Agenda packet, first session — Los Altos City Council, April 9, 2024 (part 2 of 2)

are permitted up to 16 feet high. (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subds. (c)(2)(C), (e)(1)(B)(ii).) Therefore, in considering restrictions that the City is imposing on ADUs for daylight planes, the ordinance should note the 16-foot height allowable for ADUs.

This Table must be amended to clarify this point.

Palo Alto’s Response
“Please note that the City’s daylight plane regulations do not apply to subdivision (e) ADUs, which are governed by PAMC Section 18.09.030. The City will add a clarifying sentence at the top of Section 18.09.040 explaining that none of the regulations in PAMC 18.09.040 apply to subdivision (e) ADUs. In addition, the City will add a clarifying statement that the regulations in PAMC 18.09.040 are not intended to limit the conversion of existing structures to ADUs or JADUs. For all other ADUs; however, the City has requested clarity on HCD’s position on daylight plane on numerous occasions, most recently by email dated August 8, 2021. Please see this email, which is attached, for an explanation of the City’s position. The City looks forward to continued discussion of this topic.”
HCD’s Follow-up Response
On February 23, 2022, HCD received a copy of an email from Assistant City Attorney (ACA) Albert Yang dated August 30, 2021. ACA Yang sought clarification on behalf of the City on whether local government could enforce a development standard that would require that any portion of an ADU fall below 16 feet in height.

The email states: ”Subdivision (c)(2)(C) provides that a local agency may not establish “[1] any other minimum or maximum size for an accessory dwelling unit, [2] size based upon a percentage of the proposed or existing primary dwelling, or [3] limits on lot coverage, [4] floor area ratio, [5] open space, and [6] minimum lot size [. . .] that does not permit at least an 800 square foot accessory dwelling unit that is at least 16 feet in height with four-foot side and rear yard setbacks to be constructed in compliance with all other local development standards.” ACA Yang argues that the law is very specific regarding the development standards addressed and it (the subdivision) specifically recognizes that the list does not encompass all development standards. ACA Yang states, “The specific development standards addressed in subdivision (c)(2)(C) do not include daylight plane standards.” ACA Yang impliedly concludes that because the development standards, which ACA Yang numbered from [1] through [6], do not list daylight plane standards, the City may impose daylight plane standards over the minimum 16-foot height requirement.

However, the City incorrectly cited subdivision (c)(2)(C) above; thereby, creating a list of “development standards” from portions of (c)(2)(A) and (c)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) and conflated these with “other local development standards” found in subdivision (c)(2)(C). Accurately cited, subdivision (c)(2)(C) states:
(C) Any other minimum or maximum size for an accessory dwelling unit, size based upon a percentage of the proposed or existing primary dwelling, or limits on lot 164
Agenda Item # 6.

Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning and Development Services

Page 3 ends

coverage, floor area ratio, open space, and minimum lot size, for either attached or detached dwellings that does not permit at least an 800 square foot accessory dwelling unit that is at least 16 feet in height with four-foot side and rear yard setbacks to be constructed in compliance with all other local development standards.

State ADU Law authorizes a local agency to establish the minimum and maximum size requirements for ADUs in subdivision (c)(1), but any such size requirement must allow for a minimum height of 16 feet while being constructed in compliance with all other local development standards. This height requirement is meant to be in harmony with local development standards. Because the subdivision has set the minimum height, authorized by statute, local design standards set in the ordinance cannot invalidate this provision, pursuant to Government Code section 65852.2 (a)(5). Therefore, the minimum height of all proposed ADUs is 16 feet and cannot be limited by Daylight Plane restrictions. Table 2 must be amended to clarify this point. Please note that SB 897 (2022), effective January 1, 2023, amends this subdivision, and adds provisions regarding the minimum height for detached and attached ADUs.
2) HCD’s Original Finding
Floor Area & JADUs - Section 18.09.040(b): Development standards can account for ADUs in their measurement of the floor area restrictions or ratio (FAR). But these standards may not account for or consider JADUs. A JADU may not be included in this calculation, because a JADU is a unit that is contained entirely within a singlefamily residence. (Gov. Code § 65852.22, subd. (h)(1).) Footnote 4 of Table 2 impermissibly includes JADUs as part of the FAR calculations. This footnote must be amended to clarify this point.

Palo Alto’s Response
“Footnote 4 of Table 2 provides additional FAR on a site for ADUs and JADUs. This is an incentive to promote production of such units without limiting the development potential of a primary unit. Because a JADU is contained entirely within the space of a single-family residence, it would normally be included in the floor area of the primary unit. Footnote 4 provides an opportunity for a property owner to exempt all JADU square footage from the calculation of floor area for the primary unit. The removal of JADUs from footnote 4 would only serve to restrict the development of JADUs. The City will attempt to clarify the language of this footnote.” HCD’s Follow-up Response
HCD supports the City’s attempt to add clarifying language. Converting an area within an existing home should not be counted. To clarify footnote 4 in Table 2, the City could include, for example, "This provision applies to JADUs in proposed single-family dwellings, or remodels that increase the square footage of a singlefamily dwelling.” 165
Agenda Item # 6.

Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning and Development Services

Page 4 ends

3) HCD’s Original Finding
Noise-Producing Equipment - Section 18.09.040(h): Local agencies may impose development standards on ADUs; however, these standards shall not exceed state standards. Section 18.09.040(h) states that noise-producing equipment “shall be located outside of the setbacks.” This section must be revised to only refer to ADUs since setbacks are not required for JADUs. In addition, this setback for noiseproducing equipment for ADUs must be revised to make clear that this setback requirement will not impede the minimum state standards of four-foot setbacks. (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (c)(2)(C)).

Palo Alto’s Response
“As noted above, the City will add a clarifying statement that the regulations in PAMC 18.09.040 are not intended to limit the conversion of existing structures to ADUs or JADUs. For new construction; however, the City permits JADUs to build at a lesser setback than a single-family home normally would. Therefore, the removal of JADUs from this section will only serve to restrict the development of JADUs. “Additionally, the City’s ordinance states that noise producing equipment needs to be placed outside the setback for an ADU or JADU. This means that the noise producing equipment itself cannot be placed closer than four feet to a property line for either type of structure; not that the ADU or JADU cannot be placed at those locations. This is consistent with the state setback requirements for an ADU.” HCD’s Follow-up Response
JADUs are entirely within the walls of a proposed or existing single-family dwelling and as such not subject to any setback requirements. Therefore, the City should remove the reference to JADU from Section 18.09.040(h). The City writes, “For new construction; however, the City permits JADUs to be built at a lesser setback than a single-family home normally would.” Please clarify this statement for us. HCD applauds the City’s intention to promote JADUs by relaxing setback requirements.

However, since setbacks do not apply to JADUs, the City would have to relax the setback requirements for the primary single-family dwelling to achieve the desired effect.
4) HCD’s Original Finding
Corner Lots - Section 18.09.040(j) Design: This section states, “Except on corner lots, the unit shall not have an entranceway facing the same lot line (property line) as the entranceway to the main dwelling unit unless the entranceway to the accessory unit is located in the rear half of the lot. Exterior staircases to second floor units shall be located towards the interior side or rear yard of the property.” These standards appear to apply only to the creation of ADUs and may unduly restrict the placement of an ADU on some lots. Local development standards provided by ordinance pursuant to subdivisions (a) through (d) of Government Code section 65852.2 do not apply to ADUs created under subdivision (e). Please consider eliminating this restriction or modifying it such that it applies “when feasible.” 166
Agenda Item # 6.

Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning and Development Services

Page 5 ends

Palo Alto’s Response
“As noted above, the City will add a clarifying sentence at the top of Section

18.09.040 explaining that none of the regulations in PAMC 18.09.040 apply to subdivision (e) ADUs. The City will clarify this is not applicable for subsection (e) ADUs. We are not aware of any evidence that this simple design requirement creates an excessive constraint on ADU production and that has not been our experience.”
HCD’s Follow-Up Response
Requirements such as stipulating the facing of entranceways or the location of stairways may unduly restrict the creation of ADUs on some lots. Statute for both ADUs (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (e)(1)(A)(ii)) and JADUs (Gov. Code, § 65852.22, subd. (a)(5)) require independent entry into the unit, and a constraint on the location of an entry door may prohibit the creation of an additional housing unit.

In addition, this requirement could add significant expense if entry doors must be installed in an exterior wall instead of utilizing an existing doorway facing the same direction as the entryway to the primary dwelling. The City must either eliminate this restriction or modify it such that it applies “when feasible.” 5) HCD’s Original Finding
Parking - Section 18.09.040(k)(iv) Parking: The ordinance indicates if covered parking for a unit is provided in any district, the maximum size of the covered parking area for the accessory dwelling unit is 220 square feet. Further, under this section, the space for the covered parking count towards the total floor area for the site and the ADU if attached to the unit. Covered parking should not count towards the total floor area of the site as if it would unduly limit the allowable size of an ADU established by state law, nor should it directly count toward the area available for the ADU. Although standards within an underlying zone may apply when noted in the adopted ADU ordinance, they may not be more restrictive than those contained in state statute. (See, e.g., Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subs. (a)(1)(B), (a)(1)(D)(vii), (a)(1)(D)(x), (c), and (e).) The portion of this section stating “unit unless attached to the unit” should be deleted, or the section should otherwise be modified to comply with state law.

Palo Alto’s Response
“As noted above, the City will add a clarifying sentence at the top of Section

18.09.040 explaining that none of the regulations in PAMC 18.09.040 apply to subdivision (e) ADUs.
“Currently, all covered parking in the single-family zones counts towards floor area for the site and dwelling unit. The City does not understand how this creates a standard that is more restrictive than that contained in state statute; none of the subsections cited in your letter speak to whether a garage for an ADU must be 167
Agenda Item # 6.

Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning and Development Services

Page 6 ends

exempted from the unit size for the ADU. Moreover, this provision does not create a constraint on ADU production, as a property owner may always choose to provide a detached garage, uncovered parking, or no parking at all for the ADU. “The City has concerns that allowing attached garages onto these structures will incentivize individuals to illegally expand the unit into the garage, which would both exceed the City's ordinance, contain unpermitted construction, and potentially place the health and safety of the occupants at risk.”
HCD’s Follow-up Response
Covered parking does not count towards the total floor area of the ADU. An ADU is defined in Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (j)(1), as “complete independent living facilities,” and subdivision (j)(4) further specifies that the living area for the ADU “does not include a garage...” Thus, a covered parking space or garage, whether or not attached to a unit, would be considered “non-livable” space.

Therefore, as stated in our original finding, covered parking should not count towards the total floor area of the site as it would unduly limit the allowable size of an ADU established by state law. Similarly, it should not directly count toward the area available for the ADU, as this could also restrict the size of the ADU. The addition of garage space to the ADUs livable space would violate ADU size requirements found in Government Code section 65852.2, subdivisions (a)(1)(D)(iv) and (v), and (c).

While the City raises concerns of potential illegal expansion, the City may not adopt an ordinance that would violate State ADU Law. The City may rely on its enforcement of codes and standards to mitigate its concerns. The City should remove the portion of this section stating “unless attached to the unit” or otherwise modify the section to comply with State ADU Law.

Conclusion
Given the deficiencies described above and in HCD’s December 23, 2021, letter, the City’s Ordinance is inconsistent with State ADU Law. HCD requests that the City respond to this letter no later than January 20, 2023, with a detailed plan of action and timeline, to bring its Ordinance into compliance pursuant to Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (h)(2)(B). Specifically, to bring its ADU ordinance into compliance, the City must either amend the Ordinance according to HCD’s findings to comply with State ADU Law (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (h)(2)(B)(i)) or readopt the Ordinance without changes. Should the City choose to readopt the Ordinance without the changes specified by HCD, the City must include findings in its resolution that explain the reasons the City finds that the Ordinance complies with State ADU Law despite the findings made by HCD. (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (h)(2)(B)(ii), (h)(3)(A).) 168
Agenda Item # 6.

Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning and Development Services

Page 7 ends

HCD will review and consider any plan of action and timeline received from the City before January 20, 2023, in advance of taking further action authorized by Government Code section 65852.2.

HCD appreciates the City’s efforts provided in the preparation and adoption of the Ordinance and welcomes the opportunity to assist the City in fully complying with State ADU Law. Please feel free to contact Mike Van Gorder, of our staff, at (916) 776-7541 or at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Shannan West
Housing Accountability Unit Chief
169
Agenda Item # 6.

