public comment, until the public comment period has elapsed or

until a reasonable amount of time has elapsed, as specified. This bill would exclude from that

prohibition, a registration requirement imposed by a third‐party internet website or other online

platform not under the control of the legislative body.

Status: Passed out of Senate Governance and Finance Committee. Vote: Y: 5; N: 0. Read second time

and amended. Re‐referred to Senate Judiciary Committee. Set for hearing on July 13.


Public Safety

AB 48 (Gonzalez) Law Enforcement: Kinetic Energy Projectiles and Chemical Agents (As amended

03/16)

This bill would prohibit the use of kinetic energy projectiles or chemical agents by any law

enforcement agency to disperse any assembly, protest, or demonstration, and would prohibit their

use solely due to a violation of an imposed curfew, verbal threat, or noncompliance with a law

enforcement directive.



Status: Passed out of Senate Public Safety Committee. Vote: Y:4; N:1. Do pass and re‐refer to

Senate Appropriations Committee.

RPPG Recommended Position: Watch

AB 89 (Jones‐Sawyer) Peace Officers: Minimum Qualifications (As amended 02/17)

Current law requires peace officers in this state to meet specified minimum standards, including age

and education requirements. This bill would increase the minimum qualifying age from 18 to 25 years

of age. This bill would permit an individual under 25 years of age to qualify for employment as a peace

officer if the individual has a bachelor’s or advanced degree from an accredited college or university.

The bill would specify that these requirements do not apply to individuals 18 to 24 years of age who

are already employed as a peace officer as of the effective date of this act. The bill would provide

legislative findings in support of the measure.

Status: Referred to Senate Public Safety and Appropriations Committee. Set for hearing in Senate

Public Safety on July 13.

RPPG Recommend Position: Watch

AB 718 (Cunningham) Peace Officers: Investigations of Misconduct

This bill would require a law enforcement agency or oversight agency to complete its investigation

into an allegation of the use of force resulting in death or great bodily injury, sexual assault, discharge

of a firearm, or dishonesty relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime or

misconduct by another peace officer or custodial officer, despite the peace officer’s or custodial

officer’s voluntary separation from the employing agency. The bill would require the investigation to

result in a finding that the allegation is either sustained, not sustained, unfounded, or exonerated, as

defined. The bill would also require an agency other than an officer’s employing agency that conducts

an investigation of these allegations to disclose its findings with the employing agency no later than

the conclusion of the investigation.

Status: Referred to Senate Appropriations suspense file.


SB 2 (Bradford) Peace Officers: Certification: Civil Rights (As amended 05/20)

This measure would provide that a threat, intimidation, or coercion under the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act may be inherent in any interference with a civil right and would describe intentional acts for these purposes as an act in which the person acted with general intent or a conscious objective to engage in particular conduct. The bill would eliminate certain immunity provisions for peace officers and custodial officers, or public entities employing peace officers or custodial officers sued under the act. Status: Passed out of Assembly Judiciary Committee. Vote: Y:8; N:2; A:1. Do pass and re‐referred to Assembly Public Safety Committee. Client Position: Watch

SB 16 (Skinner) Peace Officers: Release of Records (As amended 05/20)

This bill would make every incident involving force that is unreasonable or excessive, and any sustained finding that an officer failed to intervene against another officer using unreasonable or excessive force, subject to disclosure. The bill would require records relating to sustained findings of



unlawful arrests and unlawful searches to be subject to disclosure. The bill would also require the disclosure of records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in conduct involving prejudice or discrimination on the basis of specified protected classes. The bill would make the limitations on delay of disclosure inapplicable until January 1, 2023, for the described records relating to incidents that occurred before January 1, 2022. Status: Passed out of Assembly Judiciary Committee. Vote: Y:8; N:2; A:1. Do pass as amended and be re‐referred to Assembly Appropriations Committee. Client Position: Watch

Environmental Quality and Wildfire

SB 1 (Atkins) Coastal Resources: Sea Level Rise (As amended 06/24)

This bill would require the California Coastal Commission to also include, as part of the procedures to adopt, recommendations and guidelines for the identification, assessment, minimization, and mitigation of sea level rise within each local coastal program, as provided. The bill would delete the current 90 day timeframe specified in current law by which the commission is required to adopt these procedures. Status: Passed out of Assembly Natural Resources Committee. Vote: Y:9; N:0; A:2. Read second time

and amended. Re‐refer to Assembly Appropriations Committee.

