Beverly Hills City Council
August 23, 2022

AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: August 23, 2022
Item Number:

To: Honorable Mayor & City Council
From: Cynthia Owens, Policy and Management Analyst
Subject: APPROVAL OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE BEVERLY Attachments: 1. Bill Summary Memos

2. Bill Summary Memo – SB 58, 2019 – Provides Background Information for SB 930 Regarding Impacts of Extending Hours for Alcohol Sales

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council:
 Approve the recommendations of the Beverly Hills City Council Legislative / Lobby Liaison Committee (“Committee”) to support the following legislative bills:
o H.R.1781 - PROTECT Kids Act
o H.R. 8404: Respect for Marriage Act
 Approve the recommendations of the Committee to oppose the following ballot measure and legislative bill:
o Proposition 27 - the Corporate Online Gambling Proposition o Senate Bill 930 (Wiener) – Alcoholic Beverages: Hours of Sale  Approve the recommendations of the Committee to remain neutral on the following legislative bills:
o Assembly Bill 2147 (Ting) – Pedestrians
o Assembly Bill 1909 (Friedman) - Vehicles: Bicycle Omnibus Bill

INTRODUCTION
This item seeks City Council approval of the Committee’s (Vice Mayor Gold and Councilmember Mirisch) recommendations for the position of support, oppose, and/or remain neutral on Proposition 27 as well as various federal and state legislative bills not

HILLS CITY COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE / LOBBY LIAISON COMMITTEE

TO SUPPORT, OPPOSE, AND/OR REMAIN NEUTRAL ON
PROPOSITION 27 AS WELL AS VARIOUS FEDERAL AND STATE

LEGISLATIVE BILLS, INCLUDING A REQUEST BY

COUNCILMEMBER NAZARIAN FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO
CONSIDER TAKING A POSITION ON SENATE BILL 930 (WIENER) – ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES: HOURS OF SALE
E-5
Meeting Date: August 23, 2022

addressed in the City's adopted 2022 Legislative Platform. 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 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.

Legislative/Lobby Committee Recommendations
On August 23, 2022, the Committee met to discuss a variety of federal and state legislative bills. The Committee provided direction on various state legislative bills as briefly described below. More details on each item may be found in Attachment 1 and 2 to this report.

Committee Recommendation: Support – Requires Council Concurrence The Committee recommended the City support the bills listed below. As their subject matter is not addressed in the City’s Platform, the position of support requires concurrence by the City Council.
 H.R. 1781 - PROTECT Kids Act (“H.R. 1781”) addresses the collection of personal information from children while online. The bill seeks to protect children from being taken advantage of or abused online by raising the standards of protection mandated by law for the collection of information by widening the definition of protected personal information, raising the age for parental consent protections to under 16, and extends all protections for children to mobile applications.
 H.R. 8404 - Respect for Marriage Act (“H.R. 8404”) provides statutory authority for same-sex and interracial marriages. It repeals and replaces provisions that define, for purposes of federal law, marriage as between a man and a woman and spouse as a person of the opposite sex with provisions that recognized any marriage that is valid under state law.

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 recommendation support made by the Committee.

Committee Recommendation: Oppose – Requires Council Concurrence The Committee recommended the City oppose the ballot measure and legislative bill listed below. As their subject matter is not addressed in the City’s Platform, the position of oppose requires concurrence by the City Council:
 Proposition 27 - the Corporate Online Gambling Proposition (“Prop 27”) would legalize online and mobile sports wagering, which currently is prohibited, for Meeting Date: August 23, 2022

persons 21 years and older. Such wagering may be offered only by federally recognized Indian tribes and eligible businesses that contract with them.  Senate Bill 930 (Wiener) – Alcoholic Beverages: Hours of Sale (“SB 930”) is a request by Councilmember Nazarian for the City Council to consider taking a positon on this bill. SB 930, beginning January 1, 2025, until January 2, 2028, requires the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) to conduct a pilot program that issues an additional-hours license to an on-sale licensee located in qualified cities (Palm Springs and West Hollywood and the City and County of San Francisco), authorizing the licensee to serve alcoholic beverages between 2 a.m. and 4 a.m.

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 recommendation oppose made by the Committee.

Committee Recommendation: Neutral – Requires Council Concurrence The Committee recommended the City remain neutral on the bills listed below.  Assembly Bill 2147 (Ting) – Pedestrians (“AB 2147”) prohibits a peace officer from stopping a pedestrian for specified traffic infractions unless a reasonably careful person would realize there is an immediate danger of collision with a moving vehicle or other device moving exclusively by human power. This bill also requires the California Highway Patrol to submit a report to the Legislature regarding statewide pedestrian-related crash data.
 Assembly Bill 1909 (Friedman) - Vehicles: Bicycle Omnibus Bill (“AB 1909”) changes, comprehensively, the rules of the road and restrictions on bicycle operations. The bill eliminates the statewide ban of class 3 electric bicycles on a bicycle path or trail, bikeway, bicycle lane, equestrian trail, or hiking or recreational trail. AB 1909 authorizes a local authority to prohibit the operation of any electric bicycle or any class of electric bicycle on an equestrian trail, or hiking or recreational trail.

Staff is seeking City Council concurrence on the recommendation by the Committee for the City to take a neutral position on these two bills.

Committee Recommendations Which Align with Legislative Platform – No Concurrence by the City Council Required.

The City’s state lobbyist presented one bill to the Committee, which has a nexus to the City’s Platform. This bill is:
 Assembly Bill 1551 (Santiago) - Planning and Zoning: Development Bonuses:

Mixed-Use (“AB 1551”) this bill extends the sunset on the density bonus program for commercial properties to January 1, 2028. This bill requires a local jurisdiction to grant a density bonus for a commercial development if the developer enters into an agreement to provide affordable housing which meets certain, identified criteria.

The applicable statements from the City’s Platform on AB 1551 includes:
 Oppose state legislation that supersedes a jurisdiction’s adopted zoning ordinances.
 Oppose preemption of the City of Beverly Hills’ local authority whether by state or federal legislation or ballot propositions.
 Oppose legislation with mandates for local agency adherence to operations and programs that may not be reimbursable by State budget funds (e.g. unfunded state mandates)
Meeting Date: August 23, 2022

The Committee’s recommendation on this bill was consistent with the City’s Platform; therefore, no concurrence of the Committee’s recommendation is required by the City Council. A letter is being drafted for the Mayor to sign and will be sent to the appropriate state elected officials.

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
H.R. 1781 - PROTECT Kids Act Little to no anticipated fiscal impact.

H.R. 8404 - Respect for Marriage Act Little to no anticipated fiscal impact.

Proposition 27 - the Corporate Online
Gambling Proposition
Unknown.

SB 930 - Alcoholic Beverages: Hours of
Sale
Unknown. Potential increase in the City’s
public safety budget due to West
Hollywood being allowed to sell alcohol
until 4 a.m. Staff anticipates an increase
in more drivers being under the influence
and traveling through Beverly Hills.

AB 2147 - Pedestrians Little to no anticipated fiscal impact.

AB 1909 - Vehicles: Bicycle Omnibus Bill Little to no anticipated fiscal impact.

AB 1551 (Santiago) - Planning and Zoning:

Development Bonuses: Mixed-Use
Unknown. AB 1551 adds to the duties of
local planning officials without providing
funding from the state to offset the costs.