City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: April 9, 2024
Initiated By: Manny A. Hernandez, Parks & Rec Director
Prepared By: Manny A. Hernandez, Parks & Rec Director
Approved By: Gabriel Engeland, City Manager
Subject: Program Modification and Recommendations for Tiny Tots Programs and Award Three-year Agreement with Children’s Corner to operate Preschool-age Services

COUNCIL PRIORITY AREA
☐Business Communities
☐Circulation Safety and Efficiency
☐Environmental Sustainability
☐Housing
☐Neighborhood Safety Infrastructure
☒General Government

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the elimination of the City-run Playschool program and the signing of a 3-year agreement with Children’s Corner to operate a preschool-age program at the San Antonio Club facility as soon as terms of the agreement can be reached. An evaluation of the San Antonio Club is needed to identify necessary modifications to the facility to allow for the operation of a licensed preschool program. The minimum necessary upgrades are to fire safety and ADA, but additional upgrades may be recommended.

Staff recommends the City Council direct staff to continue operating the Kinder Prep program through the 2024/25 school year under the proposed fee structure and budget (Attachment #1), offering registration only to current and alumni families. At the conclusion of this transition year, the City Council may:
1) Direct staff to end Kinder Prep operations in Los Altos as the expansion of the transitional Kindergarten at public schools will be in its final year and able to provide this service to Los Altos residents (Attachment #2); or
2) Direct staff to sign a three-year agreement with Children’s Corner to operate Transitional Kindergarten programs in Los Altos; or
3) Direct City staff to continue operations with the proposed fee schedule in attachment #1 and factor in regular market increases in future years to eliminate further subsidy of these programs.
170
Agenda Item # 7.

POLICY QUESTION(S) FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
 Does Council wish to continue to provide a preschool age enrichment program as preparation for K-12 through the Parks & Recreation department?
 Does Council want to eliminate or make modifications to the Parks & Recreation preschool age program?
 Does Council consider the Tiny Tots program a service program that should be subsidized.

FISCAL IMPACT
The Tiny Tots program operated at a total net loss of $137,530 at the conclusion of the last fiscal year and is expected to have a total net loss of $283,719 at the end of the current fiscal year.

The total fiscal impact moving forward is based on City Council direction. Should the City Council approve the recommendation from staff to contract services for Playschool and enter into a transition year for Kinder Prep without a subsidy, the city would receive approximately $30,000 in revenues annually.

It is important to note that any revenue earned would be offset by the required improvements to Fire Safey and ADA at San Antonio Club. These would be one-time expenditures.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This action does not qualify as a “Project” as defined in California Government Code Section 15378(b) of the Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
None

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
The Los Altos Parks & Recreation Tiny Tots program is a "play with a purpose" preschool program that has been run by the City for several decades. Two classes are offered: Playschool (3-4 years of age) for the youngest learners and Kinder Prep (4-5 years of age) for children who will enter kindergarten the following year.

PLAYSCHOOL
The Playschool program creates an age-appropriate environment for the 3–4-year-old participants, with a curriculum emphasizing social recreation and building positive self-worth. In this program, basic pre-kindergarten activities are integrated into the curriculum to introduce concepts of language, math, science, and socialization. The Playschool class is primarily outdoors and promotes physical, social, and emotional growth in a child-centered environment. The facility used for this program is the San Antonio Club (647 N San Antonio Road, Los Altos, CA).

The 2023/24 Playschool program year started in September 2023 and runs through the end of May 2024. This is a 3-day (Monday/Wednesday/Friday) program from 9 AM to 12 PM. There are currently eight participants in the program, recently increasing from the six registered participants that began in September.
171
Agenda Item # 7.

The Playschool program has struggled to enroll participants for several years and has failed to meet attendance requirements for a sustainable operation since 2016. There was a clear challenge with the pandemic of 2020 and the ensuing years, however, staff has provided time and effort to help the program recover to sustainable levels but has not been successful in operating a sustainable program.

The largest challenge since the pandemic has been the hiring of part-time staff to run the program. The Recreation Coordinators and Supervisors that oversee the program are continuously going through the recruiting and hiring process to bring staff on to work in the program. Since 2021 part-time positions across the Bay Area have seen a great deal of instability. With part-time pre-school teacher positions having to be filled several times a year, the hiring process is exceptionally time-consuming. After hiring, time and effort is needed to onboard and train the new employees. Although the lead teachers of the program have been stable for a number of years, the majority of the current part-time staff are relatively new, with short tenures.

The registration and staffing challenges of Playschool have brought the financial viability of the program into question. Attachment #1 to this report shows the expected revenue and estimated expenses for the current fiscal year as well as the prior fiscal year. With only eight registrations for the FY 23/24 program and seeing flat to declining registrations over the last several years, staff is not recommending that the Playschool program be operated by the Parks & Recreation department any longer.

As part of staff’s due diligence to find the best option for the community, a Request for Proposals (RFP) from qualified organizations to run Playschool and Kinder Prep programs was released. Staff recommends utilizing the most qualified organization to respond to the RFP, Children’s Corner, to offer a preschool age enrichment program as part of the City’s contracted program offerings. Staff believes that a respected organization like Children’s Corner would be able to offer a program that would meet the needs of the community.

KINDER PREP
Kinder Prep is a social-recreational program that integrates fundamental concepts through engaging pre-k activities, so children are confident and eager to start kindergarten. Activities for this program include music and movement, games, arts and crafts, cooking, field trips, as well as directed and self-directed play. Kinder Prep is a 4-day a week program (Monday through Thursday) from 8:45 to 11:45 AM. Kinder Prep takes place in the Acorn Room at the Los Altos Community Center.

Kinder Prep has been facing the same challenges as the Playschool program. Staff retention, rising staff costs, and flat revenue. Although Kinder Prep has seen higher registration numbers than Playschool, pre-k programs in California will be facing another challenge in the coming years with the expansion of transitional kindergarten in schools.

In 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill (AB) 130, which will gradually expand transitional kindergarten (TK) over a four-year period, between the 2022/23 to 2025/26 school years. This program is free and administered by the schools that the children will be transitioning 172
Agenda Item # 7.
into the following year for kindergarten. The completion of this program expansion in the schools is now two years into the process, and once fully implemented will be in direct competition with any city-run programs. Staff does not see a path to a sustainable increase in Kinder Prep registrations once this school-run program is fully expanded.

In the attached financial summary of the current fiscal year of the entire Tiny Tots program, the 2023/24 losses are estimated to be between $215,000 (direct costs) and $283,000 (total costs).

Staff has provided what a cost recovery program would look like for the Kinder Prep program, with cost recovery options for direct costs only or total costs. With an estimated registration of 12 participants and a child to teacher ratio of 6:1, the tuition for the program would see an increase of 250% to 330%. This budget assumes a reduction in full-time staff and administration costs with the elimination of the Playschool program, and reduced staff needed for the operation of only one program.

With the transitional Kindergarten expansion in the public schools, and an increase in tuition for the program to market rate, staff does not believe the Kinder Prep program can operate without a subsidy. Staff recommends operating the Kinder Prep program for the 2024/25 school year, as outlined as the Proposed TK Program of the attached financial summary, as a transitional year.

The transitional year would allow all current and alumni participants who are eligible to enroll in the program to not have to make alternative plans for the upcoming school year. At the conclusion of the transition year, Council should provide direction on the future of the program in the options outlined in this report.

As noted above, if Council chooses to operate any programs discussed in this report out of San Antonio Club, upgrades to fire safety and ADA, at a minimum, should be made prior to the beginning of the next program period.

ATTACHMENTS

1. DRAFT program financial summary

2. About TK California
173
Agenda Item # 7.

TINY TOTS (7320)
Object
Code Budget Detail
2023 Budget
Actual
2024 Budget
Actual (66% FY)
2024 Budget
Expected
(100% FY)
Proposed TK
Program
Percentage of
Previous Program

DIRECT COSTS
F/T Employee Salary 5010 Supervisor & Coordinator $ 72,794 $ 56,696 $ 94,494 $ 37,798 40% P/T PERS 5024 Kinder Prep Teacher III $ 28,844 $ 16,605 $ 24,908 $ 24,908 100% P/T Non-PERS 5025 Teacher III, II & I $ 83,249 $ 48,219 $ 72,329 $ 21,699 30% Vac/Sick/Payout 5015 Vac/Sic TO payout $ 24 $ - $ - $ - Retirement 5030 PERS employee retirement $ 11,131 $ 9,155 $ 13,733 $ 5,493 40% pers Unfunded Liability 5032 PERS Unfunded Liability $ - $ 34,077 $ 34,077 $ 13,631 40% P/T Deferred Comp 5035 Part-time employee deferred comp $ 3,166 $ 1,823 $ 2,735 $ 821 30% Quality of Life 5036 Quality of Life benefit $ 1,028 $ 874 $ 1,311 $ 393 30% Dental 5040 Dental plan $ 748 $ 5,208 $ 5,208 $ 2,083 40% Health Insurance 5050 Health insurance plan $ 19,064 $ 17,574 $ 26,361 $ 10,544 40% Life Insurance 5070 Life insurance plan $ 166 $ 252 $ 378 $ 151 40% Medicare Tax 5099 Medicare $ 2,752 $ 1,779 $ 2,669 $ 1,068 40% Utilities 5110 PG&E for San Antonio Club $ 1,703 $ 1,307 $ 1,961 $ - Budget relocated Office Supplies 5160 Teacher office supplies $ 525 $ 585 $ 804 $ 402 50% Trainings and Meetings 5180 Training for new staff $ - $ - $ - $ - Eliminated Memberships 5181
National Association of Young Children & RAFT
Memberships $ 350 $ 427 $ 427 $ 214 50%
Building and Grounds
Manitenance 5230
Building and grounds maintenance for San Antonio
Club $ 2,537 $ 871 $ 1,305 $ - Budget relocated
Special Departmental
Supplies 5260 Classroom supplies $ 5,361 $ 2,119 $ 3,179 $ 1,590 50% Liability Insurance 5420 City liability insurance $ - $ 14,417 $ 14,416 $ 7,208 50% Direct Cost Total $ 233,442 $ 211,988 $ 300,295 $ - $ 128,002

INDIRECT COSTS
Janitorial
Contract cleaning expenses for San Antonio Club
and Acorn Room (16.3% square ft share at CC) $ 19,083 $ 19,083 $ 19,083 Building and Grounds
Manitenance
Community Center facility maintenance and repair
cost (16.3% square ft. share of CC) $ 2,651 $ 3,365 $ 3,008 City Admin Costs*
Department administration costs including HR and
Finance Department services $ 32,682 $ 45,404 $ 17,920
Indirect Cost Total $ 54,416 $ 67,852 $ 40,011
Total $ 287,858 $ 368,147 $ 168,013
*Administrative cost percentage from 2023 Cost of Service Analysis Program Total $ (137,530) $ (169,774) (283,719)
174
Agenda Item # 7.

TINY TOTS (7320)
Object
Code Budget Detail
2023 Budget
Actual
2024 Budget
Actual (66% FY)
2024 Budget
Expected
(100% FY)
Proposed TK
Program
Percentage of
Previous Program

REVENUE
FY 2022/23 Revenue Actual $ 150,328
FY 2023/24 Revenue Actual (Through Jan) $ 42,214
FY 2023/24 Revenue Estimated $ 84,428
Kinder Prep (Ages 4-5) Fee Comparison -
Student/Staff Ratio = 6/1 Resident Non-Resident
Estimated
Attendees Total Revenue
Current Fees $ 4,178 $ 5,012 16.00 $ 66,848
Proposed Fees - Direct Cost Recovery $ 10,667 $ 12,790 12.00 $ 128,004 Proposed Fees - Full Cost Recovery $ 14,002 $ 16,788 12.00 $ 168,024 With the elimination of the Playschool and Lunch and Play (LAP) programs the following reductions were made. -Full time staff and benefits reduced by 60%
-Part Time Non-PERS reduced by 70%
-Building and grounds maintenance and Utilities at San Antonio Club eliminated -Program supplies reduced by 50%
175
Agenda Item # 7.
4/2/24, 5:09 PM About TKCalifornia • Transistional Kindergarten • TKCalifornia https://tkcalifornia.org/about-tk/ 1/11
About TK
The bridge between preschool
and Kindergarten for California’s
children
Thank you for visiting TKCalifornia, an online hub for finding easyto-use resources for administrators, teachers, and parents as Menu
176
Agenda Item # 7.
4/2/24, 5:09 PM About TKCalifornia • Transistional Kindergarten • TKCalifornia https://tkcalifornia.org/about-tk/ 2/11
California expands Transitional Kindergarten (TK) to serve all 4-yearolds. Many educators over the years have called for a developmentally appropriate grade for our youngest learners—now with the expansion of TK, California is on the cusp of achieving the vision of the Master Plan for Early Learning and Care (MPELC), which called for a year of publicly-funded preschool for all children in California.

