SS Item A-3 — Beverly Hills City Council, July 1, 2025

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: July 1, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor & City Council
From: Mandy Jiang, Senior Management Analyst
Subject: Requesting City Council Direction on Two Bills and Approval of the Beverly Hills City Council Legislative / Lobby Committee Recommended Positions on Various Federal and State
Legislative Bills
Attachments: 1. Lobbyist Memos

INTRODUCTION
This item seeks City Council direction on two bills—SB 630 and H.R. 1048—and approval of the Committee’s recommended positions on the remaining bills, which were consistent with the City’s Legislative Platform. The two bills on which staff is seeking Council’s direction will be listed first in the Discussion section below, followed by the remaining 10 bills on which the Committee recommended positions at their June 16, 2025, meeting, for Council approval.

The attachment to this report includes memos for each bill provided by the City’s contract lobbyists highlighting bill provisions, author’s intent, and those in support or opposition. Please note that the lobbyist’s memo for SB 630 (Allen) was for the version of the bill prior to the gut-and-amend on June 23, 2025. All bills listed below have been referred out of their house of origin and are currently in their second house.

DISCUSSION
On June 16, 2025, the Committee met to discuss a variety of federal and state legislative bills. Verbal overviews on each bill were provided by the City’s state and federal lobbyist.

A staff summary of legislative bills reviewed by the Committee and their recommendations is listed below. Staff is seeking Council’s direction on the first two bills listed below:

1. SB 630 (Allen) – State parks: real property: acquisitions and leases This bill formerly mirrored AB 1138 (Zbur) in both title and text—seeking to significantly expand the state’s television and film tax credit—which the Committee concurred to support. As of June 23, 2025, this bill was gut and amended to now address state parks regarding real property acquisitions and leases. Now, SB 630 would require the California Department of Parks and Recreation, rather than the California Department of General Services, to conduct the appraisal of the lands proposed to be leased. The bill

BEVERLV
HILLS
d
Meeting Date: July 1, 2025

Page 2 of 5 ends

would require the Department of General Services to review and approve the appraisal, unless review and approval is waived by the department. This bill involves a policy matter that is not specifically addressed within the adopted 2025 Legislative Platform language.

Recommendation: Seeking City Council Direction—Oppose, Support, Neutral, Support if Amended, Oppose Unless Amended; or any other direction.

2. H.R. 1048 - DETERRENT Act - H.R. 1048, the Defending Education Transparency and Ending Rogue Regimes Engaging in Nefarious Transactions (DETERRENT) Act, expands oversight and reporting requirements to U.S. colleges and universities related to foreign gifts/sources (dollars received and contracts engaged), in an effort to enhance transparency and deter foreign influence—particularly with countries of concern. This bill aims to add clarity and strengthen enforcement, requiring the Department of Education to investigate possible violations with various penalties outlined in the bill, and requires U.S. colleges and universities to obtain a waiver from the Department of Education before entering a contract with a foreign entity or source of concern. This bill involves a policy matter that is not specifically addressed within the adopted 2025 Legislative Platform language.

Recommendation: Seeking City Council Direction—Oppose, Support, Neutral, Support if Amended, Oppose Unless Amended; or any other direction.

One Committee member is in Support and the other would Support if Amended, due to concerns with a provision in the bill requiring the Department of Education to sign off on waivers for colleges/universities to enter contracts with foreign entities/sources, uncertainty on what the criteria would be, and whether the Department of Education is the appropriate authority to solely evaluate such requests.

The Committee has recommended positions on the bills below for Council approval:

3. SB 720 (Ashby) - Automated traffic enforcement system programs - This bill creates an option for cities and local jurisdictions to opt-in the “Safer Streets” automated enforcement program for red-light violations, authorizing local jurisdictions to deploy fixed camera systems that issue civil citations (no license points) to registered vehicle owners. Provisions include required due-process and appeals, revenue neutrality, and more. Opting into the “Safer Streets” program would not constitute an interference with existing red-light authority or any other new programs.

Recommendation: Neutral; the option presented in this bill would place additional burden onto jurisdictions.

4. AB 715 (Zbur) - Educational equity: discrimination - AB 715 prohibits the governing board of a school district, county board of education, or the governing body of a charter school from allowing the use of curriculum or instructional materials, as described in the bill, if it would subject a pupil to unlawful discrimination. It expands the definitions of nationality and religion for purposes of prohibitions on discrimination in public schools; and states the intent of the Legislature to strengthen protections against discrimination in specified ways.

Recommendation: Support

5. AB 1138 (Zbur) - Income and corporate taxes: tax credits: motion pictures AB 1138 significantly expands California’s Film and Television Production Tax Credit 4.0 to enhance the state’s competitiveness in retaining and attracting film and television productions. This bill increases the annual credit cap from $330 million to $750 million, raises base credit percentages for qualifying productions, expands eligible content types, Meeting Date: July 1, 2025

Page 3 of 5 ends

and revises allocation and refundability rules. It also removes financial restrictions under the SB 144 Soundstage Program and increases flexibility for independent productions.

Recommendation: Support

6. AB 306 (Schultz) – Building regulations: state building standards – This bill is brought forth for Liaison consideration by the Public Works Department, with support from the Community Development Department to oppose. AB 306 imposes a six-year moratorium (October 1, 2025, to June 1, 2031) on both state and local amendments to building standards affecting residential units, with only narrowly defined exceptions for emergency health-and-safety standards, wildfire “home hardening,” and several legislatively mandated studies (e.g., single-exit, single-stairway apartments; adaptive‐reuse water standards).

Recommendation: Oppose

7. AB 11 (Lee) – The Social Housing Act - AB 11 establishes the Social Housing Act, creating an independent California Housing Authority (CHA) charged with developing and acquiring mixed-income social housing across the state. The authority will own and permanently steward these units, utilize rent cross-subsidization and limited-equity ownership models, and operate under a long-term goal of revenue neutrality while closing the gap between actual housing production and each jurisdiction’s RHNA targets.

In 2023, the City adopted a “Support if Amended” position on AB 309—an earlier Social Housing Act by the same author—because it would have prohibited local jurisdictions from denying proposed developments. The City’s 2023 position letter emphasized concern over lost local control. Now, the author of AB 11 has added clearer language preserving cities’ authority to reject projects, as detailed in the bill provisions.

Recommendation: Support if amended—request bill author to include language to ensure 1) further protections for local control and decision-making when working with CHA; and 2) City gets credit for RHNA by working collaboratively with CHA.

8. SB 838 (Durazo) - Housing Accountability Act: housing development projects This bill modifies the definition of a "housing development project" under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), to exclude any mixed-use development that includes hotel or motel space in its commercial portion. This exclusion applies retroactively to any project application not deemed complete as of January 1, 2025. The HAA was significantly amended last year by AB 1893 (Wicks), which revised the definition of “housing development project” in the HAA to allow additional categories of mixed-use developments to qualify and become eligible for HAA protections. The intent of this bill is to amend this by excluding any mixed-used development that includes a hotel or motel space under HAA.

Recommendation: Support

9. AB 507 (Haney) - Adaptive reuse: streamlining: incentives - AB 507 would establish the Office to Housing Conversion Act, aimed to jumpstart the conversion of underutilized commercial buildings consisting primarily of office space, into residential or mixed-use developments. The bill creates a streamlined, ministerial approval process for qualifying adaptive reuse projects, including affordability requirements and environmental review exemptions. It also authorizes local governments to establish an Adaptive Reuse Investment Incentive Program, allowing for the redirection of future property tax increment revenue to fund conversion projects.

Recommendation: Oppose
Meeting Date: July 1, 2025

Page 4 of 5 ends

10. AB 736 (Wicks) - The Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026 – This bill would place a $10 billion general obligation bond measure on the March 2, 2026, primary ballot, titled the “Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026.” If approved by voters, the bond would provide critical funding to support the construction, preservation, and rehabilitation of affordable housing throughout California. This measure prioritizes funding for extremely low-income households, supportive housing for individuals experiencing homelessness, and down payment assistance for low-income homebuyers. It also includes targeted funding for farmworker housing, tribal housing, and catalytic infrastructure to facilitate infill development. Revenues would be administered by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

Recommendation: Support if amended—make funding available to local and regional housing authorities and groups, specifically to SCAG, LACAHSA, nonprofits, and anyone willing to build affordable housing incentivized by this bond funding, and not exclusively administered by HCD.

11. AB 1294 (Haney) - Planning and zoning: housing development: standardized application form - AB 1294 requires the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to develop a standardized housing entitlement application that all California cities and counties must accept. Beginning October 1, 2026, jurisdictions will be required to accept this universal application in lieu of any other entitlement application forms they may use. The bill aims to streamline and simplify the housing application process to reduce delays, lower development costs, and encourage housing construction across the state.

Recommendation: Oppose

12. SB 681 (Wahab) - Housing – This bill proposes a broad package of reforms to state housing laws intended to enhance production, preservation, and tenant protections. SB 681 removes sunset dates for various provisions in the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) and the Housing Crisis Act (HCA), expands tenant and homeowner protections, including limits on landlord fees and HOA fines, and revises laws governing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), common interest developments (CIDs), and the Surplus Land Act (SLA). The provisions are detailed in the lobbyist’s memo.

Recommendation: Neutral

FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact of these bills is currently unknown. Amendments to bill language will likely continue to occur in this stage.

RECOMMENDATION
1) Staff is seeking City Council direction on two bills: SB 630 and H.R. 1048. Council may concur on any of the following: Oppose, Support, Neutral, Support if Amended, Oppose Unless Amended, or any other direction.
2) The Beverly Hills City Council Legislative/Lobby Committee (Vice Mayor Mirisch and Councilmember Corman) recommends the City Council approve the positions taken on the bills below:
• Neutral: SB 720 (Ashby) - Automated traffic enforcement system programs • Support: AB 715 (Zbur) – Educational equity: discrimination • Support: AB 1138 (Zbur) - Income and corporate taxes: tax credits: motion pictures
• Oppose: AB 306 (Schultz) – Building regulations: state building standards • Support if Amended: AB 11 (Lee) – Social Housing Act
Meeting Date: July 1, 2025

Page 5 of 5 ends

• Support: SB 838 (Durazo) – Housing Accountability Act: housing development projects
• Oppose: AB 507 (Haney) – Adaptive reuse: streamlining: incentives • Support if Amended: AB 736 (Wicks) – The Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026
• Oppose: AB (1294) - Planning and zoning: housing development: standardized application form
• Neutral: SB 681 (Wahab) – Housing
Keith Sterling,
Deputy City Manager
Approved By
ATTACHMENT 1
H.R. 1048
1 TO: Mandy Jiang, Senior Management Analyst
City of Beverly Hills
FROM: Jamie Jones
[email protected]
202-543-3744
DATE: May 20, 2025
RE: H.R. 1048 -- DETERRENT Act
This memorandum focuses on H.R. 1048, the Defending Education Transparency and Ending Rogue Regimes Engaging in Nefarious Transactions (DETERRENT) Act, sponsored by Representative Michael Baumgartner (R-WA) and Representative Tim Walberg (R-MI), Chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee. According to the bill’s supporters, H.R. 1048 provides transparency and clarity to foreign gift reporting requirements to colleges and universities.

The House passed the measure by a vote of 241 to 169 on March 27, 2025 with 31 House Democrats voting for the bill and 168 against it. The bill is pending before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pension.

SUMMARY - The DETERRENT ACT
The bill expands oversight and disclosure requirements related to foreign sources and institutions of higher education (IHEs). Specifically, the bill requires an IHE to annually disclose to the Department of Education (ED) any year in which the IHE:
 Receives a gift from a foreign country of concern (e.g., China or Russia) or foreign entity of concern of any dollar amount;
 Receives a gift or contract from a foreign source (other than a foreign country of concern or foreign entity of concern) that is valued at $50,000 or more, considered alone or in combination with all other gifts or contracts within a calendar year (current disclosure threshold is $250,000 or more), or which has an undetermined monetary value;  Enters into a contract with a foreign country of concern or foreign entity of concern after receiving a waiver for such contract; or
 Is substantially controlled by a foreign source.

David Such and Associates
H.R. 1048
2 Additionally, the bill:
 Prohibits IHEs from entering into contracts with a foreign country of concern or with a foreign entity of concern without obtaining a waiver,
 Requires certain IHEs to disclose gifts or contracts between covered individuals (e.g., researchers) and foreign sources, and
 Requires private IHEs with specified assets or investments to file annual investment disclosure reports.

The bill requires the Department of Education to investigate possible violations of this bill and outlines the various penalties for each violation. Penalties may include losing eligibility for federal student financial aid.

