AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: May 10, 2022
Item Number:
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Cynthia Owens, Policy and Management Analyst
Subject: APPROVAL OF THE BEVERLY HILLS CITY COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE / LOBBY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS TO SUPPORT
VARIOUS STATE LEGISLATIVE BILLS; AND
APPROVAL OF THE BEVERLY HILLS CITY COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE
/ LOBBY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS TO SEND A LETTER
OF SUPPORT TO GOVERNOR GAVIN NEWSOM REQUESTING
FUNDING FOR THE COMMISSION ON THE STATE OF HATE FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023
Attachments: 1. Bill Summaries
2. Memo –The Commission on the State of Hate
RECOMMENDATION
The Beverly Hills City Council Legislative/Lobby Committee (Vice Mayor Gold and Councilmember Mirisch) recommends the City Council support:
Assembly Bill 1845 (Calderon) - Metropolitan Water District of Southern California:
Alternative Project Delivery Methods
Assembly Bill 2050 (Lee) - Residential Real Property: Withdrawal of Accommodations
Senate Bill 986 (Umberg) - Vehicles: Catalytic Converters Senate Bill 1456 (Stern) - Property Taxation: Welfare Exemption: Low-Income Housing
Additionally, the Beverly Hills City Council Legislative / Lobby Committee (“Committee”) recommends the City Council send a letter of support to Governor Gavin Newsom requesting funding for the Commission on the State of Hate in the fiscal year 2022-2023 state budget.
BEVERLW
HILLS
d
D-5
Meeting Date: May 10, 2022
INTRODUCTION
This item seeks City Council approval of the Committee’s recommendations for the position of support for various state legislative bills not addressed in the City's adopted 2022 Legislative Platform as well as sending a letter of support for state funding in fiscal year 2022-2023 for the Commission on the State of Hate. Should the City Council concur with the recommendations of the Committee, then staff will draft letters for the Mayor to sign.
DISCUSSION
Each year, the City establishes a Legislative Platform (“Platform”) which embodies key legislative themes and priorities for the upcoming year. The Platform provides direction for our legislative advocates and City staff as they work to secure clear and strategic initiatives locally as well as in Sacramento, California and Washington, D.C. In February 2022, the City Council adopted the current Legislative Platform.
The objective of the Platform is to outline the City’s position on legislative matters and serve as the foundation for the City to support or oppose various local, state and federal legislation. The Platform seeks to not only secure critical resources for our City, but also outlines policy statements that allow City staff and the City’s legislative lobbyists to more effectively respond to and influence legislation at the local, state and federal level.
On May 2, 2022, the Committee met to discuss a variety of state legislative bills. A summary of the legislation reviewed by the Committee is listed below. More details may be found in Attachment 1 to this report.
Request to Send a Letter of Support to the Governor for Funding for the Commission on the State of Hate in the State’s Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Budget. In 2021, the City supported Assembly Bill 1126 (Bloom) - Commission on the State of Hate, which became law on January 1, 2022 and created the Commission on the State of Hate (“Commission”). Assemblymember Bloom made a request at the February 17, 2022 Human Relations Commission meeting for the City to send a letter to support to the Governor to include $5 million in the state’s fiscal year 2022-2023 for the Commission. If funded, the Commission could then:
o Provide resources and assistance to the California Department of Justice, the office of the Attorney General, the Office of Emergency Services, federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, and the public on the state of hate in order to keep these entities and the public informed of emerging trends in hate-related crime.
o Engage in fact finding, data collection, and the production of annual reports on the state of hate and hate-related crimes.
o Collaborate with other subject-matter experts in the fields of hate, public safety, and other related fields to gain a deeper understanding to monitor and assess trends relative to the state of hate or hate-related crime. AB 1641 – Existing law requires state agencies to develop and implement a telecommuting plan, as specified, and to evaluate their telecommuting programs.
This bill would require agencies to periodically update their plans to respond to changing technology and its impact on worker well-being AB 1771 – Current Personal Income Tax Law and Corporation Tax Law imposes taxes upon income, including income generated from any gain from the sale or Meeting Date: May 10, 2022
exchange of a capital asset. This bill would, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2023, impose an additional 25 percent tax on that portion of a qualified taxpayer’s net capital gain from the sale or exchange of a qualified asset. The bill would reduce those taxes depending on how many years has passed since the qualified taxpayer’s initial purchase of the qualified asset. AB 1845 - Would authorize the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California to use the design-build procurement process for certain regional recycled water projects or other water infrastructure projects.
AB 2011 - Would make certain housing developments that meet specified affordability and site criteria and objective development standards a use by right within a zone where office, retail, or parking are a principally permitted use. The bill would prohibit a local government from imposing any requirement, including increased fees, on the basis that the project is eligible to receive ministerial or streamlined approval.
AB 2050 – Would, when a public entity has a price control system in effect, prohibit an owner of accommodations from filing a notice with a public entity of an intention to withdraw accommodations or prosecuting an action to recover possession of accommodations, or threatening to do so, if not all the owners of the accommodations have been owners of record for at least five continuous years, with specified exceptions, or with respect to property that the owner acquired within ten years after providing notice of an intent to withdraw accommodations at a different property for a period of ten years from the date the new property is acquired.
AB 2097 - Would prohibit a public agency 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 one-half mile of public transit.
AB 2428 - Would require a local agency that requires a qualified applicant to deposit fees for improvements into an escrow account as a condition for receiving a conditional use permit or equivalent development permit to expend the fees within 5 years of the deposit.
AB 2710 – Would require an owner of residential real property, defined to include a single-family residential property that is occupied by a tenant or a multifamily residential property except as specified, to take various actions before offering the residential real property for sale to any purchaser, soliciting any offer to purchase the residential real property, or otherwise entering into a contract for sale of the residential real property.
SB 1067 - Would prohibit a local jurisdiction from imposing any minimum automobile parking requirement on a housing development project that is located within 1/2 mile of public transit, as defined, and that either (1) dedicates 20 percent of the total units to very low-, low-, and moderate-income households, students, the elderly, or persons with disabilities, or (2) the developer demonstrates that the development would not have a negative impact on the local jurisdiction’s ability to meet specified housing needs and would not have a negative impact on existing residential or commercial parking within 1/2 mile of the project, unless the local jurisdiction makes specified findings. SB 1456 - Existing law partially exempts from property taxation property used exclusively for rental housing including, except in the case of a limited Meeting Date: May 10, 2022
partnership in which the managing general partner is a nonprofit corporation eligible for the exemption, that 90 percent or more of the occupants of the property are lower income households whose rents do not exceed the rent limits.
This bill would strike the current $20 million cap in assessed valuation in the welfare exemption for property tax for non-publicly financed affordable housing.