AB 1551 disclaims the state's
responsibility for providing
reimbursement by citing local
governments’ authority to charge for the
costs of implementing the bill's
provisions.

Nancy Hunt Coffey
Assistant City Manager
Approved By
Attachment 1
TO: Cindy Owens, Policy and Management Analyst
City of Beverly Hills
FROM: Seanne Weekes
[email protected]
202-543-3744
DATE: August 8, 2022
RE: H.R. 1781 - PROTECT Kids Act
On March 10, 2021 the Preventing Real Online Threats Endangering Children Today Act was introduced in the House. This bill addresses the collection of personal information from children while online. The bill seeks to protect children from being taken advantage of or abused online by raising the standards of protection mandated by law for the collection of information by widening the definition of protected personal information, raising the age for parental consent protections to under 16, and extends all protections for children to mobile applications as well.

This bill will also require website operators, online service providers and mobile applications to delete a child’s personal information upon a verified request by a parent or guardian. It will also prohibit these operators from terminating service to a child whose parent or guardian has refused to permit the collection or use of that child’s personal information.

As part of the bill, the Federal Trade Commission must study and report on how appropriate the existing actual knowledge standard, which prevents an operator from collecting personal information without meeting certain requirements when it has actual knowledge that the information regards a child, is, and what effects changing this standard might have on children’s privacy while online or on mobile applications. This bill is currently in the House Energy and Commerce Committee in the subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce. Currently the bill has one cosponsor, Representative Bobby Rush (D-IL), in addition to the sponsor, Representative Tim Walberg (R-MI).

A similar bill, S. 1628, the Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act was introduced in the Senate on May 13, 2021, by Senator Ed Markey (D-MA). Known as COPPA 2.0 in reference to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, which was signed into law October 21, 1998, this bill will amend the current law to expand protections to all minors between 12 and 16 years old and strengthen the regulatory framework for upholding the law. There are 3 cosponsors for this bill, Senators Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Cynthia Lummis (RWY). The bill was approved to move to the Senate floor by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation on Wednesday, July 27, 2022.

A third bill was introduced this year to address children’s safety online. S. 3663, the Kids Online Safety Act was introduced by Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) on February 16, 2022. This bill focuses on online platform algorithmic recommendations and how they target children under the age of 16. There are 7 cosponsors for this bill. They are Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Ed Markey (D-MA), Shelley Moore Copito (R-WV), Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM), Bill Cassidy (RLA), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), and Joni Ernst (R-IA). The bill was approved to move forward to 2acid arch and Associates
517 2nd STREET, NORTHEAST, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 543-3744 the Senate floor by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation on Wednesday, July 27, 2022.

All three bills have yet to see either the House or Senate floor and are subject to extensive amendments and changes as they move forward. Both Senate bills are expected to see a floor vote when the Senate returns from recess.

TO: Cindy Owens, Policy and Management Analyst
City of Beverly Hills
FROM: Seanne Weekes
[email protected]
202-543-3744
DATE: August 8, 2022
RE: H.R. 8404: Respect for Marriage Act
On July 19, 2022, the House passed the Respect for Marriage Act with a bipartisan vote of 267- 157. The bill received unanimous support from the Democrats and 47 votes from Republicans.

The measure was introduced in the House on July 18, 2022. The bill provides statutory authority for same-sex and interracial marriages. It repeals and replaces provision that define, for purposes of federal law, marriage as between a man and a woman and spouse as a person of the opposite sex with provisions that recognized any marriage that is valid under state law. This bill follows the 2013 Supreme Court ruling that held that the current provisions were unconstitutional in United States v. Windsor. Included is language that repeals and replaces provisions that do not require states to recognize marriages considered valid in and from other states, with language that prohibits the denial of full faith and credit or any right or claim relating to out-of-state marriages on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin. Once again upholding Supreme Court rulings: Loving v. Virginia in 1967 which holds that states barring interracial marriages were unconstitutional, and Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015, which holds that state laws barring same-sex marriages were unconstitutional.

The bill was received in the Senate on July 20, 2022 and has been placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar. The House version of the bill has received broad public support from organizations and companies as far reaching as Disney, Sony, Apple, NBCUniversal, Comcast, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Human Rights Campaign, the Campaign for Southern Equality, WPP, Daniel J. Edelman Holdings, and PricewaterhouseCoopers, among many others.

A letter released on the 5th of August, 2022 by the Human Rights Campaign includes more than a hundred other companies and organizations who support the passage of this act. (FinalRespect-for-Marriage-Act-Letter-to-the-Senate-8.2022.pdf (hrc-prod-requests.s3-us-west2.amazonaws.com)) The bill is expected to see a Senate floor vote in September and all 50 Democrats are expected to vote in favor. In order to pass, the bill will need to secure a filibuster proof minimum of 60 votes.

Between overtly-stated public support and privately mentioned support from a number of Republicans, it appears that the bill may pass.

CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS

POLICY AND MANAGEMENT

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council Liaison/Legislative/Lobby Committee
FROM: Cynthia Owens, Policy and Management Analyst
DATE: August 16, 2022
SUBJECT: Proposition 27 - the Corporate Online Gambling Proposition ATTACHMENT: 1. Proposition 27
The City Council has historically taken positions on proposed federal and state legislation of interest to Beverly Hills because of the City's location, economy, programs, and policies through the adoption of a Legislative Platform.

This item presents a request by Councilmember Mirisch for the City Council Legislative/Lobby Committee to consider a position on Proposition 27. This proposition would legalize online and mobile sports wagering, which currently is prohibited, for persons 21 years and older. Such wagering may be offered only by federally recognized Indian tribes and eligible businesses that contract with them.

What would Proposition 27 do?
Proposition 27 proposes a constitutional amendment and statute to authorize a gaming tribe, an online sports betting platform with an operating agreement with a gaming tribe, or a qualified gaming company with a market access agreement with a gaming tribe to operate online sports betting for individuals 21 years of age or older in California but outside of Indian lands.

Currently, mobile and in-person sports betting is illegal in California.

The constitutional amendment would prohibit online sports betting on youth sports. Should it pass, Proposition 27 creates the Division of Online Sports Betting Control within the Department of Justice. The initiative would give the division authority to regulate the online sports betting industry and investigate illegal sports betting activities. The amendment would take effect on January 1, 2023.

Additionally, Proposition 27 would establish the California Online Sports Betting Trust Fund. The revenue from licensing fees, renewals, and the sports wagering tax would be deposited into the fund. After deducting regulatory costs, 85 percent of the fund's revenues would be allocated to California Solutions to Homelessness and Mental Health Support Account for permanent and interim housing and 15 percent of revenues to the Tribal Economic Development Account, which would be established by the initiative to provide funds to Indian tribes for expanding tribal government, public health, education, infrastructure, and economic development.

Who supports and opposes Proposition 27?
Californians for Solutions to Homelessness and Mental Health Support is leading the campaign in support of Proposition 27. As of June 30, the campaign had raised over $100 million. Its top three donors include BetMGM LLC, Betfair Interactive US LLC (FanDuel Sportsbook), and 2 of 2
Crown Gaming, Inc. (DraftKings). Nathan Click, a spokesman for the campaign, said, "Our measure is the only one that would guarantee hundreds of millions each year in solutions to homelessness and mental health support. We have found Californians are enthusiastic about it and the housing and mental health solutions it would provide the state.” Californians for Tribal Sovereignty and Safe Gaming and Coalition for Safe, Responsible Gaming are leading campaigns in opposition to the initiative. Together the committees have raised $114.13 million. The top three donors include the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, and the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation. Chairman James Siva of the California Nations Indian Gaming Association said, "Don’t be fooled. These measures are not a fix to homelessness, but rather a massive explosion of gaming that will directly undercut tribal sovereignty and self-sufficiency." The League of California Cities (“Cal Cities”) voted in July 2022 to oppose this ballot measure as it:
 Jeopardizes local tax revenues,
 Fails to ensure that all California cities receive funding to address homelessness,  Lacks proper enforcement mechanisms commensurate with the substantial increase in virtual sports wagering, and
 Creates an unlevel playing field between existing cardrooms and new market participants.

Where else is sports betting legal?
As of June 28, 2022, sports betting was legal, or laws to legalize had been approved, in 35 states as well as Washington, D.C. Five of the states—New Jersey (2011), Arkansas (2018), Colorado (2019), Maryland (2020), and South Dakota (2020)—legalized sports betting through a ballot measure.

After discussion of Proposition 27, the Liaisons may provide any direction they wish including  Adopting a position of support,
 Adopting a position of oppose,
 Or any other direction.

Should the Liaisons recommend the City take a position on Proposition 27, then staff will place the item on a future City Council Agenda for concurrence. Typically, this would include adopting a resolution in support/oppose of Proposition 27.

June 30, 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 930 (Wiener) Alcoholic Beverages: Hours of Sale: Pilot Program Version
As introduced on February 2, 2022, SB 930 (Wiener) included provisions that sought to expand current law under the Housing Accountability Act to include housing development projects that include extremely low income (ELI) housing units under the types of developments that are prohibited from being disapproved in regions that have not met their Regional Housing Need Allocations (RHNA) if the project complies with applicable objective standards, and would not have adverse impacts on public health or safety.

Gut and Amend. SB 930 (Wiener) was amended on June 2, 2022 to delete prior contents related to the Housing Accountability Act and insert new provisions related to authorize a pilot program to allow alcoholic beverages to be served at retail establishments in designated cities in the state (specified below) between 2am and 4am. Detailed summary below.

Summary
Beginning January 1, 2025 and January 2, 2030, requires the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) to conduct a pilot program that issues an “additional-hours license” to on-sale licensees located in the following local jurisdictions, defined in the bill as “qualified cities”, authorizing the licensee to serve alcoholic beverages between 2 a.m. and 4 a.m.: Cathedral City, Coachella, Fresno, Oakland, Palm Springs, West Hollywood and the City and County of San Francisco. Specifically, this bill:
1) Requires, to be eligible for the pilot program, the local governing body of a qualified city to:
a. Designate a task force, including a member of the Department of the California Highway Patrol (CHP), to develop a recommended local plan that takes into account support by residents and businesses, 2 public safety and transportation considerations and impact on adjacent localities, amongst other factors.
b. Adopt an ordinance that satisfies the elements of the local plan and, beginning January 1, 2023, submit the ordinance to ABC. 2) Requires ABC to review a submitted ordinance to ensure local plan criteria are met. Beginning January 1, 2023, ABC may review and approve ordinances and investigate and issue additional-hours licenses to on-sale licensees, but any pre-issued licenses are not effective until January 1, 2025.

The licensee applicant must notify specified stakeholders so protests to the application may be filed at any ABC office.
3) Specifies other requirements for additional-hours licensees, including that all persons engaged in the service of alcohol during the additional-hours period must complete a responsible beverage training course. Any person under 21 years of age who is on the licensed premises without lawful business during these hours is guilty of a misdemeanor. 4) Sets a nonrefundable $2,500 application fee and a $2,500 original and annual fee for an additional-hours license, to be deposited in the Alcohol Beverage Control Fund (ABC Fund).
5) Requires each participating city, within one year of the first additionalhours license issued in that city, and annually thereafter, as well as CHP, by January 1, 2029, to submit a report to the Legislature with specified data regarding the regional impact of the new licenses.

Existing Law
1) The enactment of the 21st Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1933 repealed the 18th Amendment and ended the era of
Prohibition. Accordingly, states were granted the authority to establish alcoholic beverage laws and administrative structures to regulate the sale and distribution of alcoholic beverages.
2) Establishes ABC and grants it exclusive authority to administer the provisions of the ABC Act (ABC Act) in accordance with laws enacted by the Legislature. This involves licensing individuals and businesses associated with the manufacture, importation, and sale of alcoholic beverages in this state and the collection of license fees.
3) Provides that the ABC Act is intended to protect the safety, welfare and morals of the residents of this state, eliminate the unlawful selling and disposing of alcoholic beverages, and to promote temperance in the use and consumption of alcoholic beverages.
4) Provides that any on-sale or off-sale licensee, or agent or employee of the licensee, who sells, gives or delivers to any person any alcoholic beverage between the hours of 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. of the same day, and any person who 3 knowingly purchases any alcoholic beverages between those hours, is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Business and Professions Code Section 25632) 5) Provides ABC must deny an application for a license if issuance would create a law enforcement problem, or if issuance would result in, or add to, an undue concentration of licenses in the area where the license is desired. For liquor stores and other specified retail licenses, however, the ABC is authorized to issue a license if the respective local government determines that public convenience or necessity would be served by granting the license. 6) Caps the number of new on and off-sale general licenses issued by ABC at one for every 2,500 inhabitants of the county where the establishment is located (2,000:1 for on-sale licenses). If no licenses are available from the state due to the population restrictions, those people interested in obtaining a liquor license may purchase one from an existing licensee, for whatever price the market bears. In 1994, the Legislature approved a three-year moratorium on the issuance of new off-sale beer and wine licenses, which at the time was not bound by any population to license restriction. In 1997, this moratorium was made permanent.
7) Defines an "on-sale" license as authorizing the sale of all types of alcoholic beverages: namely, beer, wine and distilled spirits, for consumption on the premises (such as at a restaurant or bar):
a. On-Sale General: Authorizes the sale of all types of alcoholic beverages: namely, beer, wine and distilled spirits, for consumption on the premises, and the sale of beer and wine for consumption off the premises.
b. On-Sale Beer and Wine: Authorizes the sale of all types of wine and malt beverages (e.g., beer, porter, ale, stout and malt liquor) for consumption on and off the premises.
c. On-Sale Beer: Authorizes the sale of malt beverages for consumption on and off the premises. (Business and Professions Code Sections 23393, 23394, 23396, and 23399)
8) Defines "bona fide public eating place" as a licensed premises that are maintained in good faith and used for the regular service of meals to patrons. The premises must have suitable kitchen facilities and supply an assortment of foods commonly ordered at various hours of the day. There are no restrictions regarding minors entering or remaining on premises licensed and maintained and operated as a bona fide public eating-place. 9) States an "off-sale" license authorizes the sale of all types of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises in original, sealed containers.

Background
According to the author, many of the state’s food service and entertainment establishments, including social and nightlife venues, are still struggling from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. The author further notes:

Currently, our California destination cities are at a disadvantage when competing with cities both nationally and internationally for tourists, conventions, and conferences. Additionally, the [2 a.m.] mandatory closure time creates stress on public services, transportation, and local law enforcement when patrons are 4 simultaneously pushed out onto the street at the exact same time. SB 930 seeks to solve these issues in a safe and manageable way, while ensuring California’s nightlife is provided the tools needed to aid in its recovery.

This bill is supported by some of the qualified cities that could participate in the pilot program, as well as those cities’ tourism boards and the California Travel Association, which states, “SB 930 is a reasonable solution that provides certain cities the ability to participate in a pilot program that will give them additional tools to enhance their local economies and help entice more visitors to California.” This bill is opposed by a local neighborhood association, organizations against increased alcohol consumption and the California Association of Highway Patrolmen, which states, “With bars closing near the commute hour, there will be more drivers on the road and the likelihood of drunk driving accidents will increase substantially.”
ABC has the exclusive authority to license and regulate the manufacturing, distribution and sale of alcoholic beverages within the state. Currently, ABC oversees more than 92,000 licensees throughout the state. Over the years, local governments have requested increased authority to directly regulate establishments that sell alcohol in their respective communities, especially regarding zoning laws and conditional use permits.

Since 1935, ABC licensees have been prohibited from selling, serving or allowing open containers of alcoholic beverages to remain in the public portion of the business from 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. This bill shortens these restricted hours to 4:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. for an on-sale licensee in a qualified city that holds an additional-hours license issued by ABC. There are approximately 6,000 on-sale licensees (generally, restaurants, bars, taverns and night clubs) located within the qualified cities that may participate in this pilot program.

Prior Legislation.

SB 58 (Wiener), of the 2019-2020 Legislative Session, was substantially similar to this bill, but would have limited the additional hour of sale to 3 a.m. and included the cities of Long Beach, Los Angeles and Sacramento as qualified cities. SB 58 failed passage on the Assembly Floor.

SB 905 (Wiener), of the 2017-18 Legislative Session, was substantially similar to SB 58, but would have allowed sales to continue until 4 a.m. and did not include the City of Fresno. SB 905 was vetoed by Governor Brown, who stated:

Without question, these two extra hours will result in more drinking. The businesses and cities in support of this bill see that as a good source of revenue. [CHP], however, strongly believes that this increased drinking will lead to more drunk driving. California's laws regulating late night drinking have been on the books since 1913. I believe we have enough mischief from midnight to 2 without adding two more hours of mayhem.
5 Status of Legislation/Pending Amendments
SB 930 (Wiener) was released from the suspense file in the Assembly Appropriation Committee on Friday, August 11th. The committee amended the bill to make the following changes:

Limit the duration of the pilot program to three years; and Limit the pilot program to the following three cities:
1) West Hollywood
2) Palm Springs
3) The City and County of San Francisco
Support
Bay Area Council
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
California Travel Association (CALTRAVEL)
City of Cathedral City
City of Palm Springs
Greater Palm Springs Convention & Visitors Bureau
Independent Hospitality Coalition
London Breed, Mayor of San Francisco
City of Oakland
Visit Oakland
West Hollywood Travel & Tourism Board
Opposition
Alcohol Justice
Barbary Coast Neighborhood Association
California Alcohol Policy Alliance
California Association of Highway Patrolmen
California Council on Alcohol Problems (CCAP)
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)
August 11, 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 2147 (Ting) Pedestrians – Updated Memo
Summary
Prohibits a peace officer from stopping a pedestrian for specified traffic infractions generally related to “jaywalking” unless a reasonably careful person would realize there is an immediate danger of collision with a moving vehicle or other device moving exclusively by human power.
1) Provides that a peace officer shall not stop a pedestrian for a violation of numerous vehicle code sections relating to a pedestrian crossing a roadway unless a reasonably careful person would realize there is an immediate danger of a collision with a moving vehicle or other device moving exclusively by human power.
2) Specifies that the provisions of this bill do not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using care for their safety or a bicyclist from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian.
3) Requires the Commissioner of the CHP to submit a report to the Legislature on or before January 1, 2028, regarding statewide pedestrian-related traffic crash data and any associated impacts to traffic safety, including an evaluation of whether and how the changes made by this bill have impacted pedestrian safety.

Background and Existing Law
Existing law requires drivers of a vehicle to yield the right-of-way to a pedestrians crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection. (Vehicle Code (VC) §21950 (a).) Existing law prohibits a pedestrian from suddenly leaving a curb or other place of safety and walking or running into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. The same provision prohibits a pedestrian from 2 unnecessarily stopping or delaying traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk. (VC § 21950(b).)
Existing law provides that the driver of any motor vehicle, prior to driver over or upon any sidewalk, shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian approaching thereon. (VC §21952)
Existing law requires that pedestrians upon a roadway to yield the right-of-way to all vehicles on a highway or roadway so near as to constitute an immediate hazard. (VC §§21953, 21954.)
Existing law provides that between adjacent intersections controlled by traffic control signal devices or by police officers, pedestrians shall not cross the roadway at any place except in a crosswalk. (VC §21955.)
Existing law prohibits a pedestrian from walking upon a roadway outside of a business or residence district otherwise than close to the pedestrian’s left-hand edge of the roadway. However, a pedestrian may walk close to their right-hand edge of the roadway if a crosswalk or other means of safely crossing the roadway is not available or if existing traffic or other conditions would compromise the safety of a pedestrian attempting to cross the road. (VC § 21956.) Existing law prohibits a pedestrian from proceeding along a bicycle path or line where there is an adjacent adequate pedestrian facility. (VC § 21966.) Existing law provides that a pedestrian facing a circular green traffic signal may proceed across the roadway but shall yield the right of way to vehicles lawfully within the intersection at the time that signal is first shown. (VC §21451(c).) Existing law provides that a pedestrian facing a green arrow turn signal shall not enter the roadway, other than as specified. (VC §21451(d).) Existing law provides that a pedestrian facing a circular yellow or yellow arrow signal, unless otherwise directed as specified, is, by that signal, warned that there is insufficient time to cross the roadway and shall not enter the roadway. (VC §21452(b).)
Existing law provides that a pedestrian facing a steady circular red or red arrow signal shall not enter the roadway. (VC §21453(d).)
Existing law provides that a pedestrian facing a “WALK” or “walking person” symbol may proceed across the roadway but must yield the right of way to vehicles lawfully within the intersection at the time the signal is first shown. (VC §21456(a).)
3 Existing law provides that a pedestrian facing a flashing “DON’T WALK,” “WAIT,” or “upraised hand” symbol may start to cross the roadway but must complete crossing prior to the display of a steady signal. (VC §21456(b).) Existing law provides that a pedestrian facing a steady “DON’T WALK,” “WAIT,” or “upraised hand” symbol or a similar flashing symbol but without a countdown shall not start to cross the roadway, but any pedestrian who started crossing and partially completed crossing shall proceed to a sidewalk or safety zone or otherwise leave the roadway. VC §21456(c).)
Existing law provides that it is unlawful for any pedestrian to fail to obey any sign or signal erected or maintained to indicate or carry out the provisions of the Vehicle Code or local traffic ordinance. (VC §21461.5.) Existing law provides that the driver of any vehicle, the person in charge of any animal, any pedestrian, and the motorman of any streetcar shall obey the instructions of any official traffic signal applicable to them and placed as provided by law, except under specified conditions. (VC §21462.) Existing law specifies that local authorities are not prevented from adopting ordinances prohibiting pedestrians from crossing roadways at other than crosswalks. (VC §21961.)
AB 2147 (Ting) would prohibit the enforcement of 13 different vehicle code sections that deal with pedestrians crossing roadways, unless there is reason to believe that there is an immediate danger of collision with a moving vehicle, bicycle, etc.

Violations of these code sections are commonly referred to as “jaywalking.” The base fine for these code sections is either $25 or $35, depending on the specific violation. For example, entering the roadway at a crosswalk when the signal is showing a “don’t walk” sign carries a $25 base fine, while entering the roadway where there is no crosswalk would be a $35 violation. The base fine is generally deposited into the County and/or City General Fund.* With penalty fees and assessments, these fines result in a total payment amount of $197 and $238, respectively.

The following is how the $25/$35 fine is eventually assessed as $197/$238, and how those revenues are distributed among state and local funds:
 A $30/$40 State Penalty Assessment (divided between the State Penalty Fund, the County General Fund, and the Trial Court Improvement and Modernization Fund)
 A $21/$28 County Penalty Assessment (mostly deposited into the Courthouse Construction fund and the Criminal Justice Facilities Construction Fund, the remainder to various special funds)
 A $15/$20 Court Construction Penalty Assessment (deposited into the State Court Facilities Fund*)
4  A $3/$4 Proposition 69 DNA Penalty Assessment (deposited into state and county DNA Identification Funds*)
 A $12/$16 DNA Identification Fund Penalty Assessment (deposited into the DNA Identification Fund*)
 A $6 Emergency Medical Services Penalty Assessment (deposited in the Maddy EMS Fund*)
 A $4 Emergency Medical Air Transportation Penalty Assessment (deposited into the Emergency Medical Air Transportation Fund*)
 A $40 Court Operations Assessment (deposited into the Trial Court Trust Fund)
 A $35 Conviction Assessment (deposited into State Court Facilities Construction Fund)
 A $1 Night Court Fee (deposited into the Night Court Session Fund) *Each of these fines/fees/assessments additionally deposits a small amount, usually less than $.20 into the Trial Improvement and Modernization Fund).

In October 2021, the City of Beverly Hills joined key federal transportation agencies to celebrate National Pedestrian Safety Month. The City of Beverly Hills has initiated numerous projects aimed at improving the pedestrian safety, including:
 Installing additional “Leading Pedestrian Interval” (LPI) timing throughout City traffic lights which allow for pedestrians to get a foursecond head start to begin crossing before drivers receive a green light, increasing visibility and prioritizing pedestrians in the crosswalk, like the provisions of AB 2264 (Bloom).
 Designing pedestrian crossing enhancements with curb extensions and flashing beacons throughout the city (construction to begin in 2022).  Implementing the “Complete Streets Plan” and Metro’s “First and Last Mile Plans” to improve pedestrian access and wayfinding to the future D (Purple) Line Stations.
 Continuing the City’s “Neighborhood Slow Streets Program” which identifies neighborhoods throughout the city in which the entire street width can be utilized for walking, cycling and other modes of nonmotorized transportation.  Adding additional bike parking corrals which free up sidewalk space for improved pedestrian travel (the city has already added five new on-street bike parking corrals on South Beverly Drive).

Argument in Support
According to a letter submitted by the two sponsor groups and a coalition of 20 other groups supporting the measure:
5 AB 2147 would reform the state’s ‘jaywalking’ laws by preventing law enforcement from citing pedestrians unless “a reasonably careful person would realize there is an immediate danger of a collision.” It does not decriminalize all street crossings; law enforcement would still retain the authority to cite a person who is crossing when it is hazardous to do so. But for pedestrians crossing safely, AB 2147 would protect them from citations and the many collateral consequences that follow.

The Freedom to Walk Act is urgently needed because the state’s current approach results in highly unequal enforcement patterns. Black pedestrians, in particular, are subject to intolerably high rates of jaywalking enforcement, resulting in higher exposure to citations, fines and fees, and bench warrants, as well as police harassment and violence. Based on data from police departments in Long Beach, San Diego, and Bakersfield, we found that Black people were 5.18 times more likely to be cited for jaywalking than white people, proportional to their share of the population. Another study, in Sacramento, found that nearly 50% of jaywalking citations in 2016 were given to Black people, despite only 14% of the city’s population being Black. These disparities are reason enough to stop punishing safe street crossings.

To the extent that our laws need to signal to pedestrians what kind of activity is acceptable, AB 2147 sends a much more effective message than does existing law.

While existing law allows law enforcement to cite people for all mid-block crossings—which is both unnecessary and unrealistic—AB 2147 focuses only on preventing hazardous street crossings, those where a risk of collision exists.

The message sent by existing law is widely ignored—most Californians cross midblock when it is safe and convenient to do so. AB 2147, on the other hand, sets commonsense, realistic, safety-based standards for enforcing pedestrian laws.

Argument in Opposition’
According to the City of Thousand Oaks:

This bill would simply permit jaywalking. Although this bill seems harmless at best, crossing the street in non-designated areas constitutes reckless endangerment. Cities have traffic mechanisms in place such as crosswalks, signals, signage, and reflective stripping as a means to protect not only pedestrians but also bicyclists against the potential dangers of cars, trucks, and public transit.

These mechanisms are to assure that both the pedestrians, especially children and drivers are not caught off guard from a potential collision. Unfortunately, during these types of accidents, pedestrians likely suffer the brunt of bodily injury and harm. Peace officers should still have the ability to stop a pedestrian and issue an infraction for the sake of deterring such behavior and protecting the public.

Prior Discussion By Liaison/Legislative/Lobby Committee This committee heard AB 2147 (Ting) on March 8, 2022 and instructed our firm to explore a new definition of jaywalking for this bill. The Committee also explored an Oppose Unless Amended position, but ultimately directed our firm to come up with a definition of jaywalking that is more clear for purposes of the bill, 6 something that would relieve officers of the risk of having to make subjective determinations when having to enforce this bill.

Since then, it has become clear that AB 2147 also requires CHP to submit a report to the Legislature on or before January 1, 2028, regarding statewide pedestrianrelated traffic crash data and any associated impacts to traffic safety, including an evaluation of whether and how the changes made by this bill have impacted pedestrian safety.

We were able to develop a new definition for jay walking, but we do recommend that the City consider asking that CHP incorporate this question into the evaluation that they are required to submit to the legislature under AB 2147 (Ting).

Status of Legislation
AB 2147 (Ting) approved (released from suspense) by the Senate Appropriations Committee on August 11, 2022 and is currently headed to the Assembly Floor.

Support
Albany Strollers & Rollers
America Walks
California Environmental Voters
California Interfaith Power & Light
California Public Defenders Association
City of Berkeley
Circulate San Diego
Coalition for Sustainable Transportation
Day One
Disability Rights California
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Inland Empire Biking Alliance
Investing in Place
LA Forward
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition
Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust
Marin County Bicycle Coalition
National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter Planning and Conservation League
Public Counsel
Prevention Institute
Public Counsel
Santa Barbara Bicycle Coalition
Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance
Santa Monica
Spoke
Shasta Living Streets
Spur
Streets for All
7 Opposition
California State Sheriff’s Association
City of Thousand Oaks
July 1, 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 1909 (Friedman) Bicycle Transportation
Version
As Amended in the Senate on June 30, 2022
Summary
Makes comprehensive changes to provisions of current law regarding rules of the road and restrictions on bicycle operations. Specifically, this bill:
1) Removes provisions from current law which ban of class 3 electric bicycles on a bicycle path or trail, bikeway, bicycle lane, equestrian trail, or hiking or recreational trail.
2) Authorizes a local authority having jurisdiction over an equestrian trail or hiking or recreational trail to prohibit the operation of an electric bicycle of any class on that trail.
3) Eliminates local authority to ban class 1 and 2 electric bicycles on bike paths. 4) Allows bicyclists to follow leading pedestrian intervals at intersections. 5) Requires motor vehicle operators, when overtaking or passing a bicycle in the same direction, to move over a lane of traffic when possible. 6) Eliminates local authority to require bicycle registration.

Background and Existing Law
Existing law defines an electric bicycle as a bicycle equipped with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts. Class 1 e electric bicycles are pedal assist only, with no throttle, and have a maximum assisted speed of twenty mph. Class 2 electric bicycles also have a maximum speed of 20 mph but are throttle-assisted. Class 3 electric bicycles are pedal-assist and may include a throttle, and can reach a maximum assisted speed of twenty-eight mph. 2 Classes of bike paths. The California Department of Transportation provides the following guidance regarding Class I Bikeway (Bike Path) as defined in Chapter 100 of the Highway Design Handbook. Class I Bikeways are also defined in Section 890.4 of the Streets and Highways Code. Class I bike paths should serve corridors not served by streets and highways or where wide right of way exists, permitting such facilities to be constructed away from the influence of parallel streets. Bike paths should offer opportunities not provided by the road system. They can either provide a recreational opportunity, or in some instances, can serve as direct highspeed commute routes if cross flow by motor vehicles and pedestrian conflicts can be minimized. The most common applications are along rivers, ocean fronts, canals, utility right of way, and abandoned railroad right of way, within school campuses, or within and between parks. There may also be situations where such facilities can be provided as part of planned developments.

Class II bike lanes are established along streets in corridors where there is significant bicycle demand, and where there are distinct needs that can be served.

The purpose should be to improve conditions for bicyclists in the corridors. Bike lanes are intended to delineate the right of way assigned to bicyclists and motorists and to provide for more predictable movements by each. However, a more important reason for constructing bike lanes is to better accommodate bicyclists through corridors where insufficient room exists for side-by-side sharing of existing streets by motorists and bicyclists.

AB 1909 amends current law that restricts the use of class 3 electric bicycles on Class I Bikeways. Additionally, it removes local control from regulating class 1 and 2 electric bicycle operation on a Class I Bikeways. Cyclists riding conventional bicycles can operate them at speeds similar to, or faster than class 1 or 2 electric bicycles (20 miles per hour). Class I Bikeways often have speed limit signs, indicating the speed for the bike path.

Leading pedestrian intervals. A leading pedestrian interval (LPI) is an official traffic control signal that advances the "WALK" signal for three to seven seconds while the red signal halting traffic continues to be displayed on parallel and through or turning traffic. This tool has gained in popularity to protect the safety of pedestrians. It allows for increased visibility of pedestrians as well as the opportunity to cross the street without being confronted by a vehicle. New York City conducted a pilot project where cyclists were able to take advantage of the LPI, increasing their visibility, allowing them to get out ahead of traffic and allowing them to avoid confrontation with vehicles making right-hand turns. The results of the study indicated that when cyclists used the LPI, injuries to cyclists decreased by over 26%.

AB 2264 (Bloom, 2022) is currently moving through the legislative process. The bill requires upon the first placement or replacement of a traffic control signal that the city or county include a leading pedestrian interval. The City of Beverly Hills currently has a Support If Amended position on AB 2264 (Bloom). The city would 3 like the bill to be amended to provide flexibility for the city to choose the intersections where leading pedestrian intervals would be installed.

AB 1909 (Friedman) permits bicyclists to follow leading pedestrian intervals at intersections, which has the potential to increase bicyclist safety.

Three Feet for Safety Act. The California Legislature passed the Three Feet for Safety Act as part of AB 1371 (Bradford, Chapter 331, Statutes of 2013). This act specifies that a driver of a motor vehicle shall not overtake or pass a bicycle proceeding in the same direction on a highway at less than three feet between any part of the motor vehicle and any part of the bicycle or its operator. If the vehicle operator is not able to provide three feet of clearance when passing a cyclist, they must slow to a reasonable and prudent speed. Law enforcement officials find this rule difficult to implement as officers must make a judgement call of the distance between the vehicle and the bicycle.

As written, AB 1909 amends the Three Feet for Safety Act by requiring motor vehicle operators to make a lane change into another available lane before overtaking or passing the bicycle. Thus, if a bicyclist were riding in a bike lane, all vehicles in the right lane would need to move to the left lane to comply with this bill. This change has the potential to increase last minute lane changes, which can be unsafe. Similarly, changing lanes has the potential to slow the flow of traffic in the lane closest to the bike lane which, in turn, could increase congestion.

California created a statewide bicycle registration program in 1974 (AB 3329- Bedham), where cities and local jurisdictions are authorized to collect registration fees from cyclists to officially license bicycles. Many local jurisdictions have found that revenue from registration fees have been insufficient to cover the cost of these local programs. Over time, fewer jurisdictions have established, and many have abandoned their local bicycle licensing programs.

AB 1909 removes local authorities from requiring bicycle registration, however, they may continue to operate bicycle registration programs on a volunteer basis.

Legislative Status
AB 1909 (Friedman) is currently pending on the Senate Floor and will be eligible to be taken up when the Legislature returns from Summer Recess on August 1, 2022.

Support
Active San Gabriel Valley
Alameda County Transportation Commission
California Association of Bicycling Organizations
California Bicycle Coalition
City of Thousand Oaks
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition
Motional
Move LA
4 National Resources Defense Council
Natural Resources Defense Council
Sierra Club
Streets for All
Opposition
Backcountry Horseman of California
August 11, 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 1551 (Santiago) Planning and zoning: development bonuses: mixed-use projects
Version
As Amended and Revised in the Assembly on January 13, 2022.

Summary
This bill, until January 1, 2028, reinstates in its entirety the commercial development (density) bonus program for commercial properties that expired on January 1, 2022. Specifically, this bill:
1) Requires, when a commercial development agrees to partner with an affordable housing developer to construct a mixed-use project with housing located onsite, a local government, in addition to granting incentives and concessions under state Density Bonus Law (DBL), also grant the commercial developer exceptions resulting in significant costs reductions over the maximum allowable intensity in the general plan, zoning ordinance or regulation, including, but not limited to, floor area ratios and may include modification to development standards, such as height and parking requirements.
2) Contains a five-year sunset date of January 1, 2028. 3) Declares the development of affordable housing a matter of statewide concern and not a municipal affair, and therefore, this bill applies to all cities, including charter cities.

Background and Existing Law
In 1979, the Legislature enacted DBL to help address the affordable housing shortage and to encourage development of more low- and moderate-income housing units. Density bonus is a tool used by both market-rate and affordable housing developers to encourage the production of affordable housing. In return for inclusion of affordable units in a development, developers are given an increase 2 in density over a city's zoned density and concessions and incentives in order to offset the cost of the affordable units which will be offered at lower rent.

Developers that seek a density bonus must agree to restrict very low- and lowincome rental units to affordable levels for 55 years. Based on annual production reports local governments submit to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), from 2018 through 2020, the density bonus program provided 880 units per year for lower-income households.
3 Questions From Legislative Lobby/Liaison Committee

1. What are the specific set asides (% of units) and affordability levels that a developer would have to provide in order to qualify for the density bonus incentive?

2. What kind of bonuses would the developer get for 20% incentive under AB 1551?

3. What was the bill that created the law that expired and did the City take a position on that earlier measure?
Responses to each question above can be found below:

Density bonus law. State law, known as density bonus law, grants certain benefits to developers who build affordable units in order to encourage greater affordable housing production. Density bonus law requires cities and counties to grant a density bonus when an applicant for a housing development of five or more units seeks and agrees to construct a project that will contain at least one of the following:
 10 percent of the total units of a housing development for lower income households;
 5 percent of the total units of a housing development for very lowincome households;  A senior citizen housing development or mobile home park;  10 percent of the units in a common interest development (CID) for moderate-income households;
 10 percent of the total units for transitional foster youth, disabled veterans, or homeless persons; or
 20 percent of the total units for lower income students in a student housing development.

If a project meets one of these conditions, the city or county must allow an increase in density on a sliding scale from 20 percent to 50 percent over the otherwise maximum allowable residential density under the applicable zoning ordinance and land use element of the general plan, depending on the percentage of affordable units.

Density bonus law also grants certain reductions in minimum parking requirements and grants “incentives or concessions” that can be used to waive development policies that add costs or reduce the number of units that a developer can build on a site. The number of incentives or concessions that a project may be eligible for is based on the percentage of affordable units contained in the project, up to a maximum of four. Incentives and 4 concessions can vary widely based on the individual projects, but examples can include reduced fees, waivers of zoning codes, or reduced parking requirements.

Commercial Development Bonus. AB 1934 (Santiago, 2016) created a commercial “development bonus” modeled after Density Bonus Law by similarly granting a number of incentives (including an increase in density) to a commercial developer that facilitates the creation of affordable housing units. Specifically, AB 1934 required a city or county to grant a commercial development bonus to a commercial developer that proposes to construct, donate land for, or partner with an affordable housing developer to construct affordable housing that consists of at least 30 percent low-income or 15 percent very low-income units. These housing units must be constructed on the site of the development or on a site that is all of the following:
 Within the boundaries of the local government;
 In close proximity to public amenities including schools and employment centers; and
 Located within one-half mile of a major transit stop
However, unlike Density Bonus Law, AB 1934 did not provide a specified formula regarding the incentives conferred upon the developer in return for provision of affordable housing. It also did not require the local government to provide clear guidance on the concessions and incentives available to the developer. Instead, the program relied on the commercial developer, residential developer, and local jurisdiction to come to mutual agreement on most of the details of the incentives, including the amount and type of bonus received and the amount and income levels of affordable housing developed.

AB 1934 sunset on January 1, 2022.

NOTE: The City of Beverly Hills did not take a position on AB 1934 (Santiago).

California Housing Crisis. The lack of supply is the primary factor underlying California’s housing crunch. HCD estimates that California needs to build 180,000 new homes a year to keep up with population growth. More recently, HCD noted in its statewide housing plan that California must plan for more than 2.5 million homes over the next eight-year cycle, and no less than one million of those homes must meet the needs of lower-income households. This represents more than double the housing planned for in the last eight-year cycle.

The median home price in California is $771,270 in 2022, which is double the nationwide median. It is second to Hawaii, and Washington is third with a median price of $592,400. In terms of rental markets, California has all 10 of the 5 top 10 most unaffordable counties for a two-bedroom apartment and holds eight of the top 10 most unaffordable metropolitan areas. In addition, almost half of rental households in California are low-income (50-80% AMI), very low income (30-50% AMI), or extremely low income (0-30% AMI). As a result, many Californians are rent burdened (spend more than 30% of their income on rent): almost 90% of extremely low income, 85% of very low income, and 63% of low income households.

According to the author, “AB 1551 will continue the progress made by AB 1934 in 2016 in addressing California’s affordable housing crisis. By requiring local governments to provide density bonuses to housing developers, California will increase the number of affordable units available and help the tens of thousands of people experiencing homelessness in our state. With the help of AB 1551, California will create more opportunities to build affordable housing and allow more time for interested parties to build an affordable housing supply to get people off the streets and into homes of their own.”
Given California’s high land and construction costs for housing, it is extremely difficult for the private market to provide housing units that are affordable to lowand even moderate-income households. Public subsidy is often required to fill the financial gap on affordable units. Density bonus law allows public entities to reduce or even eliminate subsidies for a particular project by allowing a developer to include more total units in a project than would otherwise be allowed by the local zoning in exchange for affordable units. Allowing more total units permits the developer to spread the cost of the affordable units more broadly over the market-rate units. The idea of density bonus law is to cover at least some of the financing gap of affordable housing with regulatory incentives, rather than additional subsidy. In 2020, HCD approved around 18,000 units, over 30% of which are for low or very low incomes, across 335 projects through Density Bonus Law.

This bill, and its predecessor (AB 1934 Santiago Chapter 747, Statutes of 2016), tries to create affordable housing through commercial developments. There are six bonuses a commercial developer can obtain, and three ways the developer can help finance affordable housing. Unlike residential density bonus law which has very clear criteria to follow to obtain benefits, this bill does not have clear guidelines as to what the commercial development gets for what it gives. Instead, the bonuses are mutually agreed upon by the developer and the jurisdiction. This lack of clarity may make it difficult for developers to try and gain these benefits if one has to negotiate them.

During the five years the program existed, there is not much evidence to suggest that it was widely utilized. AB 1934 required that local governments report use of this program to HCD as part of their annual progress reports. Data provided by HCD revealed that only five units of affordable housing had been created due to the program across three projects. It is unknown whether other projects statewide 6 used this program but the local government did not include the information in its annual progress report.

As of now, the program in this bill is exactly the same as the program that already exists. The author might want to investigate why developers have not used the program more widely and consider what changes to make so that the program is used more often.

Status of Legislation
The State Assembly approved AB 1551 (Santiago) is currently pending on the Senate Floor.

Support
California Apartment Association
California Housing Partnership Corporation
City of Santa Monica
Opposition
One individual
Attachment 2

CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS

POLICY AND MANAGEMENT

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council Liaison/Legislative/Lobby Committee
FROM: Cindy Owens, Policy & Management Analyst
DATE: May 22, 2019
SUBJECT: Request Direction on a Position on Senate Bill 58 (Wiener) – Alcoholic Beverages: Hours of Sale
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Bill Text - Senate Bill 58

2. City Opposition Letter – 2018

3. Traffic Safety Facts – 2017

INTRODUCTION
Senate Bill 58 (Wiener) - Alcoholic Beverages: Hours of Sale would create a pilot program for five years that would allow alcoholic beverages to be sold between the hours of 2 a.m. and 4 a.m. for the cities of Cathedral City, Coachella, Fresno, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, Palm Springs, Sacramento, San Francisco, and West Hollywood (Attachment 1) for the onsite consumption of alcohol.

This item requests the Legislative/Lobby Liaisons consider taking a position on Senate Bill 58 (SB 58). Should the Liaisons recommend the City take a position on SB 58, then staff will place the item on a future City Council Agenda for concurrence as this item is not listed in the City Council adopted Legislative Platform.

DISCUSSION
Background
California Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) has the exclusive authority to license and regulate the manufacturing, distribution, and sale of alcoholic beverages within California. There are approximately 50,000 on-sale licensees that have been issued in the state.

An on-sale license authorizes the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises.

An off-sale license authorizes the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises in the original, sealed containers. There are over 9,000 on-sale licenses issued within the identified pilot cities which could potentially be impacted by this bill.

Over the years, local governments have requested increased authority to directly regulate establishments that sell alcohol in their respective communities, especially concerning zoning laws and conditional use permits. Currently, state law prohibits the sale of any alcoholic beverages between the hours of 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. of the same day. Any violation of this law is considered a misdemeanor.

The hours during which alcoholic beverages can be purchased varies across the United States.

At least 15 states across the country delegate complete or partial authority for setting or extending service hours to the local jurisdictions, subject to state approval. A number of cities have extended services hours including Chicago, Washington, D.C., New York City, Buffalo, Las Vegas, Louisville, Atlanta, Indianapolis, Miami Beach, and New Orleans.

In 2018, Senator Wiener drafted a similar ordinance which the City opposed (Attachment 2).

Proposed Legislation
Senator Scott Wiener has authored a bill to create a five-year pilot program, beginning January 1, 2022, to issue an additional hours license to an on-sale licensee in a qualified city that would allow alcoholic beverages to be sold between the house of 2 a.m. and 4 a.m. According to Senator Wiener, “social and nightlife venues are an economic driver in many communities, and the state’s food service and entertainment industries generate billions of dollars in consumer spending ….”
As written, SB 58 is an optional tool for local control over nightlife and, if implement, is projected to increase tax revenue and tourism for the identified pilot cities. While our City traditionally has supported local control, this legislation would adversely impact Beverly Hills as the consumption of alcohol in West Hollywood or Los Angeles would cause a need for an increase in DUI enforcement. The City could also see an increase in potential fatal accidents caused by the extended hours for alcohol sales
Some key provisions in SB 58 include:
 Requiring the ABC, beginning January 1, 2022, conduct a pilot program that may issue an additional hours license authorizing the selling of alcoholic beverages at an individual on-sale licensed premise between the hours of 2 a.m. and 4 a.m. within a qualified city (defined as the Cities of Cathedral City, Coachella, Fresno, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, Palm Springs, Sacramento, San Francisco, and West Hollywood) if the local governing body of that qualified city designates a task force composed of at least one member of law enforcement and one additional member of the California Highway Patrol, to develop a recommended local plan.
 Requiring an on-sale licensee that is issued an additional hours permit have all persons engaged in the sale or service of alcohol during the additional hours period complete a responsible beverage training course.
 Prohibiting off-sale alcoholic beverage sales privileges during the additional hours period.
 Requiring the California Highway Patrol by January 1, 2024, provide the Legislature with a report on the regional impact of the additional hours service areas, which shall include information on any additional costs incurred by adjacent cities and counties as a result of being adjacent to an area with additional service hours, including the impact that an additional hours service area had on arrests for driving under the influence in adjacent cities, counties, and cities and counties.
 Require a qualified city that chooses to participate in the pilot program, by January 1, 2020, to provide the Legislature with a report on the regional impact of the additional hours licenses which shall include information on the overall costs of providing policing during the additional service hours and any impact the additional service hours had on crime rates in the city, including arrests for driving under the influence, a detailed description of the number of licensees that applied for additional hours licenses, the number of additional hours licenses issued, and any conditions placed on those licenses.

Public Safety Concerns
In 2017, there were 10,874 alcohol-related traffic fatalities in the United States involving drivers with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) level of .08g/dL or higher. This totaled 29 percent of all traffic fatalities in the United States and resulted in an average of one alcohol-related driving fatality every 48 minutes. The estimated economic cost of all alcohol-related vehicle accidents in the United States in 2010 is estimated at $44 billion (Attachment 3).

Internationally peer-reviewed research conducted over the past 40 years shows that changes in last call times of 2 hours or more are associated with an increase in alcohol-related traffic accidents and tickets for driving under the influence (DUI). Some key findings in the research include:
 Research in Australia and Norway suggests later last call times increase violence by 17 percent to 50 percent.
 Different last call times between areas can cause a “splash effect” onto nearby communities as intoxicated drivers travel from one area with a last call time of 2 a.m. to another area with a last call time of 4 a.m.
 Late-night consumption of alcohol can create deadly drivers even at the legal .08 BAC standard as fatigue and alcohol interact.

Public health related research at the University of California Los Angeles (“UCLA”) Fielding School of Public Health and UCLA Geffen School of Medicine has found that two or more hours of increased alcohol sales will produce an increase in vehicle accident injuries and admissions to the emergency rooms of hospitals.

Additionally, the California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) has reported that fatality alcoholrelated vehicle accidents are a chronic and worsening problem for the state. Alcohol-impaired driving fatalities (fatalities in crashes involving a driver or motorcycle rider with BAC of 0.08 grams per deciliter (g/dL) or higher) increased 16.3 percent from 2015 to 2016 as there were 911 fatalities in 2015 and 1,059 in 2016. Since 2014, alcohol-related traffic accident deaths has risen 21 percent. This increase in alcohol-related traffic fatalities is occurring despite the existence of ride share. While OTS does not yet list the data for 2017, the National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration (NHTSA) has listed a figure of 1,120 alcohol-related traffic fatalities in California for 2017.

There is also a concern that while 17 percent of the state’s population is in the pilot cities, the metropolitan districts in an around these areas includes 76 percent of the state’s population.

Given the hours people travel on the road to and from their workplace, there is a high probability of mixing late night drivers who are under the influence of alcohol and early morning commuters. Additionally, there may be an increase cost to the neighboring jurisdictions of the pilot cities to deter driving under the influence as well as responding to alcohol-related traffic accidents.

Support/Opposition
As of March 2019, organizations in support of SB 58 include:
 California Hotel & Lodging Association
 City of Coachella
 City of West Hollywood
 San Francisco Bar Owner Alliance
Organization listed in opposition to SB 58 include:
 Alcohol Justice
 City of Los Angeles
 Institute of Public Strategies
 Saving Lives Coalition
SB 58 passed out of the Senate Appropriations Committee on May 16, 2019.

FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact of this legislation is unknown to the City. It is anticipated that there will be more people driving under the influence of alcohol through the City as two of the pilot cities are adjacent to Beverly Hills. This may cause an increase in calls for service for both the Fire Department and Police Department. Whether or not additional staffing would be required to address these calls for service cannot be determined at this time.

RECOMMENDATION
After discussion of Senate Bill 58 (Wiener) – Alcoholic Beverages: Hours of Sale, the Liaisons may recommend the following actions:
1) Support SB 58;
2) Support if amended SB 58;
3) Oppose SB 58;
4) Oppose unless amended SB 68;
5) Remain neutral; or
6) Provide other direction to City staff.

Should the Liaisons recommend the City take a position on SB 58, then staff will place the item on a future City Council Agenda for concurrence.