On this site, you can find:

Benefits of TK
Transitional Kindergarten (TK) bridges the path between preschool and Kindergarten and gives students the gift of time that will help them build a strong foundation for future school success. It blends social and emotional experiences with academic learning, so that students not only learn essential pre-literacy, pre-math, and other cognitive skills, but also develop social and self-regulation skills needed to succeed in school and life.

TK is a win-win-win for children, families, and schools! With TK:

Resources for administrators to help them navigate staffing, facilities, funding, and more as TK is expanded to more children. •
Strategies and tools for teachers on classroom management and developmentally appropriate practices.
•
Information for parents on what to expect in a TK classroom and how they can help their child get the most out of their TK experience.
•
177
Agenda Item # 7.
4/2/24, 5:09 PM About TKCalifornia • Transistional Kindergarten • TKCalifornia https://tkcalifornia.org/about-tk/ 3/11
Research shows that the return on early investments in education is substantial. According to Deborah Stipek, former dean and a professor at the Stanford University School of Education, “the cost is paid back many times over in reduced grade retentions, special education services and in lower expenditures for incarceration.

Returns also come in the form of the increased productivity that results from higher levels of academic achievement and high school completion rates.”
See the latest TK news and events
• Children are better prepared to succeed.

Families have an additional option to ensure their children enter Kindergarten with the maturity, confidence, and skills they need to excel.
•
Schools benefit because children will be better prepared to succeed academically and less likely to be placed in special education or held back in later grades.
•
178
Agenda Item # 7.
4/2/24, 5:09 PM About TKCalifornia • Transistional Kindergarten • TKCalifornia https://tkcalifornia.org/about-tk/ 4/11
TK in the News
Events and Trainings
History of TK
In 2010, California implemented the Kindergarten Readiness Act, signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, which changed how Kindergarten was offered to children in California.

Early Edge California, under its former name of Preschool California, sponsored the Kindergarten Readiness Act (Senate Bill (SB) 1381), which was authored by Senator Joe Simitian.

The 2010 Kindergarten Readiness Act changed the Kindergarten entry date from December 2nd to September 1st so that most children are five when they start Kindergarten (some children with 179
Agenda Item # 7.
4/2/24, 5:09 PM About TKCalifornia • Transistional Kindergarten • TKCalifornia https://tkcalifornia.org/about-tk/ 5/11
mid or late August birthdays may start Kindergarten and then turn five very shortly after). The law also established Transitional Kindergarten (TK), a developmentally appropriate grade to serve our youngest learners with birthdays between September and December.
180
Agenda Item # 7.
4/2/24, 5:09 PM About TKCalifornia • Transistional Kindergarten • TKCalifornia https://tkcalifornia.org/about-tk/ 6/11
The 2015-16 state budget further clarified the law to allow school districts to enroll 4-year-olds in TK even if they turn 5 after the December cutoff date, providing another local option to get more children ready for Kindergarten. The Expanded TK approach gives districts an option to use a combination of local and Average Daily Attendance (ADA) funding to offer school readiness opportunities to children who might not otherwise have access.

The Road Ahead for TK
In 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill (AB) 130, which will gradually expand Transitional Kindergarten (TK) over a four-year period, between the 2022-23 to 2025-26 school years, until 181
Agenda Item # 7.
4/2/24, 5:09 PM About TKCalifornia • Transistional Kindergarten • TKCalifornia https://tkcalifornia.org/about-tk/ 7/11
all 4-year-olds have the opportunity to attend a high-quality, developmentally appropriate TK program and enter Kindergarten prepared to learn and thrive.

About TKCalifornia
Early Edge California (formerly Preschool California) and a panel of experts worked together to develop TKCalifornia in 2012 to serve the needs of teachers and administrators as they implemented Transitional Kindergarten (TK). TKCalifornia is the result of a content creation and review process led by 20 experts from across the state, including local school districts, county offices of education, researchers, and state-level decision makers. Their expertise spans the areas of language and literacy development, early math, socialemotional development and executive function, culturally responsive education, and dual language acquisition.

In 2021, Early Edge California partnered with experts to update the materials on TKCalifornia to reflect the expansion to younger children and to ensure that all materials provide the most up-todate information and recommendations.

The content and materials on this site are based upon the following key agreements and recommendations identified by our experts as critical to TK students’ learning:

Reflecting the continuum of development of all children, recognizing the breadth of their experience, and meeting them where they are to help them advance.
•
182
Agenda Item # 7.
4/2/24, 5:09 PM About TKCalifornia • Transistional Kindergarten • TKCalifornia https://tkcalifornia.org/about-tk/ 8/11
TKCalifornia is operated and maintained by Early Edge California, a nonprofit advocacy organization dedicated to improving access to high-quality Early Learning experiences for all California children so they can have a strong foundation for future success.

TK in the News
• Fostering warm, responsive relationships.
• Supporting family involvement.

Offering examples of developmentally appropriate teaching practices.
•
Providing concrete guidance for teachers by showing how to sequence instruction and presenting easy-to-use resources. •
• Helping teachers understand the use of formative assessment. • Supporting teachers in differentiating instruction.
• Articulating with preschool and Kindergarten.

Focusing on the essential strands for teachers to build the foundation for Kindergarten success.
•
• Providing integrated learning and instruction.
183
Agenda Item # 7.

City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: April 9, 2024
Initiated By: City Council
Prepared By: Anthony Carnesecca
Approved By: Gabriel Engeland
Subject:

Criteria for Art in Public Places

COUNCIL PRIORITY AREA
☐Business Communities
☐Circulation Safety and Efficiency
☐Environmental Sustainability
☐Housing
☐Neighborhood Safety Infrastructure
☒General Government

RECOMMENDATION
Discuss the Criteria for Art in Public Places.

POLICY QUESTION(S) FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
 How would the City Council like to proceed with Art in Public Places?

FISCAL IMPACT
None

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Not applicable

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
July 10, 2018

SUMMARY
 City Council approved Ordinance No. 2018-446 establishing a development fee of 1% for public art, creating a Public Art Fund, and establishing requirements for inclusion of public art in private development projects.
 The Public Art Fund has historically expended funds used on the maintenance and acquisition of various art installations on City-owned, public property throughout the City. 184
Agenda Item # 8.

BACKGROUND
On July 10, 2018, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 2018-446 establishing a development fee of 1% for public art, creating a Public Art Fund, and establishing requirements for inclusion of public art in private development projects.

This ordinance requires that private, non-commercial developers devote an amount not less than one percent (1%) of such costs for the acquisition and installation of publicly accessible art on the development site. At the discretion of the applicant, and in lieu of developing on-site public artwork, a Public Art in-lieu contribution of one percent (1%) may be placed into the Los Altos Public Art Fund to be used pursuant to Section 3.52.020. Such contribution shall not exceed two hundred $200,000.

This ordinance defines “publicly accessible art” as “art which can be reasonably viewed or experienced from the public right-of-way or to which access is unrestricted to members of the public at all times of day.” This governs the acquisition and installation of art on private development sites.

This ordinance also created the Los Altos Public Art Fund, which is where all Public Art in-lieu contributions are deposited. These funds shall be restricted to implementation of the Los Altos Public Art Program. Per LAMC 3.52.020, these in lieu funds may only be used on the “acquisition, placement, maintenance, and promotion of temporary and permanent art and art programs on Cityowned, public property throughout the City.”

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
This means that the Public Art funds from Public Art in-lieu contributions may only be spent on art located on City-owned, public property.

The Public Art Fund has historically expended funds used on the maintenance and acquisition of various art installations on City-owned, public property throughout the City. In the past two fiscal years, the fund has been used to purchase sculptures, artwork informational signage, and complete maintenance on existing art installations.

As of March 29, 2024, the Public Art Fund has $433,631.04.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Ordinance No. 2018-446
185
Agenda Item # 8.

Ordinance No. 2018-446 1
ORDINANCE NO. 2018-446

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LOS ALTOS ESTABLISHING A DEVELOPMENT FEE OF 1%

FOR PUBLIC ART, CREATING A PUBLIC ART FUND AND

ESTABLISHING REQUIREMENTS FOR INCLUSION OF

PUBLIC ART IN PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AND

ADOPTING CEQA EXEMPTION FINDINGS
WHEREAS, public art enhances the quality of life in a community, fosters economic development and creates inventive and/or stimulating public spaces; and WHEREAS, published data strongly indicates that cities with an active and dynamic cultural scene are more attractive to individuals and businesses; and WHEREAS, public art provides an intersection between the past, present and future as well as between disciplines and ideas; and
WHEREAS, Los Altos can create diverse, interactive and engaging art experiences for the community with public art in the Civic Center, community plazas, parks, buildings and other public spaces throughout the City; and
WHEREAS, new development generally results in aesthetic impacts to a community; and WHEREAS, as development and revitalization of real property in the City continues, the opportunity for creation of new cultural and artistic resources is diminished and the need to develop alternative sources for cultural and artistic outlets to improve the environment, image and character of the community is increased; and
WHEREAS, through the inclusion of public art or payment of an in-lieu fee, developers will address at least a portion of the aesthetic impact of their developments on the community by providing art or an in-lieu fee that can be used to increase the presence of art; and
WHEREAS, the provision of public art, or payment of a fee, will benefit the public interest, convenience, health safety and/or welfare and address the legitimate public concern of mitigating aesthetic impacts of development; and
WHEREAS, the legislative requirement to provide public art or an in-lieu fee generally applies broadly to all similarly situated private developers throughout the City and is a permissible land use regulation and a valid exercise of the City’s traditional police power; and WHEREAS, private, non-residential construction projects in the City of Los Altos can contribute to funding the creation, installation, maintenance and administration of public art for the enjoyment of residents and visitors; and
WHEREAS, on June 26, 2018, the City Council held a duly notice public meeting and all interested parties were provided an opportunity to comment on this ordinance; and 186
Agenda Item # 8.

Ordinance No. 2018-446 2
WHEREAS, this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act, Cal. Pub. Res. Code sections 21000, et seq. and the CEQA Guidelines, 1`4 Cal. Code Regs. Sections 15000, et seq, each as a separate and independent basis, for the reasons set forth in Section 4 of this Ordinance.

NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Los Altos does hereby ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF CODE: Chapter 3.52 “Public Art Funding” is hereby added as follows:
“Chapter 3.52 – “Public Art Funding”

3.52.010 – Definitions
The definitions set forth in this Section shall govern the application and interpretation of this Chapter 3.52.

A. “Applicant” shall mean the property owner or developer who submits a development application to the City and their successors B. “Publicly accessible art” shall mean art which can be reasonably viewed or experienced from the public right-of-way or to which access is unrestricted to members of the public at all times of day.

C. “Total construction costs” shall mean the valuation of the proposed structures or improvements, as calculated based on the most recent City of Los Altos Building Valuation Fee Schedule.

3.52.020 – Los Altos Public Art Fund
There is hereby created a Los Altos Public Art Fund, which funds shall be restricted to implementation of the Los Altos Public Art Program. Such funds may be used for the following purposes, including: acquisition, placement, maintenance, and promotion of temporary and permanent art and art programs on City-owned, public property throughout the City.

3.52.030 – Contribution Requirements
A. R1-10, R1-H, R1-20, R1-40. Private single-family developments within the R1-10, R1-H, R1-20 and R1-40 districts shall be exempt from the requirements of this chapter. Private, non-residential developments with total construction costs in excess of one million dollars ($1,000,000) and subject to design review approval within the R1-10, R1-H, R1-20 and R1-40 districts shall contribute an amount of one percent (1%) of construction costs to the Los Altos Public Art Fund to be used pursuant to Section 3.52.020. Such contribution shall not exceed two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000).
187
Agenda Item # 8.