Client Position: Support (Letter submitted 06/25/2021)

SB 52 (Dodd) State of Emergency: Local Emergency: Planned Power Outage (As amended 04/12)

This measure would expand the definition of “sudden and severe energy shortage” to include a “deenergization event,” defined as a planned power outage, as specified, and would make a deenergization event one of those conditions constituting a state of emergency and a local emergency. Status: Passed out of Assembly Emergency Management Committee. Vote: Y:7; N:0. Do pass and

ordered to consent calendar.

Client Position: Watch

AB 66 (Boerner Horvath) Coastal resources: research: landslides and erosion: early warning system:

County of San Diego (As amended 5/24)

This bill would, upon appropriation by the Legislature, require the Scripps Institution of

Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, to conduct research on coastal cliff landslides

and erosion in the County of San Diego, as provided. The bill would require the research to be

completed by January 1, 2025. The bill would require by no later than March 15, 2025, the institution

to provide a report to the Legislature with recommendations for developing a coastal cliff landslide

and erosion early warning system based on available research. The bill would exempt the Regents of

the University of California from civil liability for any harm resulting from measurements, predictions,

or warnings regarding bluff failure, cliff landslides, or erosion contained in the report or from the

research or related to the recommendations, unless those damages are the result of willful or wanton

misconduct.



Status: Passed out of Senate Judiciary Committee. Vote: Y:11; N:0. Do pass as amended, but first

amend and re‐refer to Senate Appropriations Committee.


Utilities and Public Works

SB 222 (Dodd) Water Rate Assistance Program (As Amended 07/05)

This bill would establish the Water Rate Assistance Fund in the State Treasury to help provide water

affordability assistance, for both drinking water and wastewater services, to low‐income ratepayers

and ratepayers experiencing economic hardship in California. The bill would require the Department

of Community Services and Development to develop and administer the Water Rate Assistance

Program established by the bill.

Status: Passed out of Assembly Committee on Utilities & Energy. Vote: Y:12; N:0; A:3. Do pass as

amended and re‐referred to Assembly Appropriations Committee.

Client Position: Watch

SB 323 (Caballero) Local Government: Water or Sewer Service: Legal Actions (As amended 06/23)

This bill would require any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, validate, or

annul an ordinance, resolution, or motion adopting, modifying, or amending water or sewer service

fees or charges adopted after January 1, 2022, to be commenced within 120 days of the date of final

passage, adoption, or approval of the ordinance, resolution, or motion, except as provided. This bill

would require a water or sewer agency mailing a written notice to the record owner of a parcel

affected by a proposed fee or charge pursuant to Article XIII D to include a statement that there is a

120‐day statute of limitations for challenging any new, increased, or extended fee or charge. This bill

would provide that the provisions of this bill do not apply to a judicial action arising from overbilling,

or other billing errors due to the defective implementation of an ordinance, resolution, or motion

adopting, modifying, or amending a fee or charge for water or sewer service. Because this bill would

require an agency issuing a notice pursuant to Article XIII D to include additional information in the

notice, it would impose a state‐mandated local program.

Status: Read second time. Ordered to third reading. Re‐referred to Assembly Appropriations

Committee.

RPPG Recommended / Client Position: Consult with Client/Support

SB 378 (Gonzalez) Local Government: Broadband Infrastructure Development Project Permit

Processing: Micro Trenching Permit Processing Ordinance. (As amended 06/29)

This measure would require a local agency to allow, except as provided, microtrenching for the

installation of underground fiber if the installation in the microtrench is limited to fiber. The bill would

also require, to the extent necessary, a local agency with jurisdiction to approve excavations to adopt

or amend existing ordinances, codes, or construction rules to allow for microtrenching. The bill would

provide that these provisions do not supersede, nullify, or otherwise alter the requirements to

comply with specified safety standards.

Status: Passed out of Assembly Communications and Conveyance Committee. Do pass to Assembly

Appropriations Committee.



RPPG Recommended / Client Position: Consult with Client

SB 556 (Dodd) Street light poles, traffic signal poles: small wireless facilities attachments (As

amended 06/28)

This measure would prohibit a local government or local publicly owned electric utility from

unreasonably denying the leasing or licensing of its street light poles or traffic signal poles to

communications service providers for the purpose of placing small wireless facilities on those poles.