BACKGROUND
 American colleges and universities play a large role in educating our next generation of leaders.
 Foreign adversaries, particularly certain countries of concern, recognize the value of American education and research and continually seek to exert their influence on students and faculty.
 Congress first required U.S. institutions of higher education (IHEs) to publicly report their foreign gifts and contracts to the Department of Education (ED) in 1986 through what is now known as section 117 of the Higher Education Act (HEA).  The Defending Education Transparency and Ending Rogue Regimes Engaging in Nefarious Transactions (DETERRENT) Act reforms section 117 to strengthen enforcement, particularly for countries of concern, close reporting loopholes, and clarify requirements for institutions.
 According to the bill’s sponsors, the goal of these reforms is to give much-needed transparency as a disinfectant to deter malicious foreign actors and rebuild trust in our institutions.

SUPPORT FOR HR 1048
Advocates for the DETERRENT Act argue the legislation is necessary because U.S. universities, left largely to their own devises, have failed to adequately guard themselves against malign foreign influences. This failure has enabled foreign rivals to gain access to sensitive technologies and intellectual property. Additionally, financial contributions made by foreign extremists to academic programs, cultural centers, and faculty contribute to the concerning proliferation of antisemitic and other un-American sentiments on college and university campuses.

Support for the bill includes:
 Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy  Jewish Students for America
 The Foundation for Defense of Democracy
H.R. 1048
3  Heritage Action for America
 Union of Orthodoxy Jewish Congregations of America
 Defense of Freedom Institute
 The Republican Jewish Coalition -- founded in 1985 and functions as a bridge between the Jewish community and Republican decision-makers.
 American Council on Education
 National Association of Scholars
OPPOSITION TO HR 1048
Section 117a of the DETERRENT Act requires academic institutions to apply for and obtain a waiver from the Department of Education before entering a contract with a country of concern or a foreign entity of concern. Opponents of the bill argue the waiver requirement would slow down and require unprecedented approval by the Department of Education for all contracted academic research collaborations and all student academic exchanges or joint cultural and education programs with countries such as China, including collaborations, exchanges, and programs that have minimal national security concern or connection to critical technologies.

Additionally, opponents of the bill are concerned that the Department of Education lacks the expertise necessary to assess national security risks associated with scientific research and related partnerships. These concerns are further heightened by the recent reductions to the department’s workforce which raise questions about the department’s ability to ever fully implement this new oversight requirement. With new and ongoing staffing constraints, opponents of the bill expect waivers to go unanswered – effectively halting all activities requiring departmental approval and preventing any collaborations or academic exchanges from occurring.

Opposition to the bill includes:

American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers American Association of Community Colleges
American Association of State Colleges and Universities American Council on Education
Association of American Universities
Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities
Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities
Association of Public and Land-grant Universities
Association of Research Libraries
Council for Advancement and Support of Education
Council of Graduate Schools
SB 630
June 16, 2025
To: Mandy Jiang, City of Beverly Hills
From: Andrew K. Antwih, Partner, Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange Dylan Hoffman, Legislative Advocate, Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange Re: SB 630 (Allen) Income and corporate taxes: tax credits: motion pictures Version
Amended May 29, 2025.

Summary
SB 630 significantly expands and modifies California’s Film and Television Production Tax Credit 4.0 to enhance the state’s competitiveness in retaining and attracting film and television productions.

Specifically, the bill increases the annual credit cap from $330 million to $750 million, raises base credit percentages for qualifying productions, expands eligible content types, and revises allocation and refundability rules. It also removes financial restrictions under the SB 144 Soundstage Program and increases flexibility for independent productions. These changes come at a time of significant downturn in California’s entertainment sector and aim to revitalize local film jobs, maintain the state’s leadership in the industry, and counteract aggressive incentive programs from competing jurisdictions.

Existing Law
 California’s Motion Picture Tax Credit Program, administered by the California Film Commission (CFC), currently allocates $330 million annually through the 2029–30 fiscal year.  Credit percentages range from 20% to 25%, with uplifts available for specific activities like out-ofzone filming, visual effects, and local hires.  The credit is available to qualifying motion pictures that meet California production thresholds and includes a refundable component for business entities starting in 2025, albeit with a 10% reduction and a five-year payment schedule.
 Productions under the SB 144 Soundstage Program qualify for additional credits, but only under specific ownership or lease terms. Independent films may transfer credits, and taxpayers may use credits to offset income or sales tax liabilities.

Background
Author’s Statement: “California’s iconic film and television production industry is in crisis. As more states and countries are competing aggressively for film and television production, California has seen an unprecedented drop in jobs and production. This bill makes important changes and expansions to the Shaw
Yoder
Antwih
Schmelzer
&Lange
SYASLpartners.com
141 5 L Street
Suite 1 000
Sacramento
CA,95814
916-446-4656
SB 630
2 California Film and TV Tax Credit Program to increase its competitiveness. This bill increases the base tax credit rate to cover more qualified production expenses, maintains incentives to film outside of the Los Angeles area, expands the program to include more productions such as 20-minute TV shows and animation, allows reboots of TV shows to qualify, expands access to the Soundstage Film Tax Credit Program, increases incentives for independent productions, and provides more flexibility to the California Film Commission to ensure all dollars are used efficiently. Since the California Film and TV Tax Credit Program was created in 2009, it has successfully generated 197,000 cast and crew jobs along with an estimated $26 billion in economic activity. The state’s investment in this program has produced more local tax revenue, wages, and Gross Domestic Product. While successful, programs in other states and countries are more competitive. Programs in the United Kingdom, New York, and Georgia have been especially effective at drawing production away from California, resulting in job losses and economic losses. To prevent further reductions in this historic industry in California, it is critical to expand and modernize the Film and TV Tax Credit Program.”
The motion picture industry in California: The state's film production workforce is by far the largest in the United States, and over 2.5 times the size of its nearest competitor (New York). The industry, however, is heavily concentrated in Southern California, with the vast majority of these California jobs located in Los Angeles County alone.

Despite its historical ties to California, the motion picture industry is inherently mobile, and has become increasingly so with the advent of advanced technology. As such, a number of other states (and foreign governments) have established public subsidies to attract film productions. States have done so in the hopes of developing a regional industry and stimulating film-related tourism. Louisiana was the first state to adopt tax incentives for film and television production in 1992. (National Conference of State Legislatures, State Film Production Incentives and Programs, February 5, 2018.) Ten years later, Louisiana expanded its program and the state's film industry began to experience significant growth. (Id.) By 2009, 44 states, along with Puerto Rico and Washington D.C., offered incentives for film and television productions.[1] (Id.) While filmmakers obviously consider a host of factors in deciding where to shoot, the program would appear that the availability of financial incentives plays a role in many site selection decisions.

California's first film tax credit program: Responding to the proliferation of financial incentives offered by other states, California adopted its first film and television production tax credit program in 2009. [SBx3 15 (Calderon), Chapter 17, Statutes of 2009, Third Extraordinary Session, and ABx3 15, (Krekorian), Chapter 10, Statutes of 2009, Third Extraordinary Session.] Originally, the program was scheduled to sunset after FY 2013-14, but was extended by the Legislature in 2011 for one additional year – through FY 2014-15. [AB 1069 (Fuentes), Chapter 731, Statutes of 2011.] In 2012, the program was further extended for two additional years – through FY 2016-17. [AB 2026 (Fuentes), Chapter 841, Statutes of 2012.]
Demand for the original tax credit exceeded the $100 million available in every year of the program's existence. The California Film Commission, which was charged with administering the program, accepted applications on a first-come, first-served basis. After the program's first year, however, most SB 630
3 applications were submitted on the first day of each application period. As a result, the California Film Commission used a random selection process – often referred to as a "lottery" – to determine the order in which applications received on the same day would be processed.

The Legislative Analyst's Office weighs in on the first generation credit: AB 2026 (Fuentes), Chapter 841, Statutes of 2012, required the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) to prepare a report on the film tax credit, focusing specifically on the program's administration and economic effects. The LAO report was published in September 2016, and contained a number of important findings.

The LAO estimated that, overall, the $800 million in tax credits offered under the original program could be tied to production expenses of roughly $6.1 billion in California over the entire life of the program.

The LAO, however, made several adjustments to this $6.1 billion estimate to determine roughly how much represented new spending resulting from the tax credit and how much would have occurred in California regardless of whether or not the tax credit program existed:

California writing and editing (reduction of $0.5 billion): The LAO report noted that film and television productions all over the world obtain various specialized goods and services from California companies. In addition, many film and television scriptwriters live in California and rarely need to travel to the actual production site. Finally, when a film is shot on location in another state, some or all of the post-production work may be done in California. As such, the LAO made the rough estimate that about $0.5 billion in total production spending by projects that received a tax credit (i.e., about 8% of total production spending) might have occurred in California even had those projects filmed elsewhere. For this reason, the LAO did not consider this to be new spending in the state's economy resulting from the tax credit program.

Windfall tax benefits (reduction of $1.5 billion): The LAO report notes that some projects receiving a film tax credit would have been made in California even without a financial subsidy.

In such cases, the credit essentially operates as a "windfall" benefit. Windfall benefits occur with most, if not all, tax credit programs, but are generally difficult to quantify. The LAO's modeling estimated that, overall, roughly one-third of the projects receiving a tax credit would have been made in California even had they not been allocated a credit. As such, the LAO estimated that roughly $1.5 billion of the total estimated production spending represented windfall benefits and not new spending on film production.

Projects receiving tax credits more likely to be made (addition of $0.4 billion): According to the LAO, it appears that receiving a tax credit allocation could have had a small but discernable effect on whether or not a project was completed at all. Specifically, the LAO estimated that if the California Film Commission allocated a credit, the project was about 5% more likely to be completed, compared to projects that were initially placed on a waitlist. This, in turn, increased the estimate of total spending in California resulting from the first tax credit program by roughly $0.4 billion.

SB 630
4 After accounting for the adjustments described above, the LAO estimated that roughly $4.5 billion of the $6.1 billion in total production spending by tax credit recipients was additional spending in the state's economy attributable to the film tax credit program.

The LAO also noted that in addition to new direct spending in the state's economy, the film tax credit program also resulted in indirect and induced economic effects. Specifically, new film and television production spending supported additional economic activity throughout California. For example, film industry workers hired on these productions likely spent some of their income to purchase additional goods and services from California businesses. Additionally, businesses that supplied these productions may have been able to expand their operations.

The Film Tax Credit 4.0: In 2023, the Legislature and Governor enacted SB 132 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter 56, Statutes of 2023, which enacted the Film Tax Credit 4.0. Specifically, SB 132 authorized a new film tax credit program for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2025, to be allocated by the California Film Commission on or after July 1, 2025 and before July 1, 2030. Importantly, this bill also authorized the state's first refundable credit for business taxpayers. As such, the bill allowed taxpayers without tax liability to make a one-time election to be paid a refund, spread out over a five-year period, of the "total refundable amount", defined as 90% of the credit amount exceeding the taxpayer's tax liability in the first taxable year of the refundable period. Put simply, this budget agreement authorized the very first refundable business credit but conditioned the credit on the taxpayer accepting a 10% "haircut" of the credit amount.

The LAO weighs in: In February of this year, the LAO weighed in with its most recent assessment of the state's film tax incentives and the Governor's budget proposal to expand the annual credit cap. Among other things, this report noted the following:

Recent disruptions, including COVID-19, the 2023 labor strikes, and the 2025 Los Angeles wildfires have depressed production activity. While the COVID-19 impact proved to be short-lived, filming activity following the strikes has shown no signs of recovering so far, with shoot days slightly declining further in 2024;
Since 2010, California's share of domestic film industry employment has decreased from over 54% to 46% as of 2023, becoming particularly volatile over the past few years; While the film tax credit program likely increases the size of California's film industry, there is weak evidence that expanding the program would benefit California's economy as a whole. More specifically, tax incentives typically never "pay for themselves".

Film Tax Credits Generally have A Negative Overall Effect on State revenues. Evidence from academic research and state evaluations in places such as Georgia and New York find that every $1 of credit allocated returns significantly less than $1 in state revenue. One notable outlier to this pattern is a report from the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation, who claim to find a small fiscal benefit associated with the film tax credit. The Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation SB 630
5 estimates, however, very likely are overstated. These estimates ignore some of the important offsetting factors discussed above, specifically that some productions receiving the credit would have filmed here anyway and revenues lost to the film tax credit could have been used to fund other economically beneficial programs.

Race to the Bottom: Some critics question the wisdom of enacting industry-specific tax benefits, which tend to pit state against state and encourage a proverbial "race to the bottom". For this reason, the LAO has generally argued that such industry-specific inducements represent poor tax policy. That said, the LAO has also acknowledged that California's adoption of a film tax credit was understandable in light of the actions taken by other states to lure productions away from Hollywood. In addition, the program contains many provisions to guard against some of the pitfalls that attend other tax expenditure programs. Unlike most other credits, the film tax credit program is capped annually, allowing the Legislature to weigh the program against other budgetary priorities and determine the state's maximum financial exposure. The credit is also allocated on a competitive basis by the California Film Commission which, by most accounts, has done a very good job administering the program.