Ordinance No. 2018-446 3
B. R3-4.5, R3-5, R-3-3, R3-1.8, R3-1. Private developments of four (4) or more units and subject to design review approval within the R3-4.5, R3-5, R-3-3, R3-1.8 and R3- 1 districts shall contribute an amount of one percent (1%) of construction costs to the Los Altos Public Art Fund to be used pursuant to Section 3.52.020. Such contribution shall not exceed two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000).

Construction costs for Below Market Rate units shall not be included in valuation.

C. OA, OA-1/OA-4.5, CN, CD, CRS, CT, CD/R3, CRS/OAD, PC, PCF, PUD.

Private building developments with total construction costs in excess of one million dollars ($1,000,000) and subject to design review approval within the OA, OA1/OA-4.5, CN, CD, CRS, CT, CD/R3, CRS/OAD, PC, PCF, and PUD districts shall devote an amount not less than one percent (1%) of such costs for the acquisition and installation of publicly accessible art on the development site. At the discretion of the applicant, and in lieu of developing on-site public artwork, a Public Art in-lieu contribution of one percent (1%) may be placed into the Los Altos Public Art Fund to be used pursuant to Section 3.52.020. Such contribution shall not exceed two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000). Costs directly attributable to construction for Affordable Housing units as defined by Section 14.28.020 shall not be included in valuation.

3.52.040 – Application procedures for placement of required public art on private property
An application for placement of public art on private property shall be submitted in a form and manner as prescribed by the Public Arts Commission staff liaison and shall include:

A. Preliminary sketches, photographs or other documentation of sufficient descriptive clarity to indicate the nature of the proposed public art; B. An appraisal or other evidence of the value of the proposed public artwork, including acquisition and installation costs;
C. Preliminary plans containing such detailed information as may be required to adequately evaluate the location of the artwork in relation to the proposed development and its compatibility to the proposed development, including compatibility with the character of adjacent conforming developed parcels and existing neighborhoods; and
D. A detailed plan that demonstrates how the property owner or developer will maintain the artwork, including schedule, cost and manner of maintenance; and E. A narrative statement or plan that demonstrates the public art will be displayed in a publicly accessible manner.
188
Agenda Item # 8.

Ordinance No. 2018-446 4

3.52.050 – Approval for placement of public art on private property An application for placement of public art on private property submitted pursuant to Section

3.52.040 shall be reviewed by the Public Arts Commission for recommendation prior to final review of the application as a whole by the City Council. Public art on private property shall conform to standards adopted by Resolution of the City Council. A formal application for final placement of public art on private property shall be submitted to and approved by the Public Arts Commission prior to issuance of a building permit. Installation of public art on private property shall occur concurrent with project construction prior to issuance of final certificate of occupancy.

3.52.060 – Modification of an approved public art on private property application For modifications to an approved application for public art on private property, the Public Arts Commission shall be the decision-making body. The action of the Public Arts Commission shall be final unless it is appealed in writing to the City Council within fifteen (15) days of the date of the action, and the appropriate fee is paid.

Any material damage to, or removal or replacement of public art installed pursuant to this Chapter shall require immediate written notification to the City and, within thirty (30) days thereof, full repair or in-kind replacement of same, or payment of a Public Art in-lieu contribution as defined in Section 3.52.030.

3.52.070 – Ownership of public art on private property; insurance The installation or placement of public art on private property shall not constitute a donation to the City. Ownership of public art on private property shall continue with the applicant. The City shall bear no obligation nor assume any responsibility or liability with respect to the installation, operation or maintenance of any art installed on private property, which obligations, responsibilities and liabilities shall be borne by the property owner.

The property owner shall be required to carry insurance to cover the full replacement cost of the public art installed pursuant to this Chapter. Such insurance shall include coverage resulting from any loss or damage to, including but not limited to vandalism. The property owner shall, upon request of City, timely provide evidence of such insurance coverage to the City.

3.52.080 – Waiver.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the requirement to install public art on private property or to pay a Public Art in-lieu contribution may be waived, adjusted or reduced by the City Council if an applicant demonstrates that there is no reasonable relationship between the impact of the proposed development and the requirement to install public art or to pay the Public Art in-lieu contribution, or that applying the requirements of this chapter would take property in violation of the United States Constitution or California Constitution or would result in any other constitutional result.

3.52.090 – Enforcement
The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all agents, successors and assigns of an applicant proposing or constructing a development governed by this chapter, or a property owner 189
Agenda Item # 8.

Ordinance No. 2018-446 5
with art installed governed by this chapter. The City may institute any appropriate legal actions or proceedings necessary to ensure compliance herewith, including but not limited to, actions to revoke, deny or suspend any permit, including a development approval, building permit or certificate of occupancy. The City shall be entitled to costs and expenses for enforcement of the provisions of this chapter, or any agreement pursuant thereto, as awarded by the court, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.

SECTION 2. CONSTITUTIONALITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this code is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of any of the remaining portions of this code.

SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision or decisions shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.

SECTION 4. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. Based on all the evidence presented in the administrative record, including but not limited to the staff report for the proposed ordinance, the City Council hereby finds and determines that the proposed ordinance is exempt from CEQA review: (1) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15050(c)(2) and 15061(b)(3) because it does not authorize any direct or indirect changes to the physical environment and there is no possibility of a significant effect on the environment; (2) because it is not a “project” for purposes of CEQA and is exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines sections 15378(b)(2); (3) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4) because it constitutes a governmental fiscal activity that does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment; (4) because it is not intended to apply to any specifically identified development project and as such it is speculative to evaluate any such future project now; and/or (5) because it is not intended to, nor does it, provide CEQA clearance for future development-related projects by mere establishment of the ordinance’s requirements. Each of the foregoing provides a separate and independent basis for CEQA compliance and, when viewed collectively, provides an overall basis for CEQA compliance.

SECTION 5. NOTICE OF EXEMPTION. The City Council hereby directs City staff to prepare and file a Notice of Exemption with the County, County Clerk within five working days of the adoption of this ordinance.

SECTION 6. PUBLICATION. This ordinance shall be published as provided in Government Code section 36933.

SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be effective upon the commencement of the thirty-first day following the adoption date. 190
Agenda Item # 8.

Ordinance No. 2018-446 6
The foregoing ordinance was duly and properly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Los Altos held on June 26, 2018 and was thereafter, at a regular meeting held on July 10, 2018 passed and adopted by the following vote:

AYES: MORDO, PEPPER, PROCHNOW
NOES: LEE ENG
ABSENT: BRUINS
ABSTAIN: NONE
___________________________
Jean Mordo, MAYOR
Attest:
_______________________
Jon Maginot, CMC, CITY CLERK

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDINANCE

CITY OF LOS ALTOS ) SECOND READING/ADOPTION
I, Jon Maginot, City Clerk for the City of Los Altos in said County of Santa Clara, and State of California, do hereby certify that the attached is a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. 2018-446, adopted by the Los Altos City Council on July 10, 2018 by the following vote:

AYES: MORDO, PEPPER, PROCHNOW
NOES: LEE ENG
ABSTAIN: NONE
ABSENT: BRUINS
I hereby further certify that a summary of the ordinance was published in accordance with Government Code Section 36933 on the following dates: ___________, 2018 and ______________, 2018. Said ordinance shall be effective __________________, 2018.

Dated this ____ day of __________________, 2018.
________________________________
Jon Maginot, CMC
City Clerk
191
Agenda Item # 8.

City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: April 9, 2024
Initiated By: Council (Dailey, Fligor, Lee Eng)
Prepared By: Melissa Thurman
Approved By: Gabriel Engeland
Subject:

Discuss and Consider Taking Positions on Various Senate and Assembly Bills

COUNCIL PRIORITY AREA
☐Business Communities
☐Circulation Safety and Efficiency
☐Environmental Sustainability
☐Housing
☐Neighborhood Safety Infrastructure
☒General Government

RECOMMENDATION
Discuss and consider taking positions on various Senate and Assembly Bills

POLICY QUESTION(S) FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Shall the City Council Take a Formal Position on the Following Items:
 SB 1164 (Newman)
 AB 2814 (Low)
 AB 1886 (Alvarez)
 AB 1820 (Shiavo)
 AB 1779 (Irwin)
 SB 21 (Umberg)
 SB 1095 (Becker)
 SB 1130 (Bradford)
 AB 1999 (Irwin)
 AB 1772 (Ramos)
 AB 2619 (Connolly)
 AB 817 (Pacheco)

FISCAL IMPACT
None
192
Agenda Item # 9.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Not applicable

ATTACHMENTS

1. Bill Summaries
193
Agenda Item # 9.
2024 Legislative Action Committee
Bills for Discussion and Consideration
Included are bill summaries, letters of support/opposition, and fact sheets as available for the following bills:

SB 1164 (Newman) SB 1130 (Bradford)
AB 2814 (Low) AB 1999 (Irwin)
AB 1820 (Shiavo) AB 1772 (Ramos)
AB 1886 (Alvarez) AB 2619 (Connolly)
SB 21 (Umberg) AB 817 (Pacheco)
AB 1779 (Irwin) AB 1794 (McCarty)
SB 1095 (Becker)
1 194
Agenda Item # 9.

SB 1164 (Newman): Revenue and Taxation
Permits property owners to claim an exemption from property tax reassessment for ADU construction until 15 years have passed or when the property changes hands.

Summary:

The California Constitution generally limits ad valorem taxes on real property to 1% of the full cash value of that property. For purposes of this limitation, “full cash value” is defined as the assessor’s valuation of real property as shown on the 1975–76 tax bill under “full cash value” or, thereafter, the appraised value of that real property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership has occurred.This bill would exclude from classification as “newly constructed” and “new construction” the construction of an accessory dwelling unit, as defined, until 15 years have passed since construction on the accessory dwelling unit was completed or there is a subsequent change in ownership of the accessory dwelling unit.

The bill would require the property owner to, prior to or within 30 days of completion of the project, notify the assessor that the property owner intends to claim the exclusion for an accessory dwelling unit and submit an affidavit stating that the owner shall make a good faith effort to ensure the unit will be used as residential housing for the duration the owner receives the exclusion. The bill would require the State Board of Equalization to prescribe the manner and form for claiming the exclusion and would require all additional documents necessary to support the exclusion to be filed by the property owner with the assessor not later than 6 months after the completion of the project. Because this bill would require an affidavit by a property owner and a higher level of service from county assessors, it would impose a statemandated local program. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. 3 195
Agenda Item # 9.

March 27, 2024
The Honorable Steven Glazer
Chair, Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee
1021 O Street, Ste. 7520
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SB 1164 (Newman) Property taxation: new construction exclusion: dwelling units Notice of OPPOSE (02/14/2024)
Dear Chair Glazer,
The League of California Cities (Cal Cities) along with the California State Association of Counties (CSAC), and the California Special Districts Association (CSDA) must respectfully oppose SB 1164 (Newman), which would negatively impact local government property tax revenue by exempting newly constructed accessory dwelling units (ADUs) from property tax assessment, if certain conditions are met, for fifteen years from the date of completion or until the property changes owners, whichever comes first.

Since 2018, there have been year over year increases in the number of newly permitted and constructed ADUs throughout the state. According to data from the UC Berkeley Center for Innovation, from 2018 to 2022, roughly 10,276 ADUs were built, while 28,547 units were permitted during that same period. It is clear there is a demand for ADUs that California cannot keep pace with.

This bill assumes property taxes are an impediment that disincentivize homeowners from building ADUs. However, the data show significant increases in the number of permits and constructed units in previous years, signaling that property tax adjustments have not exclusively halted or discouraged construction on new ADUs. Separate from property tax, the disproportionate share of accessory dwelling units that have been permitted, but not yet built, represents a supply and demand concern that is wholly divorced from property tax considerations.

Recent legislative efforts aimed at increasing the statewide housing stock, like SB 9 (Atkins, 2021), helped spur the construction of ADUs by allowing for by-right approval of an ADU in a single-family residential zone. However, increasing the housing stock triggers demand for service delivery that local governments are responsible for providing. By creating a property tax assessment exemption on newly constructed ADUs, SB 1164 will deprive local governments of the revenues needed to provide and expand services that are of communitywide benefit. Property taxes generate a critical revenue source local governments depend on to provide services, including public safety, education, parks, libraries, public health, and fire protection. 4 196
Agenda Item # 9.