The bill would require that street light poles and traffic signal poles be made available for the

placement of small wireless facilities under fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory fees, as provided.

The bill would authorize a local government or local publicly owned electric utility to condition access

to its street light poles or traffic signal poles on reasonable terms and conditions, including reasonable

aesthetic and safety standards. This bill would require mobile telephony service providers, on or

before December 31, 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025, to measure and report to the Legislature their

progress towards meeting the goal of universal broadband access for each census tract in the state

in which the mobile telephony service provider provides wireless broadband service, by reporting the

percentage of each census tract it provides wireless broadband service. The bill would authorize

mobile telephony service providers to aggregate and submit that information through a third party.

Because the described reporting requirement would be part of the Public Utilities Act and a failure to

comply with those requirements would be a crime, this bill would impose a state‐mandated local

program by creating a new crime.

Status: Passed out of Assembly Communications & Conveyance Committee. Do pass to Assembly

Appropriations.

Client Position: Oppose (Letter submitted on 06/16/21)

SB 612 (Portantino) Electrical Corporations and Other Load‐Serving Entities: Allocation of Legacy

Resources (As amended 05/20)

This bill would require an electrical corporation, by July 1, 2022, and not less than once every 3 years thereafter, to offer an allocation of certain electrical resources to its bundled customers and to other load‐serving entities, including electric service providers and community choice aggregators, that serve departing load customers who bear cost responsibility for those resources. The bill would authorize a load‐serving entity within the service territory of the electrical corporation to elect to receive all or a portion of the vintaged proportional share of those legacy resources allocated to its end‐use customers and, if it so elects, would require it to pay to the electrical corporation the commission‐established market price benchmark for the vintage proportional share of the resources received. Status: Hearing postponed by the Assembly Utilities and Energy Committee. (Likely two‐year bill.)

Client Position: Support (Letter submitted 6/24/2021)

Full Bill Text to any measure can be

found by going to the State’s legislative

Information website: That can be

accessed by Clicking HERE


June 16, 2021 The Honorable Tasha Boerner Horvath California State Assembly State Capitol Building, Room 4130 Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: AB 66 (Boerner Horvath) County of San Diego Coastal Erosion Research Program (As amended 05/24/21) Notice of Support

Dear Assemblymember Boerner Horvath,

The City of Carlsbad writes to express our support for your Assembly Bill 66 which would require, upon appropriation by the Legislature, Scripps Institution of Oceanography (Scripps) at the University of California San Diego (UCSD) to conduct research on coastal cliff landslides and erosion in San Diego County as a condition of receiving the funds.

Rising sea levels bring increasing coastal erosion, and bluff failures are a constant threat to California beachgoers and coastal neighborhoods. The bluffs along our beautiful coastline are extremely vulnerable as we saw in 2019 when our area was devastated by the collapse of coastal bluffs that tragically caused the death of three women.

This vital research will be able to inform marine safety personnel, residents, and visitors of the danger of vulnerable bluffs and potential collapses. Once the research is completed, an early warning system for bluff collapse can be developed to keep our beaches and beach-goers safe.

For these reasons, the City of Carlsbad is pleased to support your AB 66. Should you have any questions please contact our legislative advocate, Sharon Gonsalves, with the Renne Public Policy Group, at (916) 974-9270. Sincerely,

Matt Hall Mayor City of Carlsbad CC: Senator Pat Bates Members of the Carlsbad City Council


June 16, 2021 The Honorable Toni Atkins California State Senate State Capitol Building, Room 205 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: SB 9 (Atkins) Increased Density (As amended 04/27/21) Notice of OPPOSE unless Amended

Dear Senate President pro Tempore Atkins,

The City of Carlsbad writes to oppose your SB 9, which would require a local government to ministerially approve a housing development containing two residential units in single-family residential zones. Additionally, this measure would require local governments to ministerially approve urban lot splits.