In the end, the question is whether this bill's significant credit augmentation will prove sufficient to shore up California's film industry for the medium to long term or whether the state will, in short order, be called upon to provide even more generous incentives in response to the actions of other competing states and nations over which California has no control.

Provisions of SB 630
Certified Soundstage Credit Changes
 Increases the cap on qualified expenditures from $100 million to $120 million per production.  Removes the 50% ownership or 10-year lease requirement for credits allocated after July 1, 2025.  Raises the total credit limit to $21 million per production and $1.3 million per episode.

Expanded Eligibility for Tax Credits
 Adds new qualifying production types:
o 20+ minute live action or animated series.
o Animated feature films with budgets ≥ $1 million.
o Large-scale competition shows.
o Pilots for new series with 20+ minute runtimes.

Enhanced Credit Rates
 Raises base credit percentages:
o From 20% to 35% for general productions.
o From 25% to 35% for independent films.
o From 25% to 40% for relocating TV series.

Recurring TV Cap Adjustment
 Introduces a new formula for recurring series: prior allocation amount plus 3% per additional year of credit use after 2025–26.

SB 630
6 Independent Film Definition and Support
 Increases budget cap from $10 million to $20 million.  Raises publicly traded ownership threshold from 25% to 30%.  Applies higher 10% local hire uplift to independent productions.

New Uplifts and Pilot Eligibility
 Introduces a 2% uplift for projects employing trainees from Career Pathways Programs.  Allows "reboots" to qualify as new productions if 48 months have passed since prior photography and no previous credit was issued.

CFC Administrative Changes
 Requires four annual credit allocations (up from two).  Prohibits devaluation of scoring musician hires in the jobs ratio.  Expands diversity reporting and oversight.
 Allows credit reallocations (up to 30%) across categories to maximize use.  Expands Career Pathways Program nonprofit partnerships and formalizes their application and oversight processes.

Allocation Changes
 Raises annual allocation for independent films (both < and > $10M) to 5%.  Reduces relocation series allocation from 17% to 15%.  Removes 10% penalty on refundable credits.

Related Legislation
 AB 1138 (Zbur) Income and corporate taxes: tax credits: motion pictures.  SB 144 (2021): Established the Soundstage Credit.
 SB 132 (2023): Extended the Film & TV Tax Credit Program through 2029–30 and introduced refundable credits.
 AB 1839 (2014): Created Film & TV Tax Credit 2.0.
 SB 878 (2018): Implemented Credit 3.0, refining allocation methods.

Status of Legislation
This bill is in the Assembly.

Support
Los Angeles County Supervisor Lindsey P. Horvath
American Federation of Musicians Local 47
Association of Talent Agents
Bardas Investment Group
SB 630
7 California Chamber of Commerce
California Federation of Labor Unions, AFL-CIO
California IATSE Council
California State Council of Laborers
California Travel Association
Central City Association of Los Angeles
Cinespace Studios
City of Los Angeles
City of West Hollywood
Concept Art Association
Cosm Films, LLC
Culver Studios; the
Directors Guild of America, Inc.

Entertainment Union Coalition
Film Liaisons in California Statewide
FilmLA, Inc.

FotoKem Industries, Inc.

Gidden Media
Hollywood Chamber of Commerce
Hollywood Professional Association
IATSE Local 16
IATSE Local 44
IATSE Local 80
IATSE Local 119
IATSE Local 122
IATSE Local 600
IATSE Local 695
IATSE Local 700
IATSE Local 705
IATSE Local 728
IATSE Local 729
IATSE Local 800
IATSE Local 839
IATSE Local 871
IATSE Local 884
Independent Hospitality Coalition
Latino Film Institute
Los Angeles County Democratic Party
Motion Picture Association
Mousetrappe Media
Netflix
Out-of-Zone Coalition
Pacific Production Services, LLC
SB 630
8 Paramount Pictures
Producers Guild of America
SetJetters, Inc.

Sony Pictures Entertainment
Valley Economic Alliance; the
Walt Disney Company and its Affiliated Entities; the
Warner Bros. Discovery
Westside Council of Chambers of Commerce
Writers Guild of America West
6767 W Sunset Blvd, LLC
22,749 Individuals
Oppose
None
SB 720
June 16, 2025
To: Mandy Jiang, City of Beverly Hills
From: Andrew K. Antwih, Partner, Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange Dylan Hoffman, Legislative Advocate, Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange Re: SB 720 (Ashby) Automated traffic enforcement system programs.

Version
Amended May 1, 2025.

Summary
SB 720 creates an opt-in “Safer Streets” automated enforcement program for red-light violations, authorizing local jurisdictions to deploy fixed camera systems that issue civil citations (no license points) to registered vehicle owners.

Existing Law
Red‑Light Cameras (§ 21455.5 VC): Authorized subject to location, signage, light‑timing, and privacy controls.

Active Transportation Program (§ 2380 SHC): Grants for biking/walking infrastructure.

Safety Corridors (§ 22358.7 VC): Designation and lowered speeds on high‑injury streets.

Indigent Waivers (§ 40220(c) VC): Income‑based relief for parking citations.

Transit‑Lane Parking Enforcement (§ 40240 VC): Forward‑facing cameras on transit vehicles for transit‑only lanes and stops.

Privacy & Review Requirements (§ 40240 VC): Limited capture of unrelated drivers/pedestrians; free public review of raw video.

Pilot Speed Enforcement (AB 645 2023): Six‑city speed camera program.

Background
Shaw
Yoder
Antwih
Schmelzer
&Lange
SYASLpartners.com
141 5 L Street
Suite 1 000
Sacramento
CA,95814
916-446-4656
SB 720
2 Author's Statement: “Every year, roughly 4,000 people lose their lives to unsafe driving on California streets. SB 720 establishes the Safer Streets Act, which is a critical step towards reducing traffic accidents and fatalities. This bill allows cities to opt in to a new red light camera system in high collision areas. SB 720 changes the violation from a criminal penalty to a civil penalty – easing insurance prices for drivers and creating a more equitable framework in a space historically associated heavily with bias and over criminalization. The Safer Streets Act ensures that revenue generated from the new program funds local safety initiatives, including vital road infrastructure improvements. SB 720 ensures that cities have the tools to create safer streets and to invest in local pedestrian and motorist safety measures.” History of Automated Enforcement: California phased in automated enforcement starting with rail-crossing cameras in 1994, red-light cameras on trial in 1995 (made permanent in 1998), transit-lane parking in 2007, street-sweeping cameras in 2010, and most recently speed cameras via a six-city pilot with AB 645 (Friedman, 2023). While cameras improve compliance and reduce staffing costs, they raise due-process, privacy, and equity concerns—and can create perverse financial incentives if jurisdictions profit from fines.

Expanding Automated Enforcement to Speed Violations: This bill establishes an alternative automated enforcement system to that existing in current law for monitoring traffic signals. It closely models recent laws with a number of features requested by the Senate Judiciary Committee to address some of the equity and privacy concerns. This includes:
 Involvement of local groups focused on racial equity, privacy protection, and economic justice in developing the required system report.
 Locations must be identified in an equitable manner taking into consideration quantitative data about relevant incidents.
 Contractual provisions that tie compensation to number of citations or a percentage of revenue generated by the system are prohibited.
 Notice must be provided to the public and day-to-day oversight needs to ensure proper functioning and overall compliance.
 The bill also includes a required report to indicate the number of alleged violations, the number and type of citations issued, the number of citations dismissed, and the funds generated. However, this information is only required to be included if this information is “in the possession of, or readily available to, the designated jurisdiction.” Given the importance of this data to proper evaluation and oversight of these programs, the author has agreed to amendments that remove this condition.

However, there are a few key differences that should be noted. This alternative system does not require cooperation of law enforcement and turns this into a civil enforcement scheme. Only civil penalties can be assessed and violations can not result in suspension of a license or in a violation point being assessed against the violator. The system can enforce the citation against the registered owner rather than the actual driver.

Initial review is provided through an administrative process conducted pursuant to procedures established by the issuing agency in front of an examiner who may be an employee and who only needs 20 SB 720
3 hours of training, which may be accomplished through a program developed by the agency. The employee of the agency who issues a notice of violation is not required to participate in the hearing. To establish a violation, the issuing agency cannot be required to produce any evidence other than:
 a notice of violation;
 a photograph of the vehicle’s license plate,
 and DMV information identifying the registered owner of the vehicle.

This alone constitutes prima facie evidence of the violation. If the agency meets this initial burden, the recipient of the notice of violation must present any evidence and argument in defense.

An appeal can be taken in the courts, but a copy of the notice of violation shall be admitted into evidence as prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. To get around evidentiary issues, the bill exempts its photographic evidence from relevant hearsay rules.

In addition, the appeal need not be in front of a judge, as the bill deems it a subordinate judicial duty that may be performed by a commissioner or other subordinate judicial officer at the direction of the presiding judge of the court. The author has agreed to amend the provision regarding the notice of violation to instead provide a presumption of admissibility rather than as prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. In addition, amendments provide for the appeal to be taken in small claims court where registered owners may be more comfortable pleading their case.

Provisions of SB 720
 Alternative System Authorized: Defines “automated traffic enforcement system” as a fixed camera detecting red‑light violations and capturing a clear rear‑plate photo.  Signage & Location: Requires advance warning signs visible from all approaches; mandates preservation of existing yellow‑light timing.
 Geographic & Socioeconomic Diversity: Jurisdictions must deploy cameras in varied neighborhoods and justify site selection with collision data.  Safety‑Risk Findings: Placement only at intersections with documented high collision or speed‑exhibition incidents (≥ 4 law‑enforcement calls in two years).  Impact Report & Public Hearing: Jurisdictions must prepare an Automated Enforcement Impact Report, collaborate with racial‑equity, privacy, and economic‑justice groups, and hold a public hearing ≥ 30 days after publishing the report.
 Report Contents: Must assess civil‑rights impacts, system description, fiscal costs, deployment rationale (especially in low‑income areas), and proposed location data.  Uniform Guidelines & Maintenance: Jurisdictions must adopt procedures for screening, data handling, annual equipment inspection, sign upkeep, signal‑timing oversight, and review controls.

SB 720
4  Revenue‑Neutrality: Prohibits third‑party contracts based on citation volume or revenue share; allows only cost recovery.
 Ongoing Reporting: Jurisdictions must publish counts of captures, citations issued/dismissed, violation types (straight, left, right), and revenue data.  Warning Period & Notice Requirements: First 60 days—warning notices only; formal Notice of Violation (NOV) must include plate photo, Vehicle Code section, camera location, and date/time; driver‑face images discouraged post‑2026.
 Evidence & Privacy: Exempts camera records from hearsay rules and the Public Records Act; allows owners or their designated drivers to view images.  Civil Penalties Only: $100 fine, no DMV points or license suspension; late fees capped at 50% of the base penalty; only electronic‑payment fees allowed.  Due‑Process & Appeals:
o Initial Review: Free administrative review within 30 days of NOV. o Hearing: Administrative hearing within 90 days, offered in writing, video, or in‑person; hearing officers require 20 hours of training; agency need only present NOV, plate photo, and DMV ownership data as prima facie evidence.
o Court Appeal: De novo appeal in superior or small‑claims court; NOV admitted as prima facie evidence; subordinate judicial officers may preside. o Indigency Accommodations: Payment plans and fee waivers for low‑income respondents.
 Program Funds: Fines first reimburse program costs; any surplus restricted to local street‑safety improvements.
 Non‑Interference: Jurisdictions may continue under existing red‑light authority (§ 21455.5 VC) or opt into the new program.

Related Legislation
 AB 645 (Friedman, Ch. 808, Stats. 2023)
 AB 550 (Chiu, 2021)
 AB 917 (Bloom, Ch. 709, Stats. 2021)
SB 720
5  AB 1051 (Hancock, Ch. 427, Stats. 2016)
 AB 1287 (Chiu, Ch. 485, Stats. 2015)
 AB 1041 (Ma, Ch. 325, Stats. 2011)
 AB 2567 (Bradford, Ch. 471, Stats. 2010
 AB 101 (Ma, Ch. 377, Stats. 2007)
 SB 1136 (Kopp, Ch. 54, Stats. 1998)
 SB 833 (Kopp, Ch. 922, Stats. 1995)
 SB 1802 (Rosenthal, Ch. 1216, Stats. 1994)
Status of Legislation
This bill is in the Assembly.