Legislative/Lobby Committee Recommendations
On May 2, 2022, the Committee provided direction on various state legislative bills. The Committee recommended the following positions for bills and/or legislative items not addressed by the City’s Legislative Platform:
Support
o Assembly Bill 1845 (Calderon) - Metropolitan Water District of Southern California: Alternative Project Delivery Methods
o Assembly Bill 2050 (Lee) - Residential Real Property: Withdrawal of Accommodations
o Senate Bill 986 (Umberg) - Vehicles: Catalytic Converters o Senate Bill 1456 (Stern) - Property Taxation: Welfare Exemption: Low-Income Housing
As the legislative matters contained in the bills listed above are not addressed in the City’s Platform, staff is seeking City Council concurrence on the recommendations of the Committee.
Additionally, the Committee recommended the City send a letter of support to Governor Gavin Newsom requesting funding for the Commission on the State of Hate in the fiscal year 2022-2023 state budget. This also requires concurrence by the City Council as it is not addressed in the Legislative Platform.
The City’s state lobbyist presented three bills to the Committee, which have a nexus to the City’s Legislative Platform. These bills and the pertinent statements are:
The Committee’s recommendation on these three bills was consistent with the City’s Legislative Platform; therefore, no concurrence of the Committee’s recommendations is required by the City Council. Letters are being drafted for the Mayor to sign and will be sent to the appropriate state elected officials.
The following two bills were placed on the agenda for the Committee to consider at the May 2 meeting. Both bills had to pass out of their assigned Policy Committee by April 30.
Legislative Bill Legislative Platform
Statement
Assembly Bill 2011 (Wicks) - Affordable Housing
and High Road Jobs Act of 2022
o Oppose state legislation that
supersedes a jurisdiction’s
adopted zoning ordinances.
o Oppose preemption of the
City of Beverly Hills’ local
authority whether by state or
federal legislation or ballot
propositions
Assembly Bill 2097 (Friedman) - Residential and
Commercial Development: Remodeling,
Renovations, and Additions: Parking Requirements
Senate Bill 1067 (Portantino) - Housing
Development Projects: Automobile Parking
Requirements
Meeting Date: May 10, 2022
Neither of these two bills passed out of their Policy Committee by this deadline and are now considered dead for the remainder of this legislative cycle:
Assembly Bill 1651 (Kalra) - Worker rights: Workplace Technology Accountability Act
Assembly Bill 2428 (Ramos) - Mitigation Fee Act: Fees for improvements:
Timeline for Expenditure
Finally, the Committee did not come to concurrence on supporting or opposing the following two bills:
Assembly Bill 1771 (Ward) - The California Housing Speculation Act: Income Taxes: Capital Gains: Sale or Exchange of Qualified Asset: Housing Assembly Bill 2710 (Kalra) - Residential Real Property: Sale of Rental Properties:
Right of First Offer
The deadline for these two bills to clear their house of origin is June 4, 2022. Should these two bills move forward to the state Senate for consideration, then staff will bring an item to the City Council for direction on supporting or opposing AB 1771 and AB 2710.
FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact to the City for each piece of legislation under consideration for a position by the City Council is listed in the table below.
Legislative Bill Anticipated Fiscal Impact
Assembly Bill 1845 (Calderon) -
Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California: Alternative Project Delivery
Methods
No anticipated fiscal impact
Assembly Bill 2050 (Lee) - Residential
Real Property: Withdrawal of
Accommodations
Little to no anticipated fiscal impact
Senate Bill 986 (Umberg) - Vehicles:
Catalytic Converters
No anticipated fiscal impact
Senate Bill 1456 (Stern) - Property
Taxation: Welfare Exemption: LowIncome Housing
Minimal. The state revenue loss resulting
from the bill would emerge and grow (1) if
organizations acquire more property
subject to the $20 million cap, or (2) if
assessed values over time exceed $20
million due to the application of the annual
inflation factor (up to two percent). As an
example, assuming the full two percent
inflation factor, property assessed at $20
million would grow to $30 million in about
23 years. The resulting loss in state
property tax revenue relative to current law
would be about $100,000, half of which
could result in increased Proposition 98
General Fund spending.
Meeting Date: May 10, 2022
Nancy Hunt Coffey,
Assistant City Manager
Approved By
Attachment 1
April 27, 2022
To: Cindy Owens, City of Beverly Hills
From: Andrew K. Antwih, Partner, Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange Priscilla Quiroz, Legislative Advocate, Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange Re: AB 1845 (Calderon) Metropolitan Water District of Southern California: alternative project delivery methods.
Version
As amended in the Assembly on April 4, 2022
Summary
Authorizes the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) to use design-build, progressive design-build, and construction manager/general contractor (CM/GC) project delivery methods for a regional water recycling project or drought response projects. These project delivery methods shall be used for no more than 15 capital outlay projects.
Specifically, this bill:
1) Permits MWD, upon approval by its governing body, to use design-build, progressive designbuild, and CM/GC project delivery methods for a regional water recycling project or water infrastructure projects undertaken to alleviate water supply shortages resulting from drought or climate change.
2) Permits MWD to award progressive design-build or CM/GC contracts on a best value or qualifications basis or to the lowest responsible bidder. 3) Provides that MWD can use design-build, progressive design-build, or CM/GC delivery methods for no more than 15 capital outlay projects.
4) Requires MWD to develop guidelines for a standard organizational conflict-of-interest policy, consistent with applicable law, regarding the ability of a person or entity that performs services for MWD relating to the solicitation of a design-build or progressive design-build project to submit a proposal as a design-build entity, or to join a design-build team. 5) Defines “best value” as a value determined by evaluation of objective criteria that relate to price, features, functions, life-cycle costs, experience, and past performance. 6) Defines the terms “construction manager,” “Construction Manager/General Contractor method,” “design-build,” “design-build entity,” “district,” “guaranteed maximum price,” “preconstruction services,” “progressive design-build,” and “project” for purposes of this bill. 7) Requires MWD to follow the design-build procedure for local agencies under existing law when utilizing the design-build project delivery method as authorized by this bill (the existing authority for local agencies to use design-build sunsets on January 1, 2025).