Housing affordability and homelessness are among the most critical issues facing California cities. Affordably priced homes are out of reach for many people and housing is not being built fast enough to meet the current or projected needs of people living in the state. Cities lay the groundwork for housing production by planning and zoning new projects in their communities based on extensive public input and engagement, state housing laws, and the needs of the building industry. While your desire to pursue housing production is appreciated, unfortunately, SB 9 as currently drafted would not spur much needed housing production in a manner that supports local flexibility, decision-making, and community input. State driven ministerial or by-right housing approval processes fail to recognize the extensive public engagement associated with developing and adopting zoning ordinances and housing elements that are certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The City of Carlsbad supports legislation that strengthens the ability of local agencies to prepare, adopt and implement plans for orderly growth and development, including regulatory authority over zoning and subdivisions, and opposes measures that diminish local authority to implement growth management initiatives that ensure communities do not exceed carrying capacities and the provision of adequate public facilities. To maximize housing production where it is most needed, we would urge you to consider the following amendments:

• Limit application to areas/parcels designated in a housing element. Give locals some ability to tailor this law to fit within the context of local plans.

• Offer RHNA Credit. Unlike ADU law, SB 9 offers no recognition or credit in the RHNA process. • Require Affordability. Speculators who want to develop multiple units on a single-family parcel should

be required to ensure that at least some of them remain affordable to low or very low income. • Exempt parcels subject to coastal erosion or sea level rise. More units should not be built in these

areas. For these reasons, the City of Carlsbad opposes SB 9. Should you have any questions please contact our legislative advocate, Sharon Gonsalves, with the Renne Public Policy Group, at (916) 974-9270.


Sincerely,

Matt Hall Mayor City of Carlsbad CC: Members, Committee

Assemblymember Tasha Boerner Horvath Senator Pat Bates Members of the Carlsbad City Council


June 24, 2021

The Honorable David Chiu Chair, Assembly Housing and Community Development Legislative Office Building, Room 156 Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: SB 344 (Hertzberg) Homeless Shelters Grants: Pets and Veterinary Services - Notice of SUPPORT (As Amended 05/25/21)

Dear Assemblymember Chiu,

The City of Carlsbad is pleased to support SB 344, which would require the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) subject to an appropriation in the annual Budget Act, to develop and administer a program to award grants to qualified homeless shelters for the provision of shelter, food, and basic veterinary services for pets owned by people experiencing homelessness.

California has seen an alarming spike in homelessness over the past decade, with a significant increase in the number of unsheltered people in our communities. Cities and counties statewide are at the forefront of responding to this crisis by working across silos to find creative and innovative ways to guide homeless youth, families, seniors, and veterans, along with their pets, into shelter and care.

Homeless individuals often rely on pets for emotional support, companionship, and affection. When a shelter does not allow for pets, homeless persons often have to choose between staying in a shelter and leaving their pets.

SB 344 will play an important role in encouraging more individuals to seek shelter knowing that they will not have to give up their pets as a result. For these reasons, the City of Carlsbad supports SB 344 (Hertzberg). Should you have any questions please contact our legislative advocate, Sharon Gonsalves, with the Renne Public Policy Group, at (916) 974-9270.

Sincerely,

Matt Hall Mayor City of Carlsbad

CC: Members, Assembly Committee on Housing and Community DevelopmentThe Honorable Robert HertzbergAssemblymember Tasha Boerner Horvath, District 76 Senator Patricia Bates, District 36


July 8, 2021 The Honorable Lorena Gonzalez Chair, Assembly Appropriations Committee State Capitol, Room 2114 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: SB 8 (Skinner) Planning and Zoning Law: housing development projects (As amended

07/05/2021) Notice of Opposition Dear Assemblymember Gonzalez, The City of Carlsbad must respectfully oppose SB 8 (Skinner), which would extend the sunset of SB 330 (Skinner, 2019) an additional five years to 2030. This bill has been law for just over a year and it is too soon to make a determination that the provisions of SB 330 are proving to be successful.

As the city has strived to meet the many requirements of SB 330, Carlsbad has experienced the following implementation issues with SB 330:

- General Plan Amendments or Rezones for public land acquisitions - Any action to reduce development capacity on a property needs to have density increased somewhere else. The legislation includes language for this to occur “concurrently” that should be updated to allow for changes “concurrently or before,” or to provide for an exemption to this requirement for re-designating land purchased for legitimate public purpose.

- Number of Meetings - The relationship between SB 330 applications and public outreach meetings should be clarified to indicate whether community input received through public meetings occurring prior to consideration by the decision-making body, or coastal commission hearings afterwards, count towards the hearing requirements in SB 330.

- Local Coastal Plan Conflicts – SB 330 states: “(4) For purposes of this section, a proposed housing development project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning standards and criteria, and shall not require a rezoning, if the housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan.” This provision should be clarified to indicate whether this same standard applies to sites that are consistent with the General Plan, but not consistent with the Local Coastal Plan.