Support
Active San Gabriel Valley
Bike LA
Bike Long Beach
Bike Slo County
Car-lite Long Beach
Circulate San Diego
City of Sacramento
City of San Diego
City of West Hollywood
Costa Mesa Alliance for Better Streets
East Bay for Everyone
Livable Communities Initiative
Los Angeles Neighborhood Initiative
Los Angeles Walks
Move LA
Move Santa Barbara County
Mujeres De LA Tierra
Norwalk Unides
Pasadena Complete Streets Coalition
Peopleforbikes
Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates
San Diego County Bicycle Coalition
San Francisco Bicycle Coalition
SB 720
6 Santa Monica Families for Safe Streets
Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance
Santa Monica Spoke
Slow Down Sacramento
So Cal Cycling
Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition
Streets are for Everyone (SAFE) (ORG)
Streets for All
Strong Towns Artesia
Strong Towns Santa Barbara
West Hollywood Bicycle Coalition
Oppose
National Motorists Association
AB 715
June 16, 2025
To: Mandy Jiang, City of Beverly Hills
From: Andrew K. Antwih, Partner, Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange Dylan Hoffman, Legislative Advocate, Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange Re: AB 715 (Zbur) Educational equity: discrimination
Version
Amended May 12, 2025.

Summary
AB 715 prohibits the governing board of a school district or a county board of education, or the governing body of a charter school, from allowing the use of any curriculum or instructional materials, as specified, if it would subject a pupil to unlawful discrimination; changes the definitions of nationality and religion for purposes of prohibitions on discrimination in public schools; and states the intent of the Legislature to strengthen protections against discrimination in specified ways.

Existing Law
State law prohibits discrimination in public education on the basis of various protected characteristics including disability, gender identity, religion, race, nationality, sexual orientation, and immigration status.

Current provisions prohibit governing boards from adopting textbooks or materials that reflect adversely upon individuals based on these traits and provide remedies through the UCP.

Definitions of “nationality” and “religion” in existing Education Code apply to both K–12 and higher education settings. However, recent legislation (AB 2925, 2024) expanded these definitions for higher education to encompass shared ancestry and protections against antisemitism and Islamophobia. The UCP allows individuals to file complaints related to discriminatory practices in education, which may be appealed to the California Department of Education (CDE) and ultimately the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI).

Background
Author's Statement: AB 715 is the product of collaboration between California Legislative Diversity Caucuses. This bill sets the intent of the Legislature to strengthen protections against discrimination, including antisemitism, in K–12 education. AB 715 lays the framework to address increased incidents of antisemitism in K-12 education and foster safe and supportive schools for all students. The bill also strengthens the Uniform Complaint Process (UCP), increases accountability for local educational Shaw
Yoder
Antwih
Schmelzer
&Lange
SYASLpartners.com
141 5 L Street
Suite 1 000
Sacramento
CA,95814
916-446-4656
AB 715
2 agencies, creates a state-level Antisemitism Coordinator, and ensures full K-12 compliance with laws preventing discrimination. Lastly, this bill strengthens anti-discrimination protections related to nationality and religion. Together, these changes will provide enhanced protections and better recourse for not only the Jewish community, but all students facing discrimination." Provisions of AB 715
 Prohibits the governing board of a school district or a county board of education, or the governing body of a charter school from allowing (in addition to not adopting or approving) the use of any textbook, instructional material, supplemental instructional material, or curriculum for classroom instruction if it would subject a pupil to unlawful discrimination, as specified in section 220 of the Education Code.
 Changes the definition of “nationality,” for purposes of for purposes of prohibitions on discrimination in public education, to add (in addition to citizenship, country of origin, and national origin)
o A person’s actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics, or residency in a country with a dominant religion or distinct religious identity. o States that discrimination against pupils who identify as Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Christian, Tao, Shinto, or Buddhist, or pupils of native religious groups, pupils of indigenous religious groups, or pupils of another religious group, when the discrimination involves racial, ethnic, or ancestral slurs or stereotypes, constitutes discrimination on the basis of nationality.
 Changes the definition of “religion,” for purposes of prohibitions on discrimination in public education, to add (in addition to religious belief, observance, and practice and includes agnosticism and atheism) that “discrimination on the basis of religion” includes, but is not limited to, antisemitism and Islamophobia.
 States the intent of the Legislature to enact subsequent legislation to do the following:
o Strengthen protections against discrimination, including antisemitism, in K-12 education, including protections against instruction and activity that promotes discrimination; o Strengthen the California Department of Education’s (CDE) Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP) by ensuring that complaints can be made regarding discrimination, including discrimination by school board members and by third parties who are contracted by a local educational agency (LEA), and by ensuring timely compliance with UCP filings and determinations;
o Increase accountability for LEAs that are found to engage in discrimination; o Create an Antisemitism Coordinator who will further the intent of and compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;
o Prevent discrimination and ensure a safe and supportive school climate; and AB 715
3 o Ensure that educators, including third-party contractors, fully comply with laws preventing discrimination, including through protections in the contract procurement process.

Related Legislation
 SB 153 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter 38, Statutes of 2024, prohibits the governing board of a school district, a county board of education, or the governing body of a charter school from adopting or approving the use of any textbook, instructional material, supplemental instructional material, or curriculum for classroom instruction if it would subject a pupil to unlawful discrimination pursuant to Section 220. Permits a complaint to be filed with the applicable school district, COE, or charter school under the UCP, or to be filed with the SPI directly. Authorizes the SPI to directly intervene without waiting for an investigation by the school district, COE, or charter school.
 AB 2925 (Friedman), Chapter 844, Statutes of 2024, changed the definition of the terms nationality and religion for purposes of defining what constitutes discrimination in higher education, and established a requirement for specific antidiscrimination training or diversity, equity, and inclusion training offered by postsecondary education institutions to include training on how to combat and address discrimination against the five most targeted groups in the state, as defined.
 SB 472 (Stern) of the 2025-26 Session would require the SPI to establish the Holocaust and Genocide Education Grant Program and would require the CDE to issue a notice to all LEAs serving students in grades 7 to 12, inclusive, clarifying that specified social science instruction is designed to provide a foundation for the understanding of human rights issues with particular attention to the study of the inhumanity of genocide, slavery, and the Holocaust.  AB 1468 (Zbur and Addis) would require the SBE, to develop and adopt academic content standards for ethnic studies instruction in high school; require the Instructional Quality Commission (IQC) to recommend, and the SBE to adopt, reject, or modify, curriculum frameworks and instructional materials for instruction in ethnic studies; require the SBE to issue guidance to LEAs on instruction in ethnic studies; establish new anti-discrimination requirements for the content of ethnic studies; and require an LEA or a charter school to provide the CDE with a copy of all curricula, instruction, and instructional materials used in teaching ethnic studies.  AB 2918 (Zbur and Addis) of the 2023-24 Session would have required, before adopting a course in ethnic studies or any instructional materials for a course in ethnic studies, or revising any existing ethnic studies course or instructional materials for a course in ethnic studies, an LEA to ensure that the course and instructional materials are developed in conjunction with specified stakeholders, including certificated teachers, classified public school staff, and parents and guardians of pupils. This bill was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 715
4  SB 1277 (Stern), Chapter 890, Statutes of 2024, establishes the California Teachers Collaborative for Holocaust and Genocide Education (Collaborative), to establish a statewide professional development program on genocide for school district, COE, and charter school teachers.  SB 693 (Stern) of the 2021-22 Session would have 1) established the Governor’s Council on Genocide and Holocaust Education and required the council to develop best practices to facilitate the instruction on genocide and the Holocaust, identify available resources that are aligned to the best practices, and identify programs and resources to train teachers to provide education on genocide and the Holocaust; and 2) required the CDE to make available the best practices and approved lessons, resources, and materials to support the integration of instruction on genocide and the Holocaust, and to conduct a voluntary study to assess the impact of the instruction based on the best practices. This bill was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.  SB 141 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter 194, Statutes of 2023, appropriated $1.5 million to the SPI for allocation to the California Teachers Collaborative for Holocaust and Genocide Education to continue work developing and providing curriculum resources related to genocide and Holocaust education; and providing professional development, including educator trainings, on genocide and Holocaust education.
 AB 1078 (Jackson), Chapter 229, Statutes of 2023, makes various changes to the adoption of instructional materials for use in schools, including a provision that would prohibit a governing board from disallowing the use of an existing textbook, other instructional material, or curriculum that contains inclusive and diverse perspectives, as specified.  AB 130 (Committee on Budget), Chapter 44, Statutes of 2021, appropriated $2 million to the SPI for allocation to the Marin County Office of Education to contract with nonprofit organizations with subject matter expertise in genocide and Holocaust education to develop and provide curriculum resources related to genocide and Holocaust education; and provide professional development, including educator trainings, on genocide and Holocaust education.

Status of Legislation
This bill is in the Senate.

Support
None
Oppose
None
AB 1138
June 16, 2025
To: Mandy Jiang, City of Beverly Hills
From: Andrew K. Antwih, Partner, Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange Dylan Hoffman, Legislative Advocate, Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange Re: AB 1138 (Zbur) Income and corporate taxes: tax credits: motion pictures Version
Amended June 2, 2025.

Summary
AB 1138 significantly expands and modifies California’s Film and Television Production Tax Credit 4.0 to enhance the state’s competitiveness in retaining and attracting film and television productions.

Background
Author Statement: “California's iconic film and television production industry is in crisis. As more states and countries are competing aggressively for film and television production, California has seen an Shaw
Yoder
Antwih
Schmelzer
&Lange
SYASLpartners.com
141 5 L Street
Suite 1 000
Sacramento
CA,95814
916-446-4656
AB 1138
2 unprecedented drop in jobs that is resulting in extreme hardship for the workers and small businesses in our signature industry.

Since it was first established by the State Legislature in 2009, California's Film & Television Tax Credit Program has generated over $26 billion in economic activity, helped create nearly 200,000 jobs, and more than paid for itself in tax revenue generation. Every dollar allocated by the program generates $1.07 in direct state and local tax revenues and creates at least $24.40 in economic output, according to a study by the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation.

The loss of production and economic output harms the hard-working cast and crew members who struggle to find work and the small businesses that support the industry. Many workers report being out of work for 6 months, 12 months and even longer. According to reports on contributions to the Motion Picture Pension Plan, the decline in production in California has led to an estimated 30% drop in union jobs since 2022. Due to a lack of employment opportunities, many workers are forced to travel to other states to work or must consider changing fields.

AB 1138 will address this crisis by strengthening and modernizing the Film and TV Tax Credit Program. This bill increases the base tax credit rate to be more competitive with other jurisdictions, expands eligibility for a broader range of types of production, enhances the program for independent films, and addresses administrative and other barriers. These enhancements seek to retain and expand entertainment industry jobs, boost small businesses that support production, and reinforce California's status as the global leader in creativity and innovation.” The motion picture industry in California: The state's film production workforce is by far the largest in the United States, and over 2.5 times the size of its nearest competitor (New York). The industry, however, is heavily concentrated in Southern California, with the vast majority of these California jobs located in Los Angeles County alone.

California's first film tax credit program: Responding to the proliferation of financial incentives offered by other states, California adopted its first film and television production tax credit program in 2009. [SBx3 15 (Calderon), Chapter 17, Statutes of 2009, Third Extraordinary Session, and ABx3 15, AB 1138
3 (Krekorian), Chapter 10, Statutes of 2009, Third Extraordinary Session.] Originally, the program was scheduled to sunset after FY 2013-14, but was extended by the Legislature in 2011 for one additional year – through FY 2014-15. [AB 1069 (Fuentes), Chapter 731, Statutes of 2011.] In 2012, the program was further extended for two additional years – through FY 2016-17. [AB 2026 (Fuentes), Chapter 841, Statutes of 2012.]
Demand for the original tax credit exceeded the $100 million available in every year of the program's existence. The California Film Commission, which was charged with administering the program, accepted applications on a first-come, first-served basis. After the program's first year, however, most applications were submitted on the first day of each application period. As a result, the California Film Commission used a random selection process – often referred to as a "lottery" – to determine the order in which applications received on the same day would be processed.

Windfall tax benefits (reduction of $1.5 billion): The LAO report notes that some projects receiving a film tax credit would have been made in California even without a financial subsidy.

AB 1138
4 Projects receiving tax credits more likely to be made (addition of $0.4 billion): According to the LAO, it appears that receiving a tax credit allocation could have had a small but discernable effect on whether or not a project was completed at all. Specifically, the LAO estimated that if the California Film Commission allocated a credit, the project was about 5% more likely to be completed, compared to projects that were initially placed on a waitlist. This, in turn, increased the estimate of total spending in California resulting from the first tax credit program by roughly $0.4 billion.

After accounting for the adjustments described above, the LAO estimated that roughly $4.5 billion of the $6.1 billion in total production spending by tax credit recipients was additional spending in the state's economy attributable to the film tax credit program.