Shaw
Yoder
Antwih
Schmelzer
&Lange
SYASLpartners.com
141 5 L Street
Suite 1 000
Sacramento
CA, 95814
916-446-4656
2 8) Requires MWD, when using the progressive design-build procurement process, to proceed as follows:
a. Prepare and issue a request for qualifications (RFQ) in order to select a design-build entity to execute the project. The RFQ shall include, but need not be limited to, the following elements:
i. Documentation of the size, type, and desired design character of the project and any other information deemed necessary to describe adequately MWD’s needs and to inform interested parties of the contracting opportunity, as specified.
ii. Significant factors that MWD reasonably expects to consider in evaluating qualifications, including technical design and construction expertise, and all other non-price-related factors. MWD may require that a cost estimate, including the detailed basis for the estimate, be included in the design-build entities’ responses and may consider those costs in evaluation of the statements of qualifications.
iii. The relative importance or the weight assigned to each of the factors identified in the RFQ.
iv. A request for statements of qualifications with a template for the statement that is prepared by MWD and requires specified information relative to the design-build entity’s organizational structure, experience and competency, professional credentials, insurance, and safety record. v. Information required in a statement of qualifications shall be certified under penalty of perjury by the design-build entity and its general partners or joint venture members.
b. Review the submissions at the close of the solicitation period; the review may be based solely upon the information provided in each design-build entity’s statement of qualifications or informed by subsequent interviews with some or all of the designbuild entities to further evaluate their qualifications for the project. c. Publicly announce an award upon issuance of a contract. The announcement shall identify the design-build entity to which the award is made and include a statement regarding the basis of the award.
d. Enter into a contract and direct the design-build entity to begin design and preconstruction activities sufficient to establish a guaranteed maximum price for the project.
e. Amend a contract upon agreement of the guaranteed maximum price for the project to direct the design-build entity to complete the remaining design, preconstruction, and construction activities sufficient to complete and close out the project. MWD may add funds not exceeding the guaranteed maximum price to the contract for these activities. If the costs for completing these activities exceed the guaranteed maximum price, the costs exceeding the guaranteed maximum price shall be the responsibility of the design-build entity. If the costs for these activities are less than the guaranteed maximum price, the design-build entity shall not be entitled to the difference between the costs and the guaranteed maximum price.
f. Solicit proposals to complete the project from other firms that submitted statements of qualifications or requests for proposals if MWD and the design-build entity do not reach agreement on a guaranteed maximum price, or MWD otherwise elects not to amend the design-build entity’s contract to complete the remaining work. MWD may also, upon written determination that it is in the best interest of MWD to do so, formally solicit proposals from other design-build entities. 3 g. Submit a report to the relevant committees of the Legislature on or before January 1, 2027, that contains a description of each public works project procured by MWD through the progressive design-build process described in this bill that is completed after January 1, 2023, and before December 1, 2026, and other specified contents. 9) Requires MWD, when using the CM/GC procurement process, to proceed as follows:
a. Establish a procedure for the evaluation and selection of a construction manager through an RFQ. The RFQ shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
i. A list of all the partners, general partners, or association members who will participate in the CM/GC method contract if the construction manager is a partnership, limited partnership, or other association; ii. Evidence that the members of the construction manager have completed, or demonstrated the experience, competency, capability, and capacity to complete, projects of similar size, scope, or complexity, and that proposed key personnel have sufficient experience and training to competently manage and complete construction of the project, as well as a financial statement that assures MWD that the construction manager has the capacity to complete the project, construction expertise, and an acceptable safety record; iii. Information regarding the licenses, registrations, or credentials required to construct the project, including information on the revocation or suspension of any license, registration, or credential;
iv. Evidence that establishes the construction manager has the capacity to obtain all required payment and performance bonding, liability insurance, and errors and omissions insurance;
v. Information regarding any prior serious or willful violation of the California Occupational Safety and Health Act or the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act settled against any member of the construction manager and information concerning workers’ compensation experience history and worker safety program;
vi. Information concerning any debarment, disqualification, or removal from a federal, state, or local government public works project, including any instance in which a construction manager, its owners, officers, or managing employees submitted a bid on a public works project and were found to be nonresponsive or were found by an awarding body not to be a responsible bidder;
vii. Information regarding any instance in which the construction manager, or its owners, officers, or managing employees, defaulted on a construction contract;
viii. Specified information regarding any violations of the Contractors State License Law or Federal Insurance Contributions Act;
ix. Information concerning the bankruptcy or receivership of any member of the construction manager, including information concerning any work completed by a surety;
x. Information concerning all settled adverse claims, disputes, or lawsuits between the owner of a public works project and any member of the construction manager during the five years preceding submission of a bid pursuant to this bill, in which the claim, settlement, or judgment exceeds fifty thousand dollars ($50,000); and
xi. A copy of the agreement creating the partnership or association and specifying that all partners or association members agree to be fully liable for 4 the performance under the contract if the construction manager is a partnership or other association that is not a legal entity. b. Require that the information in an RFQ be verified under oath by the construction manager and its members in the manner in which civil pleadings in civil actions are verified. Information that is not a public record pursuant to the California Public Records Act shall not be open to public inspection.
c. Generate a final list of qualified persons or firms that participated in each RFQ prior to entering into negotiations on the contract for which an RFQ applies. d. Enter into negotiations for the contract with the highest qualified person or firm on the final list for that contract, which shall include consideration of compensation and other contract terms that MWD determines to be fair and reasonable, as specified. If MWD is not able to negotiate a satisfactory contract with the highest qualified person or firm on the final list, MWD shall formally terminate negotiations and may undertake negotiations with the next most qualified person or firm on the final list in sequence until an agreement is reached or a determination is made to reject all persons or firms on the final list, as specified.
e. Adhere to specified rules and procedures for preconstruction services by the construction manager, if included in the contract, and refrain from requesting or obtaining a fixed price or a guaranteed maximum price for the construction contract from the construction manager or entering into a construction contract with the construction manager until after MWD has entered into a services contract. A preconstruction services contract shall provide for the subsequent negotiation for construction of all or any discrete phase or phases of the project. f. Award a contract for construction services after the plans have been sufficiently developed and either a fixed price or a guaranteed maximum price has been successfully negotiated. In the event that a fixed price or a guaranteed maximum price is not negotiated, MWD shall not award the contract for construction services. g. Refrain from commencing any phase, package, or element until MWD and a construction manager agree in writing on either a fixed price that MWD will pay for the construction to be commenced or a guaranteed maximum price for the construction to be commenced and a construction schedule for the project. h. Stipulate that all subcontractors are afforded the protections of the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act, as specified.
i. Submit a report to the relevant committees of the Legislature on MWD’s use of the CM/GC method that contains specified information on or before January 1, 2027. 10)Provides that neither a design-build entity nor a construction contractor shall be awarded a construction contract unless it provides an enforceable commitment to MWD that the design build entity or construction contractor and its subcontractors at every tier will use a skilled and trained workforce to perform all work on the project or contract that falls within an apprenticeable occupation in the building and construction trades, as specified. This requirement shall not apply if any of the following requirements are met:
a. MWD has entered into a project labor agreement that will bind all contractors and subcontractors performing work on the project or contract to use a skilled and trained workforce, and the design-build entity or construction contractor agrees to be bound by that project labor agreement, as defined.
b. The design-build entity or construction contractor has entered into a project labor agreement, as defined, that will bind the design-build entity or construction contractor and all its subcontractors at every tier performing the project or contract to use a skilled and trained workforce.
