AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: October 20, 2026
Item Number:
To: Honorable Mayor & City Council
From: Mandy Jiang, Senior Management Analyst
Magdalena Davis Jones, Community Outreach Manager
Subject: APPROVAL OF THE BEVERLY HILLS CITY COUNCIL
LEGISLATIVE/LOBBY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED POSITIONS
ON PROPOSITIONS 1, 43, AND 45
Attachments: 1. Lobbyist memos for Proposition 1, 43, and 45
RECOMMENDATION
The Beverly Hills City Council Legislative/Lobby Committee (Councilmembers Friedman and Pynoos) recommends the City Council approve the following positions on three measures appearing on the November 2026 General Election ballot below:
Support: Proposition 1 – Authorize Bonds for Housing Affordability Programs Oppose: Proposition 43 – Limits Voters’ Ability to Raise Revenues for Local Government Services
Oppose: Proposition 45 – Modifies Environmental Review for Certain Projects
INTRODUCTION
This item seeks City Council approval of the Beverly Hills City Council Legislative/Lobby Committee (“Committee”) recommended positions on Propositions 1, 43, and 45 appearing on the November 2026 ballot. The Committee’s recommendations were consistent with the City’s Legislative Platform.
DISCUSSION
Summaries of the three propositions are provided below. All propositions on the November 3, 2026 General Election ballot will require a simple majority vote to pass. The attachment to this report includes memos for each proposition provided by the City’s Meeting Date: October 20, 2026
contract lobbyist, detailing each measure’s pathway to the ballot, highlights of bill provisions, and those in support or opposition.
Proposition 1 – Authorize Bonds for Housing Affordability Programs The Legislative/Lobby Committee members recommended to support Proposition 1, which would authorize $11.25 billion in state general obligation bonds for housing affordability programs:
Affordable Multifamily Housing Programs - $7.2 billion to acquire, build, or renovate rental housing—such as apartment buildings. These programs generally provide local governments and private developers with low interest loans to fund part of the project cost. In exchange, projects generally must reserve units for lowincome households for a period of 55 years. Some of this funding would be used for supportive housing, which provides on-site services (such as mental health and substance use counseling) to qualifying residents.
Homeownership Programs - $1.1 billion to support homeownership for low- and moderate-income households. Some of the funds would be used to provide homebuying assistance for first-time homebuyers through loans that generally do not have to be paid back until the home is sold or paid off. Other funds would be provided to nonprofit organizations and other entities for activities such as acquiring land to build homes for eligible low-income homebuyers and repairing existing homes owned by low-income households.
Infrastructure Programs - $500 million for a variety of infrastructure projects to support affordable housing developments, such as water, sewage, parks, and transportation improvements.
Farmworker Housing Program - $450 million in loans and grants to build/ renovate housing for farmworkers.
Higher Education Student Housing Programs - $350 million, for affordable student housing, split evenly between the University of California and California State University,
Tribal Housing Program - $200 million in grants to tribes, for various housingrelated purposes, including construction and repair of rental and owner-occupied housing.
Local Pilot Programs - $200 million available to cities, counties, and certain other entities for pilot projects aimed at developing housing at reduced costs.
Fiscal Impact: If passed, this will allow the state to sell $11.25 billion in bonds to fund various affordable housing programs. State annual costs will increase by $500-$600 million for ~25 years to repay the housing bond. The bond is expected to help fund up to 40,000 multifamily rental units, while also helping another 40,000 households buy a home; 2,500 housing units for farmworkers, and 1,200 beds for university students. The estimated annual cost would be approximately 0.25% percent of the state’s total General Fund budget.1
Cities and counties are eligible to apply to some of the abovementioned grant programs.
Legislative Platform Nexus: Aligns with the legislative priority, “Support legislation which encourages the use of federal and state incentives for local government action rather than mandates.”
1 LAO Analysis – Prop 1. prop1-110326.pdf
Meeting Date: October 20, 2026
Proposition 43 - Limits Voters’ Ability to Raise Revenues for Local Government Services
The Legislative/Lobby Committee members recommended opposing this measure.
Currently, local government-initiated special taxes (e.g., by cities, counties, or special districts) already require a 2/3 vote to pass. However, voter-initiated special taxes (placed on ballot by voter signatures) currently require only a simple majority to pass.
Proposition 43 would raise the voter threshold from a simple majority to two-thirds for all local special taxes, whether the measure is placed on the ballot by a local governing body or through the voter initiative process. If passed, effective beginning January 1, 2027, this would apply to any special local tax placed on a ballot that is being imposed, extended, or increased. The measure would also prohibit a local government, including its electorate acting through the initiative power, from imposing an ad valorem tax on real property except as permitted under existing constitutional provisions.
Fiscal Impact: If passed, Proposition 43 would increase the voter approval threshold for local special taxes proposed through the initiative process from a simple majority to twothirds, making such measures more difficult to pass. The measure would not directly reduce or eliminate existing city revenues. Current real property transfer taxes, parcel taxes, and other voter-initiated special taxes would remain in effect. Its fiscal effects would instead arise when future voter-initiated special taxes receive majority support but fall short of the new two-thirds threshold. The City currently does not have any local special taxes in place. Examples of special taxes that passed with less than two-thirds voter approval include:
Los Angeles Measure ULA (2022): voter initiative; real property transfer tax ~$655 million to $1.2 billion revenue annually
Santa Monica Measure GS (2022): voter initiative; real property transfer tax; ~$54 million revenue annually
Oakland Measure AA (2018): voter initiative; education parcel tax; ~$30 million to $36 million revenue annually
Berkeley Measure FF (2024): voter initiative; parcel tax; approximately $15 million revenue annually
Legislative Platform Nexus: Aligns with the legislative priorities:
“Oppose legislation that would undermine voter-approved initiatives to guarantee ongoing revenue sources for the City of Beverly Hills.” “Oppose legislation that would preempt the City’s authority over local taxes and fees.”
Proposition 45 – Modifies Environmental Review for Certain Projects The Legislative/Lobby Committee members recommended opposing this measure. This measure is an initiative statute sponsored by the California Chamber of Commerce and placed on the ballot by citizen signatures. The measure aims to help developers advance projects they designate as “essential” more quickly and easily. It would impose a 365-day limit on environmental reviews for those projects, including infrastructure like roads and bridges, housing, schools, broadband and wildfire mitigation. It would also require courts to rule within 270 days on lawsuits related to the environmental review law. There is concern regarding the continued piecemeal erosion of CEQA through project-specific exemptions and alternative procedures. The cumulative effect after several years of this type of legislation is an increasingly complicated patchwork of rules that makes CEQA more difficult for local agencies to interpret and administer. Proposition 45 would add Meeting Date: October 20, 2026
another layer of procedures, deadlines, and limitations for a broad range of projects. If passed, the measure would do the following:
Define “Essential Projects”:
Housing projects (including residential, mixed-use, transitional, farmworker, student, senior, and group living accommodations, as well as conversions of commercial buildings to residential use).
Water projects (construction, expansion, repair, or improvement of public water systems).
Public health projects (medical treatment facilities). Public safety projects (first responder facilities, wildfire risk reduction). Transportation projects (planning, construction, maintenance, and operation of public streets and highways using fuel tax revenues).
Expedited Review Timelines:
Lead agencies must issue a final decision and complete Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) within 365 days of a complete application. Negative Declarations must be completed within 180 days; other determinations within 90 days.
Public comment periods are shortened to 15 days for Mitigated Negative Declarations and 30 days for EIRs.
If deadlines are missed, applicants can request a public hearing, which must be completed and decided within 60 days.
Other Major Changes:
New pre-application screening for tribal cultural resources and changes to tribal consultation processes.
EIRs must analyze only a single project alternative rather than multiple alternatives.
Requires prevailing wages and project labor agreements for all essential projects, with special labor rules for housing.
Limits the grounds for legal challenges to defects in the environmental document. Judicial review of challenges must be resolved within 270 days, with limited scope and remedies.
Prohibits extension of public comment periods except by court order.
Fiscal Impact: According to the State Legislative Analyst Office, initial costs for state and local governments, likely in the high tens of millions of dollars—potentially exceeding $100 million—annually, partly covered by developer fees. Longer-term, potentially more significant fiscal impact uncertain.
Legislative Platform Nexus: Aligns with the legislative priority, “Oppose preemption of the City of Beverly Hills’ local authority whether by state or federal legislation or ballot propositions.”
Meeting Date: October 20, 2026
FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impact is associated with the action of approving formal positions on the three ballot measures.
Keith Sterling,
Deputy City Manager
Approved By
ATTACHMENT 1
September 29, 2026
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: Proposition 1 Memo
Path to the Ballot
Proposition 1 was placed on the ballot though SB 417 (Limón) as a legislatively referred bond measure. Legislatively referred bond measures require a two-third majority vote and a governor’s signature.
The bill, SB 417, was originally introduced in the Senate by Senator Cabaldon in February of 2025, with another housing bond bill, AB 736, introduced in the Assembly by Assemblymember Wicks. The two measures were similar in scope of funding all the same programs and both being a $10 billion a3ordable housing bond. The di3erences were in allocations in funding, where SB 417 allocated more funds in the Multihousing Family Program, wildfire prevention, rental assistance, and a3ordable housing construction program, but less allocation for the Joe Serna Jr. Farmworker Housing Program. Ultimately, only SB 417 proceeded to the governor’s desk, and through a three-party agreement between the Assembly, Senate, and the Governor, the bill’s scope was expanded to increase the bond authorization by $1.25 billion for the Department of Veteran A3airs Home Loan Program.
SB 417 was signed by the Governor on June 25, 2026. On June 29th, the Secretary of State designated the bond as Proposition 1 for the upcoming November 3rd ballot.
Summary
The initiative would authorize $11.25 billion in state general obligation bonds to fund various a3ordable housing programs. Of that total amount, $1.25 billion would go toward veteran housing, while the rest would fund rental homes, homeownership programs, farmworker housing, a3ordable student housing, tribal housing and more. The bond is expected to help fund up to 40,000 multifamily rental units, while also helping another 40,000 households buy a home.
2 The proceeds would be allocated as follows:
$7.2 billion to acquire, build, or renovate rental housing through low-interest loans to local governments or private developers with a requirement that units are reserved for low-income households for 55 years and a portion of the funding used for supportive housing that provides mental health or substance abuse counseling; $1.1 billion for homeownership loan programs and housing development for low- and moderate- income households;
$500 million for infrastructure projects, such as water, sewage, parks, and transportation;
$450 million for loans or grants for farmworker housing; $350 million for student housing, split evenly between University of California and California State University;
$200 million for grants to tribes for housing projects; and $200 million for local governments developing pilot projects to reduce housing costs.
Support
Gov. Gavin Newsom
State Sen. Christopher Cabaldon
State Sen. John Laird
Senate President Pro Tempore Monique Limón
State Asm. Jesse Gabriel
Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas
State Asm. Buffy Wicks
Democratic Party of California
California Federation of Labor Unions, AFL-CIO
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America ACLU California Action
California Apartment Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Housing Consortium
Disability Rights California
Drug Policy Alliance
Evolve California
League of California Cities
League of Women Voters of California
NAACP California/Hawaii State Conference
3 Opposition
State Asm. David Tangipa
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Reform California
Polling
PPIC Statewide Survey: September (YES: 55% of likely voters ; NO: 43% of likely voters) September 29, 2026
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: Proposition 43 Memo
Summary
The initiative would amend the California Constitution to require that local ballot measures proposing, extending, or increasing special taxes initiated by citizens receive a two-thirds (66.67%) vote to be enacted.
Currently, local special tax measures can be enacted in two ways: 1) a local governing board sends the tax to voters, and it is approved by a two-thirds vote, or 2) citizens can petition to place a special tax on local ballots, and it is approved by a simple majority of voters.
The initiative would also prohibit any local government from levying ad valorem taxes on real property, including by ballot initiative, except for those authorized under Article XIII and Article XIII A, which establishes a 1% base tax on real property and authorizes additional voter-approved bond debt-service property taxes.
Path to the Ballot
In California state law, the core di+erence between a statewide ballot initiative and a legislatively initiated ballot measure (often called a legislative referral) lies in how they originate and qualify for the ballot. A ballot initiative bypasses the state government to be driven entirely by citizens, whereas a legislatively initiated measure must be passed by the California State Legislature before going to the voters.
Proposition 43 is a legislative referral. Proposition 43 was placed on the ballot as part of a legislative compromise between Democratic state leaders and petitioners sponsoring another initiative, the Local Taxpayer Protection Act, that would have increased the vote requirement to pass citizen-initiated local special taxes from a simple majority to a twothirds vote; prohibited charter cities from imposing their own real estate transfer taxes, whether for general or specific purposes, above the existing statutory rate of $0.275 per $500 of value; and invalidated any property-related special taxes previously adopted with an approval rate below two-thirds or real estate transfer taxes in charter cities. Proposition 43 is not retroactive like the withdrawn ballot initiative. 2 California state law allows initiative sponsors to withdraw qualified initiatives until the ballot finalization deadline, which is 131 days before the election. he initiative, the Local Taxpayer Protection Act, was withdrawn from the ballot after the California State Legislature passed Proposition 43 on June 25 — the 2026 ballot finalization deadline. It passed the state Assembly by a vote of 68-2, with nine not voting. It passed the state Senate by a vote of 35-1, with four not voting.
The Local Taxpayer Protection Act, sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, along with other business and taxpayer organizations, arises out of a 2017 California Supreme Court decision. On August 28, 2017, the California Supreme Court entered a decision in California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, 3 Cal. 5th 924, which held that California Constitution Article XIIIC, Section Two, subdivision (b)’s requirement that general taxes be submitted to the electorate at a regularly scheduled general election where members of the local governing board are subject to election did not apply to taxes proposed by voter initiative. The court categorized taxes imposed by citizen initiatives as separate from taxes imposed by local governments. This ruling brought the two-thirds (66.67%) vote requirement into question for special taxes proposed through citizen initiatives.
City and county o+icials in San Francisco argued that the court's 2017 decision meant that a simple majority—not a two-thirds supermajority—was required for the approval of local citizen initiatives, including tax measures that designate funds for specific purposes. Based on those arguments, the city certified the measures as approved.
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association filed a lawsuit against the city and county in August 2018, stating that the Proposition C, a commercial rent tax for childcare initiative, did not receive su+icient votes because it needed a two-thirds supermajority vote.
Support
CA Republican Party
CA Chamber of Commerce
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Reform California
Opposition
Gubernatorial Candidate Xavier Becerra
CA Asm. Bu+y Wicks
Democratic Party of CA
Evolve California
League of Women Voters of CA
3 Polling: PPIC Statewide Survey: September (YES: 43% of likely voters; NO: 51% of likely voters)
September 29, 2026
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: Proposition 45 Memo
Summary
Proposition 45 is an initiative statute on the November 3, 2026, statewide ballot. Proposition 45 would overhaul the state’s landmark environmental review law, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The measure aims to help developers advance projects they designate as “essential” more quickly and easily. It would impose a 365-day limit on environmental reviews for those projects, including infrastructure like roads and bridges, housing, schools, broadband and wildfire mitigation. It would also require courts to rule within 270 days on lawsuits related to the environmental review law.
Path to the Ballot
In California state law, the core difference between a statewide ballot initiative and a legislatively initiated ballot measure (often called a legislative referral) lies in how they originate and qualify for the ballot. A ballot initiative bypasses the state government to be driven entirely by citizens, whereas a legislatively initiated measure must be passed by the California State Legislature before going to the voters.
Proposition 45 is a statewide ballot initiative, not a legislative referral.
Key Provisions
1. Expedited Review Timelines:
o Lead agencies must issue a final decision and complete environmental impact assessments within 365 days for a complete application. o Negative declarations must be completed within 180 days; other determinations within 90 days.
o Public comment periods are shortened to 15 days for Mitigated Negative Declarations and 30 days for Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs). o If deadlines are missed, applicants can request a public hearing, which must be completed and decided within 60 days.
2 2. Scope – Definition of Essential Projects:
o Housing projects (including residential, mixed-use, transitional, farmworker, student, senior, and group living accommodations, as well as conversions of commercial buildings to residential use).
o Water projects (construction, expansion, repair, or improvement of public water systems).
o Public health projects (medical treatment facilities). o Public safety projects (first responder facilities, wildfire risk reduction). o Transportation projects (planning, construction, maintenance, and operation of public streets and highways using fuel tax revenues).
Source: State Legislative Analyst’s Office
3. Other Major Changes:
o New pre-application screening for tribal cultural resources and changes to tribal consultation processes.
o Applicants may propose a single project alternative for EIRs, rather than multiple alternatives.
o Requires prevailing wages and project labor agreements for all essential projects, with special labor rules for housing.
o Limits the grounds for legal challenges to defects in the environmental document.
o Judicial review of challenges must be resolved within 270 days, with limited scope and remedies.
o Prohibits extension of public comment periods except by court order. 3 Projected State Fiscal and Operational Impact
Initial costs for state and local governments, likely in the high tens of millions of dollars— potentially exceeding $100 million—annually, partly covered by fees. Uncertain, potentially more significant positive or negative longer-term fiscal effects. (Source: State Legislative Analyst’s Office)
Support
California Chamber of Commerce
The California Hospital Association
California Children’s Hospital Association
California Primary Care Association
California Hydrogen Coalition
Agricultural Council of California
California Wind Energy Association
California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
California Council for Affordable Housing
California League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) California Housing Consortium
California Building Industry Association
Opposition
Communities for a Better Environment
Beyond Plastics
Physicians for Social Responsibility- Los Angeles
Western Center on Law & Poverty
Californians Against Waste
Clean Water Action
Sierra Club California
Clean Air Coalition
Learning Disabilities Association of California
California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice
Center for Food Safety
California Democratic Party
Polling
PPIC Statewide Survey: September (YES: 49%, NO: 46%, among likely voters)