Recent disruptions, including COVID-19, the 2023 labor strikes, and the 2025 Los Angeles wildfires have depressed production activity. While the COVID-19 impact proved to be short-lived, filming activity following the strikes has shown no signs of recovering so far, with shoot days slightly declining further in 2024;
Since 2010, California's share of domestic film industry employment has decreased from over 54% to 46% as of 2023, becoming particularly volatile over the past few years; AB 1138
5 While the film tax credit program likely increases the size of California's film industry, there is weak evidence that expanding the program would benefit California's economy as a whole. More specifically, tax incentives typically never "pay for themselves".

Film Tax Credits Generally have A Negative Overall Effect on State revenues. Evidence from academic research and state evaluations in places such as Georgia and New York find that every $1 of credit allocated returns significantly less than $1 in state revenue. One notable outlier to this pattern is a report from the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation, who claim to find a small fiscal benefit associated with the film tax credit. The Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation estimates, however, very likely are overstated. These estimates ignore some of the important offsetting factors discussed above, specifically that some productions receiving the credit would have filmed here anyway and revenues lost to the film tax credit could have been used to fund other economically beneficial programs.

Provisions of AB 1138
Certified Soundstage Credit Changes
 Increases the cap on qualified expenditures from $100 million to $120 million per production.  Removes the 50% ownership or 10-year lease requirement for credits allocated after July 1, 2025.  Raises the total credit limit to $21 million per production and $1.3 million per episode.

AB 1138
6 Enhanced Credit Rates
 Raises base credit percentages:
o From 20% to 35% for general productions.
o From 25% to 35% for independent films.
o From 25% to 40% for relocating TV series.

Recurring TV Cap Adjustment
 Introduces a new formula for recurring series: prior allocation amount plus 3% per additional year of credit use after 2025–26.

Independent Film Definition and Support
 Increases budget cap from $10 million to $20 million.  Raises publicly traded ownership threshold from 25% to 30%.  Applies higher 10% local hire uplift to independent productions.

Related Legislation
 SB 630 (Allen): Identical to this bill.
 SB 132 (2023): Established Film Tax Credit 4.0, including the first refundable tax credit for business taxpayers.
 SB 144 (2021): Required new diversity reporting and increased credit allocations for relocating and recurring series.

AB 1138
7  AB 1839 (2014): Created Film Tax Credit 2.0, which introduced a jobs ratio scoring system for credit allocation.
 Governor’s Budget Proposal (2025): Called for an increase to $750M in credit allocation, aligning with AB 1138’s fiscal expansion, though without programmatic changes.

Status of Legislation
This bill is in the Senate.

Support
American Federation of Musicians Local 47
Art Directors Guild, IATSE Local 800
California IATSE Council
Cold Iron Pictures
COSM Films
Costume Designers Guild, IATSE Local 892
Directors Guild of America
Entertainment Union Coalition
IATSE Local 16
IATSE Local 44
IATSE Local 80
IATSE Local 119
IATSE Local 122
IATSE Local 600
IATSE Local 695
IATSE Local 705
IATSE Local 706
IATSE Local 728
IATSE Local 729
IATSE Local 839
IATSE Local 871
IATSE Local 884
Motion Picture Association
Motion Picture Editors Guild, IATSE Local 700
Netflix
Paramount Global
San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce
Sony Pictures Entertainment
Walt Disney Company
Warner Bros. Discovery
Writers Guild of America West
Oppose
None
AB 306
June 16, 2025
To: Mandy Jiang, City of Beverly Hills
From: Andrew K. Antwih, Partner, Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange Dylan Hoffman, Legislative Advocate, Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange Re: AB 306 (Schultz) Building regulations: state building standards.

Version
Amended June 10, 2025.

Summary
AB 306 imposes a six-year moratorium (October 1, 2025–June 1, 2031) on both state and local amendments to building standards affecting residential units, with only narrowly defined exceptions for emergency health-and-safety standards, wildfire “home hardening,” and several legislatively mandated studies (e.g., single-exit, single-stairway apartments; adaptive‐reuse water standards). Amendments also allow for exceptions in the case.

Existing Law
California Building Standards Law (Health & Safety Code §§ 17922 et seq.) requires state agencies to submit proposed building standards to the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) for adoption every 18‑month or triennial cycle.

Local Amendments (§ 17958 et seq.): Cities/counties may adopt modifications (including green building “reach codes”) if they make an express finding that local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions justify them. CBSC currently cannot substantively review the merits or cost‑reasonableness of those local findings.

Background
Author's Statement: “California has a multi-million unit housing deficit. This mismatch of supply and demand has resulted in our longstanding housing crisis. Our home prices are double the national average, a majority of renters sacrifice basic needs like food and health care to pay for housing, and we have an astonishing level of homelessness, exceeding 180,000 unhoused Californians. The recent fires in Los Angeles have only exacerbated these housing issues.

California’s building codes are some of the most energy-efficient and protective of health and life safety in the nation, but the cumulative impact of ever more aggressive building code updates has measurably Shaw
Yoder
Antwit
Schmelzer
4Lage
4464So
it 100%
eh
04414

4.44446%
AB 306
2 increased the cost of new housing construction. Industry stakeholders estimate the upfront cost increases of the code changes made over the last 15 years to be in the $50,000-$100,000 range per single-family unit, not including further cost pressures from local modifications.

AB 306 would pause additional changes to state building standards affecting residential construction for six years, excluding emergency changes necessary for protecting health and safety and home hardening.

This bill would also prohibit local governments from making new modifications to residential building standards for six years, with limited exceptions.

This moratorium will bring more certainty to the home construction industry and help stem further construction cost increases, given the demand surge from the volume of homes and apartments that will need to be rebuilt in Los Angeles. Freezing the codes affecting residential construction will prevent further cost increases for new homes and apartments. Pausing further changes will also allow the current contractor workforce and local building officials to absorb the newest code requirements and have certainty that they will remain in place for six years such that they will not have to take time to relearn and reconfigure certain practices every 18-to-36 months.

Given it is likely to take affected individuals several years to remediate sites, receive insurance payouts or financial assistance and line up financing, locate contractors and supplies, and pull permits to begin reconstruction, further increases and changes to building standards requirements will only make the rebuilding process more difficult and costly for residents.” Speaker-ized: Along with Assemblymember Schultz, AB 306 is carried in the Assembly by Speaker Robert Rivas as a principal author—a rare move that has significantly accelerated the bill’s progress through committee referrals and floor votes. When the Assembly’s presiding officer personally champions legislation, member colleagues and interest groups recognize it as a top leadership priority. That reality has made some stakeholder organizations more cautious about mounting a public opposition campaign:
they know that challenging a bill backed by the Speaker risks straining relationships with his office and could slow their broader advocacy priorities on the Assembly side. Consequently, the Speaker’s direct sponsorship has reshaped the political calculus around AB 306, often dampening vocal resistance even among groups that have substantive concerns about the moratorium.

Provisions of AB 306
State Moratorium: From October 1, 2025, until June 1, 2031, CBSC and all adopting agencies must reject or refrain from considering, approving, or adopting any proposed building standard affecting residential units unless:
● The CBSC deems it an emergency standard necessary to protect health and safety; ● It relates to home hardening and is proposed by the Office of the State Fire Marshal; ● It arises from the SFM’s mandated study of single-exit, single-stairway apartment houses above three stories; or
● It implements adaptive reuse water-use standards, potable-water-reduction measures, or riskbased nonpotable treatment standards for certain residential buildings.

AB 306
3 Local Moratorium: From October 1, 2025, until June 1, 2031, no city or county may amend or modify building standards (including green building reach codes) affecting residential units unless:
● The changes are substantially equivalent to those in effect as of January 1, 2025; ● The CBSC deems them an emergency health-and-safety standard; ● They relate to home hardening; or
● They involve home hardening standards proposed by a fire protection district under existing law. ● The changes are limited to administrative practices that reduce permitting time, costs, or modernize software.

Locking in Model Home Standards: Requires jurisdictions to apply the same building standards that were in effect at the time of a model home’s permit approval to all subsequent homes built using that design within the same jurisdiction, promoting consistency and predictability.

CBSC Rejection Authority: CBSC must reject any local modification to residential standards filed between October 1, 2025, and June 1, 2031, unless it meets one of the four local-moratorium exceptions above.

Urgency Clause: Takes effect immediately upon chaptering to avert continuing cost spikes during postdisaster rebuilding.

Related Legislation
● AB 6 (Ward) of the current legislative session would require HCD to convene a working group regarding allowing residential developments between 3 and 10 units to be designed and built under the requirements of the California Residential Code rather than the California Building Code, and would require HCD to research construction cost pressures for residential construction as a result of building standards and provide a report to the Legislature on its findings. ● SB 597 (Glazer, Chapter 861, Statutes of 2024): Required HCD to research and develop recommendations regarding building standards for installation of rainwater catchment systems for nonpotable uses in newly constructed residential dwellings, and requires a report to specified committees of the Legislature by January 1, 2027.
● AB 529 (Gabriel, Chapter 743, Statutes of 2023): Required HCD to convene a working group regarding adaptive reuse residential projects, including identifying and recommending amendments to state building standards.
● SB 745 (Cortese, Chapter 884, Statutes of 2023): Required HCD and CBSC to research, develop, and propose building standards to reduce potable water use in new residential and nonresidential buildings, and requires CBSC to perform a review of water efficiency and water reuse standards each triennial cycle and update these standards as needed.

AB 306
4 ● AB 835 (Lee, Chapter 345, Statutes of 2023): Required the SFM to research standards for single-exit, single-stairway apartment houses in buildings above three stories and provide a report to specified legislative committees and to CBSC by January 1, 2026.
● AB 1738 (Boerner, Chapter 687, Statutes of 2022): Required HCD and CBSC to research and develop mandatory building standards for the installation of EV chargers and not simply a requirement for “EV capable” spaces in existing multifamily and nonresidential buildings during retrofits, additions, and alterations, and mandates future updates to these standards at each triennial code adoption cycle until 2033.

Status of Legislation
This bill is in the Senate.

Support
California Apartment Association
California Building Industry Association
Valley Industry and Commerce Association (VICA)
California Housing Consortium
California Housing Partnership Corporation
American Planning Association, California Chapter
Oppose
California State Association of Electrical Workers
California State Pipe Trades Council
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
San Francisco Baykeeper
Public Citizen
California Building Officials
Acterra: Action for A Healthy Planet
350 Bay Area Action
350 Sacramento
San Diego 350.Org
Climate Protection Campaign
350 SoCal Climate Action
Greenback Associates
Santa Cruz Climate Action Network
Peninsula Interfaith Action
Carbon Free Palo Alto
California Solar Industries Association (CA Solar & Storage) Carbon Free Silicon Valley
Glendale Environmental Coalition
350 Conejo/San Fernando Valley
Mothers Out Front California
AB 306
5 Active San Gabriel Valley
Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers
350 Humboldt
Elders Climate Action, NorCal and SoCal Chapters
Ban SUP (Single Use Plastics)
Mothers Out Front Silicon Valley
Trinity Respecting Earth and Environment
Sonoma County Climate Activist Network (SOCOCAN!)
350 Marin
Climate Reality Project, Los Angeles Chapter
Project Green Home
350 Southland Legislative Alliance
US Green Building Council Los Angeles Chapter
Climate Reality Project, California Coalition
Sustainable San Mateo County
Transformative Wealth Management, LLC
California Climate Action Voters
Leading Change Consulting and Coaching
San Diego Building Electrification Coalition
Habitable Designs
Climate Reality Project, Orange County Chapter
Climate Reality Project, San Fernando Valley Chapter
Third ACT SoCal
Climate Reality Project, San Diego Chapter
Resilient Palisades
Vector Green Power and Materials
Climate Action Petaluma
Climate Reality Contra Costa County Policy Action Squad Cool Petaluma
Design AVEnues
Home Energy Analytics, INC.

Marin Conservation League
Marin/Sonoma Building Electrification Squad
Negawatt Consulting
AB 11
June 16, 2025
To: Mandy Jiang, City of Beverly Hills
From: Andrew K. Antwih, Partner, Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange Dylan Hoffman, Legislative Advocate, Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange Re: AB 11 (Lee) The Social Housing Act
Version
As introduced December 2, 2024
Summary
AB 11 establishes the Social Housing Act, creating an independent California Housing Authority (CHA) charged with developing and acquiring mixed-income social housing across the state. The authority will own and permanently steward these units, employ rent-cross-subsidization and limited-equity ownership models, and operate under a long-term goal of revenue neutrality while closing the gap between actual housing production and each jurisdiction’s RHNA targets.

Existing Law
Local Housing Authorities (Health & Safety Code § 34312): May acquire, develop, lease, and operate low‑income housing and offer supportive services.

General Plan & Housing Element (Gov. Code §§ 65300‑65404): Cities/counties must adopt land‑use plans, including a housing element that accommodates RHNA allocations.

RHNA Process (Gov. Code §§ 65580‑65589.11): HCD and COGs set regional housing needs by income category; jurisdictions must plan accordingly.

HCD Oversight (§ 65585): HCD reviews housing elements, enforces compliance, and can refer to the Attorney General.

Annual Progress Reports (Gov. Code § 65400): Jurisdictions report permitting and entitlement progress to OPR and HCD by April 1 each year.

Mandated Social Housing Study (HSC § 50613): HCD must complete a comprehensive Social Housing Study by December 31, 2026.

Shaw
Yoder
Antwih
Schmelzer
&Lange
SYASLpartners.com
141 5 L Street
Suite 1 000
Sacramento
CA,95814
916-446-4656
AB 11
2 Background
Author’s Statement: “Housing is too expensive for millions of Californians. More than two in five households are considered rent burdened and spend over 30% of their income on housing, and more than one in five households spend over 50% of their income on housing. Over 97% of cities and counties haven’t produced enough affordable housing, and existing strategies to address the lack of affordable housing have not been nearly enough to meet demand. Affordable housing relies on government subsidies, and there is significantly more demand for them than supply.

Social housing is an important tool to ensure housing is affordable to people of all income levels. Social housing is publicly backed, self-sustaining housing that accommodates a mix of household income ranges.

Housing is protected from being sold to a private for-profit entity for the duration of its life, and residents are granted the same protections as tenants in private property, if not more. Many countries throughout the world have successful social housing programs, and in the US, there are social housing developments such as in Montgomery County, Maryland using a similar model. Social Housing is how we provide and realize housing as a human right.”
Concerns from CalCities: “AB 11 would disregard this state mandated planning process and force cities to allow housing developments in nearly all areas of a city. This seriously questions the rationale for the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) process. If the California Housing Authority can build housing on any parcel they own or acquire, why should cities go through the multiyear planning process to identify sites suitable for new housing units for those plans to be ignored and housing built on sites never considered for new housing. Additionally, as a state entity, the California Housing Authority would have full control over the properties they own and would not be required to abide by local zoning, design standards, density requirements, height limitations, parking requirements, or other development standards.”
Working with Author on Previous Concerns from the City: In 2023, the City adopted a “Support if Amended” position on AB 309—an earlier Social Housing Act by the same author—because it would have prohibited local jurisdictions from denying proposed developments. Our letter emphasized our concern over lost local control. In this new version (AB 11), the author has added clear language preserving cities’ authority to reject projects, as detailed in the Provisions section of this memo.

Provisions of AB 11
 Local Preference on Site Selection
o When appropriate, the state shall gift public lands to the CHA, though the CHA can also purchase land from other entities.
o The CHA must accept a local government’s preference on project location if certain conditions, including cost and community amenity access, are met, and shall seek input from the jurisdiction’s governing body related to specific site development, height, number of units, and development timeline.
o Allows cities/counties to steer CHA toward their preferred parcels when acquisition costs and amenities are comparable
AB 11
3  Consultation on Development Details
o The CHA will make an annual determination of the required amount of social housing units to be produced… [and] the CHA must seek input from the local government about certain aspects of a proposed development, including the number of units and the timeline for completing the project.
o Requires CHA to confer with elected bodies on unit counts and construction schedules.  Right of Return for Displaced Residents
o If the development of a property requires the removal of residents, the CHA must cover certain relocation costs and provide displaced residents with the right to live in the new CHA property for their previous rent for one year, or the CHA rent, whichever is lower. o Empowers local constituencies to influence displacement mitigation through their elected officials.
 Creates the California Housing Authority (CHA) as an independent state entity to:
o Produce and acquire mixed-income social housing.
o Close the gap between actual housing output and RHNA targets. o Preserve long-term affordability and prevent privatization.  Defines “social housing” as:
o Publicly owned by the CHA or similar entity.
o Mixed-income communities with permanent affordability restrictions. o Tenant protections (just-cause eviction, governance participation).  Revenue and Ownership Models:
o Rent/mortgage cross-subsidization to balance below-cost and above-cost units. o Cost rent and limited-equity arrangements (99-year leases, resale price controls).  Governance:
o Nine-member CHA Board: housing finance expert, construction expert, maintenance expert, three resident representatives, plus legislative and gubernatorial appointees. o Board duties include setting RHNA gap targets, approving budgets, and guiding executive management.
o Each development forms a resident governance council with biannual meetings with the Board.
 Annual Business Plan & Accountability:
o CHA must publish an annual plan, subject to 60-day public comment, and report to the Governor and Legislature.
 Site Prioritization & Development:
o Focus on vacant, underutilized, surplus public, and transit-adjacent parcels.

AB 11
4 o If rehabilitation displaces residents, CHA covers relocation and grants one-year right of return at prior rent.
o CHA must consult local governments on site selection, unit counts, and development timelines.
 Residency & Tenure Rules:
o Rental model: One-year leases with tenant protections, subleasing optional, lottery stratified by income.
o Ownership model: 99-year limited-equity leases, 15% down payment, five-year occupancy requirement, CHA right of first refusal, resale at purchase price + improvements + inflation.  Financial Structure:
o CHA aims for long-term revenue neutrality, recovering costs through rents, leasehold mortgages, and subsidies.
o Establishes a Social Housing Revolving Loan Fund for zero-interest mixed-income loans. o Legislative intent to back CHA with general obligation bond financing (subject to voter approval) and revenue bonds once income streams stabilize.

Related Legislation
 AB 2281 (Lee, 2024) & AB 2053 (Lee, 2022): Earlier Social Housing Act proposals held or failed in committee.
 AB 309 (Lee, 2023): Proposed DGS‑led social housing pilot on surplus state land; vetoed.  SB 555 (Wahab, 2023): Requires HCD Social Housing Study by end of 2026.  AB 590 (Lee, 2025): Companion general obligation bond measure to fund the CHA Status of Legislation
This bill is in the Senate.

Support
AIDS Healthcare Foundation
California School Employees Association
City of Alameda
Peace & Freedom Party of California
Santa Monica Democratic Club
Davis College Democrats
Indivisible California State Strong
East Bay for Everyone
Democrats of Rossmoor (Walnut Creek)
Fremont for Everyone
Culver City Democratic Club
AB 11
5 California Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO
Redlands YIMBY
Oppose
League of California Cities
South Bay Cities Council of Governments
City of Thousand Oaks
California Civil Liberties Advocacy
Fieldstead and Company
Southern California Rental Housing Association
City of Camarillo
SB 838
June 16, 2025
To: Mandy Jiang, City of Beverly Hills
From: Andrew K. Antwih, Partner, Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange Dylan Hoffman, Legislative Advocate, Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange Re: SB 838 (Durazo) Housing Accountability Act: housing development projects.

Version
Amended May 1, 2025.

Summary
SB 838 (Durazo) modifies the definition of a "housing development project" under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) to exclude any mixed-use development that includes hotel or motel space in its commercial portion. This exclusion applies retroactively to any project application not deemed complete as of January 1, 2025. The intent of the bill is to preserve the integrity of the HAA by preventing developers from leveraging the law’s protections to fast-track hotel construction under the guise of housing production.

Existing Law
The HAA, first enacted in 1982, is a cornerstone of California’s pro-housing framework. It limits the ability of local governments to deny or condition housing development projects—particularly those containing affordable units—unless stringent criteria are met. A project that complies with applicable zoning and general plan standards must be approved unless the local agency can make specific findings based on substantial evidence, such as adverse health or safety impacts or conflicts with state or federal law.

AB 1893 (Wicks, 2024) recently amended the HAA to clarify the scope of “housing development project,” including certain mixed-use projects. The Act currently defines qualifying projects as those that are at least two-thirds residential, allowing one-third of the project for commercial use.

Background
Author's Statement: The Legislature has made significant strides in easing housing development restrictions by providing incentives and streamlining benefits to projects that meet key housing requirements. The HAA, California’s flagship housing production law, was designed to accelerate the creation of permanent homes to solve the state’s housing crisis. Unfortunately, some developers are taking advantage of the HAA to gain incentives and fast-track approval for hotels and resorts. This Shaw
Yoder
Antwih
Schmelzer
&Lange
SYASLpartners.com
141 5 L Street
Suite 1 000
Sacramento
CA,95814
916-446-4656
SB 838
2 undermines the law’s core goal—building homes—and erodes public trust in California’s housing policies.

These hotel developments are diverting critical resources that are desperately needed for housing in California. The HAA was created to accelerate housing development, not commercial hotel projects.

This abuse is occurring across the state, including in Sonoma County, Santa Clara County, Santa Monica, and Pacific Beach. Further, while important to the tourism economy, hotels place a unique, ongoing and significant demand on public resources such as water, energy, public safety services, transportation, and parking. Because of these impacts, hotels are better suited to local review. SB 838 restores the HAA’s original purpose, reinforces the state’s commitment to building housing, and ensures that California’s housing laws deliver for the communities they were designed to serve.” The bill responds to documented cases in jurisdictions like Santa Monica, Pacific Beach, Sonoma County, and Santa Clara County, where developers have proposed mixed-use projects containing hotels to access streamlined housing entitlements. These hotel components impose significant and ongoing demands on public infrastructure, including water, energy, and public safety services, but do not contribute to permanent housing stock.

Unwanted housing? The HAA limits the ability of local agencies to disapprove housing development projects that contain affordable units. By narrowing the definition of mixed-use projects that are even considered a “housing development project,” this bill expands the ability of local agencies to disapprove development projects that contain affordable housing units.

The HAA codifies as state policy that local governments shall not reject or make infeasible housing development projects that contribute to meeting the state’s housings needs, as expressed in Housing Element Law, without a thorough analysis of the effects of those actions, and without complying with specified criteria in the HAA. By narrowing the definition of housing development project, this bill revises state policy to suggest that the development of mixed-use housing projects that include any hotel or motel space are not a priority for the state.

The active language in the HAA effectuates the intent of codified state policy by prohibiting a local agency from disapproving housing development projects that contain affordable units, unless that jurisdiction can meet one of several specified criteria. For example, a local agency that has a compliant housing element can disapprove a housing development project that contains affordable units if that development is not consistent with the local agency’s zoning. This implicitly prohibits a local agency from denying a housing development project that contains affordable units that is consistent with the local agency’s zoning; additionally, it limits the ability of local agencies that lack a compliant housing element to deny housing development projects. Under this bill, however a zoning consistent mixed-use housing development project that is 100% to lower income households will no longer be eligible for HAA protection if the project includes any hotel space in the commercial third of the mixed-use project.

Provisions of SB 838
 Narrowed Definition of Housing Development Project: Amends the HAA to exclude any mixeduse project that includes hotel or motel space in the commercial third of the development from qualifying as a protected "housing development project." SB 838
3  Retroactive Applicability: Applies the change to any project application not deemed complete as of January 1, 2025.

Related Legislation
 AB 1893 (Wicks, 2024): Expanded the definition of “housing development project” to include more categories of mixed-use developments under HAA protection.  AB 2011 (Wicks, 2022): Streamlined approval for certain mixed-use affordable housing projects in commercial zones.
 SB 6 (Caballero, 2022): Facilitated residential development on underutilized commercial parcels.

Status of Legislation
This bill is in the Assembly
Support
Unite Here International Union, AFL-CIO (sponsor)
Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment
Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, Los Angeles
California Federation of Labor Unions, Afl-cio
Coalition for Economic Survival
Rise Economy
Santa Monicans for Renters' Rights
Strategic Actions for a Just Economy
Thai Community Development Center
Unite Here Local 11
Oppose
Abundant Housing LA
California Building Industry Association
South Pasadena Residents for Responsible Growth
The Two Hundred

AB 507
June 16, 2025
To: Mandy Jiang, City of Beverly Hills
From: Andrew K. Antwih, Partner, Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange Dylan Hoffman, Legislative Advocate, Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange Re: AB 507 (Haney) Adaptive reuse: streamlining: incentives.

Version
As Introduced February 10, 2025
Summary
AB 507 would establish the Office to Housing Conversion Act, aimed at catalyzing the conversion of underutilized commercial buildings—primarily office space—into residential or mixed-use developments. The bill creates a streamlined, ministerial approval process for qualifying adaptive reuse projects, including specific affordability requirements and environmental review exemptions. It also authorizes local governments to establish an Adaptive Reuse Investment Incentive Program, allowing for the redirection of future property tax increment revenue to fund conversion projects. The bill's overarching goal is to accelerate infill housing production while reducing regulatory and cost barriers to adaptive reuse development, particularly in urban areas facing high office vacancy rates.

Existing Law
 Requires HCD to convene a working group to identify challenges to, and opportunities to support, the creation and promotion of adaptive reuse residential projects by December 31, 2025. (Health & Safety Code (HSC) Section 17921.9)
 Establishes, pursuant to AB 1490 (Lee), Chapter 764, Statutes of 2023, a ministerial, streamlined approval process for the adaptive reuse of buildings into 100 percent affordable housing. (Government Code (GOV) Section 65913.12)
 Establishes, pursuant to SB 423 (Wiener), Chapter 778, Statutes of 2023, a streamlined, ministerial approval process, not subject to CEQA, for certain infill multifamily affordable housing projects that are compliant with local zoning and objective standards and that are proposed in local jurisdictions that have not met their regional housing needs allocation. (GOV 65913.4)
 Establishes, pursuant to AB 2011 (Wicks), Chapter 647, Statutes of 2022, a streamlined, ministerial approval process, not subject to CEQA, for certain infill multifamily affordable housing projects that are located on land that is zoned for retail, office, or parking. (GOV 65912.100-65912.140)
Shaw
Yoder
Antwih
Schmelzer
&Lange
SYASLpartners.com
141 5 L Street
Suite 1 000
Sacramento
CA,95814
916-446-4656
AB 507
2  Establishes, pursuant to SB 6 (Caballero), Chapter 659, Statutes of 2022, the Middle Class Housing Act of 2022, allowing residential uses on commercially zoned property without requiring a rezoning. (GOV 65852.24)
 Authorizes HCD to enforce state housing laws. (GOV 65585) Background
Author’s Statement: According to the author, “COVID-19 permanently altered the way humans approach work. In the post pandemic era, many businesses realized that developments in technology allow them to move away from the 9 to 5, commuter model that kept downtown office buildings full of people during the work week. As the capital of technological innovation, California has been particularly impacted by this transition as more and more tech companies shift to offering remote work as a benefit to their employees.

A major downside to this transition is California’s emptying downtown business districts. Office vacancies across the state have hit record highs with Los Angeles and San Francisco both reaching over 30% vacancy rates. Many economists are theorizing that unless local and state governments act quickly, downtowns may be facing a doom-loop scenario with empty, devalued buildings leading to a severe decrease in local government tax bases, leading to decreased services and blight.

Office to housing conversion is a win-win scenario that builds housing, preserves historic buildings, and creates new thriving communities in transit rich areas. California needs to get out of its own way and make office to housing conversions as easy as humanly possible. This bill does exactly that.

Adaptive Reuse as a Policy Tool: Adaptive reuse faces technical, financial, and regulatory challenges. Despite these barriers, models like Los Angeles’ 1999 Adaptive Reuse Ordinance demonstrate that easing local requirements can produce thousands of new housing units. AB 507 seeks to replicate and scale such approaches statewide.

Adaptive Reuse Funding: In the past three years, the Legislature has taken multiple actions to support adaptive reuse. HCD’s Homekey program has allocated approximately $3.5 billion to convert hotels and motels to housing Californians at risk of, or experiencing, homelessness.

Additionally, the 2022-2023 budget included $450 million one-time General Fund ($200 million in 2022-23 and $250 million in 2023-24) to convert existing commercial or office space to affordable housing. AB 1695 (Santiago), Chapter 639, Statutes of 2022 requires any notice of funding availability issued by HCD for an affordable multifamily housing loan and grant program to state that adaptive reuse of a property for an affordable housing purpose is an eligible activity. SB 451 (Atkins), Chapter 703, Statutes of 2019, established a $50 million program to be administered by the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) for the purpose of facilitating the rehabilitation, including adaptive reuse, of historic buildings.

To help offset the costs associated with adaptive reuse projects, this bill would provide financial incentives for adaptive reuse projects in the following ways:
 Authorizing local agencies to establish an Adaptive Reuse Investment Incentive Program, through which an amount up to or equal to 30 years’ worth of the amount of ad valorem property tax revenues could be transferred to the owners of qualifying adaptive reuse projects;
AB 507
3  Aligning program requirements so as to encourage the utilization of existing programs such as the Federal Historic Tax Credit, the newly adopted California Historic Tax Credit, the Mills Act, and the California Historical Building Code; and,  Limiting a local governments’ ability to charge impact fees for adaptive reuse projects that are not directly related to the impacts resulting from the change of use of the site from nonresidential to residential.

Regarding the Adaptive Reuse Investment Incentive Program, this bill would allow for the transfer of property taxes collected by local agencies to market-rate developments with no affordability requirements. The California Constitution allows for the waiver of property taxes for a charitable purpose, as defined in statute. The Legislature defines a charitable purpose for purposes of a property tax welfare exemption as a housing unit restricted to 80% of the area median income (AMI) or less for 55 years. This bill would apply to property taxes collected by a local agency and, therefore, would not violate the welfare exemption. All local agencies wishing to establish an Adaptive Reuse Investment Incentive Program would need to “opt-in” to doing so through an authorizing local ordinance or resolution, to be approved by the governing body of a city or county.

Recent Legislative Investments
 $3.5B in Homekey funds for hotel/motel conversions.
 $450M in the 2022–2023 budget for commercial-to-affordable conversions.  SB 451 and AB 1695 support historic building rehabilitation and adaptive reuse through funding incentives and eligibility standards.

Concerns from CalCities: The League of California Cities has an oppose unless amended position “because it would change the process for adaptive reuse projects by deeming them a use by right in all zones, subject to a ministerial review process, and exempting them from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).”
Provisions of AB 507
 Definitions and Structure
o Defines key terms including “adaptive reuse investment incentive funds” and “proponent.”
o Authorizes cities and counties to voluntarily establish investment incentive programs starting FY 2026-27.
 Eligibility Criteria
o Applies only in urbanized areas.
o Projects must use at least 50% of floor space for residential purposes.  Use by Right & Streamlined Approval
o Adaptive reuse is a permitted use in all zones.
o Projects are exempt from CEQA and must be processed through a ministerial review. o Time limits for review: 60 days (≤150 units); 90 days (>150 units)  Affordability Requirements
o Rental: 15% of units must be affordable (8% VLI + 5% ELI or 15% lower income). o Ownership: 30% moderate-income or 15% lower-income.
o Projects must meet local affordability standards if higher.  Design and Development Standards
o Local governments cannot impose standards that alter the building envelope.

AB 507
4 o Rooftop structures allowed if for shared amenities and limited to one story. o No parking required if none exists on-site; bicycle parking may be required.  Historic Preservation
o Tailored provisions for buildings over 50 years old.
o Compliance with federal/state historic preservation standards or rehabilitation tax credits required.
 Adjacent Parcels
o Allows new development on adjacent underutilized land under certain conditions. o Must comply with the Middle Class Housing Act or the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act.
 Fee Limitations and Incentives
o Local fees must be proportionate to actual impact from the reuse. o Additional local requirements (e.g., inclusionary zoning) prohibited for streamlined projects.
o Developers must commit in writing to paying applicable fees.  Modification and Enforcement
o Proponents can request modifications prior to building permit issuance. o Project approvals valid for 3 years, with a possible 1-year extension. o HCD granted enforcement authority over the Act.

Related Legislation
 AB 3068 (Haney, 2024) – Nearly identical to AB 507; vetoed by Governor due to concerns about labor enforcement mechanisms.
 AB 2488 (Ting, 2024) – Authorized San Francisco to use tax increment financing for downtown office-to-residential conversions.
 AB 2909 (Santiago, 2024) – Proposed tax incentives for adaptive reuse of historic properties; held in committee.
 AB 1490 (Lee, 2023) – Created ministerial approval for extremely affordable adaptive reuse housing.
 SB 423 (Wiener, 2023) – Expanded SB 35’s ministerial approval to more projects.  AB 2011 (Wicks, 2022) – Enabled residential uses in commercial zones with streamlined approval.
 SB 6 (Caballero, 2022) – Allowed residential use on commercial properties without rezoning Status of Legislation
This bill is in the Senate.

Support
AIDS Healthcare Foundation
California Apartment Association
California Arts Advocates
California Business Properties Association
California Downtown Association
AB 507
5 Streets for All
350 Humboldt
Oppose
League of California Cities
South Bay Cities Council of Governments
California Contract Cities Association
City of Thousand Oaks
City of Simi Valley
City of Norwalk
AB 736
June 16, 2025
To: Mandy Jiang, City of Beverly Hills
From: Andrew K. Antwih, Partner, Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange Dylan Hoffman, Legislative Advocate, Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange Re: AB 736 (Wicks) The Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026 Version
As Amended on April 10, 2025.

Summary
AB 736 (Wicks) would place a $10 billion general obligation bond measure on the March 2, 2026, primary ballot, titled the “Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026.” If approved by voters, the bond would provide critical funding to support the construction, preservation, and rehabilitation of affordable housing throughout California.

The measure prioritizes funding for extremely low-income households, supportive housing for individuals experiencing homelessness, and down payment assistance for low-income homebuyers. It also includes targeted funding for farmworker housing, tribal housing, and catalytic infrastructure to facilitate infill development. The bill contains an urgency clause and requires a two-thirds vote.

Existing Law
Authorized the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2018, which provided $4 billion in funding, including $1 billion for the CalVet program and $3 billion for various affordable housing programs. (Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 54000-54034 and Military and Veterans Code 998.600-998.614) Establishes MHP at HCD to assist the new construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of permanent and transitional rental housing for lower income households through loans to local governments and non- and for-profit developers. (HSC Section 50675)
Establishes the Portfolio Reinvestment Program to provide loans or grants to rehabilitate, capitalize operating subsidy or replacement reserves for, and extend the long-term affordability of HCD-funded housing projects that have an affordability restriction that has expired, that have an affordability restriction with a remaining term of less than 10 years, or are otherwise at risk for conversion to marketrate housing. (HSC Section 50606) Shaw
Yoder
Antwih
Schmelzer
&Lange
SYASLpartners.com
141 5 L Street
Suite 1 000
Sacramento
CA,95814
916-446-4656
AB 736
2 Establishes the Energy Efficiency Low-Income Weatherization Program, which provides technical assistance and incentives for the installation of energy efficiency measures and solar photovoltaic systems in low-income multifamily dwellings serving priority populations. (Government Code (GOV) Section 12087.5)
Establishes the Joe Serna, Jr. Farmworker Housing Grant Program (Serna Program) at HCD to finance the new construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition of owner-occupied and rental units for agricultural workers, with a priority for lower income households. (HSC Section 50515.2) Establishes CalHOME at HCD to provide grants to local public agencies and non-profit developers to assist individuals and households through deferred-payment loans. The funds provide direct, forgivable loans to assist development projects involving multiple ownership units, including single-family subdivisions. (HSC Section 50650)
Establishes the Infill Infrastructure Grant Program (IIG) of 2019 to fund capital improvement projects or catalytic qualifying infill area. The funds can be used for gap funding for infrastructure including but not limited to water, sewer or other utility service improvements, factory-built housing components; adaptive reuse; and site preparation or demolition necessary to move forward an affordable housing development.

Includes a 10% set-aside for rural areas.

Authorizes CalHFA to provide first time homebuyer assistance, including but not limited to a deferredpayment, low-interest, subordinate mortgage loan, including down payment assistance, closing cost assistance, or both, to make financing affordable to low- and moderate-income households. (HSC Section 51341)
Provides, through SB 2 (Atkins), Chapter 364, Statutes of 2017, the Building Homes and Jobs Act, with funding for, among other programs, affordable homeownership and rental housing opportunities for agricultural workers and their families. This funding is administered by HCD in conjunction with the Serna Program. (Government Code Section 27388.1)
Background
Author's Statement: "Housing affordability is the number one issue for lower income Californians. The Affordable Housing Bond of 2026 will help produce and preserve tens of thousands of affordable housing units over several years, serving hundreds of thousands of lower income households over the following decades. And because every $1 spent by the state is matched by $4 from federal tax credits, local grants, and rent payments from the residents, the Affordable Housing Bond of 2026 is a smart investment." Affordable Housing Need: According to the 2022 Statewide Housing Plan, to meet California's unmet housing needs, the state needs an additional 2.5 million housing units, including 1.2 million for lowerincome households. Decades of underbuilding have led to a lack of housing overall, particularly housing that is affordable to lower-income households. The state needs an additional 180,000 new units of housing a year to keep up with demand – including about 80,000 units of housing affordable to lower-income AB 736
3 households. By contrast, production in the past decade has been under 100,000 units per year – including less than 20,000 units of affordable housing per year.

The State's Homelessness Crisis is driven by the lack of affordable rental housing for lower income people. According to the California Housing Partnership's (CHP's) Housing Need Dashboard, in the current market, over 2 million extremely low-income and very low-income renter households are competing for roughly 750,000 available and affordable rental units in the state. Over three-quarters of the state's extremely low-income households and over half of the state's very low-income households are severely rent burdened, paying more than 50% of their income toward rent each month.

Provisions of AB 736 (Wicks)
 Bond Authorization: Places a $10 billion general obligation bond measure on the March 2026 primary ballot.
 Programming Allocations:
o $5 billion for the Multifamily Housing Program (MHP), with a 10% set-aside for extremely low-income households.
o $1.7 billion for Supportive Housing through MHP, with operational reserves. o $800 million for the Portfolio Reinvestment Program.
o $500 million for a new program to acquire and rehabilitate unrestricted housing units with long-term affordability restrictions.
o $1 billion combined for CalHOME and My Home down payment assistance (administered by CalHFA).
o $350 million to the Joe Serna Jr. Farmworker Housing Program. o $250 million to a tribal housing program, designed in consultation with tribal governments. o $400 million for the Infill Infrastructure Grant (IIG) Program of 2019.  Implementation and Oversight:
o HCD and CalHFA administer bond-funded programs.
o Funds may be distributed during construction to expedite delivery. o Legislative authority to amend program statutes for improved effectiveness. o A Housing Finance Committee may issue bonds; Pooled Money Investment Board may provide interim financing.

Status of Legislation
This bill is in the Senate.

Support
League of California Cities
California Apartment Association
Disability Rights California
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
PICO California
AB 736
4 Public Advocates, Inc.

Drug Policy Alliance
Corporation for Supportive Housing
Valley Industry and Commerce Association (VICA)
PEP Housing
Inner City Law Center
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Self-Help Enterprises
California Coalition for Rural Housing
Housing California
California Housing Consortium
Association of Bay Area Governments
Sacramento Housing Alliance
EAH Housing
Christian Church Homes
City of San Diego
Construction Employers Association
Urban Habitat
Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment
American Planning Association, California Chapter
Transform
Eviction Defense Network
Self-Help for the Elderly
Santa Ana
Eden Housing
California Conference of Carpenters
Legal Aid of Sonoma County
San Francisco Community Land Trust
County of Ventura
Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County
PATH Ventures
Human Impact Partners
LINC Housing
Southern California Association of Non-Profit Housing
MidPen Housing Corporation
Young Community Developers, Inc.

Resources for Community Development
East Bay Housing Organizations (EBHO)
Enterprise Community Partners Global Green USA
Habitat for Humanity California
Jamboree Housing Corporation
Many Mansions
A Community of Friends (ACOF)
AB 736
5 Somos Mayfair
LeadingAge California
Sacred Heart Community Service
San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association
California Council for Affordable Housing
Wakeland Housing and Development Corporation
Affordable Housing Associates
Circulate San Diego
Housing Trust of Silicon Valley
City of Oakland
Destination: Home
Silicon Valley At Home (Sv@Home)
Peoples' Self-Help Housing
Multi-Faith ACTION Coalition
Redwood Community Action Agency (RCAA)
Monterey Bay Economic Partnership
Abundant Housing LA
Grow the Richmond
YIMBY Action
House Farm Workers!
Public Interest Law Project
Initiate Justice
California Housing Partnership Corporation
Housing Alliance
Serving Seniors
California YIMBY
California Coalition of Land Trusts
East Bay for Everyone
Monterey Peninsula YIMBY
Santa Cruz YIMBY
South Bay YIMBY
Brilliant Corners
All Home
Courage Campaign
Mountain View YIMBY
Peninsula for Everyone
San Francisco YIMBY
Ventura County YIMBY
Affordable Housing Management Association of Northern CA, Nevada, and Hawaii Housing Action Coalition
California Coalition for Community Investment
ACLU California Action
Bay Area Community Land Trust
AB 736
6 Northern Neighbors
National Alliance to End Homelessness
East Bay YIMBY
Housing Trust of Santa Clara County
San Luis Obispo YIMBY
San Francisco YIMBY
Santa Rosa YIMBY
Asian American's Advancing Justice-Sacramento & Los Angeles FSY Architects, INC
Inland SoCal Housing Collective
Napa-Solano for Everyone
Housing Authority of City of Santa Paula
San Luis Obispo YIMBY
The Two Hundred For Home Ownership
San Francisco SafeHouse
Sacramento Area Congregations Together (SAC ACT)
Homes & Hope
Hope Cooperative
Starting Over Strong
Move California
Two Valleys Community Land Trust
Mayor Daniel Lurie, City and County of San Francisco
Vital Arts
YIMBY Los Angeles
Abode Housing Development
Architects Fora
Bolinas Community Land Trust
CARE Community Land Trust
Champions for Progress
Collective Operation
Community Corporation of Santa Monica
Gubb & Barshay LLP
Heavin Helps
Housing Accelerator Fund
Inland Abundant Housing & Housing and Homeless Collaborative of Claremont Partnership for the Bay's Future
Sacramento Poor People's Campaign
Sacramento Transit Advocates and Riders STAR
Stinson Beach Affordable Housing Committee
Tech Equity Action
TerraCorp
WUNZ Apparel in Action
YIMBY Los Angeles
AB 736
7 YIMBY Oceanside

YOLO YIMBY
Oppose
None
AB 1294
June 16, 2025
To: Mandy Jiang, City of Beverly Hills
From: Andrew K. Antwih, Partner, Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange Dylan Hoffman, Legislative Advocate, Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange Re: AB 1294 (Haney) Planning and zoning: housing development: standardized application form.

Version
As Amended April 22, 2025.

Summary
AB 1294 requires the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to develop a standardized housing entitlement application that all California cities and counties must accept.

Beginning October 1, 2026, jurisdictions will be required to accept this universal application in lieu of any other entitlement application forms they may use. The bill aims to streamline and simplify the housing application process to reduce delays, lower development costs, and encourage housing construction across the state.

Existing Law
Housing Crisis Act and the Housing Accountability Act, developers may submit a preliminary application to vest zoning rights and must follow up with a complete application within 180 days (Gov.

Code § 65941.1, 65589.5).

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) informs stakeholders of a project's potential environmental impacts.

The Permit Streamlining Act requires:
 A local government to determine whether or not a housing application is “complete” within 30 days of submission and resubmittal. (GOV §65943).
 The following approval timelines once the project is done with the CEQA process:
o 60 days if the project is exempt.
o 90 days if a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or Negative Declaration (ND) was adopted.
o 180 days if the project requires a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR). (GOV § 65950) The Subdivision Map Act governs the approval and regulation of land divisions.

Shaw
Yoder
Antwih
Schmelzer
&Lange
SYASLpartners.com
141 5 L Street
Suite 1 000
Sacramento
CA,95814
916-446-4656
AB 1294
2 Background
Author's Statement: “Home builders must navigate a maze of different application requirements across jurisdictions. Some places require expensive reports, pre-application meetings, and engineering-level drawings before even accepting an application to build. This patchwork process slows housing production and adds costs when we should be accelerating it and making it cheaper to build.” Concerns from CalCities: The League of California Cities has registered opposition unless amended.

Their primary concern is the exemption of HCD’s application development process from the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which would deny cities and the public the opportunity to comment on the form’s design. CalCities emphasizes that although they support efforts to streamline housing production, those changes must be implemented transparently and collaboratively.

Provisions of AB 1294
 Requires HCD to create a comprehensive, standardized housing entitlement application by July 1, 2026.
 Deems a housing entitlement application complete once an applicant submits the HCD form and pays the permit processing fee.
 Specifies that jurisdictions may not impose additional pre-application steps or require costly technical reports as a condition of application completeness, with limited exceptions (e.g., tree or geotechnical reports if already required locally).
 Jurisdictions may not reject the standardized application or impose penalties or fees for using it.  Allows jurisdictions to request less information than what the HCD application requires but not more.
 Local governments must post both the HCD form and their own application (if different) on their websites.
 Defines "housing development project" broadly to include residential, mixed-use, supportive, and farmworker housing, and those seeking bonuses or incentives.  Defines "housing entitlement" to include approvals, permits, and discretionary actions necessary to authorize housing development.
 Affirms that the bill applies to all cities, including charter cities.

Related Legislation
 SB 330 (Skinner, 2019): Established a preliminary application process to vest certain rights during entitlement review.

Status of Legislation
AB 1294
3 This bill is currently in the Assembly.

Support
Abundant Housing LA (sponsor)
California Building Industry Association
California Business Properties Association
California Housing Consortium
Habitat for Humanity California
California YIMBY
Spur
Housing California
Circulate San Diego
Housing Action Coalition
Monterey Bay Economic Partnership
Numerous pro-housing and infill development advocacy organizations Oppose
League of California Cities (Oppose Unless Amended)
SB 681
June 16, 2025
To: Mandy Jiang, City of Beverly Hills
From: Andrew K. Antwih, Partner, Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange Dylan Hoffman, Legislative Advocate, Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange Re: SB 681 (Wahab) Housing.

Version
Amended May 23, 2025.

Summary
SB 681 proposes a broad package of reforms to state housing laws intended to enhance production, preservation, and tenant protections. The bill permanently extends various provisions in the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) and the Housing Crisis Act (HCA), strengthens the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process, expands tenant and homeowner protections—including limits on landlord fees and HOA fines—and revises laws governing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), common interest developments (CIDs), and the Surplus Land Act (SLA). Additional changes address the California Coastal Act, the Permit Streamlining Act, and the renter’s tax credit.

Existing Law
Housing Accountability Act (HAA): Limits local government discretion to deny or downsize housing projects that comply with objective standards.

Housing Crisis Act (HCA): Limits local authority to reduce zoning capacity and requires expedited permit processing.

RHNA Law: Requires HCD to determine regional housing needs and for COGs to allocate those needs across jurisdictions.

Davis-Stirling Act: Governs common interest developments and their homeowners associations.

Surplus Land Act (SLA), PSA, and Coastal Act: Set rules for land disposal, permitting timelines, and coastal zone development.

Renter’s Tax Credit: Offers minimal tax relief to qualifying renters, without annual inflation adjustments.

Shaw
Yoder
Antwih
Schmelzer
&Lange
SYASLpartners.com
141 5 L Street
Suite 1 000
Sacramento
CA,95814
916-446-4656
SB 681
2 Background
Author's Statement: “California’s affordability crisis is pushing families into homelessness, driving working people out of the state, and threatening the stability of communities up and down the state. SB 681 takes decisive action to put affordability front and center by advancing the 3 Ps: production, preservation, and protection. We’re reinforcing the state’s housing production goals, but not at the expense of the Californians who are barely hanging on. We’re preserving housing that serves moderateand low-income families, and ensuring protections are in place to shield renters and homeowners from abusive financial practices that deepen the crisis. We’re capping excessive HOA fines and giving homeowners a fair chance to resolve issues before being penalized. We’re closing the door on debt collectors seeking to foreclose on forgiven second mortgages. We’re addressing hidden costs that are driving up rents by curbing the proliferation of fees for amenities, and expanding the Renters Tax Credit to more equitably reflect the support homeowners already receive. SB 681 is not just a housing bill—it’s a call to action. It responds to the urgent needs of Californians burdened by the high cost of living, and it moves us toward a future where housing is attainable and stable for everyone.” Provisions of SB 681
 RHNA Reforms: Requires COGs to use nationally comparable data for overcrowding and cost burdens; mandates revisions within 45 days if HCD finds draft methodologies insufficient.  Permanent Extension of HAA & HCA Provisions: Definitions for “deemed complete” and “objective standards.”
o Limits local hearings on housing to five.
o Requires historic designation determinations at time of application. o Prohibits applying post-application rules to projects. o Continues protections against displacement and codifies relocation requirements.  Coastal Act Amendments:
o Limits CCC’s review authority over certain residential projects. o Requires annual reporting on appeals.
o Mandates development of electronic submission processes.  Davis-Stirling Act Amendments:
o Clarifies that “reasonable restrictions” on ADUs cannot include fees. o Caps fines and provides opportunities to cure HOA violations.  SLA Reform: Removes exemption for school district property—such land must comply with SLA disposal rules.
 Permit Streamlining:
o Applies timelines to both discretionary and ministerial entitlements. o Sets a 60-day review deadline for ministerial permits.  Tenant & Mortgage Protections:

SB 681
3 o Caps fees landlords may charge tenants at 5% of monthly rent, excluding pass-throughs. o Prohibits foreclosure if servicer commits unlawful practices; allows equitable remedies.  Renter’s Tax Credit: Temporarily increases credits to $500 (joint filers) and $250 (single) from 2026– 2031 if budget legislation triggers implementation.
 Seismic Retrofit Program: Appropriates funding for retrofitting affordable multifamily housing.  Energy Efficiency Measures: Directs CEC to review and report on performance-based energy standards.

Status of Legislation
This bill is in the Assembly
Support
SEIU California
Oppose
California Apartment Association
California Association of Community Managers
California Bankers Association
California Credit Union League
California Mba
California Mortgage Association
Community Associations Institute - California Legislative Action Committee South Pasadena Residents for Responsible Growth
Streets for All
United Trustees Association

Beverly Hills City CouncilJuly 1, 2025

Beverly Hills City Council
July 1, 2025