5 11)Provides that MWD may not award a design-build-operate contract for any project pursuant to this bill. A contract may, however, cover operations during a training or transition period. 12)Requires MWD to perform construction inspection services for all projects authorized and awarded pursuant to this bill, and requires it to use district employees or consultants under contract with MWD to perform these services.
13)Requires any design-build entity or CM/GC that is selected to construct a project pursuant to this bill to possess or obtain sufficient bonding to cover the contract amount for construction services and risk and liability insurance MWD may require. Any payment or performance bond written for the purposes of this bill shall be written using a bond form developed by MWD.
14)Provides that the authority to use progressive design-build and CM/GC project delivery methods sunsets on January 1, 2028.
15)Contains a number of findings and declarations regarding this bill’s purposes and intent, and finds and declares that a special statute is necessary and that a general statute cannot be made applicable within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution because of the unique need to improve water infrastructure in the geographic area served by MWD.
16)Provides that no reimbursement is required by this bill pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, or changes the definition of a crime.
Background
The traditional project delivery method that public agencies use to complete a public works projects is the “design-bid-build” process. Under the “design-bid-build” process, a public agency fully completes the design of a project prior to awarding a construction contract and must award that contract to the “lowest responsible bidder.” This process is intended to ensure that the project is built for the lowest possible cost.
Design-build. The Legislature began granting design-build authority in the early 1990's, and has typically done so with specified parameters, such as the duration of the authority, the types of agencies allowed to use it, the types of projects for which it can be used, cost thresholds, and specified procedures that must be followed in preparing and awarding contracts. Under the design-build method, a single contract covers the design and construction of a project with a single company or consortium that acts as both the project designer and builder. The design-build entity arranges all architectural, engineering, and construction services, and is responsible for delivering the project at a guaranteed price and schedule based upon performance criteria set by the public agency. The design-build method can be faster, and therefore cheaper, than the design-bid-build method, but it requires a higher level of management sophistication since design and construction may occur simultaneously.
CM/GC. The CM/GC project-delivery method allows an agency to engage a construction manager during the design process to provide assistance to the design team, which can ultimately lead to a more constructible project. When design is nearly complete, the agency and the construction manager negotiate a guaranteed maximum price for the construction of the project based on the defined scope and schedule. If this price is acceptable to both parties, they execute a contract for construction services, and the construction manager becomes the general contractor. CM/GC can lead to less costly or more expediently delivered projects because of the construction manager’s 6 involvement in the design process. Caltrans and some regional transportation agencies are authorized to use the CM/GC method to construct certain projects.
Progressive design-build. Progressive design-build is a stepped project delivery method where a qualified design-builder is retained by a public agency early in the life of the project to help with design and preconstruction activities. The preconstruction phase helps determine the total cost of the project. Generally, once the design is 40 to 60 percent complete, the public agency and designbuilder then negotiate a total maximum price for the project and, if there is agreement, both parties proceed to the second phase of the project to complete project design and construction. The public agency typically has an “off ramp” option if it cannot come to terms with the design-builder. In such a situation, the public agency may use the design developed by the first design-builder, but enter into a new contract with another design-builder to complete the project. DGS has limited authority to use the progressive design-build project delivery method.
Status of Legislation
The bill had its first hearing in the Assembly Local Government Committee on March 23, 2022, and passed with a vote of 8-0. On April 24, the bill was heard in Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee, and passed 12-0 with 3 abstentions. The measure is now headed to Assembly Appropriations Committee for a review of the impact on state finances.
Arguments in support
MWD and a number of local agencies in its service area support this bill arguing that building the regional recycled water and drought response projects “is critically important to Southern California’s water agencies and our customers. Alternative delivery methods not only have the potential to lower overall project costs and help develop earlier cost certainty, which will save Southern California ratepayers money, they will accelerate our efforts to adapt to prolonged droughts exacerbated by climate change.”
Support
Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California (sponsor)
Azusa Chamber of Commerce
Beverly Hills Chamber of Commerce
California Municipal Utilities Association
California Special Districts Association
Calleguas Municipal Water District
Central City Association of Los Angeles
City of Burbank, Water and Power
City of Glendale Water & Power
City of Torrance
Coalition of Labor, Agriculture & Business,
Imperial County
Cucamonga Valley Water District
El Monte/south El Monte Chamber of
Commerce
El Segundo Chamber of Commerce
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District
Foothill Municipal Water District
Glendora Chamber of Commerce
Inland Empire Economic Partnership
Inland Empire Utilities Agency
Las Virgenes Municipal Water District
League of California Cities, Los Angeles County
Division
Los Angeles Business Council
Los Angeles County Business Federation
Los Angeles County Sanitation District
Pasadena Chamber of Commerce
Pasadena Water and Power
Rowland Water District
San Dimas Chamber of Commerce
San Gabriel Valley Legislative Coalition of
Chambers
Santa Ana Public Works; City of
Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce
Simi Valley Chamber of Commerce
Southern California Water Coalition
Three Valleys Muncipal Water District
United Chambers of Commerce
Valley Industry and Commerce Association
7 Water Replenishment District of Southern
California
West Ventura County Business Alliance
Western Municipal Water District
Westside Council of Chambers of Commerce
Opposition
None received.
April 26, 2022
To: Cindy Owens, City of Beverly Hills
From: Andrew K. Antwih, Partner, Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange Priscilla Quiroz, Legislative Advocate, Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange Re: AB 2050 (Lee) Residential Property: Ellis Act: Restrictions on Eviction Version
As Amended in the Assembly on April 18, 2022
Summary
Prohibits withdrawal of property from the rental market under the Ellis Act in a rent control jurisdiction unless every owner has owned the property for at least five continuous years.
Specifically, this bill:
1. Provides that, in a rent control jurisdiction, an owner of accommodations (i.e., residential rental units) cannot utilize the Ellis Act to do any of the following unless all of the owners of the accommodations have been owners of record for at least five continuous years:
a. File a notice with the public entity that regulates rents to withdraw the accommodations from the rental market.
b. Bring an action to recover possession of accommodations. c. Threaten to do either of the above.
2. Clarifies that if any owner of record is an entity (rather than a natural person), then every person with an ownership interest in that entity must have held their ownership interest for at least five continuous years.
3. Exempts owners of accommodations from the five-year ownership requirement and the prohibition on eviction and/or the prohibition on recovering accommodations (listed in items 1 and 2 above) if all of the following requirements are satisfied the owner:
a. Is a natural person,
b. Holds title to the property as trustee in a trust in which the settlor and all beneficiaries are natural persons, or
c. Is a limited liability company that has no more than four members, all of whom are natural persons.
Shaw
Yoder
Antwih
Schmelzer
&Lange
SYASLpartners.com
141 5 L Street
Suite 1 000
Sacramento
CA, 95814
916-446-4656
2 4. Requires that each natural person is either the sole beneficial owner (i.e., does not hold ownership on behalf of another) or holds title to the property as trustee.