While Cal Cities, CSAC, and CSDA support the intent to increase the production of housing across the state, local governments can ill-afford any additional erosion of local tax revenues in the short- or long-term. The negative fiscal impacts of this measure would be exclusively borne by local governments. We applaud the intent of the measure but have ongoing concerns with proposals that erode the local government tax base.

For these reasons, Cal Cities, CSAC, and CSDA respectfully oppose SB 1164. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected].

Ben Triffo Eric Lawyer
Legislative Affairs Lobbyist, Cal Cities Legislative Advocate, CSAC Marcus Detwiler
Legislative Representative, CSDA
cc: The Honorable Josh Newman
Members, Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee
Colin Grinnell, Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee
5 197
Agenda Item # 9.

AB 2814 (Low): Crimes: unlawful entry: intent to commit package theft Makes it a crime to enter the vicinity of a home with the intent to commit theft of any packages shipped through the mail or delivered by public or private carrier.

Summary: Under existing law, a person who enters a house, room, apartment, or other specified structure, with intent to commit larceny or any felony, is guilty of burglary in the first or 2nd degree, as specified. Burglary in the first degree is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 2, 4, or 6 years, and burglary in the 2nd degree is punishable as a misdemeanor by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or as a felony by imprisonment in a county jail for 16 months, or 2 or 3 years.

This bill would prohibit a person from entering the curtilage of a home, as defined, with the intent to commit theft of a package shipped through the mail or delivered by a public or private carrier. The bill would make a violation of that prohibition punishable as either a misdemeanor or a felony, as specified.

By creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.
6 198
Agenda Item # 9.

One of the League of California Cities’ (Cal Cities) top advocacy priorities is to address crime and retail theft, organized retail theft and shoplifting. Our organization is pleased that the Assembly Public Safety Committee will be hearing a slate of bills to address the growing problem of retail theft in our state. As such, Cal Cities would like to identify a few bills that we believe would help to address the issue of providing critically needed tools of enforcement to combat retail theft.

As you may know, retail theft continues to be a problem in nearly all California communities. For example, commercial burglary is at the highest rate since 2008. In fact, according to the PPIC, commercial burglary increased statewide since 2020, especially in larger counties with an increase of 13% among 14 of the 15 largest counties. Rising theft is impacting every corner of California, and city officials need additional tools to reduce crime and improve the safety of their neighborhoods.

There are reforms needed to ensure that both apprehension rates of offenders improve and that those apprehended for more serious theft offenses meet meaningful consequences. Specifically, there are a several bills that would address these necessary reforms through increasing the certainty and severity of apprehension for retail theft offenses.

Therefore, we support the following bills:

AB 1960 (Soria) Sentencing Enhancements: Property Loss. (As Introduced on 1/29/2024)
AB 1990 (Carrillo) Criminal Procedure: Arrests: Shoplifting. (As Amended on 3/18/2024)
7 199
Agenda Item # 9.

AB 2438 (Petrie-Norris) Property Crimes: Enhancements.
(As Introduced on 2/13/2024)
AB 2814 (Low) Crimes: Unlawful Entry: Intent to Commit Package Theft (As Introduced on 2/15/2024)
AB 3209 (Berman) Crimes: Theft: Retail Theft Restraining Orders (As Amended on 4/1/2024)
SB 1242 (Min) Crimes: Fires
(As Amended on 3/19/2024)
These bills propose several methods of increasing enforcement tools on the front end of our criminal justice system and increasing the penalties on the back end. These methods range from increasing ongoing funding of local and statewide enforcement programs, improving law enforcements’ powers and arrest authority, creating new offenses, and adding sentencing enhancements for felonious offenses of retail theft.

While these individual bills are important to continuing to make progress on retail theft, these bills are only one part of a comprehensive solution that needs to include prevention, enforcement, and supervision. Cal Cities is part of a larger coalition of business, labor, law enforcement and local governments trying to address the increase in retail theft that is impacting so many Californians. Addressing enforcement tools and increased penalties are some of the methods that can help solve this growing problem, however additional changes are needed in order to make our communities safer.

For these reasons, Cal Cities supports the bills listed above. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Jolena Voorhis
Legislative Affairs, Lobbyist
cc: The Honorable Marc Berman
The Honorable Wendy Carrillo
The Honorable Evan Low
The Honorable Dave Min
The Honorable Cottie Petrie-Norris
The Honorable Esmeralda Soria
Members, Assembly Public Safety Committee
8 200
Agenda Item # 9.

Members, Senate Public Safety Committee
Sandy Uribe, Chief Counsel, Assembly Public Safety Committee Gary Olson, Consultant, Republican Caucus
Mary Kennedy, Chief Counsel, Senate Public Safety
Eric Csizmar, Consultant, Senate Republican Caucus
9 201
Agenda Item # 9.

AB 1820 (Shiavo): Housing development projects: applications: fees and exactions This bill requires local governments, upon determination that a housing project development application is complete, to produce the development proponent with an itemized list and total sum amount of all fees and exactions that will apply to the project within 10 days of the determination of completeness transmitted to the applicant.

Summary:

Existing law requires a city or county to deem an applicant for a housing development project to have submitted a preliminary application upon providing specified information about the proposed project to the city or county from which approval for the project is being sought. Existing law requires a housing development project be subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when the preliminary application was submitted. This bill would authorize a development proponent that submits a preliminary application for a housing development project to request a preliminary fee and exaction estimate, as defined, and would require the local agency to provide the estimate within 20 business days of the submission of the preliminary application. For development fees imposed by an agency other than a city or county, the bill would require the development proponent to request the preliminary fee and exaction estimate from the agency that imposes the fee. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.
10 202
Agenda Item # 9.

April 4, 2024
The Honorable Chris Ward
Chair, Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development 1020 N Street, Room 124
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 1820 (Schiavo) Housing Development Projects: Applications: Fees and Exactions (As Amended 4/1/24)
Notice of Oppose Unless Amended
Dear Assemblymember Schiavo,
The League of California Cities (Cal Cities), California State Association of Counties (CSAC), Urban Counties of California (UCC), and the Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC) regretfully must take a position of oppose AB 1820 (Schiavo) unless it is amended to address our concerns. AB 1820 as currently drafted, would require all local agencies to provide within 20 days of a request by a developer, an itemized list and the total sum of all fees and exactions for a proposed development project during the preliminary application process.

Our organizations support the intent of the legislature to improve the transparency, predictability, and governance of impact fees, while preserving the ability to fund public facilities and other infrastructure in a manner flexible enough to meet the needs of California’s varied and diverse communities, regardless of whether they are small or large, or rural or urban. Our organizations have participated in several stakeholder meetings to find areas of common agreement for improvements to California’s laws related to development impact fees.

Since 2022, cities, counties, and special districts have been required to post fee schedules on their websites via Government Code Section 65940.1. In addition, fee schedules are a public record and are easily available upon request. The fee schedule lists the standard generally applicable fees for a specific project type that are common across all similar projects in a jurisdiction, however, it does not account for project-specific fees or CEQA mitigation measures which cannot be estimated during a preliminary application process. Project-specific fees vary on a project-by-project basis and cannot be determined before the project is fully designed and approved. Additionally, if the intent of AB 1820 is to provide an estimate of all fees associated with a specific development project, 20 days is not nearly enough time for local governments to estimate and provide the necessary materials to the project applicant. Finally, our organizations are concerned that local governments would be unable to charge fees after the preliminary application process, which is concerning as fees may differ from the preliminary estimate as construction begins to address necessary local infrastructure upgrades due to a new development project proposal.

Given the concerns listed above our organizations must respectfully oppose unless amended AB 1820.

To help address our concerns, the author’s office should specify that this measure would only apply to standardized general fees known at the time of the preliminary application and not apply to projectspecific fees. Additionally, the author’s office should consider extending the 20-day deadline to 45 11 203
Agenda Item # 9.
business days instead. Finally, local governments need protections that the estimated fees and exactions are nonbinding and should be granted the authority to cover the cost of services provided by the local government for a new development project. Without these fees, local jurisdictions will be unable to provide the needed services.

We appreciate the author’s interest in bringing this measure forward and remain concerned about the bill’s costs to local governments. For these reasons, our organizations respectfully oppose unless amended AB 1820. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact Brady Guertin at Cal Cities, Chris Lee at UCC, Mark Neuburger at CSAC, or Tracy Rhine at RCRC.

Sincerely,
Brady Guertin
Legislative Affairs, Lobbyist
League of California Cities
Tracy Rhine
Senior Policy Advocate
Rural County Representatives of California
cc: The Honorable Pilar Schiavo
Members, Asm Housing and Community Development
Dori Ganetsos, Senior Consultant, Asm Committee on Housing and Community Development William Weber, Policy Consultant, Assembly Republican Caucus Christopher Lee
Legislative Advocate, UCC
Mark Neuburger
Legislative Advocate
California State Association of Counties
12 204
Agenda Item # 9.

Fact Sheet for AB 1820 (Schiavo) – Updated 1.30.24
AB 1820 – Developer Fee Transparency
Summary
AB 1820 is a “good government” measure that seeks to
provide developers financial certainty and predictability when estimating the cost of local development impact fees on proposed housing projects. This measure requires local jurisdictions to timely provide an itemized list and estimated total sum amount of all fees and exactions that will apply to a residential development that has submitted a preliminary application.

Background
State law gives local jurisdictions broad authority to levy impact fees on builders. Unfortunately, those fees are often not easily identified prior to issuance of a permit and construction. Many jurisdictions practice a “pay-as-you-go” methodology as the project goes through the many phases of permitting and construction.

A 2018 study conducted by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at the University of California, Berkeley, found that fees and exactions can amount to up to 18 percent of the median home price, that these fees and exactions are extremely difficult to estimate, and that fees and exactions continue to rise in California while decreasing nationally.

Further, escalating fee and exaction costs make it more difficult for builders to deliver new housing for sale or rent at affordable prices.

The study found significant implications for the cost and delivery of new housing in California. Specifically, without standardized tools to estimate development fees, builders cannot accurately predict total project costs during the critical predevelopment phase.

Affordable housing projects can be subject to exorbitant fees that raise the cost of the building, reducing the already narrow margins that affordable housing developers work
with and the unpredictability of these fees can delay or derail projects altogether.

AB 1483 (Grayson) aimed to remedy this uncertainty to
some degree by requiring local agencies to post on their websites all fees imposed on a housing development
projects. This measure was an attempt to prevent a
“needle-in-a-haystack” approach in searching for the
appropriate costs affiliated with the project. Unfortunately, a survey conducted by SPUR in 2021 found that “many
jurisdictions have yet to come into compliance with AB
1483, as their websites often have incomplete or unreliable information regarding development fees and
requirements.”
Current Law
(GOV § 65940.1) Details the requirements of cities,
counties, or special districts to list on their websites their current schedule of fees, exactions, and affordability
requirements imposed by the city, county, or special district, including any dependent special districts, as defined.

This Bill
AB 1820 will:
1) Allow developers to request a good-faith estimate
of fee and exaction statement estimate from their
local jurisdiction.
2) Require a local entity to provide a fee estimate
within 10 business days of the submission of a
preliminary project application.

Support
 San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban
Research Association (SPUR) (Sponsor)
 California Building Industry Association (CBIA)
(Sponsor)
 California YIMBY (Co-Sponsor)
For More Information
Ravi Kahlon, Legislative Aide
Office of Assemblywoman Schiavo
[email protected] or (916) 319-2040
13 205
Agenda Item # 9.

AB 1886 (Alvarez): Housing Element Law: substantial compliance: Housing Accountability Act Clarifies that the builder’s remedy is applicable to cities and counties that have not received official certification of housing element compliance from HCD. Additionally creates a rebuttable presumption of the validity of HCD’s findings as to whether an adopted element or amendment complies with housing law.

Summary: The Planning and Zoning Law requires a city or county to adopt a general plan for land use development within its boundaries that includes, among other things, a housing element. Existing law, commonly referred to as the Housing Element Law, prescribes requirements for a city’s or county’s preparation of, and compliance with, its housing element, and requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to review and determine whether the housing element substantially complies with the Housing Element Law, as specified. If the department finds that a draft housing element or amendment does not substantially comply with the Housing Element Law, existing law requires the legislative body of the city or county to either (A) change the draft element or amendment to substantially comply with the Housing Element Law or (B) adopt the draft housing element or amendment without changes and make specified findings as to why the draft element or amendment substantially complies with the Housing Element Law despite the findings of the department. Existing law requires a planning agency to promptly submit an adopted housing element or amendment to the department and requires the department to review the adopted housing element or amendment and report its findings to the planning agency within 60 days. This bill would require a planning agency that makes the abovedescribed findings as to why a draft housing element or amendment substantially complies with the Housing Element Law despite the findings of the department to submit those findings to the department.

The bill would require the department to review those finding in its review of an adopted housing element or amendment. The bill would create a rebuttable presumption of validity for the department’s findings as to whether the adopted element or amendment substantially complies with the Housing Element Law.

Because the bill would require planning agencies to submit specified findings to the department with an adopted housing element or amendment, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. 14 206
Agenda Item # 9.

April 4, 2024
The Honorable Chris Ward
Chair, Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee 1020 N St, Room 124
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 1886 (Alvarez) Housing Element Law: Substantial Compliance Notice of Opposition (As of April 1, 2024)
Dear Chair Ward,
The League of California Cities (Cal Cities) regretfully must oppose AB 1886 (Alvarez), because it turns its back to a fundamental provision of housing element law: A city may disagree with HCD; explain why its housing element is in substantial compliance with the law; and then adopt that housing element which is thereafter considered “in substantial compliance with housing element law.”
For decades, cities have worked with HCD to draft housing plans that accommodate their fair share of housing at all income levels. These extensive and complex plans can take years to develop, include public involvement and engagement, and environmental review.

Cities go to great lengths to ensure that their housing element substantially complies with the law, even if HCD disagrees. Current law acknowledges this fact by allowing cities to “self-certify” their housing element or take the issue to court and have a judge make the final determination of substantial compliance.

AB 1886 encourages “builder’s remedy” projects by eliminating self-certification for the purpose of what it means to have a housing element “in substantial compliance with the law.” The “builder’s remedy” allows a developer to choose any site other than a site that is identified for very low-, low-, or moderate-income housing, and construct a project that is inconsistent with both the city’s general plan and zoning. AB 1886 facilitates such projects for those cities that have a good faith disagreement based in substantial evidence.

Cal Cities believes that AB 1886 is counterproductive. What is really needed is for HCD to partner with cities to provide meaningful direction that helps them finalize their housing elements and put those plans to work so that much needed housing construction can occur. For these reasons, Cal Cities respectfully opposes AB 1886. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Brady Guertin
Legislative Affairs, Lobbyist
15 207
Agenda Item # 9.

CC: The Honorable David A. Alvarez
Members, Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development Lisa Engel, Chief Consultant, Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development
William Weber, Assembly Republican Caucus
16 208
Agenda Item # 9.

SB 21 (Umberg): Controlled Substances
This measure would require a person who is convicted of crimes related to controlled substances to receive a written advisory of the danger of manufacturing or distribution of controlled substances and that, if a person dies because of that action, the distributor can be charged with voluntary manslaughter or murder.

Summary: Existing law makes it a crime to possess for sale or purchase for purpose of sale, transport, or sell, various controlled substances, including, among others, fentanyl. This bill would require a person who is convicted of, or who pleads guilty or no contest to, the above-described crimes as they relate to fentanyl to receive a written advisory of the danger of distribution of controlled substances and that, if a person dies as a result of that action, the distributor can be charged with homicide or murder. The bill would require that the fact the advisory was given be on the record and recorded on the abstract of the conviction. This bill would authorize a defendant who is charged with the above-described crimes to undergo a treatment program in lieu of a grant of probation or a jail or prison sentence if certain conditions are met. The bill would require the treatment program to be developed by a drug addiction expert and would authorize a defendant to participate in a substance abuse and mental health evaluation.

The bill would make any statement or information from the evaluation inadmissible in any action or proceeding. The bill would require the drug treatment program to be approved by the court and could include mental health treatment and job training. The bill would require the court to dismiss the charges upon successful completion of the treatment program.
17 209
Agenda Item # 9.
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org April 8, 2024
The Honorable Tom Umberg
Member, California State Senate
1021 O Street, Room 6530
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SB 21 (Umberg) Controlled Substances.

Notice of SUPPORT (as Amended on January 17, 2024)
Dear Senator Umberg,
The League of California Cities (Cal Cities) is pleased to support your measure SB 21 (Umberg). This measure would require a person who is convicted of fentanyl-related drug offenses to receive a written advisory of the danger of manufacturing or distribution of controlled substances and that, if a person dies because of that action, the manufacturer or distributor can be charged with voluntary manslaughter or murder.

A recent study by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) names fentanyl the deadliest drug in the United States. Fentanyl is often disguised as other synthetic opioids or drugs, then sold on the street to users who are unaware that fentanyl is a key ingredient. Users who unknowingly ingest these substances believing they are taking a less powerful drug are much more susceptible to overdose or even death. When abused, fentanyl affects the brain and nervous system and is 50 times stronger than heroin and 100 times stronger than morphine.

With respect to deaths resulting from driving under the influence (DUI), the California Supreme Court held in People v. Watson (1981), 30 Cal.3d 290, 298, in affirming a second-degree murder conviction, that “when the conduct in question can be characterized as a wanton disregard for life, and the facts demonstrate a subjective awareness of the risk created, malice may be implied.” To codify this notion, California Vehicle Code §23593 was implemented in 2004 to require that courts read an admonishment to anyone convicted of reckless driving or DUI to inform them of the state’s ability and intent to charge a repeated future offense with manslaughter or murder.

Existing law makes it unlawful to sell, traffic, or transport specified opiates and opiate derivatives including fentanyl. SB 21 authorizes a defendant who is charged with those offenses the ability to undergo a treatment program in lieu of a jail or prison sentence if certain conditions are met. This seeks to maximize the access to rehabilitative and treatment programs for Californians.

For these reasons, Cal Cities supports SB 21 (Umberg). If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected].
18 210
Agenda Item # 9.

Sincerely,
Jolena Voorhis
Legislative Affairs, Lobbyist
Cc: Members, Public Safety Committee
19 211
Agenda Item # 9.

AB 1779 (Irwin): Crime: Jurisdiction
Removes the requirement that theft crimes be jurisdictionally limited to prosecutorial actions brought by the Attorney General. Requires that all district attorneys in counties with jurisdiction over the crimes agree to the venue. Without agreement, the crime would be returned to the original jurisdiction.

Summary:

Existing law defines types of theft, including petty theft, grand theft, and shoplifting. Existing law also defines the crimes of robbery and burglary. Existing law sets forth specific rules relating to the jurisdiction for the prosecution of theft by fraud, organized retail theft, and receiving stolen property, including that the jurisdiction for prosecution includes the county where an offense involving the theft or receipt of the stolen merchandise occurred, the county in which the merchandise was recovered, or the county where any act was done by the defendant in instigating, procuring, promoting, or aiding or abetting in the commission of a theft offense or other qualifying offense. Existing law jurisdictionally limits prosecution of each of the above to criminal actions brought by the Attorney General. This bill would no longer limit the jurisdictional rules for the above crimes to criminal actions brought by the Attorney General. If a case is brought by someone other than the Attorney General, the bill would require the prosecution to present written evidence in the jurisdiction of the proposed trial that all district attorneys in counties with jurisdiction over the offenses agree to the venue. The bill would require charged offenses from jurisdictions where there is not a written agreement from the district attorney to be returned to that jurisdiction. 20 212
Agenda Item # 9.

April 4, 2024
The Honorable Kevin McCarty
Chair, Assembly Committee on Public Safety
1020 N Street, Room 111
Sacramento, CA 95814
The Honorable Aisha Wahab
Chair, Senate Public Safety Committee
1020 N Street, Room 545
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Retail Theft Aggregation and Multi-Jurisdictional Legislation Dear Assemblymember McCarty and Senator Wahab,
One of the League of California Cities’ (Cal Cities) top advocacy priorities is to address crime and retail theft, organized retail theft and shoplifting. Our organization is pleased that both houses of the Legislature have made this issue a priority in 2024. As such, Cal Cities would like to identify a few bills that we believe would help to address the issue of aggregating multiple retail theft offenses across a multi-jurisdictional area.

As you may know, retail theft continues to be a problem in nearly all California communities. For example, commercial burglary is at the highest rate since 2008. In fact, according to the PPIC, commercial burglary increased statewide since 2020, especially in larger counties with an increase of 13% among 14 of the 15 largest counties. To address rising theft, city officials need additional tools to reduce crime and improve the safety of their neighborhoods.

It has become common for offenders to try to avoid higher charges, such as grand theft, by stealing small amounts of items they know are under $950 across several retail businesses. Current law provides that multiple thefts can be aggregated to one charge if these incidents can be proven to be “one intention, one general impulse, and one plan.” Unfortunately, this law is limited in scope and Cal Cities strongly believes it needs strengthening.

Improved aggregation laws for multiple incidents of theft will not be helpful without active prosecution of cases across several jurisdictions. Expanding coordination and abilities of District Attorneys to work together to prosecute theft offenses that occur in several counties will ensure offenders are held accountable. 21 213
Agenda Item # 9.

Therefore, we support the following bills:

AB 1779 (Irwin) Theft: Jurisdiction.
(As Amended on 3/11/2024)
AB 1794 (McCarty) Crimes: Larceny
(As Amended on 4/1/2024)
These bills propose several methods of ensuring and clarifying the process of multijurisdictional prosecution as well as aggregation of multiple theft incidents with several victims.

While these individual bills are important in order to continue to make progress on retail theft, these bills are only one part of a comprehensive solution that needs to include prevention, enforcement, and supervision. Cal Cities is part of a larger coalition of business, labor, law enforcement and local governments trying to address the increase in retail theft that is impacting so many Californians. Addressing aggregation of multiple theft offenses and cross-county prosecution of offenses are some of the methods that can help solve this growing problem, however additional changes are needed in order to make our communities safer.

For these reasons, Cal Cities supports the bills listed above. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Jolena Voorhis
Legislative Affairs, Lobbyist
cc: The Honorable Jacqui Irwin
The Honorable Kevin McCarty
Members, Assembly Public Safety Committee
Members, Senate Public Safety Committee
Sandy Uribe, Chief Counsel, Assembly Public Safety Committee Gary Olson, Consultant, Republican Caucus
Mary Kennedy, Chief Counsel, Senate Public Safety
Eric Csizmar, Consultant, Senate Republican Caucus
22 214
Agenda Item # 9.

SB 1095 (Becker) Cozy Homes Cleanup Act: building standards: gas-fuel-burning appliances Prohibits mobile home parks and homeowner associations from instituting barriers to electric appliances Summary: Existing law, the Manufactured Housing Act of 1980 (the “act”), requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to enforce various laws pertaining to the structural, fire safety, plumbing, heat-producing, or electrical systems and installations or equipment of a manufactured home, mobilehome, commercial coach, or special purpose commercial coach. The act defines “manufactured home” and “mobilehome” to mean a structure that meets specified requirements, including that the structure is transportable in one or more sections and is 8 body feet or more in width, or 40 body feet or more in length, in the traveling mode, or, when erected onsite, is 320 or more square feet, and includes the plumbing, heating, air-conditioning, and electrical systems contained within the structure.This bill would extend those provisions to also apply to electric water heaters and electric appliances for comfort heating that are not specifically listed for use in a manufactured home or mobilehome. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.
23 215
Agenda Item # 9.

SB 1130 (Bradford) Electricity: Family Electric Rate Assistance: reports Would require the Public Utilities Commission, by June 1, 2025, and each year thereafter, to review each electrical corporation’s report to ensure it has sufficiently enrolled eligible households in the FERA program commensurate with the proportion of households the commission determines to be eligible within the electrical corporation’s service territory.

Summary: Existing law vests the Public Utilities Commission with regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations. Existing law requires the commission to continue a program of assistance to residential customers of the state’s 3 largest electrical corporations consisting of households of 3 or more persons with total household annual gross income levels between 200% and 250% of the federal poverty guideline level, which is referred to as the Family Electric Rate Assistance or FERA program.This bill would expand eligibility for the FERA program by eliminating the requirement that a household consist of 3 or more persons. The bill would require the commission, by March 1, 2025, and each year thereafter, to require the state’s 3 largest electrical corporations to report on their efforts to enroll customers in the FERA program. This bill would require the commission, by June 1, 2025, and each year thereafter, to review each electrical corporation’s report to ensure it has sufficiently enrolled eligible households in the FERA program commensurate with the proportion of households the commission determines to be eligible within the electrical corporation’s service territory. If the commission, in its review of a report, determines an electrical corporation has not sufficiently enrolled eligible households in the FERA program, the bill would require the commission to require the electrical corporation to develop a strategy and plan to sufficiently enroll eligible households within 3 years of the adoption of the strategy and plan. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. 24 216
Agenda Item # 9.

AB 1999 (Irwin) Electricity: Income Graduated Fixed Charges Summary:

Existing law vests the Public Utilities Commission with regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations. Existing law authorizes the commission to adopt new, or expand existing, fixed charges, as defined, for the purpose of collecting a reasonable portion of the fixed costs of providing electrical service to residential customers. Under existing law, the commission may authorize fixed charges for any rate schedule applicable to a residential customer account. Existing law requires the commission, no later than July 1, 2024, to authorize a fixed charge for default residential rates. Existing law requires these fixed charges to be established on an income-graduated basis, with no fewer than 3 income thresholds, so that low-income ratepayers in each baseline territory would realize a lower average monthly bill without making any changes in usage. This bill would repeal the provisions described in the preceding paragraph. The bill would instead permit the commission to authorize fixed charges that, as of January 1, 2015, do not exceed $5 per residential customer account per month for low-income customers enrolled in the California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) program and that do not exceed $10 per residential customer account per month for customers not enrolled in the CARE program. The bill would authorize these maximum allowable fixed charges to be adjusted by no more than the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for the prior calendar year, beginning January 1, 2016. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. 25 217
Agenda Item # 9.

AB 1772 (Ramos): Theft
Related to theft crimes, the bill states that if the value of property taken exceeds $950 over the course of distinct but related acts, the thefts may properly be aggregated to charge a defendant with grand theft.

Summary: Existing law makes theft a crime, and distinguishes between grand theft and petty theft.

Existing law makes the theft of money, labor, or property petty theft punishable as a misdemeanor, whenever the value of the property taken does not exceed $950. Under existing law, if the value of the property taken exceeds $950, the theft is grand theft, punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony. Existing law makes a first conviction for petty theft involving merchandise taken from a merchant’s premises punishable by a mandatory fine and as a misdemeanor. This bill would require the Department of Justice to determine the number of misdemeanor convictions for a crime of theft for which the property was taken from a retail establishment during the Governor’s declared state of emergency related to the COVID-19 pandemic, and to report that information to the Legislature on or before January 1, 2026. 26 218
Agenda Item # 9.

April 5, 2024
The Honorable Kevin McCarty
Chair, Assembly Public Safety Committee
1020 N Street, Room 111
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 1772 (Ramos) Theft.

Notice of SUPPORT (As Amended on April 3, 2024)
Dear Assemblymember McCarty,
The League of California Cities (Cal Cities) is pleased to support AB 1772 (Ramos), which would require the Department of Justice to conduct a study to determine the number of misdemeanor convictions for a theft offense when property was taken from a retail business during the COVID-19 state of emergency.

This bill would require the Department of Justice on January 1, 2026 to report to the Legislature the number of misdemeanor convictions for retail theft during the Governor’s declared state of emergency during the COVID-19 pandemic. This would allow the Legislature to identify the rate of convictions misdemeanor retail theft offenses during a time related to a surge of theft rates.

While AB 1772 (Ramos) is important to continuing to make progress on retail theft, this bill is only one part of a comprehensive solution that needs to include prevention, enforcement, and supervision. Cal Cities is part of a larger coalition of business, labor, law enforcement and local governments trying to address the increase in retail theft that is impacting so many Californians. Identifying the rate of theft in comparison to the rate of conviction is just one of the methods that can help solve this growing problem and make our communities safer.

For these reasons, Cal Cities supports AB 1772 (Ramos). If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected].
27 219
Agenda Item # 9.

Sincerely,
Jolena Voorhis
Legislative Affairs, Lobbyist
cc: The Honorable James Ramos
Members, Assembly Public Safety Committee
Liah Burnley, Counsel, Assembly Public Safety Committe
Gary Olson, Consultant, Assembly Republican Caucus
28 220
Agenda Item # 9.

AB 2619 (Connolly): Net Energy Metering
Summary: Existing law vests the Public Utilities Commission with regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations. Existing law requires every electric utility, defined to include electrical corporations, local publicly owned electric utilities, and electrical cooperatives, to develop a standard contract or tariff for net energy metering, as defined, for generation by a renewable electrical generation facility, as defined, and to make this contract or tariff available to eligible customer-generators, as defined, upon request on a first-come-first-served basis until the time that the total rated generating capacity used by eligible customer generators exceeds 5% of the electric utility’s aggregate customer peak demand.

Existing law requires the commission to have developed a 2nd standard contract or tariff for each large electrical corporation, as defined, to provide net energy metering to additional eligible customergenerators in the electrical corporation’s service territory and imposes no limitation on the number of new eligible customer-generators entitled to receive service pursuant to this 2nd standard contract or tariff.

Existing law requires the commission, in developing the 2nd standard contract or tariff, to ensure that customer-sited renewable distributed generation continues to grow sustainably and to include specific alternatives designed for growth among residential customers in disadvantaged communities. Existing law authorizes the commission to revise the 2nd standard contract or tariff as appropriate. Pursuant to that authorization, the commission has instituted rulemakings and issued decisions relating to the 2nd standard contract or tariff. This bill would require all eligible customer-generators of large electrical corporations receiving service under the 2nd standard contract or tariff to be subject to a specified version of the tariff developed by the commission in a specified rulemaking. The bill would require the commission to develop a new standard contract or tariff providing for net energy metering for eligible customergenerators of large electrical corporations, and would require every other electric utility to revise its standard contract or tariff providing for net energy metering. The bill would require every electric utility to make the standard contract or tariff available to all new eligible customer-generators beginning on January 1, 2027. By adding new duties on local publicly owned electric utilities, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. 29 221
Agenda Item # 9.

AB 817 (Pacheco) Open meetings: teleconferencing: subsidiary body.

This measure would remove barriers to entry for appointed and elected office by allowing nondecisionmaking legislative bodies to participate in two-way virtual teleconferencing without posting their location.

Summary: Existing law, the Ralph M. Brown Act, requires, with specified exceptions, each legislative body of a local agency to provide notice of the time and place for its regular meetings and an agenda containing a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted. The act also requires that all meetings of a legislative body be open and public, and that all persons be permitted to attend unless a closed session is authorized. The act generally requires for teleconferencing that the legislative body of a local agency that elects to use teleconferencing post agendas at all teleconference locations, identify each teleconference location in the notice and agenda of the meeting or proceeding, and have each teleconference location be accessible to the public. Existing law also requires that, during the teleconference, at least a quorum of the members of the legislative body participate from locations within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction. Existing law authorizes the legislative body of a local agency to use alternate teleconferencing provisions during a proclaimed state of emergency (emergency provisions) and, until January 1, 2026, in certain circumstances related to the particular member if at least a quorum of its members participate from a singular physical location that is open to the public and situated within the agency’s jurisdiction and other requirements are met (nonemergency provisions). Existing law imposes different requirements for notice, agenda, and public participation, as prescribed, when a legislative body is using alternate teleconferencing provisions. The nonemergency provisions impose restrictions on remote participation by a member of the legislative body and require the legislative body to specific means by which the public may remotely hear and visually observe the meeting. This bill, until January 1, 2026, would authorize a subsidiary body, as defined, to use similar alternative teleconferencing provisions and would impose requirements for notice, agenda, and public participation, as prescribed. In order to use teleconferencing pursuant to this act, the bill would require the legislative body that established the subsidiary body by charter, ordinance, resolution, or other formal action to make specified findings by majority vote, before the subsidiary body uses teleconferencing for the first time and every 12 months thereafter. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.
30 222
Agenda Item # 9.

FLOOR ALERT
On behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts (CARPD), League of California Cities (CalCities), Urban Counties of California (UCC), Rural County Representative of California (RCRC), California State Association of Counties (CSAC), and California Association of Public Authorities for IHSS (CAPA-IHSS), we are pleased to sponsor this important legislation and ask for your AYE vote to remove barriers to entry into civic leadership.

We and the above organizations write to express our strong support for AB 817. • This measure would remove barriers to entry for appointed and elected office by allowing nondecision-making legislative bodies that do not have the ability to take final action to participate in two-way virtual teleconferencing without posting location. • Local governments across the state have faced an ongoing challenge to recruit and retain members of the public on advisory bodies, boards, and commissions. 31 223
Agenda Item # 9.
• Challenges associated with recruitment have been attributed to participation time commitments, time and location of meetings, physical limitation, conflicts with childcare, and work obligations. • The COVID-19 global pandemic drove both hyper-awareness and concerns about the spread of infectious diseases, as well as removed barriers to local civic participation by allowing this same remote participation. This enabled individuals who could not otherwise accommodate the time, distance, or mandatory physical participation requirements to engage locally, providing access to leadership opportunities and providing communities with greater diversified input on critical community proposals.
• Existing law (Stats. 1991, Ch. 669) declares “a vast and largely untapped reservoir of talent exists among the citizenry of the State of California, and that rich and varied segments of this great human resource are, all too frequently, not aware of the many opportunities which exist to participate in and serve on local regulatory and advisory boards, commissions, and committees.” Under the Local Appointments List, also known as Maddy’s Act, this information must be publicly noticed and published. However, merely informing the public of the opportunity to engage is not enough: addressing barriers to entry to achieve diverse representation in leadership furthers the Legislature’s declared goals of equal access and equal opportunity. • Diversification in civic participation at all levels requires careful consideration of different protected characteristics as well as socio-economic status. • The in-person requirement to participate in local governance bodies presents a disproportionate challenge for those with physical or economic limitations, including seniors, persons with disability, single parents and/or caretakers, economically marginalized groups, and those who live in rural areas and face prohibitive driving distances. Participation in local advisory bodies and appointed boards and commissions often serves as a pipeline to local elected office and opportunities for state and federal leadership positions.
• AB 817 would help address these issues by providing a narrow exemption under the Ralph M.

Brown Act for non-decision-making legislative bodies that do not take final action on any legislation, regulations, contracts, licenses, permits, or other entitlements, so that equity in opportunity to serve locally and representative diversity in leadership can be achieved.

AB 817 IS WORKING WITH THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE AND LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL TO

ALIGN ITS PROVISIONS WITH ALL OF THE TELECONFERENCING PROVISIONS THAT APPLY TO ADVISORY BODIES AS PASSED IN SB 544 (LAIRD) LAST YEAR, INCLUDING PROVIDING A PHYSICAL LOCATION FOR THE PUBLIC TO HEAR, SEE, AND PARTICIPATE FROM.

WE ASK FOR YOUR “AYE” VOTE ON AB 817 TO REMOVE BARRIERS

TO ENTRY INTO CIVIC PARITICPATION AT THE LOCAL LEVEL AND

INCREASE REPRESENTATION ON IMPORTANT ADVISORY ONLY
BOARDS AND COMMITTEES.
32 224
Agenda Item # 9.

AB 1794 (McCarty): Public Safety: Larceny
Summary: Existing law, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, enacted as an initiative statute by Proposition 47, as approved by the electors at the November 4, 2014, statewide general election, makes the theft of money, labor, or property petty theft punishable as a misdemeanor, whenever the value of the property taken does not exceed $950. Under existing law, if the value of the property taken exceeds $950, the theft is grand theft, punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony. Proposition 47 requires shoplifting, defined as entering a commercial establishment with the intent to commit larceny if the value of the property taken does not exceed $950, to be punished as a misdemeanor. Under existing law, if the value of all property taken over the course of distinct but related acts motivated by one intention, general impulse, and plan exceeds $950, those values may be aggregated into a single charge of grand theft.

This bill would clarify that those values may be aggregated even though the thefts occurred in different places or from different victims. The bill would also, declarative of existing law, provide that circumstantial evidence may be used to prove that multiple thefts were motivated by one intention, general impulse, and plan. The bill would, until January 1, 2030, also authorize counties to operate a program to allow retailers to submit details of alleged shoplifting directly to the county district attorney through an online portal on the district attorney’s internet website. The bill would require counties that participate in the program to conduct an evaluation and collect specified information, and to report that information to the Department of Justice, as specified. This bill contains other existing laws. 33 225
Agenda Item # 9.

As you may know, retail theft continues to be a problem in nearly all California communities. For example, commercial burglary is at the highest rate since 2008. In fact, according to the PPIC, commercial burglary increased statewide since 2020, especially in larger counties with an increase of 13% among 14 of the 15 largest counties. To address rising theft, city officials need additional tools to reduce crime and improve the safety of their neighborhoods.

Therefore, we support the following bills:

For these reasons, Cal Cities supports the bills listed above. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected].

City of Los Altos 2024 Tentative Council Agenda Calendar All items and dates are tentative and subject to change unless a specific date has been noticed for a legally required Public Hearing.

Items may be added or removed from the shown date at any time and for any reason prior to the publication of the agenda.

April 30, 2024
Closed Session: TBD
Study Session: Development Impact Fees
AGENDA TITLE: DEPARTMENT: PRIORITY:

SPECIAL ITEMS:

Proclamation recognizing May as Bike Month PWS
CONSENT:

Adoption of ADU Ordinance Dev. Svcs. Housing
Adopt a resolution regarding the San Antonio Rd project (OBAG 3) PWS Streets PUBLIC HEARING:
425 1st Street – Modification Request Dev. Svcs. Housing DISCUSSION ITEMS:

Sourcewise Senior Care Board Seat Representative P&R General Community Center Café P&R General
Special Events CMO General
228
Agenda Item # 10.

City of Los Altos 2024 Tentative Council Agenda Calendar All items and dates are tentative and subject to change unless a specific date has been noticed for a legally required Public Hearing.

Items may be added or removed from the shown date at any time and for any reason prior to the publication of the agenda.

May 14, 2024
Closed Session: TBD
Study Session: TBD
AGENDA TITLE: DEPARTMENT: PRIORITY:

SPECIAL ITEMS:

CONSENT:

PUBLIC HEARING:

Introduction of Development Impact Fees Ordinance Dev. Svcs. General DISCUSSION ITEMS:

Remaining 2024 City Council agenda calendar items are pending and will be published at a later date. 229
Agenda Item # 10.

PROGRAM SUB PROJECT INITIATION DATE HEU COMPLETION DATE STATUS Program 2.D: Encourage and streamline Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).

Budget & Hire Planning
Technician December 31, 2022 COMPLETED
Program 2.D: Encourage and streamline Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).

Amend ADU Ordinance
based upon HCD's letter 6 months or less IN-PROGRESS
Program 6.G: Housing mobility
Allow more than one
JADU (at least two per
site)
with ADU Ordinance
Update IN-PROGRESS
Program 3.H: Amend design review process and
requirements.

Eliminate 3rd Party
Architectural Review February 28, 2023 COMPLETED
Program 3.H: Amend design review process and
requirements.

Dismiss Design Review
Commission February 28, 2023 COMPLETED
Program 3.L: Eliminate the requirement of story poles. March 31, 2023 COMPLETED Program 2.E: Conduct annual ADU rental income surveys.

Budget & Hire Housing
Manager March 31, 2023 COMPLETED
Program 4.J: Facilitate alternate modes of transportation for Adopt VMT Policy & June 30, 2023 COMPLETED Program 2.D: Encourage and streamline Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).

RFP-Permit Ready ADU
Plans July 31, 2023 COMPLETED
Program 1.H: Facilitate housing on City-owned sites. Financial Analysis July 1, 2023 December 31, 2023 IN-PROGRESS Program 3.D: Evaluate and adjust impact fees. August 1, 2023 December 31, 2024 IN-PROGRESS Program 1.H: Facilitate housing on City-owned sites. Release RFP December 31, 2023 DEVELOPING RFI/RFP Program 6.C: Target housing development in highest
resource areas. Initial Outreach September 31, 2023
Program 6.D: Promote Housing Choice (Section 8) rental
assistance program. September 31, 2023
Program 2.A: Continue to implement and enhance
inclusionary housing requirements. December 31, 2023 ONGOING Program 2.B: Establish an affordable housing in-lieu fee and commercial linkage fee. Housing in-lieu fee. December 31, 2023 COMPLETED Program 2.F: Water and Sewer Service Providers. December 31, 2023 COMPLETED Program 3.B: Modify building height in mixed-use zoning districts. Downtown Districts December 31, 2023 COMPLETED 230
Agenda Item # 10.

Program 3.E: Ensure that the density bonus ordinance
remains consistent with State law. December 31, 2023 ONGOING Program 3.H: Amend design review process and
requirements. Code Amendments December 31, 2023 COMPLETED Program 3.K: Standardize multimodal transportation
requirements.

Bicycle Storage and
Charging Regulations December 31, 2023 COMPLETED
Program 3.K: Standardize multimodal transportation
requirements.

Remove CSC Review of
Housing Developments December 31, 2023 COMPLETED
Program 4.C: Allow Low Barrier Navigation Centers
consistent with AB 101. December 31, 2023 COMPLETED
Program 4.D: Allow transitional and supportive housing
consistent with State law. December 31, 2023 COMPLETED
Program 4.E: Allow employee/farmworker housing
consistent with State law. December 31, 2023 COMPLETED
Program 4.F: Reasonably accommodate disabled persons’
housing needs. December 31, 2023 COMPLETED
Program 6.B: Maintain and expand an inventory of
affordable housing funding sources. Prepare Inventory. December 31, 2023 Program 6.E: Prepare and distribute anti-displacement
information. December 31, 2023
Program 1.A: Rezone for RHNA shortfall. January 31, 2024 COMPLETED Program 1.G: Rezone housing sites from previous Housing Elements. January 31, 2024 COMPLETED
Program 3.G: Amend Conditional Use Permits findings
applicable to housing developments. March 31, 2024 COMPLETED Program 3.I: Allow residential care facilities consistent with State law. January 31, 2024 COMPLETED
Program 3.J: Explicitly allow manufactured homes consistent with State law. January 31, 2024 COMPLETED
Program 3.F: Reduce Conditional Use Permit requirement for residential mixed-use and
multi-family. September 31, 2024 COMPLETED
Program 1.B: Facilitate higher density housing in the
Commercial Thoroughfare (CT) District. January 31, 2024 COMPLETED 231
Agenda Item # 10.

Program 1.C: Allow housing in the Office Administrative (OA) District. January 31, 2024 COMPLETED
Program 1.E: Update the Loyola Corners Specific Plan. January 31, 2024 COMPLETED Program 2.D: Encourage and streamline Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).

Adopt-Permit Ready ADU
Plans December 31, 2024 IN-PROGRESS
Program 3.A: Prepare a Downtown parking plan and update citywide parking requirements. Downtown Parking Plan December 31, 2024 IN-PROGRESS Program 3.A: Prepare a Downtown parking plan and update citywide parking requirements.

Comprehensive Parking
Ordinance Update December 31, 2024 COMPLETED
Program 3.B: Modify building height in mixed-use zoning districts.

Neighborhood (CN)
District December 31, 2024 COMPLETED
Program 3.C: Remove floor-to-area ratio (FAR) restriction at Rancho Shopping Center and
Woodland Plaza. December 31, 2024 COMPLETED
Program 3.M: Modify parking requirements for emergency
shelters consistent with State
law. December 31, 2024 COMPLETED
Program 2.B: Establish an affordable housing in-lieu fee and commercial linkage fee. Commercial linkage fee. December 31, 2025 IN-PROGRESS Program 1.D: Allow housing on certain Public and
Community Facilities District sites and
facilitate housing on religious institution properties. December 31, 2025 Program 6.G: Housing mobility
Allow housing on all
religious sites within the
City December 31, 2025
Program 1.F: Rezone Village Court parcel. January 31, 2024 COMPLETED Program 4.H: Provide additional density bonuses and
incentives for housing that accommodates special needs
groups. December 31, 2025
Program 4.I: Allow senior housing with extended care
facilities in multi-family and mixed-use zoning districts. December 31, 2025 Program 1.I: Incentivize Downtown lot consolidation. July 31, 2026 232
Agenda Item # 10.

Program 4.G: Assist seniors to maintain and rehabilitate their homes. July 31, 2026
Program 6.C: Target housing development in highest
resource areas. Follow-up Outreach September 31, 2026
Program 1.H: Facilitate housing on City-owned sites. Entitlement Review December 31, 2026 Program 3.N: Modify standards in the R3 zoning districts. December 31, 2026 COMPLETED Program 4.J: Facilitate alternate modes of transportation for residents.

Capital Improvement
Project for above head
pedestrian crossing
signals on San Antonio
Road near Downtown Los
Altos December 31, 2027
Program 5.F: Incentivize the creation of play areas for multifamily housing projects. December 31, 2027 Program 1.K: Participate in regional housing needs planning efforts. Ongoing
Program 1.L: General Plan amendments. Ongoing
Program 1.M: SB 9 implementation. Ongoing
Program 1.N: Facilitate and monitor pipeline housing
projects. Ongoing
Program 2.C: Assist in securing funding for affordable
housing projects. Ongoing
Program 2.D: Encourage and streamline Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). Ongoing
Program 2.E: Conduct annual ADU rental income surveys. Annual Survey Annually ONGOING Program 4.A: Support efforts to fund homeless services. Ongoing Program 4.B: Continue to participate in local and regional forums for homelessness,
supportive, and transitional housing. Ongoing
Program 5.A: Monitor condominium conversions. Ongoing
233
Agenda Item # 10.

Program 5.B: Continue to administer the City’s affordable housing programs. Ongoing
Program 5.C: Restrict commercial uses from displacing
residential neighborhoods. Ongoing
Program 5.D: Implement voluntary code inspection program. Ongoing Program 5.E: Help secure funding for housing rehabilitation and assistance programs. Ongoing
Program 6.A: Assist residents with housing discrimination and landlord-tenant
complaints. Ongoing
Program 6.B: Maintain and expand an inventory of
affordable housing funding sources.

Inform, Evaluate
Apply/Submit Ongoing
Program 6.F: Affirmatively market physically accessible units. Ongoing Program 7.A: Promote energy and water conservation and
greenhouse gas reduction
through education and awareness campaigns. Ongoing
Program 7.B: Monitor and implement thresholds and
statutory requirements of climate change legislation. Ongoing 234
Agenda Item # 10.
590 W. El Camino Real
Mountain View, CA 94040
Phone: (650) 965-2020
Fax: (650) 965-7286
www.chacmv.org
To: CHAC JPA Member Agencies
From: Anne Ehresman, Interim Executive Director
Date: April 4, 2024
Re: Organizational Update
Over the past year, CHAC embarked on a critical journey to secure future access to mental health supports in our community. Built on five decades of unwavering commitment to children and families, this endeavor led us to explore various avenues to ensure the continuity and availability of services in a changing funding environment.

Following completion of a comprehensive Strategic Sustainability Planning Report in January 2024, and the determination/realization no sustainable financial path forward exists for CHAC as a standalone entity, we selected a partner to help ensure much needed mental health services will continue to be provided in our community in a sustainable model.

On March 11, 2024, CHAC signed a letter of intent with Pacific Clinics, a highly regarded non-profit agency with a 150-year history in Santa Clara County. Pacific Clinics offers children, youth, adults and families behavioral health, early education, and support services in schools, around the community and at home. The organizations are meeting regularly to complete due diligence and explore a transfer of assets. It is the express goal of the parties to finish due diligence, negotiate an agreement and accomplish the transfer of assets by the end of this fiscal year.

CHAC will provide another update once the terms of the transfer are finalized. As you may be aware, CHAC is a joint powers authority (JPA) that was created in 1973. It is unique because it also has nonprofit status. CHAC has commenced an introductory series of meetings with representatives of each member of the JPA to provide an update on the process and discuss the future of the JPA. Once the transfer of assets is approved by the CHAC Board of Directors, CHAC will focus on winding down the affairs of the joint powers authority. CHAC anticipates bringing an item to the board or council of each member to terminate the agreement and dissolve the JPA.
235
Agenda Item # 11.

Los Altos City CouncilApril 9, 2024

Los Altos City Council
April 9, 2024