As a result of SB 330, the City of Carlsbad has adopted resolutions approving updates to the city’s General Plan Housing Element and finding the city’s residential housing caps, quadrant limits, and control points contained in the city’s General Plan, Growth Management Plan (Proposition E), City Council Policies, and Carlsbad Municipal Code (Title 21 Chapter 90) are preempted by state law and unenforceable.

For the reasons listed above the City of Carlsbad must respectfully oppose SB 8 (Skinner). Should you have any questions please contact our legislative advocate, Sharon Gonsalves, with the Renne Public Policy Group, at (916) 974-9270.


Sincerely,

Matt Hall Mayor City of Carlsbad CC: Members, Assembly Appropriations Committee

Assemblymember Tasha Boerner Horvath Senator Pat Bates Members of the Carlsbad City Council


July 8, 2021 The Honorable Anthony Portantino Chair, Senate Appropriations Committee State Capitol Building, Room 3086 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: AB 816 (Chiu) State and local agencies: homelessness plan: Housing Trust Fund: housing

projects (As amended 06/23/2021)- Notice of OPPOSITION Dear Senator Portantino, The City of Carlsbad must respectfully oppose Assembly Bill 816 which creates the Office of the Housing and Homelessness Inspector General (HHIG) to create greater accountability for state and local actions to address homelessness, imposes new requirements on local governments to develop actionable plans to reduce homelessness by 90 percent, and creates a public right of action for the Inspector General to compel compliance with those new plans.

The City of Carlsbad is dedicated to addressing the homelessness crisis and has been proactive in creating, adopting, and funding a plan that identifies strategies with measurable objectives. As a city, we understand we cannot be successful without our community partners who provide essential services and supplies to the homeless population.

We believe several aspects of this bill, such as a gaps analysis, are laudable. We appreciate the State’s recognition of the homelessness crisis, but authorizing the newly created position of Inspector General to enforce housing plans through a public right of action will bring about unnecessary lawsuits and take resources and funding away from the goal at hand, which is to eliminate homelessness. Furthermore, we oppose AB 816 for imposing new mandates while failing to provide any additional funding to local governments to fund the required actions.

For these reasons, the City of Carlsbad opposes AB 816. Should you have any questions please contact our legislative advocate, Sharon Gonsalves, with the Renne Public Policy Group, at (916) 974-9270. Sincerely,

Matt Hall Mayor City of Carlsbad


CC: The Honorable David Chiu Assemblymember Tasha Boerner Horvath

Senator Patricia Bates Members, Senate Appropriations Committee Carlsbad City Council


INSERT DATE The Honorable Lorena Gonzalez Chair, Assembly Appropriations Committee State Capitol, Room 2114 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: SB 478 (Wiener) Planning and Zoning Law: housing development projects (As amended 06/24/2021) Notice of Opposition Dear Assemblymember Gonzalez, On behalf of the City of Carlbad, we must respectfully oppose SB 478 (Wiener), which would prohibit a local agency, from imposing a floor-to-area ratio (FAR) standard that is less than 1.0 on a housing development project that consists of 3 to 7 units, or less than 1.25 on a housing development project that consists of 8 to 10 units. California is a unique state in that it consists of hundreds of different communities, each with their own characteristics and needs that determine how best to approach land-use decisions. Cities lay the groundwork for housing production by planning and zoning new projects in their communities based on extensive public input and engagement, state housing laws, and the needs of the building industry. What is appropriate for one community may not be appropriate for all communities, and land use decisions, such as minimum lot sizes and FARs are best decided at the local level. In this measure, cities will not be allowed to impose any local standard, such as a backyard, that precludes a density of 1.25 FAR. In addition, the FAR of 1.5 is a permissive standard, especially for duplex or fourplex zoning. Please provide an explanation of the impact to planning as it relates to the measure. For these reasons, the City of Carlsbad opposes SB 478. Should you have any questions please contact our legislative advocate, Sharon Gonsalves, with the Renne Public Policy Group, at (916) 974-9270. Sincerely,

Matt Hall Mayor City of Carlsbad CC: Members, Committee

Assemblymember Tasha Boerner Horvath Senator Pat Bates


City Council Legislative Subcommittee Meeting Agenda

Documents

Transcript of City Council Legislative Subcommittee Meeting Agenda