5. Specifies that the owner of record and each natural person listed in ownership documents either directly or indirectly owns no more than four residential units, other than their primary residence.
6. Restricts an owner of accommodations—including a person or entity with an ownership interest in an entity that owns accommodations—who uses the Ellis Act to withdraw those accommodations from the rental market and then acquires a new property containing accommodations from utilizing the Act to withdraw the second property from the rental market for a period 10 years from the date it was acquired.
7. Prohibits an owner of accommodations, including a person or entity with an ownership interest in an entity that owns accommodations, from acting in concert with a co-owner, successor owner, prospective owner, agent, employee, or assignee to circumvent 1) or 4).
8. Requires an owner withdrawing accommodations under the Ellis Act to identify, for the public entity that regulates rents, each person or entity with an ownership interest in the accommodations, including each person or entity with an ownership interest in that entity.
Further provides that this information is not confidential and shall be available for public inspection.
9. Provides the following remedies to tenants and lessees against any person that violates the ownership standards in this measure – listed in items 1), 4), or 0 above:
a. Actual damages.
b. Special damages of $2,000 per violation.
c. Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
10. Provides that the remedies outlined in this measure do not exclude any other remedies available under law.
11. Finds and declares this bill applies to all cities, including charter cities, because housing, including maintenance of accommodations, is a matter of statewide concern and not a municipal affair, as that term is defined under the California constitution.
Background and Existing Law
The Ellis Act, enacted in 1985, allows an owner of rental property to evict tenants without cause and remove the property from the rental market, while still retaining ownership of the property—if the owner follows procedures required under state and local law. The Act applies throughout the state, but is used most often in cities where tenants are otherwise protected by rent control and “just cause” eviction ordinances.
Unfortunately, many landlords have exploited the Ellis Act to evict tenants under the pretense of removing properties from the rental market, and then re-renting them onto the market at higher rates, thereby amplifying the statewide housing crisis. Such acts are completely inconsistent with the 3 Act’s purpose, which was to allow property owners who no longer wished to be landlords to exit the rental market.
This bill would introduce several reforms aimed at curbing abuses of the Ellis Act. First, it would prohibit use of the Act to remove a property from the rental market in a rent control jurisdiction until all of the owners of the property (including holders of ownership interests in an entity that, in turn, owns the property) have maintained their ownership for a period of at least five continuous years.
Second, if a person utilizes the Ellis Act to remove a property from the rental market and then acquires another rental property, that person would have to wait 10 years before being allowed to utilize the Ellis Act to remove the second property from the rental market. Both of these provisions, which could be enforced in the courts by tenants, would limit speculators’ misuse of the Act to profit at the expense of tenants’ long-term housing stability.
AB 2050 is sponsored by the Coalition for Economic Survival and the Tenderloin Housing Clinic. It is supported by a broad coalition that includes the cities of Lafayette, Oakland, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood; numerous legal aid nonprofits, including Bet Tzedek Legal Services, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, and Western Center on Law & Poverty; grassroots organizations such as ACCE and Tenants Together; and pro-housing YIMBY groups from across the state.
The bill is opposed by five trade associations for the rental housing industry, including California Apartment Association and California Association of Realtors.
The Ellis Act, Government Code Sections 7060-7060.7, was enacted in 1985 to allow landlords to evict tenants without cause in order to remove properties from the rental market, while still retaining ownership of those properties—so long as the exiting landlords follow applicable procedures under state and local law. As subsequently interpreted by the courts, a landlord’s authority to evict under the Act even extends to properties in jurisdictions where the tenants would otherwise be protected by rent control and just-cause eviction ordinances. (Bullock v. City & County of San Francisco (1990) 221 Cal. App. 3d 1072, 1097.)
The Legislature was aware that the Act could be used to displace tenants in such jurisdictions and thereby circumvent applicable tenant protections. Accordingly, the Act includes safeguards meant to protect against bad faith withdrawals by unscrupulous actors, primarily by authorizing jurisdictions to enact regulations that prevent landlords from circumventing tenant protections.
Unfortunately, these safeguards have proven inadequate to the task of preventing misuse of the Act to evict tenants and raise rents. As explained by the bill’s author:
[L]andlords have a large monetary incentive to use the Ellis Act to circumvent the just-cause protections of a local entity’s rent stabilization ordinance in order to empty buildings of lowerrent tenants and then re-enter the market by renting to new tenants at market rates.
Landlords use Ellis to accomplish this by following a similar pattern. Before any official notices to withdraw are served, landlords will do everything they can to empty the building of as many tenants as possible through legal means, such as buyouts, and through illegal means, such as tenant harassment. Once the landlord is left with only a few holdouts, who are typically the most vulnerable long-term tenants paying the lowest rent, the notice of withdrawal is served on the local [rent control] entity, which starts the clock on the Ellis process. If a unit is listed as “vacant” on the notice of withdrawal, it does not have a current rent-stabilized rent attached to it. Once the building is 4 completely empty, the landlord waits out the time period with the most restrictions, which is two years, and then re-rents only those units that were listed as “vacant.” The landlord claims that the property is only back on the market as to those units, so they can continue to earn rental income without having to follow any of the other Ellis restrictions. Then, the [landlord] waits out the 5-year period, which requires any re-rental of previously-occupied units to be at the rental rate at the time of withdrawal, before re-renting any other units.
Status of Legislation
This measure is currently pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Support
Coalition for Economic Survival (co-sponsor)
Tenderloin Housing Clinic (co-sponsor)
Abundant Housing LA
AIDS Healthcare Foundation
Alliance of Californians for Community
Empowerment (ACCE)
Asian Americans Advancing Justice - California
Bend the Arc: Jewish Action, Southern California
Bet Tzedek Legal Services
Build Affordable Faster
California Housing Partnership Corporation
California Latinas for Reproductive Justice
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
California YIMBY
Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable
Economy (CAUSE)
Chispa
City of Lafayette
City of Oakland
City of Santa Monica
City of West Hollywood
Community Housing Partnership San Francisco
East Bay Housing Organizations
East Bay YIMBY
Ground Game LA
HomeRise
Housing Is a Human Right
Housing Now!
Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco
Law Foundation of Silicon Valley
Livable California
Mountain View YIMBY
Peninsula for Everyone
PICO California
Public Advocates
Public Counsel
San Francisco Anti-Displacement Coalition
San Francisco YIMBY
Santa Cruz YIMBY
Santa Monica Democratic Club
Senior and Disability Action
Sierra Business Council
San Luis Obispo County YIMBY
South Bay Community Land Trust
South Bay YIMBY
Strategic Actions for a Just Economy (SAJE)
TechEquity Collaborative
Tenants Together
United Way of Greater Los Angeles
University of California Student Association
Western Center on Law & Poverty
Westside for Everyone
YIMBY Action
4 individuals
Opposition
Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles
California Apartment Association
California Association of Realtors
California Rental Housing Association
South California Rental Housing Association
April 27, 2022
To: Cindy Owens, City of Beverly Hills
From: Andrew K. Antwih, Partner, Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange Priscilla Quiroz, Legislative Advocate, Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange Re: SB 986 (Umberg) Vehicles: catalytic converters.
Version
As introduced on February 14, 2022
Summary
Requires a traceable method of payment for catalytic converters; provides that the exemption for catalytic converters received pursuant to a written agreement is only valid if the written agreement also includes a regularly updated log or record describing each catalytic converter received under the agreement, as specified; prohibits a dealer or retailer from selling a new motor vehicle equipped with a catalytic converter unless the catalytic converter has been engraved or etched with the vehicle identification number of the vehicle to which it is attached, punishable by an infraction.
Background
Catalytic Converters
Catalytic converters are devices that reduce pollution-causing emissions. Since 1975, all vehicles produced in the United States must have a catalytic converter as part of the exhaust system. Some vehicles may have more than one catalytic converter. The precious metals inside act as catalysts; when hot exhaust enters the converter, a chemical reaction occurs that renders toxic gases, such as carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons, into less harmful emissions.
Metal theft generally becomes an issue on a broad scale when the price of metals themselves increase, usually coupled with hard economic times. This Committee has heard two bills in the last 15 years that follow this trend – SB 627 (Calderon, Chapter 603, Statutes of 2009) on the theft of catalytic converters following the Great Recession, and SB 1387 (Emmerson, Chapter 656, Statues of 2012) on the topic of prohibiting junk dealers and recyclers from possessing fire hydrants, manhole covers or backflow devices without proper certification, as specified, among other items.
Current Law
Core Recyclers.
SB 627 offered a solution to the catalytic converter problem in 2009. It defined “core recyclers” as a person or business including a recycler or junk dealer, that buys used individual catalytic converters, transmissions, or other parts previously removed from a vehicle. It also specified a person or business that buys a vehicle that may contain these parts is not a core recycler. Typically in Shaw
Yoder
Antwih
Schmelzer
&Lange
SYASLpartners.com
141 5 L Street
Suite 1 000
Sacramento
CA, 95814
916-446-4656
2 automotive parts transactions, to ensure that as many parts get recycled as possible, a core charge may be added to the price of some parts, then the core charge is refunded to the customer when the original part is returned within an allotted timeframe. The term “core” stands for “cash on receipt of exchange.” It usually refers to the basic elements of a part that can be rebuilt or recycled. It is common for core charges to be required when buying brake shoes, or brake pads, break master cylinders, starters, alternators, transmissions, engine blocks, and other parts. At the time, “core recycler” was included in the bill because there were a number of people that had not interpreted current law as including them in the provisions which relate to junk dealers or recyclers, and so they did not follow the information collection, and payment requirements that were placed upon recyclers. Defining core recyclers sought to close a loophole in the existing system.
Catalytic Converter Theft Today.
Today, the prices of metals such as rhodium, platinum, and palladium inside of catalytic converters have increased dramatically in the last few years, both because they were in short supply prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and because of recent supply chain issues. For example, from January 1, 2020 to May 7, 2020, the price of palladium increased from $1928 per oz to $2961.5 per oz (54% increase).
According to an NPR article, Rhodium now sells at roughly $28,000 per ounce, though only a small portion of that goes inside a catalytic converter. Platinum pays at about $1530 per ounce.
According to the National Insurance Crime Bureau, there has been a ten-fold increase in catalytic converter thefts since 2018, with more than 14,000 reported catalytic converters stolen in 2020, with BeenVerified estimating there were 65,398 thefts nationwide – a 353% increase from reported catalytic converter thefts in 2020. According to an NPR article, recyclers can pay $50-$200 to legally obtain a failed catalytic converter, or one from a junked vehicle. With high metal prices, though, it is possible for processors to make several hundred per unit selling contents to the refinery.
According to insurance company and industry publications, vehicles that sit higher from the ground, such as trucks, pick-ups and SUVs, are particularly vulnerable to catalytic converter theft because thieves can slide underneath without having to jack up the vehicle to gain access to the converter.
With just a few cuts of a battery powered saw, the converter can often be removed in less than a minute or two. Thieves typically look for vehicles that are parked for prolonged periods of time in large lots, such as shopping centers, mass transit commuter lots or company parking lots. Today, catalytic converters are typically sold illegally on places like Craigslist, Facebook Marketplace, and eBay Motors. If a catalytic converter is stolen, consumers must generally pay $400-$3000 for a catalytic converter replacement, depending on the make and model of the vehicle.
Permanent Marking of Catalytic Converters.
Permanent marking, or etching, of catalytic converters is one method by which one could identify a stolen catalytic converter. With the increased interest in catalytic converter VIN etching services, a variety of etching products and techniques have been developed. One of the most common methods of etching a catalytic converter is to use an engraving hand tool to etch the number into the equipment. Manual engraving tools can be purchased from hardware stores or online from a wide range of retailers for $25 – $400+. Chemical etch labels and kits can also be a cost-effective technique (often less than $30) to ensure that even if the label is removed, identification information is still permanently detectable on the equipment. Automated industrial-level VIN etching machines can cost thousands, generally over $1,000 for a small and simple machine and over $5-10,000 for a larger and more complex machine, but many automotive professionals can still etch catalytic converters rapidly and effectively with manual tools.
3 While the etching process itself is generally simple and inexpensive, accessing the catalytic converter for etching can be difficult for many newer car models. Catalytic converters are typically located on the underside of the car, but many newer vehicle models incorporate the catalytic converter as a part of the exhaust manifold, essentially making the catalytic converter difficult to access without disassembling a significant portion of the vehicle engine. In these cases, automobile technicians require specialized equipment and additional time to access the catalytic converter for etching.
Traceable catalytic converters may disincentive theft by prohibiting establish businesses from servicing vehicles with stolen goods; however, it does not stop third party selling such as the vendors described above. Overall, this is a step in reducing theft, but it might not fully eliminate it.
Status of Legislation
The bill had its first hearing in the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development April 4, 2022, and passed with a vote of 14-0. On April 26, the bill was heard in Senate Public Safety Committee, and passed 4-0 with 1 abstention. The measure is now headed to Senate Appropriations Committee for a review of the impact on state finances.
Arguments in Support
The Sponsor of the bill, The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, writes in support and states, “Catalytic converter thefts have reached epidemic levels nationally and in the State of California. Nationally, there has been a 1,171% increase in these thefts since 2019. A recent report released by State Farm Insurance showed that California leads the nation in the number of catalytic converter thefts. In Los Angeles County, the Sheriff’s Department reported a 400% increase in catalytic converter thefts from 2019 to 2020. Across California, catalytic converter replacements increased more than 90% in 2020. State Farm paid over $10.8 million for 4,507 catalytic converter theft claims in California in 2020. Last year, those numbers more than doubled to $23 million paid for 9,057 theft claims.” According to the Sponsor, there are significant legal challenges to addressing catalytic converter thefts in California, including the absence of serial number identification markings on catalytic converters and a lack of obligation for core recyclers to obtain information necessary to identify the origin of a catalytic converter prior to purchase. The Sponsor also state, “SB 986 is necessary to combat the overwhelming surge in catalytic converter thefts which have placed an enormous burden on the victims of these crimes. The changes proposed by this bill aim to deter would-be thieves from engaging in these thefts in the first place and to assist law enforcement in apprehending those individuals who choose to commit these crimes.” The California Contract Cities Association (CCCA) writes in support and notes, “Presently, catalytic converters are often not engraved with a VIN. As a result, the part is stolen more frequently than others. The bill directly responds to this issue by requiring a VIN and written record keeping, which ensures there is a paper trail outlining who purchased the part when. Another key element of this theft is imposing penalties for the crime. Presently, SB 986 states that this theft would be punishable as an infraction, and through fines that increase based on the number of convictions. Given the rampant rate of catalytic converter theft many cities are seeing across the state, CCCA encourages the legislature to consider increasing these penalties further and implementing guidelines for recycling facilities that accept the stolen materials to effectively discourage and prevent more theft in the future.”
Arguments in Opposition
The California New Car Dealers Association (CNCDA) states that it opposes the bill unless amended, and notes, “While we agree that catalytic converter theft is an issue, we differ in our approach regarding the etching or engraving of catalytic converters. Senator Umberg proposes to bar dealers 4 from selling new and used vehicles equipped with a catalytic converter unless the catalytic converter has been engraved or etched with the vehicle identification number (VIN) of the vehicle to which it is attached.
While older model year vehicles may have catalytic converters that are relatively easy to access, many newer vehicles do not. For example, many vehicle models incorporate the catalytic converter as a part of the exhaust manifold, essentially making the catalytic converter almost impossible to access without taking apart half of the vehicle’s engine. In many cases, permanent marking of the catalytic converter will take hours of vehicle technician time and cost multiple hundreds of dollars to complete.
While new car dealers do sell used vehicles, the vehicles usually targeted for catalytic converter theft are “aged out” of most new car dealer lots simply due to mileage, age, and condition and are instead sold via private party on platforms like Craigslist, eBay Motors, and Facebook Marketplace, where there would be no mandate to permanently mark the catalytic converter before sale. Additionally, given that newer vehicles have catalytic converters that are often much more difficult to access than on older vehicles, we are unsure that this sales ban would have a meaningful impact on the problem at hand.
All of that being said, CNCDA wants to be part of the solution and very much appreciates Senator Umberg and his staff’s willingness to work with us. If this committee does decide to move forward with the sales prohibition in place, we would ask that dealers be reasonably compensated for the work being performed.”
Support
Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office (Sponsor) California Contract Cities Association
California District Attorneys Association
City of Buena Park
City of Huntington Beach
City of Lakewood
Consumers for Auto Reliability & Safety
Fountain Valley Police Department
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
Orange County Sheriff's Department
Prosecutor’s Alliance of California
Opposition
California New Car Dealers Association
April 26, 2022
To: Cindy Owens, City of Beverly Hills
From: Andrew K. Antwih, Partner, Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange Priscilla Quiroz, Legislative Advocate, Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange Re: SB 1456 (Stern) Property Taxes: Welfare Exemption: Low Income Housing Version
As Amended in the Senate on March 31, 2022
Summary
Eliminates the current $20 million statewide cap on the value of property that would qualify for a property tax exemption known as a welfare exemption. This type of property tax exemption applies to property that is utilized exclusively for non-publicly financed affordable housing. The measure applies to lien dates on or after the effective date of this bill.
Existing Law
The California Constitution provides that all property is taxable unless explicitly exempted by the Constitution or federal law, but also allows the Legislature to exempt property used exclusively for charitable purposes so long as non-profit entities own the property and those entities are organized and operated for charitable purposes, such as universities, hospitals, and libraries. The Legislature enacted this exemption, commonly known as the “welfare exemption.” The welfare exemption has a similar policy genesis as tax-exempt status for charitable groups: revenues paid in tax to the government divert needed resources away from the organizations’ good works.
The welfare exemption includes property used for rental housing, if:
Tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds; general obligation bonds; federal, state, or local grants; or federal low-income housing tax credits finance the housing, The property is restricted for low-income housing, and rents do not exceed those prescribed through deed restrictions, and
The property owner certifies that funds that would have been used to pay property taxes are used to maintain the affordability of the units or reduce rents.
For projects with both low-income and market rate units, the owner can claim a partial exemption, equal to that percentage of the value of the property equal to the percentage that the number of units serving lower income households represents of the total number of residential units.
Prior to 1999, rental housing owners could claim a welfare exemption from property tax for lowincome housing if 20% of the property’s residents were low-income. After the Los Angeles Housing Project investigated poorly managed housing projects, they discovered that tax-exempt property owners were not providing basic maintenance to housing that qualified them for the exemption from Shaw
Yoder
Antwih
Schmelzer
&Lange
SYASLpartners.com
141 5 L Street
Suite 1 000
Sacramento
CA,95814
916-446-4656
2 property tax. Responding to the investigation, the Legislature enacted AB 1559 (Wiggins, 1999), which repealed the occupancy test, instead requiring all owners to receive public financing in the forms listed above for the project to claim the welfare exemption, in addition to the above requirements. However, AB 1559 revoked the exemption for many worthy properties owned by charities that were not publicly financed, so the Legislature subsequently enacted AB 659 (Wiggins, 2000), which again allowed an exemption for non-publicly financed rental housing property, subject to several requirements:
Ninety percent of the households occupying the housing must be low-income persons, whose rent does not exceed specified limits for low-income persons; The property is subject to a recorded deed restriction, regulatory agreement, or other legal document restricting the property’s use to low-income housing. A cap in the exemption amount of $20,000 in tax for all properties the taxpayer owns in the state; and
A requirement that the property be managed solely by a charitable non-profit organization (specifically, excluding limited partnerships) to be eligible for the exemption.
Since 2000, the value of housing has increased, compelling some non-profits to pay taxes on amounts that exceeded the cap, and discouraging other groups from acquiring rental housing in the hopes of preserving existing affordable units in their areas. In response, the Legislature enacted SB 996 (Hill, 2016), which:
Quintupled the cap, and revised it to instead apply to the property’s value, not the tax paid, with the new threshold at $10 million of assessed value; Created a process for taxpayers to file a claim to cancel any outstanding taxes or escape assessments due on values that exceeded the previous cap; and Required property owners claiming the welfare exemption to provide specified information regarding the household income of and the rent charged to an occupant of an exempt unit.
In 2018, the Legislature again increased the cap to $20 million in value (SB 1115, Hill), and created a process for taxpayers to file a claim to have any outstanding taxes or escape assessments cancelled.
Charitable organizations that own and operate rental housing projects can claim the exemption up to the cap, but must pay tax on value above that amount, which deters them from purchasing more.
The author wants to eliminate the cap to increase the supply of affordable housing.
Background
According to the author, “There is an overwhelming need for more housing in California. According to the latest Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), the state will need 2.5 million new homes over the next 8 years to meet housing goals, with at least one million of that total to meet the needs for low-income housing. The National Low Income Housing Coalition estimates that the state is short more than 962,000 affordable homes for extremely low-income renters.
The author argues that the lack of affordable housing has contributed to our homeless crisis, with more than 160,000 Californians living on the streets and millions more living one paycheck away from homelessness. Despite strong efforts by the Legislature and the Governor to meet our housing needs, we are still failing to achieve our housing goals. 3 The author points out that current law does not treat all developers the same. Nonprofit developers that use public funds such as tax credits or state or federal grants and loans are eligible for a 100% property tax exemption. A nonprofit developer that privately finances low-income housing and uses no public funds is eligible for a property tax exemption up to a maximum of $20 million in aggregate valuation. The author argues that there is irony in the fact that projects with no direct state costs for development are subject to the current $20 million limit in assessed value while a project that can cost the state millions of dollars receives a property tax exemption up to 100% on an unlimited number of projects.
The author’s stated goal for SB 1456 is to level the playing field so that all nonprofit developers who are contributing to affordable housing stock are treated the same.
Status of Legislation
This measure is scheduled for hearing in the Senate Committee on Appropriations on May 2, 2022.
Support
Aids Healthcare Foundation
California Business Roundtable
California Catholic Conference
Coalition for Economic Survival (CES)
UNITE HERE! Local 11
Opposition
Attachment 2
CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS
POLICY AND MANAGEMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council Liaison/Legislative/Lobby Committee
FROM: Rachel Evans, Human Services Administrator
Cynthia Owens, Policy and Management Analyst
DATE: May 2, 2022
SUBJECT: Request to Send a Letter of Support to the Governor for Funding for the Commission on the State of Hate in the State’s Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Budget
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Letter of Support from August 18, 2021
BACKGROUND
On July 19, 2021, the Beverly Hills City Council Legislative/Lobby Committee (Councilmember Mirisch and Councilmember Gold), voted to support Assembly Bill 1126 (Bloom) - Commission on the State of Hate, which established the Commission on the State of Hate in the state government. The Commission provides resources to various state agencies and the public to inform them on the state of hate, and advise the Legislature, the Governor, and state agencies on policy recommendations to promote intersocial education designed to foster mutual respect and understanding among California’s diverse population.
Assemblymember Bloom introduced this bill in 2021 as, in the last few years, there has been a disturbing rise of hate crimes, especially violent hate crimes, in this state and in this country.
According to the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism’s 2020 Report to the Nation, hate crime totals for 2019 hit their highest level in over a decade, with 7,314 hate crime “incidents” reported. In 2020, anti-Asian hate crimes alone surged by 149 percent. Tragically, these hate crimes are becoming more violent and more deadly, with recorded increases in hate related homicides and violent assaults.
The City Council voted to support the recommendation of the Legislative/Lobby Committee Liaisons on August 3, 2021. The City sent a letter of support on August 18, 2021 (Attachment 1). This bill passed both the State Assembly and State Senate and was presented to Governor Gavin Newsom for signature. This bill was signed by Governor Newsom on October 8, 2021 and became law on January 1, 2022.
Assemblymember Richard Bloom was invited to speak on the Commission on the State of Hate, at the February 17, 2022 Human Relations Commission meeting. After Assemblymember Bloom’s presentation, Commissioner Vered Nisim asked the Assemblymember if the bill had a funding mechanism. Assemblymember Bloom responded that he anticipated that there would be about $5 million dollars in this year’s budget, but it was not guaranteed. Bloom stated, “It would be helpful to have letters written to the governor, to legislators, encouraging them to support the funding of the Commission on the State of Hate.” A motion was made by Commissioner Nisim, and seconded by Vice Chair Freeman, that the Commission recommend to the City Council that a letter of support be sent to Governor 2 of 2
Newsom, urging him to include funding for the Commission on the State of Hate in the state budget. The motion was unanimously approved by the full commission.
RECOMMENDATION
This item requests the City Council Legislative/Lobby Committee recommend to the City Council that the City send a letter of support to the Governor urging him to include funding for the Commission on the State of Hate in the state FY 23 budget.
Should the Liaisons recommend the City take a position on this item, then staff will place the item on a future City Council Agenda for concurrence.
Attachment 1
CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS
455 NORTH REXFORD DRIVE ▪ BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90210 Robert Wunderlich, Mayor
August 18, 2021
The Honorable Richard Bloom
California State Assembly, 50th District
State Capitol, Room 2003
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: AB 1126 (Bloom) Commission on the State of Hate
City of Beverly Hills – SUPPORT
Dear Assemblymember Bloom,
On behalf of the City of Beverly Hills, I am pleased to write to you in SUPPORT of your AB 1126, which establishes the Commission on the State of Hate. The Commission would provide resources to various state agencies and the public to inform them on the state of hate, and advise the Legislature, the Governor, and state agencies on policy recommendations to promote intersocial education designed to foster mutual respect and understanding among California’s diverse population.
In the last few years, there has been a disturbing rise of hate crimes, especially violent hate crimes, in this state and in this country. According to the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism’s 2020 Report to the Nation, hate crime totals for 2019 hit their highest level in over a decade, with 7,314 hate crime “incidents” reported. In 2020, anti-Asian hate crimes alone surged by 149 percent.
Tragically, these hate crimes are becoming more violent and more deadly, with recorded increases in hate related homicides and violent assaults.
Currently, the state’s Attorney General is already required, subject to the availability of adequate funding, to direct local law enforcement agencies to report hate crime data to the Department of Justice, which must be compiled and made public.
AB 1126 would establish the Commission on the State of Hate to work with community and academic partners to improve hate crime and hate incident reporting to help the commission identify trends in California. For these reasons, the City of Beverly Hills is pleased to SUPPORT your AB 1126.
Sincerely,
Robert Wunderlich
Mayor, City of Beverly Hills
cc: Members and Consultants, Senate Appropriations Committee Members and Consultants, Senate Judiciary Committee
Members and Consultants, Senate Governmental Organization Committee The Honorable Ben Allen, 26th Senate District
Andrew K. Antwih, Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange