Morgan Hill City Council
August 19, 2026

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II auditor general to document issues raised by the SME and the VTA staff but does not require that the full Board be advised of the critical issues:

To ensure transparency and balanced oversight, selected advisory input from SME will be documented in Oversight Committee materials. Where consensus exists between the SME and the Project Team, it will be noted. Where minority or dissenting views are expressed, the AG [auditor general] will explicitly record final input received alongside the majority view (VTA Oversight Committee Charter, 2026).

During Oversight Committee meetings, there are few deliberations or actions to provide collective guidance or oversight, leaving individual members to raise questions and propose guidance for VTA staff to consider. VTA staff also receives input from individual members in private premeeting briefings. As a result, the full Board does not benefit from Oversight Committee analysis, and the public is not fully informed about individual Board member perspectives.

The Committee Has Two Purposes: Guidance and Oversight
“Guidance” suggests that the committee helps the Board establish a strategic direction and recommend actions to keep the project on track. “Oversight,” on the other hand, is a separate function that ensures VTA staff is accountable for following the Board’s direction in an efficient and effective manner. “Guidance” looks forward. “Oversight” monitors implementation as it happens.

Better at Oversight than Guidance
The Oversight Committee requires VTA staff to produce a comprehensive monthly report detailing the financing and construction progress of the BSVII project. The auditor general provides insightful periodic reports on his independent review of the project’s costs, risks, and schedule.

The VTA staff’s monthly reports address the information gap identified in the auditor general’s January 2024 report. As a result, the Oversight Committee can effectively monitor compliance with the Board’s direction.

However, the Oversight Committee often fails to provide guidance on issues critical to future strategic direction.

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Strategic Guidance on Critical Issues is Informal, Intermittent, and Often Late VTA staff routinely provide private briefings to Oversight Committee members prior to meetings.

Those briefings allow VTA staff to explain and advocate for their recommendations and to receive input and questions from individual members. Occasionally, some agenda materials for an Oversight Committee meeting are not published with the rest of the agenda because VTA staff members will modify presentations up to the last minute based on what they have heard in private briefings.

The Oversight Committee has established an informal standard of limiting its once-monthly meetings to no more than two hours, and meetings often do not begin on time. At the meetings, VTA staff often deliver lengthy presentations on issues for which it will subsequently seek Board approval, leaving little time for committee deliberations.

During these presentations, only a few members ask questions, and rarely does a committee member propose a policy recommendation that the Oversight Committee might take action on.

Individual Oversight Committee members are given the opportunity to express support or concern about a proposed VTA staff position, providing VTA staff with some insight into how to frame their recommendations to the Board.

The Oversight Committee receives independent analyses from the VTA auditor general, its contracted SME, and the PMOC. The committee often receives lengthy written comments from the public but limits oral comments to one minute. Members of the committee rarely comment on materials received from the public, many of which are extensive critiques of the VTA staff recommendations. Following each meeting, the Oversight Committee chair submits a short report summarizing discussion topics, which is placed on the VTA Board’s consent calendar.

Following presentation to the Oversight Committee, formal VTA staff recommendations are made to the VTA Board, but without the benefit of a summary or synthesis of the alternative perspectives from the auditor general, SME, PMOC, or informed public comment.

The Civil Grand Jury identified three examples of policy issues for which guidance was needed but delivered inadequately. One of the examples, the single-bore versus twin-bore issue, illustrates both the failure of the committee to make recommendations and the VTA staff’s failure to follow through on committee requests in a timely manner.

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Example of Inadequate Guidance: The KST Contract Decision The Oversight Committee endorsed a major contract change without providing independent analysis, articulating its rationale, or conveying identified risks to the Board.

VTA had issued a contract to a construction consortium, Kiewit Shea Traylor (KST), using a “progressive/design/build” approach, under which KST would design the tunnel project and, after reviews by VTA and its construction management consultant, KST would build it. By the spring of 2025, VTA believed that KST’s proposed design could significantly increase the project’s estimated cost by up to $1 billion and that it would be preferable to engage in a competitive bidding process for the remaining tunnel work. In a more traditional contract approach, VTA would prepare the design specifications and contract conditions. To accomplish this, it was necessary to limit the contract with KST to only the work required to prepare for the TBM, which VTA would own but make available to the tunneling contractor to operate and maintain.

At its June 12, 2025, meeting, VTA staff presented its proposal to modify the KST contract to the Oversight Committee, which unanimously endorsed it. Two weeks later, the VTA Board met and approved VTA staff recommendations. Although the VTA staff agenda report did include a reference to the Committee’s recommendation, it did not include the risk analysis that had been reviewed by the Committee. The Oversight Committee’s regular report to the VTA Board was placed on the consent calendar and simply reported the committee’s concurrence with the VTA staff recommendation. There was no report or analysis laying out the reasons for the Oversight Committee’s concurrence or the SME’s risk assessment. Therefore, the Board made its decision without a complete understanding of the risks.

Example of Inadequate Guidance: The Twin-Bore versus Single-Bore Decision The Oversight Committee retroactively requested a side-by-side analysis of tunnel options through Downtown San José.

A preliminary design controversy was whether to tunnel two smaller bores for the downtown San José underground tracks or to tunnel a single larger bore at greater depth. Downtown businesses had raised concerns that the twin-bore approach would require additional work and disrupt their operations during construction.

BART initially opposed the single-bore tunnel approach because it differed from its existing, smaller twin-bore tunnels. However, the BART inspector general reported that in the spirit of

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II cooperation, BART officials consented to the single-bore approach after being assured that operational and safety concerns would be met (BART, December 19, 2025).

In December 2022, VTA approved the fabrication and purchase of a large TBM for $76 million, effectively locking in the single-bore approach. In a news article dated November 7, 2023, in the Mountain View Voice, San José Mayor Matt Mahan was quoted as saying: “There is no turning back now” (Hicks, 2023).

Nonetheless, individual Board members and informed public commenters continued to raise questions about whether a twin-bore approach might be cheaper, faster, and safer for BART operations. In response, members of the Oversight Committee commissioned an analysis of the two options for costs, risks, and impact on schedules.

In September 2025, more than 18 months after the request, VTA and its engineering consultants presented their analysis to the Oversight Committee, confirming the single-bore approach.

Although it had requested the analysis, the Oversight Committee did not make a recommendation to the Board. In October 2025, the Board was presented with the VTA staff and consultants’ analysis and confirmed the single-bore approach by declining to take steps to amend the environmental documents or modify the tunneling contracts.

Example of Inadequate Guidance: Scenario 1 versus 1a Decision In October 2025, VTA decided on an approach to the construction of the tunnel without the benefit of the SME’s analysis that the Oversight Committee had requested.

Before design work could progress to a more advanced level, the VTA Board needed to decide between two alternatives for staging the actual tunneling work. The SME had suggested that concurrent tunneling from both ends could reduce costs and accelerate the schedule (VTA, June 12, 2025). The two options were labeled “Scenario 1” (a straight-through tunneling using the larger TBM from west-to-east) and “Scenario 1a” (an option of concurrent tunneling starting at both the east and west portals using two TBMs).

Although this would require two TBMs, the east-to-west work could be done simultaneously with a smaller-bore tunneling machine. Further, the SME reported that a smaller-bore TBM was readily available and would require less lead time than the TBM being fabricated in Germany.

Because the Oversight Committee considered the potential benefits significant, the committee asked both VTA staff and the SME to analyze the options and prepare a recommendation. On

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II August 4, 2025, the Oversight Committee authorized an expenditure of $110,000 and directed the auditor general to contract with GZ for the requested work. GZ presented interim reports on September 11, 2025, and October 9, 2025, and promised to deliver its completed report at the November 2025 meeting of the Oversight Committee.

VTA staff subsequently presented its analysis and recommendations to the Oversight Committee on October 9, 2025. Although the Project Manager stated that the VTA staff was aware of some of GZ’s preliminary analysis (especially differing assumptions about the rate at which each of the two TBMs can move forward when digging a tunnel), VTA staff requested a Board meeting to decide between the two alternatives. In prior presentations to the Oversight Committee, VTA staff said that the analysis would be presented at a Board “workshop” (at which no formal action could be taken). However, a special meeting of the Board was called for October 17, 2025, and VTA staff made its recommendations to the Board, neglecting to advise the Board that the Oversight Committee was still awaiting the GZ analysis that the Committee had authorized.

The Oversight Committee failed to present any report or recommendation at the special meeting.

As a result, the Board adopted ‘Scenario 1’ without the benefit of an independent analysis of the risks.

On February 12, 2026, four months after the Board made its decision, the SME presented his written report analyzing the options and raising concerns that should have been considered before the decision.

VTA Staff Accountability for Responding to Oversight Committee Member Requests The auditor general maintains two types of monitoring reports: a tracking report that lists the requests of individual committee members for information or analysis, and a work plan that lists the schedule for upcoming formal reports, including risk assessments such as financing and procurement risks. Both monitoring reports establish a due date, but the deadlines are often not met.

During public meetings, Oversight Committee members rarely discuss the tracking report or the work plan and do not publicly comment on changes to the expected date in subsequent reports.

More importantly, neither the auditor general nor the Oversight Committee holds VTA staff accountable for late responses to issues raised in the tracking report. Below, the Civil Grand Jury presents two examples:

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Example of Lack of Accountability: Prolonged Delay in Analysis of Single-Bore versus Twin-Bore The side-by-side analysis of two design options was not provided until more than 18 months after it was first requested.

At the Oversight Committee’s first meeting in November 2023, a member of the public requested that the committee order a cost and risk analysis of the single-bore versus twin-bore options, which remained controversial following the VTA Board’s selection of the single-bore option in 2018. In 2023, the Chair of the Oversight Committee responded that such an “apples-to-apples” (side-byside) analysis would be one of the committee’s first tasks. Here are some of the subsequent activities:
• At the committee’s meeting on January 19, 2023, two committee members formally requested the “apples-to-apples” analysis and placed it on the committee’s tracking list. (VTA, March 2025). At its meeting on June 13, 2024, the Project Manager reported that the scope of the twin-bore analysis would be worked on and reported to the Board “over the course of the summer.”
• At its meeting on August 8, 2024, a member of the public asked about the status of the “apples-to-apples” analysis.
• At the September 12, 2024, Oversight Committee, the auditor general announced that VTA staff had asked engineering design contractor Mott Macdonald to conduct the “apples-toapples” review. • The March 2025 tracking report included a comment regarding the “apples-to-apples” comparison: “These items are being evaluated as part of cost savings task force efforts with participation from GZ” (VTA, April 2024).
• One year later, on September 11, 2025, Mott Macdonald presented its analysis of the twinbore versus single-bore options – nearly 22 months after the request was first discussed at an Oversight Committee meeting – concluding that the single-bore option was preferred (VTA, September 11, 2025).

Example of Lack of Accountability: An Alternative Strategy Some Call “Plan B” Despite multiple requests for an alternative strategy to address risks associated with the federal funding decision, VTA staff advised the Oversight Committee that it would wait until after the federal decision.

Since the Oversight Committee meeting on October 9, 2025, committee members have stressed the need for an alternative strategy in the event the federal government delays or denies the FFGA

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II for the promised $5.1 billion. Some committee members asked whether a “Plan B” might include reducing the number of planned stations or revising the funding strategy. VTA staff reported to the Civil Grand Jury that there was reluctance to discuss a “Plan B” out of concern that the discussion itself might jeopardize the FFGA. At public meetings, VTA staff dismissed requests for an alternative funding strategy, instead reporting that an alternative plan should not be prepared until the FTA made its decision in 2027. This is an example of the VTA staff’s dismissal of the Oversight Committee direction.

Expediency of Decisions versus Rigorous Analysis
The Civil Grand Jury identified tension between VTA Board members’ competing goals: avoiding delays in decision-making and requiring rigorous, independent analysis of costs, risks, and schedule. In public meetings, the Project Manager has often stated that each month of delay adds $20 to $30 million to the overall project cost (Dorsey, 2025).

There is a strong financial incentive to keep the project moving by advancing decisions incrementally—approving one component at a time to show visible progress—without fully evaluating how each step alters the project’s overall cost, scope, and risk. For a project of this size, complexity, and cost, this piecemeal approach masks cumulative effects, increasing the likelihood of cost escalation and delays. These should be identified and addressed through rigorous, frontend analysis.

With two-year terms and constituencies limited to portions of the County, Board members may understandably focus on immediate actions rather than the long-term, systemwide implications that demand a coherent strategic plan.

The Role Assigned to the Auditor General
The Oversight Committee benefits from periodic risk assessments and audits performed by the VTA auditor general on the BSVII project. However, by assigning the auditor general the responsibility to also provide staff support to the Oversight Committee, VTA has created a situation in which the auditor general is asked to provide an independent audit of prior decisions while also assisting the committee in evaluating future policy and management decisions.

At the June 2025 public Board meeting, the auditor general stated that he sometimes feels like a referee among the analyses provided by VTA staff, the SME, the public, and the PMOC. However, the VTA Board is the final arbiter, not the auditor general.

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II The Board is best served when it hears all relevant views on an upcoming decision and is presented with options and a recommendation. The auditor general’s participation and input are critical, but he should not be placed in the position of having to synthesize all the competing views, including his own.

The auditor general is better placed to assist the Oversight Committee in its role of “oversight” and less so in commenting on the Oversight Committee's “guidance” functions. Accordingly, the Oversight Committee and the VTA Board would be better served if a VTA staff person were assigned responsibility for staffing the committee. This person could be part of the General Manager’s Office and should not report to the Project Manager. The position would be like that of the chief of staff, which was recently assigned to support the chair of the Board.

Coordination with BART
Because the County of Santa Clara is not part of the BART District, the extension of rail service to San José required a contract that established both VTA’s and BART’s commitment to cooperate.

Under the 2001 Cooperative Agreement, VTA is financially responsible for paying for the design, construction, and operation of the segment in Santa Clara County (BART and VTA, Comprehensive Agreement, 2001). BART retained approval authority over design elements that affect operations, maintenance, and safety. To date, this has been accomplished through the joint preparation of a Design Criteria Manual.

As recently as December 2025, BART’s Independent Office of the Inspector General (OIG) issued a report titled: “Transparency & Communication Gaps in the BSVII Project.” The report summarizes years of controversy over the single-bore versus twin-bore approach but acknowledges that BART eventually agreed to the single-bore concept evaluated in the final environmental impact statement. However, the BART OIG remained critical of the extent of cooperation between the two agencies:

We also determined that the length of time since the project began, extensive media coverage of the project, conflicting subject-matter opinions, and some public displeasure with the single-bore design have created uncertainty about the project’s direction. We concluded that gaps in transparency and communication, including limited public discussions in recent years, have resulted in mixed messaging on a project that has evolved over multiple decades (BART Independent Office of the Inspector General, 2025).

In August 2025, the lack of communication and cooperation was publicly exposed when a BART official wrote a letter to VTA (Appendix A) specifically objecting to the consideration of reducing

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II the size of the Newhall Yard and Maintenance Facility as a capital cost-saving measure. The VTA Project Manager publicly acknowledged a failure to keep BART informed of design issues that might impact BART’s operational efficiency and pledged to develop recommendations to the administrative heads of both agencies on a more formal process to identify and resolve those issues (VTA Oversight Committee, 2025).

Board Experience and Continuity
Since 2019, five audits and reports have critiqued VTA’s governance structure and recommended a series of revisions to improve VTA’s capability to provide Board direction and oversight of the BART extension. Those audits have included the 2018-19 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury in 2019; the Auditor of the State of California, in 2024; the BART Independent Office of the Inspector General in 2025; RSM US LLC, a VTA subcontractor, in 2019; and the VTA Auditor General in 2024. VTA has accepted and acted on most of the recommendations for governance reform, except those relating to the terms and required experience level of Board members.

During the investigation of the BSVII project, sources repeatedly raised concerns about the level of knowledge and decision-making ability of the full VTA Board, which is responsible for the project’s success. Decisions made today will have a direct impact on its ultimate success. Diligent oversight of its schedule, cost, progress, and scope is required.

According to the California Public Utilities Code, which established the VTA Board, “to the extent possible, the appointing powers shall appoint individuals who have expertise, experience, or knowledge relative to transportation issues” (Pub. Util. Code 10000 et seq).

VTA Board members are appointed to two-year terms by appointing agencies, organized into six groups as detailed in Table 3. Appointing agency groups are established and defined by VTA Administrative Code, which states “Appointing Authorities are strongly encouraged, where possible, to: (1) appoint individuals with appropriate experience and qualifications in transportation; (2) ensure that there is sufficient remaining time in the elected official’s term of office to allow full completion of their term as a Director; and (3) reappoint representatives to consecutive terms” (VTA Administrative Code § 2-13).

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Table 3: Appointing Authorities Composition of the VTA Board Appointing
Agency
Group
Jurisdiction Represented Number of
Board Members
Method of
Appointment
Group 1 San José 5 members
1 alternate
Appointed by city
council from city
council members/mayor
Group 2 Los Altos, Los Altos Hills,
Mountain View, Palo Alto
1 member
1 alternate
Determined by
Group 2 members
Group 3
Campbell, Cupertino,
Los Gatos, Monte Sereno,
Saratoga
1 member
1 alternate
Determined by
Group 3 members
Group 4 Gilroy, Morgan Hill 1 member
1 alternate
Determined by
Group 4 members
Group 5 Milpitas, Santa Clara,
Sunnyvale
2 members
1 alternate
Determined by
Group 5 members
Group 6 County of Santa Clara 2 members
1 alternate
Appointed by County
Board of Supervisors
Source: California Pub. Util. Code section 100060.

While VTA continues to insist that two-year terms are suitable for its governance (as specified in PUC § 100060.2), peer agencies in the state appoint their Board members to four-year terms, leading to much longer average lengths of service and potentially greater experience and transportation-related knowledge (see Figure 2).

Multiple reports and audits have suggested weaknesses introduced by VTA’s approach to the appointment of Board members. For example, the 2019 Board Governance Assessment concluded, in part, that some processes and policies (e.g., committee structure, term limits, and Board member selection guidelines) might not reflect best practices or support long-term Board stability (VTA, 2019). Additionally, a report by the 2018-19 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury found that the VTA Board suffers from:
• A lack of experience and limited continuity by many Board members; • Inadequate time for the directors to devote to the Board’s oversight and policy-making functions;
• A lack of engagement by some of the directors, fostered in part by the committee system, resulted in VTA functioning largely as a staff-driven organization.

More recently, a critical 2024 report from the State Auditor regarding VTA’s project management and financial oversight noted the following weaknesses:

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II • The process for selecting directors for the Board is not always transparent enough to ensure the appointment of directors experienced in transportation issues. • Some groups of cities appoint VTA directors without public deliberation, limiting transparency and sometimes bypassing the statutory recommendation for transportation expertise.
• VTA directors have shorter tenures, on average, than their peers, meaning that VTA’s Board has less experience overseeing the agency’s operations than the Boards of peer agencies.

Figure 2: Average Directors’ Tenure among VTA and Peer Agencies Source: Auditor of the State of California, “Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Improvements Are Necessary to Strengthen Its Project Management and Financial Oversight,” June 2024.

Note: LA Metro stands for Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority; OCTA stands for Orange County Transportation Authority; SacRT stands for Sacramento Regional Transit District.

During interviews and in reviewing existing reports and audits about VTA, the Civil Grand Jury learned that Board members and elected officials broadly support a four-year term for directors.

Lengthening terms would require a change to VTA’s enabling legislation. The findings of the State and VTA’s own auditors’ governance reform recommendations remain unchanged.

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Public Communication
Following the VTA auditor general’s report in January 2024, public communication and community outreach regarding the BSVII project have improved. The Civil Grand Jury noted improvements to the VTA BSVII project website, including efforts to deliver timely updates to residents about the impact of construction activities, and a section for frequently asked questions (FAQ) (VTA, BART Silicon Valley Phase II Project, n.d.). In addition, many interviewees told the Civil Grand Jury that VTA has made efforts to better inform the public and officials since the auditor general's report highlighted communication breakdowns in 2023.

However, there are areas where the public would benefit from VTA focusing more on improving communication.

The VTA’s BSVII project website does not offer a simple, clear dashboard outlining the costs, timeline, and progress of the BSVII project. Although it includes technical reports from the federally sponsored PMOC, it does not include the independent analyses by the SME or the VTA auditor general.

A high-level dashboard would consolidate information from multiple sources, present project metrics to the public, and provide access to source materials. Today, information on funding, expenditures, and schedule status is available on the website, but is buried in layers of reports that are nonintuitive to find or navigate.

In addition, the Civil Grand Jury found the site’s search function inadequate for locating specific details or addressing questions not covered in the FAQ, and it often returned results for irrelevant materials. The website would be more user-friendly if VTA incorporated a more robust search engine.

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II

CONCLUSION
The VTA Board has failed in its responsibility to provide effective management, oversight, and financial control of the BSVII Project.

Based on its investigation, the Civil Grand Jury concludes:
• There is no realistic plan to deal with foreseeable financial risks, including significant uncertainty about BSVII’s construction and operating costs, reliance on expiring voterapproved sales tax measures, uncertain federal government support, cash flow, and declining ridership.
• When considering major scope and design decisions, the Oversight Committee and the VTA Board do not take into account the ongoing operations and maintenance costs that will be borne by VTA and will require voter approval of subsequent sales tax measures. • The Oversight Committee exercises its oversight responsibility by requiring monthly progress reports and by questioning VTA project staff, but when it declines to make recommendations to the VTA Board, it fails in its responsibility to provide guidance on critical policy issues.
• The Oversight Committee receives valuable input from multiple sources but does not share this information with the VTA Board in the form of helpful reports that synthesize the different perspectives of VTA staff, the Subject Matter Expert, the auditor general, the Project Management Oversight Consultant, and the public. • The VTA Board and the Oversight Committee have failed to hold VTA staff accountable for missing deadlines to provide analysis and information requested by members of the Oversight Committee.
• There is a lack of meaningful communication and cooperation between BART and VTA officials, which undermines public confidence.
• VTA’s failure to adopt governance reform recommendations from prior Civil Grand Jury reports and independent audits has led to a lack of Board member continuity and expertise, weakening the Board’s ability to successfully oversee the BSVII project.

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Finding 1
The BSVII project currently requires voter approval of additional sales tax measures to address gaps in construction and operations funding.

Recommendation 1
VTA should adopt and publish a strategy for the completion and operation of the project that reduces dependency on new sales tax measures.

This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.

Finding 2
VTA does not maintain a cash-flow model for the BSVII project.

Recommendation 2
The VTA Board should direct the General Manager to prepare a cash-flow model for the BSVII project and present it quarterly to the Oversight Committee and the Board.

This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.

Finding 3
VTA has not developed an alternative funding strategy for the project in the event that planned funding sources are unavailable or insufficient.

Recommendation 3
The VTA Board should direct the General Manager to prepare an alternative funding strategy to meet the project’s estimated total capital costs and VTA’s responsibility for operating and maintenance costs and present it to the Oversight Committee and Board for approval.

This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.

Finding 4
Project management does not consistently report the operating and maintenance cost implications of design and construction decisions to the Oversight Committee or the Board.

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Recommendation 4
VTA should adopt a policy requiring staff to present an analysis of operating and maintenance costs when considering design and construction alternatives for BSVII.

This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.

Finding 5
The VTA Board would benefit from longer terms of office to improve continuity and institutional knowledge.

Recommendation 5
VTA should reconsider its prior rejections of audit recommendations calling for the establishment of four-year terms and direct its legislative advocates to seek a legislative author to amend VTA’s enabling statute to require four-year terms.

This should be implemented by December 31, 2026
Finding 6
VTA Board Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 often do not follow VTA Administrative Code (Section 2-14) admonitions to “appoint individuals with appropriate experience and qualifications in transportation” and to “reappoint representatives to consecutive terms.” Recommendation 6
VTA Board Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 should certify to the VTA Board that they will adhere to VTA Administrative Code (Section 2-14) admonitions, regarding Board member expertise and appointment to consecutive terms.

This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.

Finding 7
VTA Board Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 have different processes for making Board appointments.

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Recommendation 7
The cities represented in Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 should agree on a uniform process for making Board appointments.

This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.

Finding 8
The role assigned to the auditor general is outside the traditional scope of an auditor’s responsibilities and has introduced conflict and uncertainty among VTA staff and the Oversight Committee. Being involved in the management and policy-making process threatens the auditor general’s independence.

Recommendation 8
The Board should implement an alternative model for supporting the Oversight Committee that does not rely on the auditor general to provide services such as agenda preparation, monitoring of VTA staff assignments, or preparation of a synthesis of multiple independent inputs to the Committee’s deliberations.

This should be implemented by December 31, 2026
Finding 9
The Board of Directors has not approved the bylaws, nor the charter of the Oversight Committee.

Recommendation 9
VTA should formally adopt a revised Charter for the Oversight Committee, setting the Board’s expectations on the following issues:
• Defining the role of the auditor general to no longer require him to supervise the presentations by VTA staff to the Oversight Committee;
• The responsibility of the Oversight Committee to report regularly to the Board on the independent analyses of costs, risks, and schedule by the PMOC and any SMEs; and to provide the Oversight Committee’s synthesis of those analyses with recommendations to resolve conflicts when necessary;
• The responsibility of the Oversight Committee to consider and present its recommendations before the Board considers major decisions such as scope of the project, contracting, risk management, budgeting, and funding strategy;

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II • The responsibility of the Oversight Committee to hold subject matter experts accountable for timely analysis of costs, risk, and schedule;
• The responsibility of the Oversight Committee to report to the Board on the implications of design and construction issues that impact future ongoing operations and maintenance costs to be borne by VTA.

This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.

Finding 10
VTA’s vtabart.org website is poorly organized and not always intuitive to navigate, making it hard to find information about the status, cost, and schedule of the BSVII project.

Recommendation 10
The VTA Board should direct the General Manager to implement and maintain a project dashboard on its vtabart.org website that includes status, cost, and schedule information.

This should be implemented by October 31, 2026.

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II

REQUIRED RESPONSES
Pursuant to California Penal Code section 933(a) et seq. and California Penal Code section 933.05, the 2025-26 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury requests responses from the following governing bodies:

Responding Agency Findings Recommendations
VTA Board of Directors 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 County of Santa Clara, Board of Supervisors 6 6
The City of Campbell, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Cupertino, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Gilroy, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Los Altos, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The Town of Los Altos Hills, Town Council 6, 7 6, 7
The Town of Los Gatos, Town Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Milpitas, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Monte Sereno, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Morgan Hill, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Mountain View, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Palo Alto, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of San José, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Santa Clara, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Saratoga, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Sunnyvale, City Council 6, 7 6, 7

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II APPENDIX A: BART Management Letter

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART VTA'S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE SILICON VALLEY PHASE IIII kai BART SILICON VALLEY

PHASE II (BSV I)
BART remains fully committed to the successful delvi ery of this critical regional investment.

However, that commitment depends on VTA's immediate corrective action to restore transparency and accountability.

Sincerely,
Shane Edwards
BART Assistant General Manager, 0perations
BART Project Director
Ce: VTA's BART S i licon Valley Phase II 0versight Committee Members Greg Ri chardson, VTA Deputy General Manager
Robert Powers, BART General Manager
Michael Jones, BART Deputy General Manager
Ni Lee, BART Deputy Proj ect Director
Mon ica Born, VTA Program Director
Tom Maguire, VTA Chief Del ivery Officer of Mega Projects BSVII: Co ll aborati o n , I n n ovat i on, Safety, R e l i ability 2

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II

CONFLICTS
Members of the Civil Grand Jury are conflicted from a Civil Grand Jury investigation if, as a result of prior or current employment or associations, investment in public or private enterprise, financial interest, bias, or personal relationship, they are subject to recusal from participating in a matter before the Civil Grand Jury. One juror was recused from this matter.

REFERENCES
Bibliography
2018-19 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury. “Inquiry Into Governance of the Valley Transportation Authority.” June 18, 2019.
(https://santaclara.courts.ca.gov/system/files/cgj-vta-final-report-061819_0.pdf).

Accessed April 5, 2026.

Aragon, Greg, “Single-Bore Tunnel Method Chosen for BART Silicon Valley Phase II.” ENRWest. November 4, 2025. (https://www.enr.com/articles/61798-single-bore-tunnelmethod-chosen-for-bart-silicon-valley-phase-ii). Accessed April 29, 2026.

AtkinsRéalis USA Holdings LLC. “Project Monitoring Report.” March 9, 2026. (https://vtabart.org/transparency-commitment/#docaccess8dd20a14312d4f35dd29658c7e4d5f55). Accessed May 1, 2026.

Auditor General, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “Auditor General’s Risk Assessment Report on VTA’s BSVII Finance Risks.” May 1, 2025. (https://santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?MeetingID=4412&ID= 9358). Accessed April 5, 2026.

Auditor of the State of California. “Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Improvements Are Necessary to Strengthen Its Project Management and Financial Oversight.” June 2024. (https://www.auditor.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2023-101-Report.pdf).

Accessed April 5, 2026.

California State Transportation Agency. “Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program.” n.d. (https://calsta.ca.gov/subject-areas/transit-intercity-rail-capital-prog). Accessed May 12, 2026.

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Cal. Pub. Util. Code section 10000 et seq.

Cal. Pub. Util. Code section 100060 et seq.

Dorsey, Dustin. “Silicon Valley BART Extension construction remains on time, budget.” ABC Eyewitness News. December 8, 2025. (https://abc7news.com/post/silicon-valley-bartextension-construction-remains-time-budget-west-portal-site/18265543/). Accessed April 29, 2026.

Federal Transit Administration. “FY 2025 New Starts Financial Assessment.” June 2024. (https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grants/grant-programs/capital-investments/bartsilicon-valley-phase-ii-project-profile-fy-0).

Federal Transit Administration. “BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project San Jose, California. June 2024. (https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/2024-08/CABART-Silicon-Valley-Phase-II-Eng-Profile-20240705.pdf). Accessed March 30, 2026.

Geha, Joseph. “Feds Commit $5.1 Billion to South Bay BART Extension.” KQED.org. August 2, 2024. (https://www.kqed.org/news/11998646/feds-commit-5-1-billion-to-south-baybart-extension#:~:text=Joseph%20Geha,increases%20to%20the%20current%20figure).

Accessed April 22, 2026.

Hicks, Tony. “VTA Board approves purchase of machine to bore BART line.” Mountain View Voice. November 7, 2023. (https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2023/11/07/vta-boardapproves-purchase-of-machine-to-bore-bart-line/). Accessed April 5, 2026.

Metropolitan Transportation Commission. “Agreement Reached on Loan for Bay Area Transit Agencies.” January 30, 2026. (https://mtc.ca.gov/news/agreement-reached-loan-bay-areatransitagencies#:~:text=Because%20many%20transit%20capital%20projects,funds%20remaine d%20in%20state%20accounts.). Accessed April 28, 2026
Office of the County Counsel, County of Santa Clara. “County Counsel’s Impartial Analysis of Measure B.” 2016. (https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2025- 08/2016%20Measure%20B%20Ballot.pdf). Accessed April 29, 2026.

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District Independent Office of the Inspector General. “Transparency & Communication Gaps in BSVII Project.” December 19, 2025. (https://www.bartoig.org/investigation-reports-2025#docaccess-98152ed2acf38 cd4da53e1efbb737c86cc96ef6c2e1f439edf6ec6f51905271f). Accessed April 5, 2026.

San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Comprehensive Agreement, November 22, 2001.
(www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/O%26M%20Agreement_Silicon%20Valley%20B ART%20Extn.pdf). Accessed May 12, 2026.

San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District. “BART Board initially approves Alternative Service Plan outlining budget balancing details.” February 26, 2026. (https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2026/news20260226-0). Accessed April 29, 2026.

San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District. "January 2026 Monthly Ridership Snapshot." February 2026. (https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/2026- 02/202601%20Monthly%20Ridership%20Snapshot.pdf). Accessed April 29, 2026.

San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District. " 2019 Monthly Ridership Reports." 2019. (https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/ridership_2019.zip). Accessed April 29, 2026.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, BART Silicon Valley Phase II Project. n.d. (https://www.vtabart.org). Accessed May 12, 2026.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, “VTA Board of Directors Workshop Reviews BART Phase II Timeline, Costs, And Next Steps.” October 23, 2023. (https://www.vta.org/blog/vta-board-directors-workshop-reviews-bart-phase-ii-timelinecosts-and-next-steps). Accessed April 29, 2026.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Auditor General. “Auditor General’s Initial Monitoring Report on VTA’s BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project.” VTA’s BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Oversight Committee Agenda. Item 8a. January 19, 2024. (https://santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=4233).

Accessed April 5, 2026.

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority/RSM US LLC. “Board Governance Assessment – Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.” December 20, 2019. (https://www.vta.gov/ sites/default/files/2020-01/VTA%20Board%20Governance%20Assessment%20 %281%29.pdf). Accessed April 5, 2026.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Agency. “BART Silicon Valley Extension Project Implements Major Cost Reductions.” November 13, 2024. (https://www.vta.org/blog/bart-siliconvalley-extension-project-implements-major-cost-reductions). Accessed April 23, 2026.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority/HayGroup. “Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Organizational and Financial Assessment Executive Report.” March 2007. (https://ti.org/pdfs/HayGrouponVTA.pdf). Accessed April 5, 2026.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “Operations and Maintenance Agreement By and Between the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority and The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District.” May 22, 2020. (https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2020- 12/VTA%20BART%20Operations%20and%20Maintenance%20Agreement_0.pdf).

Accessed April 23, 2026.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority Administrative Code (With Amendments through March 6, 2025).” March 2025. (https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2025-04/VTA_Administrative_Code_2025-3-

6.pdf). Accessed April 5, 2026.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “Bylaws for VTA’s BART Silicon Valley Phase II Oversight Committee.” April 4, 2024. (https://www.vta.gov/sites/default/files/2024-04/ vta-bsv-oversight-committee-bylaws_0.pdf). Accessed April 8, 2026.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. Special Board Meeting. October 17, 2025. (https:// santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=14&ID=4297&Inline=True) Accessed April 9, 2026.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “VTA's BART Silicon Valley Phase II Oversight Committee Regular Meeting”, Agenda Item 9.a, Item #25. April 17, 2024. (https://santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=3940&Inline=True ). Accessed May 1, 2026.

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “VTA's BART Silicon Valley Phase II Oversight Committee Regular Meeting.” Agenda Item 4, Item #4. March 13, 2025. (https://santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=4138&Inline=True ). Accessed May 1, 2026.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “VTA's BART Silicon Valley Phase II Oversight Committee Regular Meeting.” Item 11a. June 12, 2025.
(https://santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=4430). Accessed April 29, 2026.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “BSVII Project Update.” Summer, 2025. (https://vtabart.org/vtas-bart-silicon-valley-phase-ii-extension-project-summer-2025/).

Accessed May 13, 2026.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “VTA's BART Silicon Valley Phase II Oversight Committee Regular Meeting.” Item 8. January 15, 2026.
(https://santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=4354&Inline=True ). Accessed April 22, 2026.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “2000 Measure A.” n.d. (https://www.vta.org/projects/funding/2000-measure-a). Accessed April 29, 2026.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “About 2016 Measure B.” n.d. (https://2016measureb.vta.org/about). Accessed April 29, 2026.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “VTA's BART Silicon Valley Phase II Oversight Committee Regular Meeting.” Item 10b. Slide 21. September 11, 2025. (https://santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=4273&Inline=True ). Accessed April 13, 2026.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “Fact Sheet: VTA's Bart Silicon Valley Phase 2 Extension Project.” March 2024. (https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2024- 07/VTABSV_FactSheet_2024_OverviewBenefits%201.pdf). Accessed April 13, 2026.

Shalby, Colleen. “Trump administration pulls billions in funding for high-speed rail project; state leaders call decision ‘illegal.’” Los Angeles Times. July 16, 2025. (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-07-16/trump-administration-cancelsfunding-for-high-speed-rail-project). Accessed April 29, 2026.

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Shalby, Colleen. “Multibillion-dollar transit project to tunnel through the Santa Monica Mountains is approved by L.A. Metro.” LA Times. January 22, 2026. (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-01-22/this-multibillion-dollar-transitproject-could-improve-traffic-across-la-it-goes-to-vote-today - :~:text=This is read by an,transit projects in the country). Accessed April 13, 2026.

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II This report was ADOPTED by the 2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury on this 17th day of June, 2026.
______________________________
Dinesh Ramde
Foreperson

17575 Peak Avenue
Morgan Hill, CA 95037-4128
TEL: (408) 779-7271
www.morganhill.ca.gov
August 19, 2026
Honorable Julie A. Emede
Presiding Judge
Office of the Civil Grand Jury
Superior Court of California
County of Santa Clara
191 N. First Street
San Jose, CA 95113
Dear Judge Emede,
Thank you for the opportunity to review and respond to the June 12, 2026, Grand Jury Report, “Pothole Damage: Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County.” The City of Morgan Hill’s responses to the findings, which were approved by the City Council on August 19, 2026, meeting, are below:

Grand Jury Finding 1:

Jurisdictions within Santa Clara County rejected 92% of pothole claims from 2020 to 2025 due to reasons including missed deadlines, incorrect jurisdiction, and lack of prior notice.

City of Morgan Hill Response to Finding 1:

Noted.

Grand Jury Recommendation 1:

No recommendation.

Grand Jury Finding 2:

Claims are often rejected because the claimant filed with the incorrect jurisdiction, which can happen because jurisdictional lines are often unclear or poorly communicated. The claims websites of all jurisdictions within Santa Clara County lack information about how to determine if a road is in its jurisdiction.

City of Morgan Hill Response to Finding 2:

The City of Morgan Hill partially agrees with this finding. While Morgan Hill has, on occasion, rejected claims because the claimant filed with the incorrect jurisdiction, it is a relatively rare

occurrence. It agrees that its claims website currently lacks information about how to determine if a particular road is in Morgan Hill’s jurisdiction.

Grand Jury Recommendation 2a:

All jurisdictions within Santa Clara County should include a link to a map or list of roads they maintain on their claims website.

The jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026.

City of Morgan Hill Response to Recommendation 2a:

The City of Morgan Hill concurs with this recommendation.

The City of Morgan Hill currently has a map within its pavement management report, which additionally includes a list of all City streets. This is located on the City’s website at:
https://www.morganhill.ca.gov/2539/Pavement-Rehab-Street-Cut-Moratorium The City intends to create an updated more usable PDF map to upload to the City’s website.

Grand Jury Recommendation 2b:

All jurisdictions within Santa Clara County should update their claims websites to identify roads that are commonly mistaken as being in their jurisdictions.

The jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026.

City of Morgan Hill Response to Recommendation 2b:

City does not concur with this recommendation as the City does not see this as an appropriate remedy for the issue. The City receives very few claims wrongly sent to the City and there are many roads sharing the same or similar names within the City and County, which may ultimately result in further confusion by implementing this recommendation. Alternatively, the City plans to add text and a link to the map noted in Recommendation 2a, that recommends those filing a claim, review the location of their claim against the map before filing the claim.

Grand Jury Finding 3:

Fifteen jurisdictions – the County, Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San José, Santa Clara, and Saratoga – have websites with deficiencies that make it difficult to file a claim.

City of Morgan Hill Response to Finding 3:

The City of Morgan Hill disagrees with this finding. Links to claims forms (in English or Spanish) are provided on the City’s website and are easily located with an internet search. The form prompts the

claimant to provide all information required by the Government Claims Act, and it provides instructions on how to submit the claim.

Grand Jury Recommendation 3a:

Eleven jurisdictions – the County, Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, San José, and Saratoga – should update their websites to provide clear instructions and information about how to file a claim in addition to a link to the claim form.

The jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026.

City of Morgan Hill Response to Recommendation 3a:

The City concurs with this recommendation and will implement it within the recommended timeframe.

Grand Jury Recommendation 3b:

Fourteen jurisdictions – the County, Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San José, and Santa Clara – should incorporate useable software on their websites that can translate claim forms into multiple languages or provide claim forms in multiple languages based on the demographics they serve.

The jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026.

City of Morgan Hill Response to Recommendation 3b:

City concurs with this recommendation and has already achieved this step.

Sincerely,
Mark Turner
Mayor

17575 Peak Avenue
Morgan Hill, CA 95037-4128
TEL: (408) 779-7271
www.morganhill.ca.gov
August 19, 2026
Honorable Julie A. Emede
Presiding Judge
Office of the Civil Grand Jury
Superior Court of California
County of Santa Clara
191 N. First Street
San Jose, CA 95113
Dear Judge Emede,
Thank you for the opportunity to review and respond to the June 17, 2026, Grand Jury Report, “VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II.” The City of Morgan Hill’s responses to the findings, which were approved by the City Council on August 19, 2026, meeting, are below:

Grand Jury Finding 6:

VTA Board Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 often do not follow VTA Administrative Code (Section 2-14) admonitions to “appoint individuals with appropriate experience and qualifications in transportation” and to “reappoint representatives to consecutive terms.” City of Morgan Hill Response to Finding 6: The City of Morgan Hill partially disagrees.

The City of Morgan Hill (City) recognizes the value of transportation expertise and continuity in VTA Board appointments. However, the City is limited to appointing elected officials who are eligible to serve. The City does not have the authority to appoint transportation professionals or other subject matter experts from outside the City Council. In making appointments to outside agencies, City Council Policy CP 94-01 provides that Council Members' expertise and special interests should be considered. The policy also supports consecutive terms when continuity serves the City's interests.

Further, the City of Morgan Hill and the City of Gilroy have historically shared VTA Board representation and, in recent years, have modified their prior rotation practices in response to VTA concerns regarding continuity and institutional knowledge.

Grand Jury Recommendation 6:

VTA Board Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 should certify to the VTA Board that they will adhere to VTA Administrative Code (Section 2-14) admonitions, regarding Board member expertise and appointment to consecutive terms.

This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.

City of Morgan Hill Response to Recommendation 6: The recommendation has been implemented.

The City's longstanding practice is to consider the qualifications, expertise, interests, and availability of Council Members when making appointments to outside agencies. The City Council's adopted policy governing outside agency assignments considers both expertise and continuity and has been in place since 1994. The City will continue to apply these principles when participating in future VTA Board appointments.

Grand Jury Finding 7:

VTA Board Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 have different processes for making Board appointments.

City of Morgan Hill Response to Finding 7: The City of Morgan Hill partially disagrees.

The City acknowledges that Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 may use different processes to make appointments. However, the City is not aware of evidence demonstrating that a uniform process would necessarily improve appointment outcomes or Board effectiveness. Local agencies have adopted appointment practices that reflect their individual governance structures, policies, and regional relationships.

Grand Jury Recommendation 7:

The cities represented in Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 should agree on a uniform process for making Board appointments.

This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.

City of Morgan Hill Response to Recommendation 7: Requires Further Analysis The recommendation requires collaboration among multiple independent jurisdictions and cannot be implemented unilaterally by the City of Morgan Hill. The City is willing to participate in discussions regarding appointment practices with its appointing authority partners and other affected jurisdictions.

Additional analysis and interagency coordination would be necessary to determine whether a uniform process is feasible, beneficial, and consistent with the participating agencies' governance practices.

Sincerely,
Mark Turner
Mayor

13 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 19, 2026
PREPARED BY:

Maria Angeles, Senior Civil Engineer
APPROVED BY: City Manager

APPROVE THE AMENDMENT TO GRANT OF MAINTENANCE AND

ACCESS EASEMENT WITH SUNSWEET MORGAN HILL

DEVELOPMENT LLC TO ABANDON CERTAIN PORTIONS OF AN

EXISTING MAINTENANCE EASEMENT AND AN ACCESS EASEMENT

BOTH RUNNING ALONG THE WESTERLY SIDE OF THE SUNSWEET
MIXED-USE APARTMENT BUILDING LOCATED AT 90 E. 3RD STREET (DESIGNATED AS ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER 726-13-058) AND ACCEPT COMPENSATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,216

RECOMMENDATION(S)

1. Approve the Amendment to Grant of Maintenance and Access Easement with Sunsweet Morgan Hill Development LLC that will reduce the square footages of an existing 3,600 sq. ft. Maintenance Easement Area and an existing 2,880 sq. ft.

Access Easement Area, granted to the City on August 27, 2014 by Glenrock Builders, Inc. (original Sunsweet Property Owner/Developer), with both easements running along the westerly side of the Sunsweet Mixed-Use Apartment Building located at 90 E. 3rd Street (designated as Assessor’s Parcel Number: 726-13-058);

2. Accept a fair market value compensation in the amount of $5,216 from Sunsweet Morgan Hill Development LLC (current Sunsweet Property Owner);

3. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Amendment to Grant of Maintenance and Access Easement; and

4. Authorize the recordation of the Amendment to Grant of Maintenance and Access Easement in the Official Records of the County contingent upon the receipt of the $5,216 compensation from Sunsweet Morgan Hill Development LLC.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES, GOALS & STRATEGIES
City Council Ongoing Priorities
Maintaining and Enhancing Infrastructure
REPORT NARRATIVE:

On June 4, 2014, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 6892 which approved and

13 authorized the execution by the City Manager of an Agreement with Glenrock Builders, Inc. (original Sunsweet Property Owner/Developer) for the City’s purchase of a portion of the real property known as the “Sunsweet” site, together with ancillary easement rights, for the future development of the 4th Street Public Parking Garage (“Downtown Parking Garage”). The Sunsweet site is located on the southwest corner of E. 3rd Street and Depot Street as shown on the Site Map (Attachment 1), with the address of 90 E. 3rd Street (designated as Assessor’s Parcel Number: 726-13-058), and has been developed with a residential mixed-use apartment building.

The City’s purchase amount of $2,064,000 for the Downtown Parking Garage property comprised of the following:
• Fee interest in an approximately 34,442 sq. ft. area (now the site of the Downtown Parking Garage with an address of 50 E. 3rd Street); • A perpetual, non-exclusive 15-foot wide maintenance and vehicular and workmen access easement area (“Maintenance Easement Area”), approximately 3,600 sq. ft., and adjacent to the parking garage on the eastern side; and • A 12-foot wide non-exclusive ingress, egress and access easement (“Access Easement Area”), approximately 2,880 sq. ft.

City Council Resolution No. 6892 also authorized the execution of a Grant of Maintenance and Access Easement that granted to the City the Maintenance Easement and Access Easement Areas previously described. The Grant of Maintenance and Access Easement was executed on August 27, 2014 by the City and original Sunsweet Property Owner/Developer and was recorded on August 29, 2014 in the Santa Clara County Recorder’s Office as Document #22691506 (Attachment 2).

The Sunsweet Property is currently in the process of being sold. As part of the real estate transaction, the current property owner, Sunsweet Morgan Hill Development LLC (“Sunsweet Property Owner”), is required to update recorded documents affecting title to the property. This includes revising existing easement documents to accurately reflect the current property configuration and the rights and interests associated with the property. Updating these documents as part of the sale helps ensure that the public record accurately describes the easements benefiting and burdening the property, providing clarity for the buyer, seller, and all affected parties.

The existing Maintenance Easement and Access Easement Areas on the Sunsweet Property that benefit the City require updates. Attachment 3 is an exhibit that shows certain portions of the Maintenance and Access Easement Areas that are proposed to be abandoned to align with the as-built configuration of the existing Sunsweet building and site improvements on the Sunsweet property.

The Maintenance Easement Area will be reduced by 464 square feet which will result in a revised easement square footage of 3,136 square feet as described in Attachment 4.

The Access Easement Area will be reduced by 188 square feet which will result in a revised easement square footage of 2,692 square feet as described in Attachment 5.

13 The two proposed easement area reductions do not affect the City’s maintenance of the Downtown Parking Garage and City staff does not object to the easement reduction and partial easement abandonment.

To ensure the City receives just compensation for the easement reductions and partial abandonment of the City’s easement rights, City staff reviewed appraisals obtained by the City for recent easement purchases, in lieu of obtaining an independent real property appraisal. Recent City easements show a valuation of approximately $5 to $8 per square foot of easement. Using an $8 per square foot valuation, the 464-square-foot Maintenance Easement Area and 188-square-foot Access Easement Area proposed to be abandoned are together valued at $5,216. The Sunsweet Property Owner is required to submit a lump sum payment to the City for this exact amount prior to recordation of the executed Amendment to the Grant of Maintenance and Access Easement.

The proposed Amendment to Grant of Maintenance and Access Easement (Attachment 6) reflects the revised square footages of the Maintenance Easement and Access Easement Areas, and the easement compensation to the City.

Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Amendment to Grant of Maintenance and Access Easement to abandon 464 square feet of the Maintenance Easement Area and abandon 188 square feet of the Access Easement Area along the westerly side of the Sunsweet Property.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

Not Applicable
This is a transaction that does not impact the community in any way. As such, no engagement with the community has been done.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:

There is no feasible alternative action because the easement area reductions do not harm City staff's ability to maintain the Downtown Parking Garage, and the Sunsweet Building and site improvements are already fully built.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION ACTIONS:

On June 4, 2014, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 6892 which approved and authorized the execution of an Agreement with Glenrock Builders, Inc. (original Sunsweet Property Owner/Developer) for the City’s purchase of a portion of the Sunsweet site, together with ancillary easement rights, for the development of the Downtown Parking Garage. Resolution No. 6892 also authorized the execution of a Grant of Maintenance and Access Easement that granted to the City the Maintenance Easement and Access Easement Areas.

FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:

Approval of this item will result in a one-time revenue of $5,216 to be deposited directly into the General Fund.

13 The Sunsweet Property Owner has paid the required easement vacation/abandonment processing fee that covers all staff administrative, legal review, and County recording fees.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

Categorical Exemption
The proposed easement abandonment is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15305 (Class 5) (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) and Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.

12' WIDE EASE.

7. 15' WIDE EASE.

6. 3' WIDE P.S.E.

APN 726-13-055

CITY OF MORGAN HILL
PARCEL "A"
PER 912 M 3-4
APN 726-13-058

FOURTH STREET

DEPOT STREET
SCALE: 1"=20'
010203040
North

9. 9.

THIRD STREET
DOC. #22691506

EAST FACE OF EXISTING PARKING GARAGE
(SOUTH SIDE) AND RETAIL STORE (NORTH SIDE)
VARIES 2.1'-2.3'± WEST OF PROPERTY LINE
RCE 24893

RESIDENTIAL BUILDING

COMMERCIAL BUILDING WEST

EXISTING PARKING GARAGE
9' WIDE
P.S.E.
9' WIDE
P.S.E.
(w)
(IRR)
(IRR)
(IRR)(IRR)
(IRR)
(IRR)
(IRR)
(IRR)
(IRR)
(IRR)
(IRR)
(IRR)
(IRR)
(IRR)
(w) (w) (w) (w) (w)
(IRR)
(w)
(IRR)
(IRR)
(IRR)
(IRR)
(IRR)
(IRR)
(IRR)
(IRR)
(fh)
(w)
(co)
(co)
(co)
(co)
(ss)
(co) (fh)
(IRR)
(IRR)
(IRR)
(IRR)
(co)
(co)
(co)
X X
(co)
(co)
(IRR)
(IRR)
(IRR)
(IRR)
(IRR) (IRR)
(IRR)
(IRR)
(IRR)
(IRR)
(IRR)
(IRR)
(w)
(ss)
(IRR)
(IRR)
(IRR)
(IRR)
(IRR)
(sd)
OF PL

WEST EDGE OF CURB

FALLS ON PROPERTY LINE

9. 9.

5.05'

RESIDENTIAL BUILDIING
ENCROACHES 3.29' WESTERLY
INTO EASEMENT RECORDED AS 19.98'
*
*

WESTERLY FACE OF STUCCO WALL
ENCROACHES 0.08' WESTERLY *

INTO EASEMENT RECORDED AS

SOUTHWEST TRANSFORMER PAD
FALLS 3.79' SOUTH OF P.S.E. AND **
FALLS 1.42' WEST OF P.S.E.

COMMERICAL BUILDIING ENCROACHES

6.37' SOUTHERLY AND 14.61'

WESTERLY INTO THE EASEMENT
RECORDED AS DOC. #22691506

WESTERLY GAS PAD
FALLS 2.48' WEST OF P.S.E. **
DOC. #22691506
DOC. #22691506

WESTERLY FACE OF STUCCO WALL
ENCROACHES 0.10' WESTERLY *

INTO EASEMENT RECORDED AS
DOC. #22691506 13.06'
BUILDING 11.77' EAST

OF PROPERTY LINE

WEST EDGE OF CURB

FALLS ON PROPERTY LINE
DOC. #22691506

14.50'

9.50'
Proposed New Maintenance Ease.

Proposed New Maintenance Ease.

IRRIGATION

BOX WEST OF PL

MAINTENANCE EASEMENT
AREA (2,973 SF)

11.77'
E 3rd St.

E 4th St.

Monterey Rd.

Depot St.

Butterfield Blvd.

E Dunne Ave
E Main Ave
Project Site
Diana Ave
E Dunne Ave
Butterfield Blvd.

Butterfield Blvd.

Monterey Rd.

Diana Ave
OF Date: Revisions No. (408) 779-7381 16075 Vineyard Boulevard Morgan Hill, CA 95037 Scale: Design: Drawn: Approved: Job No.: MH engineering C M
H
and Utilities
1 221092 WJM
-EHY/DEY 1"=40' 6-3-2026

LEGEND & ABBREVIATIONS
Maintenance Easement Exhibit
for Sunsweet Morgan Hill, LLC
City of Morgan Hill, County of Santa Clara, State of California as described in the Preliminary Title Report
prepared by: Chicago Title Company
Order No.: 98203963-982-SK-KC, dated May 13, 2021
Date of ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey: July 8, 2021 Maitenance Easement Exhibit for Sunsweet Morgan Hill, LLC City of Morgan Hill, County of Santa Clara, State of California Boundary, Topography

EASEMENT LEGEND
PRELIM ITEM # - DESCRIPTION

6. "GRANT OF MAINTENACE AND ACCESS EASEMENT"
15' WIDE MAINTENANCE EASEMENT GRANTED TO THE
CITY OF MORGAN HILL, RECORDED AS DOC #22691506

7. "ACCESS EASEMENT"
12' WIDE ACCESS EASEMENT GRANTED TO THE
CITY OF MORGAN HILL, RECORDED AS DOC #22691506

9. "PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT" PER 912 M 3-4.

EASE
MB
PL
P.S.E.

EASEMENT

MAILBOX

PROPERTY LINE

PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT
(IRR)
(w)

UNDERGROUND UTILITY VAULT

IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVE

ELECTROLIER

DRAINAGE INLET

WATER VALVE

AREA DRAIN

DOUBLE DETECTOR CHECK VALVE (SIZE VARIES)

DOUBLE DETECTOR CHECK VALVE (SIZE VARIES)

UTILITY BOX

SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT

SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE

WATER METER

BOLLARD

FIRE HYDRANT

INTERCEPTOR MANHOLE
(co)
(ss)
(w)
(fh)
*

OBSERVED ENCROACHMENTS
*
POSSIBLE ENCROACHMENTS *

NOT KNOWN IF UTILITIES SHOWN SERVICE

THE PUBLIC OR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
(sd) STORM DRAIN MANHOLE
3' WIDE P.S.E. ALONG FOUTH STREET
9' WIDE P.S.E. AND VARIES ALONG DEPOT STREET
1

1 RECORDING REQUESTED BY:

CITY OF MORGAN HILL

WHEN RECORDED MAIL DOCUMENT
TO:

CITY CLERK

CITY OF MORGAN HILL
17575 PEAK AVENUE
MORGAN HILL, CA 95037

RECORD AT NO FEE PER GOVERNMENT
CODE §27383
APN: 726-13-058 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER’S USE

AMENDMENT TO GRANT OF MAINTENANCE AND ACCESS EASEMENT

THIS AMENDMENT TO GRANT OF MAINTENANCE AND ACCESS EASEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made as of this _______ day of ________________, 2026, by and between SUNSWEET MORGAN HILL DEVELOPMENT LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, as successor-in-interest to Glenrock Builders, Inc., a California corporation (“Grantor”), whose address is c/o Republic Urban Properties LLC, 1098 Lincoln Avenue, Suite 200, San Jose, CA 95125, and CITY OF MORGAN HILL, a California municipal corporation, as grantee (“Grantee”), whose address is 17575 Peak Avenue, Morgan Hill, CA 95037. Grantee and Grantor may each be referred to herein as a “Party” and may be collectively referred to herein as the “Parties”.

RECITALS
A. Glenrock Builders, Inc., a California corporation (“Original Grantor”) and Grantee entered into that certain Grant of Maintenance and Access Easement made August 27, 2014 and recorded in the land records of the County of Santa Clara, California (the “Land Records”) as Document #22691506 on August 29, 2014 (the “Easement”; all capitalized terms used but not defined in this Amendment shall have the meaning given to such terms in the Easement) in which Grantor granted two easements to Grantee over and across real property that was at such time vacant land, owned by Grantor located in the City of Morgan Hill, County of Santa Clara, State of California, more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein (“Grantor’s Property”).

B. Subsequent to the execution and delivery of the Easement, Original Grantor transferred Grantor’s Property to Grantor pursuant to that certain Grant Deed dated March 8, 2018 and recorded in the Land Records on March 15, 2018 as Document #23888541.

C. Grantor’s Property has been improved with a mixed-use apartment building.

2 D. The Parties wish to amend the Easement to revise the description of the location of the Maintenance Easement Area and the Access Easement Area to align with the as-built configuration of the improvements that now exist on Grantor’s Property. The as-built configuration of the improvements that now exist on Grantor’s Property has resulted in a reduction of the Maintenance Easement Area by 464 square feet and a reduction of the Access Easement Area by 188 square feet.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and agreements set forth herein, the Parties hereby grant, covenant and agree as follows:

1. Recitals. The Recitals set forth above are hereby incorporated herein by reference.

2. Amendment to Easement. The Easement is hereby amended as follows:
(a) The description of the easements set forth in the first paragraph of the Easement under the heading “AGREEMENTS” is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
“(i) a perpetual, non-exclusive maintenance and vehicular and workmen access easement (“Maintenance Easement”) in, on, over, under, along, through and across that portion of Grantor’s Property depicted in Attachment No. 3 attached hereto and incorporated by reference (the “Maintenance Easement Area”) and (ii) a perpetual, non-exclusive ingress, egress and access easement (“Access Easement”) over and across that portion of Grantor’s Property depicted in Attachment No. 4 attached hereto and incorporated by reference (the “Access Easement Area”) to enable Grantee and its contractors to transport vehicles, equipment and material to and from Fourth Street and the Maintenance Easement Area.” (b) Attachment No. 3 to the Easement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with Exhibit B of this Amendment. Each reference to “Attachment No. 3” in the Easement shall be construed as a reference to Exhibit B of this Amendment. For the avoidance of doubt, the reference to “Attachment No. 3” in Section 2(a) above shall be construed as a reference to Exhibit B of this Amendment. (c) Attachment No. 4 to the Easement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with Exhibit C of this Amendment. Each reference to “Attachment No. 4” in the Easement shall be construed as a reference to Exhibit C of this Amendment. For the avoidance of doubt, the reference to “Attachment No. 4” in section 2(a) above shall be construed as a reference to Exhibit C of this Amendment.

3. Grantee Representation. Grantee hereby represents, warrants and covenants that the as-built configuration of the improvements on Grantor’s Property does not and shall not constitute a default, breach, or violation of the Easement by Grantor or its successors and Grantee’s rights of access under the Easement have not at any time been impaired by the as-built configuration of the improvements on Grantor’s Property. Further, Grantee hereby releases Grantor and its successors from any claims, damages or causes of action now or in the future that

3 the physical condition of the areas in which the Maintenance Easement and Access Easement were located prior to the date hereof was inconsistent with the rights granted to Grantee under the Easement.

4. Compensation: In consideration of the reduced square footage of the Maintenance Easement Area and Access Easement Area, Grantor agrees to compensate Grantee with a one-time, non-refundable lump sum fee of Five Thousand Two Hundred Sixteen Dollars ($5,216) representing the agreed-upon fair market value of the reduced Easement Areas. Payment shall be made via certified funds to Grantee prior to, and as a strict condition precedent to, the recordation of this Amendment.

5. Severability. If any provision of this Amendment, or portion thereof, or the application thereof to any person or circumstances, is to any extent held invalid, inoperative or unenforceable, the remainder of this Amendment, or the application of such provision or portion thereof to any other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby. Any such invalid provision shall not affect the consideration for this Amendment, and each provision of this Amendment shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.

6. Governing Law. This Amendment shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

7. Binding Effect. This Amendment shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the parties hereto.

8. Recordation. This Amendment shall be recorded in the Land Records to provide all third parties record notice of the existence of this Amendment and the rights and obligations set forth herein.

9. Ratification and Conflicting Provisions. Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, the Easement shall remain in full force and effect. In the event of an inconsistency between the terms of this Amendment and the Easement, the terms and provisions of this Amendment shall control. Except as otherwise specifically defined herein, all capitalized terms contained herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Easement.

10. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in several counterparts, all of which shall constitute one and the same document.
[Signature appears on next page]

[Signature Page to Amendment]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have caused this Amendment to be executed as of the date first noted above.

GRANTOR:

SUNSWEET MORGAN HILL DEVELOPMENT
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
By: SUNSWEET MORGAN HILL LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company,
its Sole Member
By: __________________________
Name: Michael R. Van Every
Title: Authorized Officer
GRANTEE:

CITY OF MORGAN HILL,
a municipal corporation of the State of California
By: ________________________________
Name: Christina Turner
Title: City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By: ________________________________
Name: Elisa Tolentino
Title: City Attorney

[Acknowledgement Page to Amendment]
A notary public or other officer completing this
certificate verifies only the identity of the
individual who signed the document to which
this certificate is attached, and not the
truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that
document.

STATE OF ______________ )
) §
COUNTY OF _____________ )
On , before me, a
Notary Public, personally appeared who proved to me on
the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
________________________________
Signature of Notary
(Affix seal here)

[Acknowledgement Page to Amendment]
A notary public or other officer completing this
certificate verifies only the identity of the
individual who signed the document to which
this certificate is attached, and not the
truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that
document.

STATE OF ______________ )
) §
COUNTY OF _____________ )
On , before me, a
Notary Public, personally appeared who proved to me on
the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
________________________________
Signature of Notary
(Affix seal here)

Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Legal Description of Grantor’s Property

THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF MORGAN

HILL, IN THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

Parcel A, as shown on the Map entitled, “Lot Merger Parcel Map”, filed for record March 12, 2018, in Book 912, of Maps at Page(s) 3 - 4, Santa Clara County Records.

APN: 726-13-058

Exhibit B
Exhibit B
Legal Depiction of Maintenance Easement Area
[See attached.]

Exhibit C
Exhibit C
Legal Depiction of Access Easement Area
[See attached.]

City Council
Meeting Minutes
Mark Turner - Mayor
Marilyn Librers - Mayor Pro Tem
Soraida Iwanaga - Council Member
Yvonne Martínez Beltrán - Council Member
Miriam Vega - Council Member
Wednesday, June 17, 2026
Closed Session 5:30 p.m.

Regular Session 6:00 p.m.

Council Chamber Building
17555 Peak Avenue, Morgan Hill, CA 95037

SPECIAL/REGULAR MEETING
A special meeting of the City Council was called at 5:30 p.m. for the purpose of conducting a closed session.

SPECIAL MEETING
5:30 p.m. Closed Session

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Turner called the City Council meeting to order at 5:32 p.m.

ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE
Deputy City Clerk Rossi called the roll.

PRESENT Mark Turner, Marilyn Librers, Yvonne Martinez Beltran, Miriam Vega ABSENT Soraida Iwanaga
Council Member Librers arrived at 5:35 p.m.

DECLARATION OF POSTING AGENDA

June 17, 2026
2 Deputy City Clerk Rossi declared the posting of the agenda.

CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Tolentino announced the closed session item.

CONFERENCE WITH COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION [Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1)]
Bertram Berns v. City of Morgan Hill, et al. Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara Case No. 25CV472644

OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION
Public comment opened at 5:32 p.m. With no requests to speak, public comment closed.

ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
The meeting adjourned to closed session at 5:33 p.m.

REGULAR MEETING
The regular meeting convened at 6:00 p.m.

SILENT INVOCATION

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

PROCLAMATIONS
Parks and Recreation Month

CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
Mayor Turner reported attending the Santa Clara County Library District Board meeting, where the Board approved a referral he brought forward to implement a countywide literacy program focused on third-grade reading proficiency. He also shared attending a Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Board meeting, the Reach Out Food Pantry open house and ribbon-cutting ceremony, and a Youth Leadership Morgan Hill presentation, where he spoke with students about leadership.

OTHER REPORTS
Council Member Martinez Beltran reported attending a League of California Cities Policy Committee meeting, the Peninsula Division meeting, and a meetup at Pinstripes.

She also shared attending graduation ceremonies for Jackson Academy, Murphy Middle School, and Sobrato High School. She provided an update on ongoing matters related to the proposed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in

June 17, 2026
3 South County.

CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
City Manager Turner reported on a recent life-saving response by the Morgan Hill Police Department and shared that Officer Lorenzo is being commended for his actions.

She announced the launch of the Greater Downtown Specific Plan, which will update the 2009 Downtown Specific Plan and guide future growth in the expanded downtown area. She noted that the effort will address housing, mobility, infrastructure, and public spaces while helping maintain eligibility for future One Bay Area Grant funding, with extensive community outreach anticipated over the next two years. She also shared the launch of the ELEVATE Academy, a new Spanish-language leadership and civic engagement program for Spanish-speaking residents, with the inaugural program scheduled to begin in fall 2026. She shared that Human Resources Director Michael Horta is departing the City and recognized his service and contributions to the organization.

CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
City Attorney Tolentino reported that the Council met in closed session earlier in the evening and there were no reportable actions.

PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Public comment opened at 6:10 p.m. The following people were called to speak:

Gabby Crescini
Marilyn Kalpin
Daniel Cloutier
Rick Kent
Greg Felios
Bruce Cooley
Shelia Dunwoodie
Kaitlin Blue
Lauren Howsman
Armando Benavides
Sharon Luna
With no further requests to speak, public comment closed.

ADOPTION OF AGENDA
MOTION:

Adopting the agenda removing item 3.

RESULT: Passed
MOVER: Council Member Martinez Beltran
SECONDER: Mayor Pro Tem Librers
AYES: Mayor Turner, Mayor Pro Tem Librers, Council Member Martinez Beltran, Council Member Vega

June 17, 2026
4 NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Council Member Iwanaga

CONSENT CALENDAR
Items appearing on the Consent Calendar are considered routine and may be approved by one motion. Pursuant to City Council Policies and Procedures (CP 97-01), any member of the Council or public may request to have an item removed from the Consent Calendar for comment and action.

MOTION:

Approving the consent calendar items 1, 2, and 4 through 10.

RESULT: Passed
MOVER: Council Member Martinez Beltran
SECONDER: Council Member Vega
AYES: Mayor Turner, Mayor Pro Tem Librers, Council Member Martinez Beltran, Council Member Vega
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Council Member Iwanaga

1. ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO DEDICATE TWO EASEMENTS TO PACIFIC GAS

AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (PG&E) FOR THE UPPER LLAGAS CREEK
FLOOD CONTROL AND HALE AVENUE EXTENSION PHASE 2B PROJECT Recommendation:

Adopt a resolution and authorize the City Manager to execute and administer two easement deeds to dedicate to Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) in order to underground overhead utilities along Hale Avenue.

2. APPROVE A CONSULTANT AGREEMENT WITH PLANET FUTSAL, INC.

DBA FUTSAL KINGZ TO PROVIDE YOUTH FUTSAL, SOCCER CLASSES, AND CAMPS FOR A TOTAL NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $150,000
Recommendation:

Authorize the City Manager to execute a consultant agreement with Planet Futsal, Inc. DBA Futsal Kingz to provide youth futsal, soccer classes, and camps not-to-exceed $150,000.

June 17, 2026
5 3. APPROVE FINAL MAP FOR SPRING VIEW – TRACT NO. 10589 AND RELATED SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT (335 SPRING

AVENUE)
Recommendation:

1. Approve the Final Map;

2. Approve a Subdivision Improvements Agreement with 335 Spring LLC, a California limited liability company;

3. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Subdivision Improvements Agreement; and

4. Authorize the recordation of the Final Map and Subdivision Improvements Agreement.

Item 3 removed from the agenda.

4. APPROVE PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (PG&E) AGREEMENT

TO UNDERGROUND DRY UTILITIES FOR THE UPPER LLAGAS CREEK FLOOD CONTROL AND HALE AVENUE EXTENSION PHASE 2B PROJECT Recommendation:

Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute and administer a Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) Agreement to underground dry utilities at the intersection of Hale and Wright Avenues for a not-to-exceed amount of $297,083.51.

5. APPROVE PURCHASE OF SOLAR SYSTEMS AT THE AQUATICS CENTER AND POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR UP TO $1.91 MILLION
Recommendation:

Authorize the City Manager to purchase the existing solar systems at the Police Department and Morgan Hill Aquatics Center for a purchase price of up to $1,910,000.

6. APPROVE SEVENTH AMENDMENT TO THE LEASE WITH THE MORGAN

HILL UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR TRANSPORTATION YARD FACILITY Recommendation:

Authorize the City Manager to enter into a Seventh Amendment to the lease agreement with the Morgan Hill Unified School District for the transportation yard facility.

7. APPROVE THE JUNE 3, 2026 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Recommendation:

Approve the June 3, 2026 City Council Meeting Minutes.

June 17, 2026
6 8. APPROVE THIRD AMENDMENT TO ON-CALL REPAIR CONTRACT WITH

GOLDEN BAY CONSTRUCTION FOR A NEW TOTAL COMPENSATION UP TO $1,200,000
Recommendation:

Authorize the City Manager to execute a third amendment to the on-call water and sewer repair contract with Golden Bay Construction with compensation up to $1,200,000.

9. AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE FIRST AMENDMENT TO

PROPERTY USE AGREEMENT WITH NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS FOR
CELL SITE AT 2275 ROLLING HILL DRIVE
Recommendation:

Authorize the City Manager to execute the First Amendment to New Cingular Wireless PCS's Property Use Agreement.

10. AWARD ON-CALL PLUMBING MAINTENANCE SERVICE AGREEMENTS Recommendation:

1. Award maintenance service agreements to Burr Plumbing and Pumping, Inc. and Stephen Ciari Plumbing & Heating, Inc. in the not-to-exceed amount of $100,000 each to provide on-call plumbing maintenance and repair services; and

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute and administer said agreements.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

11. ADOPT RESOLUTION OF INTENTION AND INTRODUCTION OF

ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF
ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’

RETIREMENT SYSTEM (CALPERS) AND THE CITY OF MORGAN HILL TO

PROVIDE FOR EMPLOYEES SHARING ADDITIONAL COSTS UNDER
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 20516 (EMPLOYEES SHARING

ADDITIONAL COSTS)
Recommendation:

1. Adopt Resolution of Intention of the City Council of the City of Morgan Hill stating its intent to amend the contract between the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) and the City of Morgan Hill in order to provide for employees sharing additional cost under Government Code Section 20516 (Employees Sharing Additional Cost);

2. Open/close the public hearing;

3. Waive the first and second reading of the ordinance amending the City's contract with CalPERS; and

June 17, 2026
7 4. Introduce ordinance.

Finance Director Nguyen provided a report.

Public comment opened at 6:32 p.m. With no requests to speak, public comment closed.

MOTION:

Adopting the resolution.

RESULT: Passed
MOVER: Council Member Martinez Beltran
SECONDER: Mayor Pro Tem Librers
AYES: Mayor Turner, Mayor Pro Tem Librers, Council Member Martinez Beltran, Council Member Vega
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Council Member Iwanaga
MOTION:

Waiving the first and second reading.

RESULT: Passed
MOVER: Council Member Martinez Beltran
SECONDER: Mayor Pro Tem Librers
AYES: Mayor Turner, Mayor Pro Tem Librers, Council Member Martinez Beltran, Council Member Vega
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Council Member Iwanaga
MOTION:

Introducing the ordinance.

RESULT: Passed
MOVER: Council Member Martinez Beltran
SECONDER: Council Member Vega
AYES: Mayor Turner, Mayor Pro Tem Librers, Council Member Martinez Beltran, Council Member Vega

June 17, 2026
8 NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Council Member Iwanaga

FUTURE COUNCIL INITIATED AGENDA ITEMS
Council Member Martinez Beltran requested a discussion regarding a resolution opposing the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) expansion and no staging zones.

The meeting recessed at 6:36 p.m. and reconvened at 6:53 p.m.

MOTION:

Calling a Special Meeting for the City Council to discuss joining the amicus brief to be filed in the lawsuit brought by the State of California and Santa Clara County to oppose the development of an ICE facility in the county.

RESULT: Passed
MOVER: Council Member Martinez Beltran
SECONDER: Mayor Pro Tem Librers
AYES: Mayor Pro Tem Librers, Council Member Martinez Beltran, Council Member Vega
NAYS: Mayor Turner
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Council Member Iwanaga
Mayor Turner requested a discussion regarding funding for the Morgan Hill Gateway Vintage Sign project.

ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Turner adjourned the meeting at 7:03 p.m.

Minutes Prepared by:

Vicky Rossi, Deputy City Clerk

City Council
Meeting Minutes
Mark Turner - Mayor
Marilyn Librers - Mayor Pro Tem
Soraida Iwanaga - Council Member
Yvonne Martínez Beltrán - Council Member
Miriam Vega - Council Member
Wednesday, June 24, 2026
4:00 p.m.

Council Chamber Building
17555 Peak Avenue, Morgan Hill, CA 95037

SPECIAL MEETING
A Special Meeting was called for the purpose of conducting a closed session.

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Turner called the City Council meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE
City Clerk Bigelow called the roll.

PRESENT Mark Turner, Marilyn Librers, Soraida Iwanaga, Yvonne Martinez Beltran
ABSENT Miriam Vega
Council Member Iwanaga joined the meeting via Zoom at 4:47 p.m.

DECLARATION OF POSTING AGENDA
City Clerk Bigelow declared the posting of the agenda.

CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Tolentino announced the closed session items.

June 24, 2026
2 CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS [GOVERNMENT CODE § 54956.8] Property: APNS 76715034 & 76715033
Negotiating Parties: Christina Turner, City Manager; Chris Ghione, Assistant City Manager/Public Services Director; and JL Financing, LLC Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
[Government Code § 54956.9(d)(4)]
Initiation of litigation
County of Santa Clara, et al. v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al.

United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 5:26-cv-05604

OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION
Public comment opened at 4:04 p.m. The following people were called to speak:

Walter Dunckel
Jenny Redfern
Ron Kirkish
Rick Kent
Sally Casas
Susan Betz
Linda Izqviel
Rose Hernandez
Julie Klein
Cammie Brown
Joel Goldsmith
Stan Sheperd
Dan Cloutier
Erin O'Brien
Reverend Mary Blessing
Batman
Karen Louise
Sally Armendariz
Terry Hernandez
Bertha
Cecilia Clark
Marty Estrada (Zoom)
Ramona (Zoom)
Reymundo Armendariz (Zoom)
Noshaba Afzal (Zoom)
With no further requests to speak, public comment closed.

ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION

June 24, 2026
3 The meeting adjourned to closed session at 4:34 p.m.

RECONVENE
The meeting reconvened at 5:34 p.m.

City Manager Turner shared that there were no reportable actions from the closed session. She also noted that the City Council previously adopted Resolution No. 25- 006, reaffirming the City's commitment to being a supportive and inclusive community, including support for all community members regardless of immigration status.

ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Turner adjourned the meeting at 5:35 p.m.

Minutes Prepared by:

Michelle Bigelow, City Clerk

15 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 19, 2026
PREPARED BY:

Hilary Holeman, Administrative Analyst
APPROVED BY: City Manager

RATIFY CITY POSITIONS ON PENDING LEGISLATION

RECOMMENDATION(S)

1. Ratify the City’s position opposing pending legislation Senate Bill 1117 (Cervantes) Accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units;

2. Ratify the City's position opposing pending legislation Assembly Bill 1621 (Wilson) Planning and Zoning Law: Post-entitlement Phase Permits: Housing Accountability Act;

3. Ratify the City's position opposing pending legislation Assembly Bill 1751 (QuirkSilva) Missing Middle Townhome Ownership Act;

4. Ratify the City's position supporting Assembly Bill 1436 (Avila Faris) State Air Resources Board: air pollution regulations: private fleets: exception; and

5. Ratify the City signing on to the League of California Cities coalition letter urging the Legislature to reject proposed wildfire liability reforms.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES, GOALS & STRATEGIES
Strategic Priorities 2026-2027
Fiscal Sustainability
Public Safety
City Council Ongoing Priorities
Supporting our Youth, Seniors, and Entire Community
Preserving and Cultivating Public Trust
Advocating for Local, Regional, and State Legislative Initiatives REPORT NARRATIVE:

Per Resolution No. 20-010 (Attachment 1), the City Council recognizes that occasional situations arise where communication indicating support or opposition to pending State, County, or other regional boards’ legislation or action that could be important and may occur prior to the next scheduled City Council meeting. Under these circumstances, the Mayor or City Manager is delegated the authority to prepare, execute and transmit written or verbal communications indicating a City’s position when any of the following criteria are met: a) the League of California Cities, or a similar organization, has requested the City to comment or take a position, b) the timing to express a position occurs prior to the next scheduled Council meeting, and c) the pending State, County,

15 or other regional boards’ legislation or action clearly supports or clearly hinders the implementation or fulfillment of an adopted City Council Priority, Goal, or Strategy in a substantial manner such that it is in the best interest of the City to indicate its comment or position. When this occurs, a written report to the City Council for acceptance is required at the next possible meeting.

Throughout the legislative session, the League of California Cities (League) Regional Public Affairs Manager provides relevant updates on bills that may affect local governments. Staff reviews these measures, evaluates their potential impacts on the City of Morgan Hill, and determines whether City action is warranted.

The City recently took action on the following bills:

SB 1117 (Cervantes) Accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units
Changes how impact fees are calculated for certain accessory dwelling units (ADUs).

While ADUs of 750 square feet or less remain exempt from impact fees, the bill requires that for ADUs larger than 750 square feet, impact fees be calculated only on the square footage exceeding 750 square feet, rather than on the entire unit. This change creates a new state-mandated requirement for local agencies to update how they calculate ADU impact fees.

On June 12, 2026, the City communicated an opposition letter (Attachment 2) electronically via the California Legislature Position Letter Portal and to the League of California Cities. The full SB 1117 Bill Text is included as Attachment 3.

AB 1621 (Wilson) Planning and Zoning Law: Post-entitlement Phase Permits:

Housing Accountability Act
Streamlines the building permit review process by limiting local governments to two plan check and specification review cycles for permit applications. If an application remains noncompliant after two reviews, the agency may deny the application, although the applicant may request additional review cycles. The bill also prohibits agencies from requiring changes during building inspections that differ from previously approved building plans, except under limited circumstances, to improve consistency and reduce permitting delays.

On June 12, 2026, the City communicated an opposition letter (Attachment 4) electronically via the California Legislature Position Letter Portal and to the League of California Cities. The full AB 1621 Bill Text is included as Attachment 5.

AB 1751 (Quirk-Silva) Missing Middle Townhome Ownership Act Establishes a streamlined, ministerial approval process for qualifying townhome development projects. The bill requires local agencies to approve eligible townhome projects and associated subdivision maps without discretionary review or public hearings, provided the projects meet specified objective development standards.

On June 24, 2026, the City communicated an opposition letter (Attachment 6)

15 electronically via the California Legislature Position Letter Portal and to the League of California Cities. The full AB 1751 Bill Text is included as Attachment 7.

AB 1436 (Avila Faris) State Air Resources Board: air pollution regulations: private fleets
Prohibits the California Air Resources Board (CARB) from enforcing regulations that require private vehicle fleets to transition to zero-emission vehicles until California has obtained the necessary waiver or authorization under the federal Clean Air Act. The bill is intended to ensure that state fleet electrification requirements for private fleets are not enforced without federal approval.

On June 29, 2026, the City communicated a letter of support (Attachment 8) electronically via the California Legislature Position Letter Portal and to the League of California Cities. This bill failed to meet the legislative deadline and is no longer moving forward this legislative session. The full AB 1436 Bill Text is included as Attachment 9.

Wildfire Liability Reform Package
On August 11, 2026, the League issued an Action Alert (Attachment 10) requesting cities join a coalition letter urging the Legislature to reject proposed wildfire liability reforms that would limit public agency recovery from utility-caused wildfires. The proposal would limit recovery for damaged public property and infrastructure to depreciated value and eliminate recovery for emergency response and mutual aid costs and lost property tax revenue, potentially shifting these costs from utilities to local governments and taxpayers.

On August 14, 2026, the City signed onto the coalition letter (Attachment 11), which asks the Legislature to preserve the ability of public agencies to fully recover these costs while supporting continued state efforts to strengthen community wildfire mitigation.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

Inform
This report serves to inform the Community on the City’s position on pending legislation that directly impacts the City of Morgan Hill.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:

The City Council could rescind the positions taken.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION ACTIONS:

City Council periodically ratifies City positions on various pending State, County or other regional board legislation or actions that have a direct impact on the City of Morgan Hill.

FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:

Tracking legislation is an activity included in the annual workplan of the City Manager’s Office.

15 CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

Not a Project
Administrative action/activity without an impact.

Attachment 1

Attachment 1

Attachment 1

17575 Peak Avenue
Morgan Hill, CA 95037-4128
TEL: (408) 779-7271
FAX: (408) 779-3117
www.morganhill.ca.gov
June 12, 2026
The Honorable Sabrina Cervantes
Member, California State Senate
1021 O Street, Suite 7330
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SB 1117 (Cervantes) Accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units.

Notice of OPPOSITION (As of 2/17/2026)
Dear Senator Cervantes,
The City of Morgan Hill respectfully opposes SB 1117 (Cervantes), which would limit the amount of impact fees a local government could charge on an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) larger than 750 square feet.

Cities understand the importance of increasing housing opportunities and recognize the role ADUs play in helping address California’s housing shortage. However, local governments are also responsible for ensuring that communities have the infrastructure and public services necessary to support additional residential development. Roads, water and sewer systems, parks, fire protection, and other essential public facilities must be adequately funded to serve both existing and future residents.

Under existing law, the Mitigation Fee Act already strictly regulates development impact fees by requiring local agencies to demonstrate a clear nexus between the fee charged and the impacts created by development.

These fees are not arbitrary and may only cover the reasonable cost of providing necessary public infrastructure and services. SB 1117 would undermine this framework by imposing an artificial cap on fees regardless of actual infrastructure costs or local community needs.

For the City of Morgan Hill, this measure could significantly reduce funding available for critical public improvements and services needed to accommodate additional housing growth. Reduced fee revenue may limit the City’s ability to maintain infrastructure, expand public safety services, improve parks, and address increased demand on local utilities. This is particularly concerning as cities continue working to meet ambitious state housing production goals while balancing the fiscal realities of maintaining safe and livable communities.

Additionally, limiting local governments’ ability to collect appropriate mitigation fees may create challenges in addressing environmental impacts associated with new development and could expose local agencies to increased legal and fiscal uncertainty.

For these reasons, the City of Morgan Hill respectfully opposes SB 1117 (Cervantes).

Attachment 2

Sincerely,
Mark Turner
Mayor
cc: Assemblymember Gail Pellerin
Senator Dave Cortese
Montana Cruz, Regional Public Affairs Manager, League of California Cities, [email protected] Meg Desmond, League of California Cities, [email protected] Attachment 2

AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JULY 8, 2026
SENATE BILL No. 1117
Introduced by Senator Cervantes
February 17, 2026
An act to amend Section 66311.5 of the Government Code, relating to land use.
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 1117, as amended, Cervantes. Accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units.

Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, among other things, provides for the creation by ordinance, or by ministerial approval if the local agency has not adopted an ordinance, of an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) in accordance with specified standards and conditions.

Existing law requires fees charged for the construction of ADUs to be determined in accordance with specified provisions of the Mitigation Fee Act. Existing law prohibits a local agency, special district, or water corporation from imposing any impact fee upon the development of an ADU that has 750 square feet of interior livable space or less, and requires any impact fees charged for an ADU that has more than 750 square feet of interior livable space to be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit.

This bill would additionally require the charge for certain accessory dwelling units to be based only on the area in excess of 750 square feet of interior livable space. By changing the duties of local agencies with regard to calculating fees for ADUs, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

98 Attachment 3

The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.

Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.

State-mandated local program: yes.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Section 66311.5 of the Government Code is line 2 amended to read:
line 3 66311.5. (a)  Fees charged for the construction of accessory line 4 dwelling units or junior accessory dwelling units shall be line 5 determined in accordance with Chapter 5 (commencing with line 6 Section 66000) and Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 66012). line 7 (b)  An accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling line 8 unit shall not be considered by a local agency, special district, or line 9 water corporation to be a new residential use for purposes of line 10 calculating connection fees or capacity charges for utilities, line 11 including water and sewer service, unless the unit was constructed line 12 with a new single-family dwelling.
line 13 (c)  (1)  (A)  A local agency, special district, or water corporation line 14 shall not impose any impact fee upon the development of an line 15 accessory dwelling unit that has 750 square feet of interior livable line 16 space or less or a junior accessory dwelling unit that has 500 square line 17 feet of interior livable space or less. Any
line 18 (B)  For up to two accessory dwelling units on a lot, any impact line 19 fees charged for an accessory dwelling unit that has more than 750 line 20 square feet of interior livable space shall be charged proportionately line 21 in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit, and line 22 only on the area in excess of 750 square feet of interior livable line 23 space.
line 24 (C)  For properties with more than two accessory dwelling units line 25 on a lot, any impact fees charged for an accessory dwelling unit line 26 that has more than 750 square feet of interior livable space shall 98 SB 1117 — 2 —
Attachment 3

line 1 be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of line 2 the primary dwelling unit.
line 3 (2)  For purposes of this subdivision, “impact fee” has the same line 4 meaning as the term “fee” is defined in subdivision (b) of Section line 5 66000, except that it also includes fees specified in Section 66477. line 6 “Impact fee” does not include any connection fee or capacity line 7 charge charged by a local agency, special district, or water line 8 corporation.
line 9 (3)  For the purposes of this section and Section 17620 of the line 10 Education Code, an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory line 11 dwelling unit that contains less than 500 square feet of interior line 12 livable space shall, for the purpose of subparagraph (C) of line 13 paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 17620 of the Education line 14 Code, be considered other residential construction that does not line 15 increase assessable space by 500 square feet.
line 16 (d)  For an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling line 17 unit described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 66323, line 18 a local agency, special district, or water corporation shall not line 19 require the applicant to install a new or separate utility connection line 20 directly between the unit and the utility or impose a related line 21 connection fee or capacity charge, unless the unit was constructed line 22 with a new single-family dwelling, or upon separate conveyance line 23 of the accessory dwelling unit pursuant to Section 66342. line 24 (e)  For an accessory dwelling unit that is not described in line 25 paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 66323, a local agency, line 26 special district, or water corporation may require a new or separate line 27 utility connection directly between the accessory dwelling unit line 28 and the utility. Consistent with Section 66013, the connection may line 29 be subject to a connection fee or capacity charge that shall be line 30 proportionate to the burden of the proposed accessory dwelling line 31 unit, based upon either its square feet or the number of its drainage line 32 fixture unit (DFU) values, as defined in the Uniform Plumbing line 33 Code adopted and published by the International Association of line 34 Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, upon the water or sewer line 35 system. This fee or charge shall not exceed the reasonable cost of line 36 providing this service.
line 37 SEC. 2. The Legislature finds and declares that ensuring line 38 housing of is a matter of statewide concern and is not a municipal line 39 affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the line 40 California Constitution. Therefore, Section 1 of this act amending 98 — 3 — SB 1117
Attachment 3

line 1 Section 66311.5 of the Government Code applies to all cities, line 2 including charter cities.
line 3 SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to line 4 Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because line 5 a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service line 6 charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or line 7 level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section line 8 17556 of the Government Code.

O
98 SB 1117 — 4 —
Attachment 3

17575 Peak Avenue
Morgan Hill, CA 95037-4128
TEL: (408) 779-7271
FAX: (408) 779-3117
www.morganhill.ca.gov
June 12, 2026
The Honorable Lori Wilson
Member, California State Assembly
State Capitol, Room 8110
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 1621 (Wilson) Planning and Zoning Law: Post-entitlement Phase Permits: Housing Accountability Act.

Notice of OPPOSITION UNLESS AMENDED (As of 6/3/26)
Dear Assembly Member Lori Wilson,
The City of Morgan Hill respectfully opposes unless amended AB 1621 (Wilson), which would eliminate the ability of local governments to require more than two plan checks on a building permit application. While we appreciate the intent of streamlining post-entitlement phase permits and supporting housing production, AB 1621 would create significant practical and policy concerns that impair local governments’ ability to effectively review residential development projects.

Plan review of construction projects is a critical step in ensuring structures built in California are safe for occupants, neighboring properties, and the broader community. Local building and planning departments review plans for consistency with the jurisdiction’s General Plan, state building standards, and other applicable local and state regulations. In addition to health and safety requirements, local governments must also enforce regulations related to parking, air quality, solar requirements, accessibility, and other community standards adopted through public processes. As currently drafted, AB 1621 would restrict a local agency’s ability to deny or require revisions to applications on non-health-and-safety grounds, potentially allowing projects to move forward without compliance with important state and local requirements.

Additionally, provisions in the bill would significantly limit the discretion of local agencies to require corrections when previously approved plans are later found to be inconsistent with applicable building standards. Under the bill, agencies could be prevented from requiring compliance corrections unless they meet a very high legal threshold, even in situations where public health and safety concerns may exist. This limitation would undermine the ability of cities to ensure projects fully comply with building codes and other adopted standards intended to protect California residents.

The measure also fails to adequately address incomplete or noncompliant applications submitted by project applicants. In many cases, additional plan checks are necessary because submitted plans contain errors, omissions, or inconsistencies that require correction before a permit can be safely issued. Limiting local agencies to only two plan reviews, regardless of the completeness or accuracy of the application, would create administrative challenges and could ultimately delay projects rather than streamline them.

We appreciate the ongoing conversations regarding amendments that would address these concerns.

Specifically, amendments allowing additional plan checks when accompanied by written findings identifying noncompliance with permit standards would provide needed flexibility while still Attachment 4

encouraging timely permit review. Additionally, removing provisions that eliminate agency discretion to enforce state and local building codes would help preserve public safety protections and reduce the likelihood of costly disputes and litigation.

For these reasons, the City of Morgan Hill respectfully opposes unless amended AB 1621 (Wilson).

Sincerely,
Mark Turner
Mayor
cc: Assemblymember Gail Pellerin
Senator Dave Cortese
Montana Cruz, Regional Public Affairs Manager, League of California Cities, [email protected] Meg Desmond, League of California Cities, [email protected] Attachment 4

AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 3, 2026
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 4, 2026
california legislature—2025–26 regular session
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 1621
Introduced by Assembly Member Wilson
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Blanca Rubio and Wicks)
January 22, 2026
An act to amend Sections 65589.5 and 65913.3 of the Government Code, relating to planning and zoning.
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 1621, as amended, Wilson. Planning and Zoning Law:
postentitlement phase permits: Housing Accountability Act. (1)  The Planning and Zoning Law requires a local agency or state agency to compile one or more lists that specify in detail the information required from any applicant for a postentitlement phase permit, as defined. Existing law also establishes time limits for completing reviews regarding whether an application for a postentitlement phase permit is complete and compliant, and whether to approve or deny an application.

Existing law requires the time limits to be tolled, if the local agency or state agency requires review of the application by an outside entity, until the outside entity completes the review and returns the application, as specified.

This bill would prohibit a local agency or state agency from requiring or requesting more than 2 plan check and specification reviews in connection with an application for a building permit, as part of its review, except as specified. review. The bill would authorize a local agency or state agency to deny an application that is not compliant with

97 Attachment 5

the permit standards following 2 plan check and specification reviews.

The bill would also authorize an applicant to request additional submittals of applications that are not compliant with the permit standards. The bill, if a local agency or state agency finds that a complete application is noncompliant, would prohibit a local agency or state agency from requesting or requiring any action or inaction as a result of a building inspection undertaken to assess compliance with the applicable building permit standards that would represent a deviation from a previously approved building plan or similar approval for the building permit, except as specified.

This bill would remove the above-described tolling requirements relating to outside entity reviews and, instead, would require, if federal or state law requires review of the application by another public agency that is independent of the local agency or state agency before the local agency or state agency is authorized to act on the application, the time limits to be tolled for the application until the public agency completes the review and returns the application to the local agency or state agency.

The bill would require the local agency or state agency to notify the applicant of the tolling, as specified.
(2)  Existing law, if a postentitlement phase permit is determined to be incomplete or noncompliant, requires a local agency or state agency to provide a process for an applicant to appeal that decision in writing to the governing body of the agency or, if there is no governing body, to the director of the agency, as provided by that agency. Existing law requires the city or county to provide that the right of appeal is to the governing body or, at their option, the planning commission, or both.

Existing law requires a local agency or state agency to provide a final written determination on the appeal not later than 60 business days after receipt of the applicant’s written appeal, for housing development projects with 25 units or fewer, and not later than 90 business days for a housing development projects with 26 units or more. Existing law also specifies that the fact that an appeal is permitted to both the planning commission and to the governing body does not extend the specified time period.

This bill would revise those timelines to not later than 30 business days for housing development projects with 25 units or fewer and 45 business days for housing development projects with 26 units or more.

The bill would remove the specification that the fact that an appeal is permitted to both the planning commission and to the governing body does not extend the specified time period. The bill would remove the 97 AB 1621 — 2 —
Attachment 5

requirement that, if a postentitlement phase permit is determined to be incomplete or noncompliant, a local agency or state agency provide a process for an applicant to appeal that decision to the director of the agency if there is no governing body, as provided by that agency. The bill would remove the requirement that a city or county provide that the right of appeal is to the governing body or, at their option, the planning commission, or both.

This bill would authorize the applicant to seek a writ of mandate to compel approval of the application, if the applicant’s appeal is denied, or a decision on the appeal is not made within the timelines provided, or an appeals process is not provided as required.

By imposing additional duties on local agencies regarding postentitlement phase permits, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(3)  Existing law, the Housing Accountability Act, among other things, prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning approval in a manner that renders infeasible, a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households unless the local agency makes written findings as to one of certain sets of conditions, as specified. The act also requires, when a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, that the local agency base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that 2 specified conditions exist. Existing law defines the term “disapprove the housing development project” for these purposes to include any instance in which a local agency takes certain actions or fails to comply with certain requirements, including the time limits described above. Existing law makes a local agency’s failure to meet the above-described time limits relating to postentitlement phase permits a violation of the Housing Accountability Act.

This bill would, instead, make a violation of the above-described provisions relating to postentitlement phase permits, among others, a violation of the Housing Accountability Act. The bill would also revise the definition of “disapprove the housing development project” under the Housing Accountability Act to include any instance in which a local agency fails to comply with any of the provisions described above 97 — 3 — AB 1621
Attachment 5

relating to postentitlement phase permits. By requiring local agencies to take certain actions, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(4)  The bill would make other conforming changes and would provide that certain changes are declaratory of existing law.
(5)  The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. (6)  The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.

Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.

State-mandated local program: yes.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Section 65589.5 of the Government Code is line 2 amended to read:
line 3 65589.5. (a)  (1)  The Legislature finds and declares all of the line 4 following:
line 5 (A)  The lack of housing, including emergency shelters, is a line 6 critical problem that threatens the economic, environmental, and line 7 social quality of life in California.
line 8 (B)  California housing has become the most expensive in the line 9 nation. The excessive cost of the state’s housing supply is partially line 10 caused by activities and policies of many local governments that line 11 limit the approval of housing, increase the cost of land for housing, line 12 and require that high fees and exactions be paid by producers of line 13 housing.
line 14 (C)  Among the consequences of those actions are discrimination line 15 against low-income and minority households, lack of housing to line 16 support employment growth, imbalance in jobs and housing, line 17 reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air line 18 quality deterioration.
line 19 (D)  Many local governments do not give adequate attention to line 20 the economic, environmental, and social costs of decisions that line 21 result in disapproval of housing development projects, reduction 97 AB 1621 — 4 —
Attachment 5

line 1 in density of housing projects, and excessive standards for housing line 2 development projects.
line 3 (2)  In enacting the amendments made to this section by the act line 4 adding this paragraph, the Legislature further finds and declares line 5 the following:
line 6 (A)  California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of line 7 historic proportions. The consequences of failing to effectively line 8 and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of line 9 Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call line 10 California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and line 11 businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining line 12 the state’s environmental and climate objectives. line 13 (B)  While the causes of this crisis are multiple and complex, line 14 the absence of meaningful and effective policy reforms to line 15 significantly enhance the approval and supply of housing affordable line 16 to Californians of all income levels is a key factor. line 17 (C)  The crisis has grown so acute in California that supply, line 18 demand, and affordability fundamentals are characterized in the line 19 negative: underserved demands, constrained supply, and protracted line 20 unaffordability.
line 21 (D)  According to reports and data, California has accumulated line 22 an unmet housing backlog of nearly 2,000,000 units and must line 23 provide for at least 180,000 new units annually to keep pace with line 24 growth through 2025.
line 25 (E)  California’s overall home ownership rate is at its lowest line 26 level since the 1940s. The state ranks 49th out of the 50 states in line 27 home ownership rates as well as in the supply of housing per capita. line 28 Only one-half of California’s households are able to afford the line 29 cost of housing in their local regions.
line 30 (F)  Lack of supply and rising costs are compounding inequality line 31 and limiting advancement opportunities for many Californians. line 32 (G)  The majority of California renters, more than 3,000,000 line 33 households, pay more than 30 percent of their income toward rent line 34 and nearly one-third, more than 1,500,000 households, pay more line 35 than 50 percent of their income toward rent.
line 36 (H)  When Californians have access to safe and affordable line 37 housing, they have more money for food and health care; they are line 38 less likely to become homeless and in need of
line 39 government-subsidized services; their children do better in school; 97 — 5 — AB 1621
Attachment 5

line 1 and businesses have an easier time recruiting and retaining line 2 employees.
line 3 (I)  An additional consequence of the state’s cumulative housing line 4 shortage is a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions line 5 caused by the displacement and redirection of populations to states line 6 with greater housing opportunities, particularly working- and line 7 middle-class households. California’s cumulative housing shortfall line 8 therefore has not only national but international environmental line 9 consequences.
line 10 (J)  California’s housing picture has reached a crisis of historic line 11 proportions despite the fact that, for decades, the Legislature has line 12 enacted numerous statutes intended to significantly increase the line 13 approval, development, and affordability of housing for all income line 14 levels, including this section.
line 15 (K)  The Legislature’s intent in enacting this section in 1982 and line 16 in expanding its provisions since then was to significantly increase line 17 the approval and construction of new housing for all economic line 18 segments of California’s communities by meaningfully and line 19 effectively curbing the capability of local governments to deny, line 20 reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development line 21 projects and emergency shelters. That intent has not been fulfilled. line 22 (L)  It is the policy of the state that this section be interpreted line 23 and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight line 24 to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing. line 25 (3)  It is the intent of the Legislature that the conditions that line 26 would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and line 27 safety, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) and line 28 paragraph (1) of subdivision (j), arise infrequently. line 29 (4)  It is the intent of the Legislature that the amendments line 30 removing provisions from subparagraphs (D) and (E) of paragraph line 31 (6) of subdivision (h) and adding those provisions to Sections line 32 65589.5.1 and 65589.5.2 by Assembly Bill 1413 (2023), insofar line 33 as they are substantially the same as existing law, shall be line 34 considered restatements and continuations of existing law, and not line 35 new enactments.
line 36 (b)  It is the policy of the state that a local government not reject line 37 or make infeasible housing development projects, including line 38 emergency shelters, that contribute to meeting the need determined line 39 pursuant to this article without a thorough analysis of the economic, 97 AB 1621 — 6 —
Attachment 5

line 1 social, and environmental effects of the action and without line 2 complying with subdivision (d).
line 3 (c)  The Legislature also recognizes that premature and line 4 unnecessary development of agricultural lands for urban uses line 5 continues to have adverse effects on the availability of those lands line 6 for food and fiber production and on the economy of the state. line 7 Furthermore, it is the policy of the state that development should line 8 be guided away from prime agricultural lands; therefore, in line 9 implementing this section, local jurisdictions should encourage, line 10 to the maximum extent practicable, in filling existing urban areas. line 11 (d)  For a housing development project for very low, low-, or line 12 moderate-income households, or an emergency shelter, a local line 13 agency shall not disapprove the housing development project or line 14 emergency shelter, or condition approval in a manner that renders line 15 the housing development project or emergency shelter infeasible, line 16 including through the use of design review standards, unless it line 17 makes written findings, based upon a preponderance of the line 18 evidence in the record, as to one of the following:
line 19 (1)  The jurisdiction has adopted a housing element pursuant to line 20 this article that has been revised in accordance with Section 65588, line 21 is in substantial compliance with this article, and the jurisdiction line 22 has met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need line 23 allocation pursuant to Section 65584 for the planning period for line 24 the income category proposed for the housing development project, line 25 provided that any disapproval or conditional approval shall not be line 26 based on any of the reasons prohibited by Section 65008. If the line 27 housing development project includes a mix of income categories, line 28 and the jurisdiction has not met or exceeded its share of the regional line 29 housing need for one or more of those categories, then this line 30 paragraph shall not be used to disapprove or conditionally approve line 31 the housing development project. The share of the regional housing line 32 need met by the jurisdiction shall be calculated consistently with line 33 the forms and definitions that may be adopted by the Department line 34 of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section line 35 65400. In the case of an emergency shelter, the jurisdiction shall line 36 have met or exceeded the need for emergency shelter, as identified line 37 pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. Any line 38 disapproval or conditional approval pursuant to this paragraph line 39 shall be in accordance with applicable law, rule, or standards. 97 — 7 — AB 1621
Attachment 5

line 1 (2)  The housing development project or emergency shelter as line 2 proposed would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public line 3 health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily line 4 mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering line 5 the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income line 6 households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter line 7 financially infeasible. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, line 8 adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and line 9 unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public line 10 health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed line 11 on the date the application was deemed complete. The following line 12 shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public line 13 health or safety:
line 14 (A)  Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan line 15 land use designation.
line 16 (B)  The eligibility to claim a welfare exemption under line 17 subdivision (g) of Section 214 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. line 18 (3)  The denial of the housing development project or imposition line 19 of conditions is required in order to comply with specific state or line 20 federal law, and there is no feasible method to comply without line 21 rendering the development unaffordable to low- and line 22 moderate-income households or rendering the development of the line 23 emergency shelter financially infeasible.
line 24 (4)  The housing development project or emergency shelter is line 25 proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation line 26 that is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for line 27 agricultural or resource preservation purposes, or which does not line 28 have adequate water or wastewater facilities to serve the project. line 29 (5)  On the date an application for the housing development line 30 project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction line 31 had adopted a revised housing element that was in substantial line 32 compliance with this article, and the housing development project line 33 or emergency shelter was inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s line 34 zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as specified line 35 in any element of the general plan.
line 36 (A)  This paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or line 37 conditionally approve a housing development project proposed on line 38 a site, including a candidate site for rezoning, that is identified as line 39 suitable or available for very low, low-, or moderate-income line 40 households in the jurisdiction’s housing element if the housing 97 AB 1621 — 8 —
Attachment 5

line 1 development project is consistent with the density specified in the line 2 housing element, even though the housing development project line 3 was inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and line 4 general plan land use designation on the date the application was line 5 deemed complete.
line 6 (B)  If the local agency has failed to identify a zone or zones line 7 where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without line 8 a conditional use or other discretionary permit, has failed to line 9 demonstrate that the identified zone or zones include sufficient line 10 capacity to accommodate the need for emergency shelter identified line 11 in paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, or has failed line 12 to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones can accommodate line 13 at least one emergency shelter, as required by paragraph (4) of line 14 subdivision (a) of Section 65583, then this paragraph shall not be line 15 utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve an emergency line 16 shelter proposed for a site designated in any element of the general line 17 plan for industrial, commercial, or multifamily residential uses. In line 18 any action in court, the burden of proof shall be on the local agency line 19 to show that its housing element does satisfy the requirements of line 20 paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. line 21 (6)  On the date an application for the housing development line 22 project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction line 23 did not have an adopted revised housing element that was in line 24 substantial compliance with this article and the housing line 25 development project is not a builder’s remedy project. line 26 (e)  Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the local line 27 agency from complying with the congestion management program line 28 required by Chapter 2.6 (commencing with Section 65088) or the line 29 California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with line 30 Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code). Neither shall line 31 anything in this section be construed to relieve the local agency line 32 from making one or more of the findings required pursuant to line 33 Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code or otherwise line 34 complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (Division line 35 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources line 36 Code).
line 37 (f)  (1)  Except as provided in paragraphs (6) and (8), and line 38 subdivision (o), nothing in this section shall be construed to line 39 prohibit a local agency from requiring the housing development line 40 project to comply with objective, quantifiable, written development 97 — 9 — AB 1621
Attachment 5

line 1 standards, conditions, and policies appropriate to, and consistent line 2 with, meeting the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need line 3 pursuant to Section 65584. However, the development standards, line 4 conditions, and policies shall be applied to facilitate and line 5 accommodate development at the density permitted on the site and line 6 proposed by the development. Nothing in this section shall limit line 7 a project’s eligibility for a density bonus, incentive, or concession, line 8 or waiver or reduction of development standards and parking ratios, line 9 pursuant to Section 65915.
line 10 (2)  Except as provided in subdivision (o), nothing in this section line 11 shall be construed to prohibit a local agency from requiring an line 12 emergency shelter project to comply with objective, quantifiable, line 13 written development standards, conditions, and policies that are line 14 consistent with paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583 line 15 and appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the jurisdiction’s line 16 need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph line 17 (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. However, the development line 18 standards, conditions, and policies shall be applied by the local line 19 agency to facilitate and accommodate the development of the line 20 emergency shelter project.
line 21 (3)  Except as provided in subdivision (o), nothing in this section line 22 shall be construed to prohibit a local agency from imposing fees line 23 and other exactions otherwise authorized by law that are essential line 24 to provide necessary public services and facilities to the housing line 25 development project or emergency shelter.
line 26 (4)  For purposes of this section, a housing development project line 27 or emergency shelter shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and line 28 in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, line 29 standard, requirement, or other similar provision if there is line 30 substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to line 31 conclude that the housing development project or emergency line 32 shelter is consistent, compliant, or in conformity. line 33 (5)  For purposes of this section, a change to the zoning ordinance line 34 or general plan land use designation subsequent to the date the line 35 application was deemed complete shall not constitute a valid basis line 36 to disapprove or condition approval of the housing development line 37 project or emergency shelter.
line 38 (6)  Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) to (5), inclusive, all of the line 39 following apply to a housing development project that is a builder’s line 40 remedy project:
97 AB 1621 — 10 —
Attachment 5

line 1 (A)  A local agency may only require the project to comply with line 2 the objective, quantifiable, written development standards, line 3 conditions, and policies that would have applied to the project had line 4 it been proposed on a site with a general plan designation and line 5 zoning classification that allow the density and unit type proposed line 6 by the applicant. If the local agency has no general plan designation line 7 or zoning classification that would have allowed the density and line 8 unit type proposed by the applicant, the development proponent line 9 may identify any objective, quantifiable, written development line 10 standards, conditions, and policies associated with a different line 11 general plan designation or zoning classification within that line 12 jurisdiction, that facilitate the project’s density and unit type, and line 13 those shall apply.
line 14 (B)  (i)  Except as authorized by paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, line 15 of subdivision (d), a local agency shall not apply any individual line 16 or combination of objective, quantifiable, written development line 17 standards, conditions, and policies to the project that do any of the line 18 following:
line 19 (I)  Render the project infeasible.
line 20 (II)  Preclude a project that meets the requirements allowed to line 21 be imposed by subparagraph (A), as modified by any density bonus, line 22 incentive, or concession, or waiver or reduction of development line 23 standards and parking ratios, pursuant to Section 65915, from line 24 being constructed as proposed by the applicant. line 25 (ii)  The local agency shall bear the burden of proof of complying line 26 with clause (i).
line 27 (C)  (i)  A project applicant that qualifies for a density bonus line 28 pursuant to Section 65915 shall receive two incentives or line 29 concessions in addition to those granted pursuant to paragraph (2) line 30 of subdivision (d) of Section 65915.
line 31 (ii)  For a project seeking density bonuses, incentives, line 32 concessions, or any other benefits pursuant to Section 65915, and line 33 notwithstanding paragraph (6) of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, line 34 for purposes of this paragraph, maximum allowable residential line 35 density or base density means the density permitted for a builder’s line 36 remedy project pursuant to subparagraph (C) of paragraph (11) of line 37 subdivision (h).
line 38 (iii)  A local agency shall grant any density bonus pursuant to line 39 Section 65915 based on the number of units proposed and 97 — 11 — AB 1621
Attachment 5

line 1 allowable pursuant to subparagraph (C) of paragraph (11) of line 2 subdivision (h).
line 3 (iv)  A project that dedicates units to extremely low income line 4 households pursuant to subclause (I) of clause (i) of subparagraph line 5 (C) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (h) shall be eligible for the line 6 same density bonus, incentives or concessions, and waivers or line 7 reductions of development standards as provided to a housing line 8 development project that dedicates three percentage points more line 9 units to very low income households pursuant to paragraph (2) of line 10 subdivision (f) of Section 65915.
line 11 (v)  All units dedicated to extremely low income, very low line 12 income, low-income, and moderate-income households pursuant line 13 to paragraph (11) of subdivision (h) shall be counted as affordable line 14 units in determining whether the applicant qualifies for a density line 15 bonus pursuant to Section 65915.
line 16 (D)  (i)  The project shall not be required to apply for, or receive line 17 approval of, a general plan amendment, specific plan amendment, line 18 rezoning, or other legislative approval.
line 19 (ii)  The project shall not be required to apply for, or receive, line 20 any approval or permit not generally required of a project of the line 21 same type and density proposed by the applicant. line 22 (iii)  Any project that complies with this paragraph shall be line 23 deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable line 24 plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, line 25 redevelopment plan and implementing instruments, or other similar line 26 provision for all purposes, and shall not be considered or treated line 27 as a nonconforming lot, use, or structure for any purpose. line 28 (E)  A local agency shall not adopt or impose any requirement, line 29 process, practice, or procedure or undertake any course of conduct, line 30 including, but not limited to, increased fees or inclusionary housing line 31 requirements, that applies to a project solely or partially on the line 32 basis that the project is a builder’s remedy project. line 33 (F)  (i)  A builder’s remedy project shall be deemed to be in line 34 compliance with the residential density standards for the purposes line 35 of complying with subdivision (b) of Section 65912.123. line 36 (ii)  A builder’s remedy project shall be deemed to be in line 37 compliance with the objective zoning standards, objective line 38 subdivision standards, and objective design review standards for line 39 the purposes of complying with paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) line 40 of Section 65913.4.
97 AB 1621 — 12 —
Attachment 5

line 1 (G)  (i)  (I)  If the local agency had a local affordable housing line 2 requirement, as defined in Section 65912.101, that on January 1, line 3 2024, required a greater percentage of affordable units than line 4 required under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (11) of subdivision line 5 (h), or required an affordability level deeper than what is required line 6 under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (11) of subdivision (h), then, line 7 except as provided in subclauses (II) and (III), the local agency line 8 may require a housing development for mixed-income households line 9 to comply with an otherwise lawfully applicable local affordability line 10 percentage or affordability level. The local agency shall not require line 11 housing for mixed-income households to comply with any other line 12 aspect of the local affordable housing requirement. line 13 (II)  Notwithstanding subclause (I), the local affordable housing line 14 requirements shall not be applied to require housing for line 15 mixed-income households to dedicate more than 20 percent of the line 16 units to affordable units of any kind.
line 17 (III)  Housing for mixed-income households that is required to line 18 dedicate 20 percent of the units to affordable units shall not be line 19 required to dedicate any of the affordable units at an income level line 20 deeper than lower income households, as defined in Section line 21 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
line 22 (IV)  A local agency may only require housing for mixed-income line 23 households to comply with the local percentage requirement or line 24 affordability level described in subclause (I) if it first makes written line 25 findings, supported by a preponderance of evidence, that line 26 compliance with the local percentage requirement or the line 27 affordability level, or both, would not render the housing line 28 development project infeasible. If a reasonable person could find line 29 compliance with either requirement, either alone or in combination, line 30 would render the project infeasible, the project shall not be required line 31 to comply with that requirement.
line 32 (ii)  Affordable units in the development project shall have a line 33 comparable bedroom and bathroom count as the market rate units. line 34 (iii)  Each affordable unit dedicated pursuant to this subparagraph line 35 shall count toward satisfying a local affordable housing line 36 requirement. Each affordable unit dedicated pursuant to a local line 37 affordable housing requirement that meets the criteria established line 38 in this subparagraph shall count towards satisfying the requirements line 39 of this subparagraph. This is declaratory of existing law. 97 — 13 — AB 1621
Attachment 5

line 1 (7)  (A)  For a housing development project application that is line 2 deemed complete before January 1, 2025, the development line 3 proponent for the project may choose to be subject to the provisions line 4 of this section that were in place on the date the preliminary line 5 application was submitted, or, if the project meets the definition line 6 of a builder’s remedy project, it may choose to be subject to any line 7 or all of the provisions of this section applicable as of January 1, line 8 2025.
line 9 (B)  Notwithstanding subdivision (c) of Section 65941.1, for a line 10 housing development project deemed complete before January 1, line 11 2025, the development proponent may choose to revise their line 12 application so that the project is a builder’s remedy project, without line 13 being required to resubmit a preliminary application, even if the line 14 revision results in the number of residential units or square footage line 15 of construction changing by 20 percent or more. line 16 (8)  A housing development project proposed on a site that is line 17 identified as suitable or available for very low, low-, or line 18 moderate-income households in the jurisdiction’s housing element, line 19 that is consistent with the density specified in the most recently line 20 updated and adopted housing element, and that is inconsistent with line 21 both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use line 22 designation on the date the application was deemed complete, shall line 23 be subject to the provisions of subparagraphs (A), (B), and (D) of line 24 paragraph (6) and paragraph (9).
line 25 (9)  For purposes of this subdivision, “objective, quantifiable, line 26 written development standards, conditions, and policies” means line 27 criteria that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public line 28 official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external line 29 and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by line 30 both the development applicant or proponent and the public official line 31 before submittal, including, but not limited to, any standard, line 32 ordinance, or policy described in paragraph (4) of subdivision (o). line 33 Nothing herein shall affect the obligation of the housing line 34 development project to comply with the minimum building line 35 standards approved by the California Building Standards line 36 Commission as provided in Part 2.5 (commencing with Section line 37 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code. In the event line 38 that applicable objective, quantifiable, written development line 39 standards, conditions, and policies are mutually inconsistent, a line 40 development shall be deemed consistent with the criteria that 97 AB 1621 — 14 —
Attachment 5

line 1 permits the density and unit type closest to that of the proposed line 2 project.
line 3 (g)  This section shall be applicable to charter cities because the line 4 Legislature finds that the lack of housing, including emergency line 5 shelter, is a critical statewide problem.
line 6 (h)  The following definitions apply for the purposes of this line 7 section:
line 8 (1)  “Feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a line 9 successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into line 10 account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors. line 11 (2)  “Housing development project” means a use consisting of line 12 any of the following:
line 13 (A)  Residential units only.
line 14 (B)  Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and line 15 nonresidential uses that meet any of the following conditions:
line 16 (i)  A mixed-use development that meets both of the following:
line 17 (I)  At least two-thirds of the new or converted square footage line 18 is designated for residential use.
line 19 (II)  (ia)  No portion of the project is designated for use as a line 20 hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging. line 21 (ib)  (Ia)  Notwithstanding sub-subclause (ia), if a mixed-use line 22 project as defined in this paragraph includes a hotel, motel, bed line 23 and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging, the portion of the line 24 mixed-use project which does not include a hotel, motel, bed and line 25 breakfast inn, or other transient lodging shall be considered a line 26 housing development project.
line 27 (Ib)  The local agency may separately approve the portion of the line 28 project that includes a hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other line 29 transient lodging, which shall not be eligible for any benefits line 30 conferred on a housing development project by state law, including, line 31 but not limited to, those available to a development under Section line 32 65913.4.
line 33 (ic)  For purposes of this subclause, the term “other transient line 34 lodging” does not include either of the following:
line 35 (Ia)  A residential hotel, as defined in Section 50519 of the Health line 36 and Safety Code.
line 37 (Ib)  After the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, a resident’s line 38 use or marketing of a unit as short-term lodging, as defined in line 39 Section 17568.8 of the Business and Professions Code, in a manner line 40 consistent with local law.
97 — 15 — AB 1621
Attachment 5

line 1 (ii)  At least 50 percent of the new or converted square footage line 2 is designated for residential use and the project meets both of the line 3 following:
line 4 (I)  The project includes at least 500 net new residential units. line 5 (II)  No portion of the project is designated for use as a hotel, line 6 motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging, except a line 7 portion of the project may be designated for use as a residential line 8 hotel, as defined in Section 50519 of the Health and Safety Code. line 9 (iii)  At least 50 percent of the net new or converted square line 10 footage is designated for residential use and the project meets all line 11 of the following:
line 12 (I)  The project includes at least 500 net new residential units. line 13 (II)  The project involves the demolition or conversion of at least line 14 100,000 square feet of nonresidential use.
line 15 (III)  The project demolishes at least 50 percent of the existing line 16 nonresidential uses on the site.
line 17 (IV)  No portion of the project is designated for use as a hotel, line 18 motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging, except a line 19 portion of the project may be designated for use as a residential line 20 hotel, as defined in Section 50519 of the Health and Safety Code. line 21 (C)  Transitional housing or supportive housing. line 22 (D)  Farmworker housing, as defined in subdivision (h) of line 23 Section 50199.7 of the Health and Safety Code.
line 24 (3)  (A)  “Housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income line 25 households” means housing for lower income households, line 26 mixed-income households, or moderate-income households. line 27 (B)  “Housing for lower income households” means a housing line 28 development project in which 100 percent of the units, excluding line 29 managers’ units, are dedicated to lower income households, as line 30 defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, at an line 31 affordable cost, as defined by Section 50052.5 of the Health and line 32 Safety Code, or an affordable rent set in an amount consistent with line 33 the rent limits established by the California Tax Credit Allocation line 34 Committee. The units shall be subject to a recorded deed restriction line 35 for a period of 55 years for rental units and 45 years for line 36 owner-occupied units.
line 37 (C)  (i)  “Housing for mixed-income households” means any of line 38 the following:
line 39 (I)  A housing development project in which at least 7 percent line 40 of the total units, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (9) 97 AB 1621 — 16 —
Attachment 5

line 1 of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, are dedicated to extremely line 2 low income households, as defined in Section 50106 of the Health line 3 and Safety Code.
line 4 (II)  A housing development project in which at least 10 percent line 5 of the total units, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (9) line 6 of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, are dedicated to very low line 7 income households, as defined in Section 50105 of the Health and line 8 Safety Code.
line 9 (III)  A housing development project in which at least 13 percent line 10 of the total units, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (9) line 11 of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, are dedicated to lower income line 12 households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety line 13 Code.
line 14 (IV)  A housing development project in which there are 10 or line 15 fewer total units, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (9) line 16 of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, that is on a site that is smaller line 17 than one acre, and that is proposed for development at a minimum line 18 density of 10 units per acre.
line 19 (ii)  All units dedicated to extremely low income, very low line 20 income, and low-income households pursuant to clause (i) shall line 21 meet both of the following:
line 22 (I)  The units shall have an affordable housing cost, as defined line 23 in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or an affordable line 24 rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code. line 25 (II)  The development proponent shall agree to, and the local line 26 agency shall ensure, the continued affordability of all affordable line 27 rental units included pursuant to this section for 55 years and all line 28 affordable ownership units included pursuant to this section for a line 29 period of 45 years.
line 30 (D)  “Housing for moderate-income households” means a line 31 housing development project in which 100 percent of the units are line 32 sold or rented to moderate-income households, as defined in line 33 Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, at an affordable line 34 housing cost, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and line 35 Safety Code, or an affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of line 36 the Health and Safety Code. The units shall be subject to a recorded line 37 deed restriction for a period of 55 years for rental units and 45 line 38 years for owner-occupied units.
line 39 (4)  “Area median income” means area median income as line 40 periodically established by the Department of Housing and 97 — 17 — AB 1621
Attachment 5

line 1 Community Development pursuant to Section 50093 of the Health line 2 and Safety Code.
line 3 (5)  Notwithstanding any other law, “deemed complete” means line 4 that the applicant has submitted a preliminary application pursuant line 5 to Section 65941.1 or, if the applicant has not submitted a line 6 preliminary application, has submitted a complete application line 7 pursuant to Section 65943. The local agency shall bear the burden line 8 of proof in establishing that the application is not complete. line 9 (6)  “Disapprove the housing development project” includes any line 10 instance in which a local agency does any of the following:
line 11 (A)  Votes or takes final administrative action on a proposed line 12 housing development project application and the application is line 13 disapproved, including any required land use approvals or line 14 entitlements necessary for the issuance of a building permit. line 15 (B)  Fails to comply with the time periods specified in line 16 subdivision (a) of Section 65950. An extension of time pursuant line 17 to Article 5 (commencing with Section 65950) of Chapter 4.5 shall line 18 be deemed to be an extension of time pursuant to this paragraph. line 19 (C)  Fails to comply with subdivisions (b) to (e), inclusive, of line 20 Section 65913.3.
line 21 (D)  Fails to meet the time limit specified in Section 17970.3 of line 22 the Health and Safety Code.
line 23 (E)  Fails to cease a course of conduct undertaken for an line 24 improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay line 25 or needless increases in the cost of the proposed housing line 26 development project, that effectively disapproves the proposed line 27 housing development without taking final administrative action if line 28 all of the following conditions are met:
line 29 (i)  The project applicant provides written notice detailing the line 30 challenged conduct and why it constitutes disapproval to the local line 31 agency established under Section 65100.
line 32 (ii)  Within five working days of receiving the applicant’s written line 33 notice described in clause (i), the local agency shall post the notice line 34 on the local agency’s internet website, provide a copy of the notice line 35 to any person who has made a written request for notices pursuant line 36 to subdivision (f) of Section 21167 of the Public Resources Code, line 37 and file the notice with the county clerk of each county in which line 38 the project will be located. The county clerk shall post the notice line 39 and make it available for public inspection in the manner set forth line 40 in subdivision (c) of Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code. 97 AB 1621 — 18 —
Attachment 5

line 1 (iii)  The local agency shall consider all objections, comments, line 2 evidence, and concerns about the project or the applicant’s written line 3 notice and shall not make a determination until at least 60 days line 4 after the applicant has given written notice to the local agency line 5 pursuant to clause (i).
line 6 (iv)  Within 90 days of receipt of the applicant’s written notice line 7 described in clause (i), the local agency shall issue a written line 8 statement that it will immediately cease the challenged conduct or line 9 issue written findings that comply with both of the following line 10 requirements:
line 11 (I)  The findings articulate an objective basis for why the line 12 challenged course of conduct is necessary.
line 13 (II)  The findings provide clear instructions on what the applicant line 14 must submit or supplement so that the local agency can make a line 15 final determination regarding the next necessary approval or set line 16 the date and time of the next hearing.
line 17 (v)  (I)  If a local agency continues the challenged course of line 18 conduct described in the applicant’s written notice and fails to line 19 issue the written findings described in clause (iv), the local agency line 20 shall bear the burden of establishing that its course of conduct does line 21 not constitute a disapproval of the housing development project line 22 under this subparagraph in an action taken by the applicant. line 23 (II)  If an applicant challenges a local agency’s course of conduct line 24 as a disapproval under this subparagraph, the local agency’s written line 25 findings described in clause (iv) shall be incorporated into the line 26 administrative record and be deemed to be the final administrative line 27 action for purposes of adjudicating whether the local agency’s line 28 course of conduct constitutes a disapproval of the housing line 29 development project under this subparagraph.
line 30 (vi)  A local agency’s action in furtherance of complying with line 31 the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 line 32 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code), line 33 including, but not limited to, imposing mitigating measures, shall line 34 not constitute project disapproval under this subparagraph. line 35 (F)  Fails to comply with Section 65905.5. For purposes of this line 36 subparagraph, a builder’s remedy project shall be deemed to line 37 comply with the applicable, objective general plan and zoning line 38 standards in effect at the time an application is deemed complete. line 39 (G)  (i)  Determines that an application for a housing line 40 development project is incomplete pursuant to subdivision (a) or 97 — 19 — AB 1621
Attachment 5

line 1 (b) of Section 65943 and includes in the determination an item line 2 that is not required on the local agency’s submittal requirement line 3 checklist. The local agency shall bear the burden of proof that the line 4 required item is listed on the submittal requirement checklist. line 5 (ii)  In a subsequent review of an application pursuant to Section line 6 65943, requests the applicant provide new information that was line 7 not identified in the initial determination and upholds this line 8 determination in the final written determination on an appeal filed line 9 pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 65943. The local agency line 10 shall bear the burden of proof that the required item was identified line 11 in the initial determination.
line 12 (iii)  Determines that an application for a housing development line 13 project is incomplete pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) of Section line 14 65943, a reasonable person would conclude that the applicant has line 15 submitted all of the items required on the local agency’s submittal line 16 requirement checklist, and the local agency upholds this line 17 determination in the final written determination on an appeal filed line 18 pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 65943.
line 19 (iv)  If a local agency determines that an application is line 20 incomplete under Section 65943 after two resubmittals of the line 21 application by the applicant, the local agency shall bear the burden line 22 of establishing that the determination is not an effective disapproval line 23 of a housing development project under this section. line 24 (H)  Violates subparagraph (D) or (E) of paragraph (6) of line 25 subdivision (f).
line 26 (I)  Makes a written determination that a preliminary application line 27 described in subdivision (a) of Section 65941.1 has expired or that line 28 the applicant has otherwise lost its vested rights under the line 29 preliminary application for any reason other than those described line 30 in subdivisions (d) and (e) of Section 65941.1. line 31 (J)  (i)  Fails to make a determination of whether the project is line 32 exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Division line 33 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources line 34 Code), or commits an abuse of discretion, as defined in subdivision line 35 (b) of Section 65589.5.1 if all of the conditions in Section line 36 65589.5.1 are satisfied.
line 37 (ii)  This subparagraph shall become inoperative on January 1, line 38 2031.
line 39 (K)  (i)  Fails to adopt a negative declaration or addendum for line 40 the project, to certify an environmental impact report for the 97 AB 1621 — 20 —
Attachment 5

line 1 project, or to approve another comparable environmental document, line 2 such as a sustainable communities environmental assessment line 3 pursuant to Section 21155.2 of the Public Resources Code, as line 4 required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act line 5 (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public line 6 Resources Code), if all of the conditions in Section 65589.5.2 are line 7 satisfied.
line 8 (ii)  This subparagraph shall become inoperative on January 1, line 9 2031.
line 10 (7)  (A)  For purposes of this section and Sections 65589.5.1 and line 11 65589.5.2, “lawful determination” means any final decision about line 12 whether to approve or disapprove a statutory or categorical line 13 exemption or a negative declaration, addendum, environmental line 14 impact report, or comparable environmental review document line 15 under the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 line 16 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) line 17 that is not an abuse of discretion, as defined in subdivision (b) of line 18 Section 65589.5.1 or subdivision (b) of Section 65589.5.2. line 19 (B)  This paragraph shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. line 20 (8)  “Lower density” includes any conditions that have the same line 21 effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing. line 22 (9)  “Objective” means involving no personal or subjective line 23 judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by line 24 reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion line 25 available and knowable by both the development applicant or line 26 proponent and the public official.
line 27 (10)  Notwithstanding any other law, “determined to be line 28 complete” means that the applicant has submitted a complete line 29 application pursuant to Section 65943.
line 30 (11)  “Builder’s remedy project” means a project that meets all line 31 of the following criteria:
line 32 (A)  The project is a housing development project that provides line 33 housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households. line 34 (B)  On or after the date an application for the housing line 35 development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, line 36 the jurisdiction did not have a housing element that was in line 37 substantial compliance with this article.
line 38 (C)  The project has a density such that the number of units, as line 39 calculated before the application of a density bonus pursuant to line 40 Section 65915, complies with all of the following conditions:
97 — 21 — AB 1621
Attachment 5

line 1 (i)  The density does not exceed the greatest of the following line 2 densities:
line 3 (I)  Fifty percent greater than the minimum density deemed line 4 appropriate to accommodate housing for that jurisdiction as line 5 specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) line 6 of Section 65583.2.
line 7 (II)  Three times the density allowed by the general plan, zoning line 8 ordinance, or state law, whichever is greater.
line 9 (III)  The density that is consistent with the density specified in line 10 the housing element.
line 11 (ii)  Notwithstanding clause (i), the greatest allowable density line 12 shall be 35 units per acre more than the amount allowable pursuant line 13 to clause (i), if any portion of the site is located within any of the line 14 following:
line 15 (I)  One-half mile of a major transit stop, as defined in Section line 16 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code.
line 17 (II)  A very low vehicle travel area, as defined in subdivision line 18 (b) of Section 65589.5.1.
line 19 (III)  A high or highest resource census tract, as identified by line 20 the latest edition of the “CTCAC/HCD Opportunity Map” line 21 published by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and line 22 the Department of Housing and Community Development. line 23 (D)  (i)  On sites that have a minimum density requirement and line 24 are located within one-half mile of a commuter rail station or a line 25 heavy rail station, the density of the project shall not be less than line 26 the minimum density required on the site.
line 27 (I)  For purposes of this subparagraph, “commuter rail” means line 28 a railway that is not a light rail, streetcar, trolley, or tramway and line 29 that is for urban passenger train service consisting of local short line 30 distance travel operating between a central city and adjacent suburb line 31 with service operated on a regular basis by or under contract with line 32 a transit operator for the purpose of transporting passengers within line 33 urbanized areas, or between urbanized areas and outlying areas, line 34 using either locomotive-hauled or self-propelled railroad passenger line 35 cars, with multitrip tickets and specific station-to-station fares. line 36 (II)  For purposes of this subparagraph, “heavy rail” means an line 37 electric railway with the capacity for a heavy volume of traffic line 38 using high speed and rapid acceleration passenger rail cars line 39 operating singly or in multicar trains on fixed rails, separate 97 AB 1621 — 22 —
Attachment 5

line 1 rights-of-way from which all other vehicular and foot traffic are line 2 excluded, and high platform loading.
line 3 (ii)  On all other sites with a minimum density requirement, the line 4 density of the project shall not be less than the local agency’s line 5 minimum density or one-half of the minimum density deemed line 6 appropriate to accommodate housing for that jurisdiction as line 7 specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) line 8 of Section 65583.2, whichever is lower.
line 9 (E)  The project site does not abut a site where more than line 10 one-third of the square footage on the site has been used, within line 11 the past three years, by a heavy industrial use, or a Title V line 12 industrial use, as those terms are defined in Section 65913.16. line 13 (12)  “Condition approval” includes imposing on the housing line 14 development project, or attempting to subject it to, development line 15 standards, conditions, or policies.
line 16 (13)  “Unit type” means the form of ownership and the kind of line 17 residential unit, including, but not limited to, single-family line 18 detached, single-family attached, for-sale, rental, multifamily, line 19 townhouse, condominium, apartment, manufactured homes and line 20 mobilehomes, factory-built housing, and residential hotel. line 21 (14)  “Proposed by the applicant” means the plans and designs line 22 as submitted by the applicant, including, but not limited to, density, line 23 unit size, unit type, site plan, building massing, floor area ratio, line 24 amenity areas, open space, parking, and ancillary commercial uses. line 25 (i)  If any city, county, or city and county denies approval or line 26 imposes conditions, including design changes, lower density, or line 27 a reduction of the percentage of a lot that may be occupied by a line 28 building or structure under the applicable planning and zoning in line 29 force at the time the housing development project’s application is line 30 complete, that have a substantial adverse effect on the viability or line 31 affordability of a housing development for very low, low-, or line 32 moderate-income households, and the denial of the development line 33 or the imposition of conditions on the development is the subject line 34 of a court action which challenges the denial or the imposition of line 35 conditions, then the burden of proof shall be on the local legislative line 36 body to show that its decision is consistent with the findings as line 37 described in subdivision (d), and that the findings are supported line 38 by a preponderance of the evidence in the record, and with the line 39 requirements of subdivision (o).
97 — 23 — AB 1621
Attachment 5

line 1 (j)  (1)  When a proposed housing development project complies line 2 with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision line 3 standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect line 4 at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local line 5 agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition line 6 that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency line 7 shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development line 8 project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the line 9 evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:
line 10 (A)  The housing development project would have a specific, line 11 adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project line 12 is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be line 13 developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, line 14 adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and line 15 unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public line 16 health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed line 17 on the date the application was deemed complete. line 18 (B)  There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or line 19 avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other line 20 than the disapproval of the housing development project or the line 21 approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at line 22 a lower density.
line 23 (2)  (A)  If the local agency considers a proposed housing line 24 development project to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not line 25 in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, line 26 standard, requirement, or other similar provision as specified in line 27 this subdivision, it shall provide the applicant with written line 28 documentation identifying the provision or provisions, and an line 29 explanation of the reason or reasons it considers the housing line 30 development to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in line 31 conformity as follows:
line 32 (i)  Within 30 days of the date that the application for the housing line 33 development project is determined to be complete, if the housing line 34 development project contains 150 or fewer housing units. line 35 (ii)  Within 60 days of the date that the application for the line 36 housing development project is determined to be complete, if the line 37 housing development project contains more than 150 units. line 38 (B)  If the local agency fails to provide the required line 39 documentation pursuant to subparagraph (A), the housing line 40 development project shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and 97 AB 1621 — 24 —
Attachment 5

line 1 in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, line 2 standard, requirement, or other similar provision. line 3 (3)  For purposes of this section, the receipt of a density bonus, line 4 incentive, concession, waiver, or reduction of development line 5 standards pursuant to Section 65915 shall not constitute a valid line 6 basis on which to find a proposed housing development project is line 7 inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, with an line 8 applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, line 9 or other similar provision specified in this subdivision. line 10 (4)  For purposes of this section, a proposed housing development line 11 project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning standards line 12 and criteria, and shall not require a rezoning, if the housing line 13 development project is consistent with the objective general plan line 14 standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is line 15 inconsistent with the general plan. If the local agency has complied line 16 with paragraph (2), the local agency may require the proposed line 17 housing development project to comply with the objective line 18 standards and criteria of the zoning which is consistent with the line 19 general plan, however, the standards and criteria shall be applied line 20 to facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed line 21 on the site by the general plan and proposed by the proposed line 22 housing development project.
line 23 (k)  (1)  (A)  (i)  The applicant, a person who would be eligible line 24 to apply for residency in the housing development project or line 25 emergency shelter, or a housing organization may bring an action line 26 to enforce this section. If, in any action brought to enforce this line 27 section, a court finds that any of the following are met, the court line 28 shall issue an order pursuant to clause (ii):
line 29 (I)  The local agency, in violation of subdivision (d), disapproved line 30 a housing development project or conditioned its approval in a line 31 manner rendering it infeasible for the development of an emergency line 32 shelter, or housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income line 33 households, including farmworker housing, without making the line 34 findings required by this section.
line 35 (II)  The local agency, in violation of subdivision (j), disapproved line 36 a housing development project complying with applicable, line 37 objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, or imposed line 38 a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, without line 39 making the findings required by this section.
97 — 25 — AB 1621
Attachment 5

line 1 (III)  The local agency, in violation of subdivision (o), required line 2 or attempted to require a housing development project to comply line 3 with an ordinance, policy, or standard not adopted and in effect line 4 when a preliminary application was submitted.
line 5 (IV)  The local agency violated a provision of this section line 6 applicable to a builder’s remedy project.
line 7 (ii)  If the court finds that one of the conditions in clause (i) is line 8 met, the court shall issue an order or judgment compelling line 9 compliance with this section within a time period not to exceed line 10 60 days, including, but not limited to, an order that the local agency line 11 take action on the housing development project or emergency line 12 shelter. The court may issue an order or judgment directing the line 13 local agency to approve the housing development project or line 14 emergency shelter if the court finds that the local agency acted in line 15 bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the line 16 housing development or emergency shelter in violation of this line 17 section. The court shall retain jurisdiction to ensure that its order line 18 or judgment is carried out and shall award reasonable attorney’s line 19 fees and costs of suit to the plaintiff or petitioner, provided, line 20 however, that the court shall not award attorney’s fees in either of line 21 the following instances:
line 22 (I)  The court finds, under extraordinary circumstances, that line 23 awarding fees would not further the purposes of this section. line 24 (II)  (ia)  In a case concerning a disapproval within the meaning line 25 of subparagraph (J) or (K) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (h), the line 26 court finds that the local agency acted in good faith and had line 27 reasonable cause to disapprove the housing development project line 28 due to the existence of a controlling question of law about the line 29 application of the California Environmental Quality Act (Division line 30 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources line 31 Code) or implementing guidelines as to which there was a line 32 substantial ground for difference of opinion at the time of the line 33 disapproval.
line 34 (ib)  This subclause shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. line 35 (B)  Upon a determination that the local agency has failed to line 36 comply with the order or judgment compelling compliance with line 37 this section within the time period prescribed by the court, the line 38 court shall impose fines on a local agency that has violated this line 39 section and require the local agency to deposit any fine levied line 40 pursuant to this subdivision into a local housing trust fund. The 97 AB 1621 — 26 —
Attachment 5

line 1 local agency may elect to instead deposit the fine into the Building line 2 Homes and Jobs Trust Fund. The fine shall be in a minimum line 3 amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per housing unit in the line 4 housing development project on the date the application was line 5 deemed complete pursuant to Section 65943. In determining the line 6 amount of the fine to impose, the court shall consider the local line 7 agency’s progress in attaining its target allocation of the regional line 8 housing need pursuant to Section 65584 and any prior violations line 9 of this section. Fines shall not be paid out of funds already line 10 dedicated to affordable housing, including, but not limited to, Low line 11 and Moderate Income Housing Asset Funds, funds dedicated to line 12 housing for very low, low-, and moderate-income households, and line 13 federal HOME Investment Partnerships Program and Community line 14 Development Block Grant Program funds. The local agency shall line 15 commit and expend the money in the local housing trust fund line 16 within five years for the sole purpose of financing newly line 17 constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, line 18 or low-income households. After five years, if the funds have not line 19 been expended, the money shall revert to the state and be deposited line 20 in the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund for the sole purpose line 21 of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to line 22 extremely low, very low, or low-income households. line 23 (C)  If the court determines that its order or judgment has not line 24 been carried out within 60 days, the court may issue further orders line 25 as provided by law to ensure that the purposes and policies of this line 26 section are fulfilled, including, but not limited to, an order to vacate line 27 the decision of the local agency and to approve the housing line 28 development project, in which case the application for the housing line 29 development project, as proposed by the applicant at the time the line 30 local agency took the initial action determined to be in violation line 31 of this section, along with any standard conditions determined by line 32 the court to be generally imposed by the local agency on similar line 33 projects, shall be deemed to be approved unless the applicant line 34 consents to a different decision or action by the local agency. line 35 (D)  Nothing in this section shall limit the court’s inherent line 36 authority to make any other orders to compel the immediate line 37 enforcement of any writ brought under this section, including the line 38 imposition of fees and other sanctions set forth under Section 1097 line 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
97 — 27 — AB 1621
Attachment 5

line 1 (2)  For purposes of this subdivision, “housing organization” line 2 means a trade or industry group whose local members are primarily line 3 engaged in the construction or management of housing units or a line 4 nonprofit organization whose mission includes providing or line 5 advocating for increased access to housing for low-income line 6 households and have filed written or oral comments with the local line 7 agency prior to action on the housing development project. A line 8 housing organization may only file an action pursuant to this line 9 section to challenge the disapproval of a housing development by line 10 a local agency. A housing organization shall be entitled to line 11 reasonable attorney’s fees and costs if it is the prevailing party in line 12 an action to enforce this section.
line 13 (l)  If the court finds that the local agency (1) acted in bad faith line 14 when it violated this section and (2) failed to carry out the court’s line 15 order or judgment within the time period prescribed by the court, line 16 the court, in addition to any other remedies provided by this line 17 section, shall multiply the fine determined pursuant to subparagraph line 18 (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (k) by a factor of five. If a court line 19 has previously found that the local agency violated this section line 20 within the same planning period, the court shall multiply the fines line 21 by an additional factor for each previous violation. For purposes line 22 of this section, “bad faith” includes, but is not limited to, an action line 23 or inaction that is frivolous, pretextual, intended to cause line 24 unnecessary delay, or entirely without merit.
line 25 (m)  (1)  Any action brought to enforce the provisions of this line 26 section shall be brought pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code line 27 of Civil Procedure, and the local agency shall prepare and certify line 28 the record of proceedings in accordance with subdivision (c) of line 29 Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure no later than 30 line 30 days after the petition is served, provided that the cost of line 31 preparation of the record shall be borne by the local agency, unless line 32 the petitioner elects to prepare the record as provided in subdivision line 33 (n) of this section. A petition to enforce the provisions of this line 34 section shall be filed and served no later than 90 days from the line 35 later of (1) the effective date of a decision of the local agency line 36 imposing conditions on, disapproving, or any other final action on line 37 a housing development project or (2) the expiration of the time line 38 periods specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (6) of line 39 subdivision (h). Upon entry of the trial court’s order, a party may, line 40 in order to obtain appellate review of the order, file a petition 97 AB 1621 — 28 —
Attachment 5

line 1 within 20 days after service upon it of a written notice of the entry line 2 of the order, or within such further time not exceeding an additional line 3 20 days as the trial court may for good cause allow, or may appeal line 4 the judgment or order of the trial court under Section 904.1 of the line 5 Code of Civil Procedure. If the local agency appeals the judgment line 6 of the trial court, the local agency shall post a bond, in an amount line 7 to be determined by the court, to the benefit of the plaintiff if the line 8 plaintiff is the project applicant.
line 9 (2)  (A)  A disapproval within the meaning of subparagraph (J) line 10 of paragraph (6) of subdivision (h) shall be final for purposes of line 11 this subdivision, if the local agency did not make a lawful line 12 determination within the time period set forth in paragraph (5) of line 13 subdivision (a) of Section 65589.5.1 after the applicant’s timely line 14 written notice.
line 15 (B)  This paragraph shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. line 16 (3)  (A)  A disapproval within the meaning of subparagraph (K) line 17 of paragraph (6) of subdivision (h) shall be final for purposes of line 18 this subdivision, if the local agency did not make a lawful line 19 determination within 90 days of the applicant’s timely written line 20 notice.
line 21 (B)  This paragraph shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. line 22 (n)  In any action, the record of the proceedings before the local line 23 agency shall be filed as expeditiously as possible and, line 24 notwithstanding Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure or line 25 subdivision (m), all or part of the record may be prepared (1) by line 26 the petitioner with the petition or petitioner’s points and authorities, line 27 (2) by the respondent with respondent’s points and authorities, (3) line 28 after payment of costs by the petitioner, or (4) as otherwise directed line 29 by the court. If the expense of preparing the record has been borne line 30 by the petitioner and the petitioner is the prevailing party, the line 31 expense shall be taxable as costs.
line 32 (o)  (1)  Subject to paragraphs (2), (6), and (7), and subdivision line 33 (d) of Section 65941.1, a housing development project shall be line 34 subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and line 35 in effect when a preliminary application including all of the line 36 information required by subdivision (a) of Section 65941.1 was line 37 submitted.
line 38 (2)  Paragraph (1) shall not prohibit a housing development line 39 project from being subject to ordinances, policies, and standards 97 — 29 — AB 1621
Attachment 5

line 1 adopted after the preliminary application was submitted pursuant line 2 to Section 65941.1 in the following circumstances:
line 3 (A)  In the case of a fee, charge, or other monetary exaction, to line 4 an increase resulting from an automatic annual adjustment based line 5 on an independently published cost index that is referenced in the line 6 ordinance or resolution establishing the fee or other monetary line 7 exaction.
line 8 (B)  A preponderance of the evidence in the record establishes line 9 that subjecting the housing development project to an ordinance, line 10 policy, or standard beyond those in effect when a preliminary line 11 application was submitted is necessary to mitigate or avoid a line 12 specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, as defined line 13 in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (j), and there line 14 is no feasible alternative method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid line 15 the adverse impact.
line 16 (C)  Subjecting the housing development project to an ordinance, line 17 policy, standard, or any other measure, beyond those in effect when line 18 a preliminary application was submitted is necessary to avoid or line 19 substantially lessen an impact of the project under the California line 20 Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section line 21 21000) of the Public Resources Code).
line 22 (D)  The housing development project has not commenced line 23 construction within two and one-half years, or three and one-half line 24 years for an affordable housing project, following the date that the line 25 project received final approval. For purposes of this subparagraph:
line 26 (i)  “Affordable housing project” means a housing development line 27 that satisfies both of the following requirements:
line 28 (I)  Units within the development are subject to a recorded line 29 affordability restriction for at least 55 years for rental housing and line 30 45 years for owner-occupied housing, or the first purchaser of each line 31 unit participates in an equity sharing agreement as described in line 32 subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section line 33 65915.
line 34 (II)  All of the units within the development, excluding managers’ line 35 units, are dedicated to lower income households, as defined by line 36 Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
line 37 (ii)  “Final approval” means that the housing development project line 38 has received all necessary approvals to be eligible to apply for, line 39 and obtain, a building permit or permits and either of the following line 40 is met:
97 AB 1621 — 30 —
Attachment 5

line 1 (I)  The expiration of all applicable appeal periods, petition line 2 periods, reconsideration periods, or statute of limitations for line 3 challenging that final approval without an appeal, petition, request line 4 for reconsideration, or legal challenge having been filed. line 5 (II)  If a challenge is filed, that challenge is fully resolved or line 6 settled in favor of the housing development project. line 7 (E)  The housing development project is revised following line 8 submittal of a preliminary application pursuant to Section 65941.1 line 9 such that the number of residential units or square footage of line 10 construction changes by 20 percent or more, exclusive of any line 11 increase resulting from the receipt of a density bonus, incentive, line 12 concession, waiver, or similar provision, including any other locally line 13 authorized program that offers additional density or other line 14 development bonuses when affordable housing is provided. For line 15 purposes of this subdivision, “square footage of construction” line 16 means the building area, as defined by the California Building line 17 Standards Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations). line 18 (3)  This subdivision does not prevent a local agency from line 19 subjecting the additional units or square footage of construction line 20 that result from project revisions occurring after a preliminary line 21 application is submitted pursuant to Section 65941.1 to the line 22 ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when the line 23 preliminary application was submitted.
line 24 (4)  For purposes of this subdivision, “ordinances, policies, and line 25 standards” includes general plan, community plan, specific plan, line 26 zoning, design review standards and criteria, subdivision standards line 27 and criteria, and any other rules, regulations, requirements, and line 28 policies of a local agency, as defined in Section 66000, including line 29 those relating to development impact fees, capacity or connection line 30 fees or charges, permit or processing fees, and other exactions. line 31 (5)  This subdivision shall not be construed in a manner that line 32 would lessen the restrictions imposed on a local agency, or lessen line 33 the protections afforded to a housing development project, that are line 34 established by any other law, including any other part of this line 35 section.
line 36 (6)  This subdivision shall not restrict the authority of a public line 37 agency or local agency to require mitigation measures to lessen line 38 the impacts of a housing development project under the California line 39 Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section line 40 21000) of the Public Resources Code).
97 — 31 — AB 1621
Attachment 5

line 1 (7)  With respect to completed residential units for which the line 2 project approval process is complete and a certificate of occupancy line 3 has been issued, nothing in this subdivision shall limit the line 4 application of later enacted ordinances, policies, and standards line 5 that regulate the use and occupancy of those residential units, such line 6 as ordinances relating to rental housing inspection, rent line 7 stabilization, restrictions on short-term renting, and business line 8 licensing requirements for owners of rental housing. line 9 (p)  (1)  Upon any motion for an award of attorney’s fees line 10 pursuant to Section 1021.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in a line 11 case challenging a local agency’s approval of a housing line 12 development project, a court, in weighing whether a significant line 13 benefit has been conferred on the general public or a large class line 14 of persons and whether the necessity of private enforcement makes line 15 the award appropriate, shall give due weight to the degree to which line 16 the local agency’s approval furthers policies of this section, line 17 including, but not limited to, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), the line 18 suitability of the site for a housing development, and the line 19 reasonableness of the decision of the local agency. It is the intent line 20 of the Legislature that attorney’s fees and costs shall rarely, if ever, line 21 be awarded if a local agency, acting in good faith, approved a line 22 housing development project that satisfies conditions established line 23 in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 65589.5.1 line 24 or paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 65589.5.2. line 25 (2)  This subdivision shall become inoperative on January 1, line 26 2031.
line 27 (q)  This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the line 28 Housing Accountability Act.
line 29 (r)  The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision line 30 of this section or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall line 31 not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect line 32 without the invalid provision or application.
line 33 SEC. 2. Section 65913.3 of the Government Code is amended line 34 to read:
line 35 65913.3. (a)  (1)  A local agency or state agency shall compile line 36 one or more lists that shall specify in detail the information that line 37 will be required from any applicant for a postentitlement phase line 38 permit. The local agency or state agency may revise the lists of line 39 information required from an applicant. Any revised list shall not line 40 apply to any permit pending review.
97 AB 1621 — 32 —
Attachment 5

line 1 (2)  A local agency or state agency shall post an example of a line 2 complete, approved application and an example of a complete set line 3 of postentitlement phase permits. A local agency shall post line 4 examples for at least five types of housing development projects line 5 in the jurisdiction, including, but not limited to, accessory dwelling line 6 unit, duplex, multifamily, mixed use, and townhome. line 7 (3)  (A)  A local agency shall make the items required by line 8 paragraphs (1) and (2) available on the agency’s internet website line 9 no later than January 1, 2024.
line 10 (B)  A state agency shall make the items required by paragraphs line 11 (1) and (2) available on the agency’s internet website no later than line 12 January 1, 2026.
line 13 (b)  (1)  (A)  A local agency or state agency shall determine line 14 whether an application for a postentitlement phase permit is line 15 complete and provide written notice of this determination to the line 16 applicant not later than 15 business days after the local agency or line 17 state agency received the application.
line 18 (B)  If the local agency or state agency determines an application line 19 is incomplete, the local agency or state agency shall provide the line 20 applicant with a list of incomplete items and a description of how line 21 the application can be made complete. The list shall be limited to line 22 incomplete items that are included on the lists required by line 23 paragraph (1) of subdivision (a). The list and description shall be line 24 provided with the written notice required by subparagraph (A). line 25 (2)  (A)  After receiving a notice that the application was line 26 incomplete, an applicant may cure and address the items that are line 27 deemed to be incomplete by the local agency or state agency. line 28 (B)  In the review of an application submitted pursuant to line 29 subparagraph (A), the local agency or state agency shall not require line 30 the application to include an item that was not included in the list line 31 required by subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1).
line 32 (C)  If an applicant submits an application pursuant to line 33 subparagraph (A), the local agency or state agency shall determine line 34 whether the additional application has remedied all incomplete line 35 items listed in the determination issued pursuant to subparagraph line 36 (B) of paragraph (1). This additional application is subject to the line 37 timelines and requirements specified in subparagraph (A) of line 38 paragraph (1).
line 39 (3)  If a local agency or state agency does not make a timely line 40 determination as required by paragraph (1) or (2) and the 97 — 33 — AB 1621
Attachment 5

line 1 application or resubmitted application states that it is for a line 2 postentitlement phase permit, the application or resubmitted line 3 application shall be deemed to be complete for the purposes of line 4 this chapter.
line 5 (c)  (1)  (A)  For housing development projects with 25 units or line 6 fewer, a local agency or state agency shall complete the review line 7 and do either of the following:
line 8 (i)  If the local agency or state agency determines that the line 9 complete application is not compliant with the permit standards, line 10 return in writing a full set of comments to the applicant with a line 11 comprehensive request for revisions.
line 12 (ii)  If the local agency or state agency determines that the line 13 complete application is compliant with the permit standards, return line 14 the approved permit application on each postentitlement phase line 15 permit requested.
line 16 (B)  The local agency or state agency shall immediately transmit line 17 that determination to the applicant by electronic mail and, if line 18 applicable, by posting the response on its internet website in the line 19 manner prescribed in subdivision (b) of Section 65913.3.5 not later line 20 than 30 business days after the local agency or state agency line 21 determines that an application for a postentitlement phase permit line 22 is complete pursuant to subdivision (b).
line 23 (C)  (i)  As part of its review, the local agency or state agency line 24 shall not require or request more than two plan check and line 25 specification reviews in connection with an application for a line 26 building permit, unless the local agency’s or state agency’s line 27 requirement or request for additional review is accompanied by line 28 written findings based on substantial evidence in the record that line 29 the additional review is necessary to address a specific, adverse line 30 impact on public health or safety. permit.
line 31 (ii)  Notwithstanding clause (i), a local agency or state agency line 32 may deny an application that is not compliant with the permit line 33 standards following two plan check and specification reviews. line 34 (iii)  An applicant may request additional submittals of line 35 applications that are not compliant with the permit standards. line 36 (iv)  This subparagraph shall not be construed to affect the line 37 number of submittals that a local agency or state agency may line 38 require or request for any postentitlement phase permit other than line 39 a building permit.
97 AB 1621 — 34 —
Attachment 5

line 1 (2)  (A)  For housing development projects with 26 units or more, line 2 a local agency or state agency shall complete the review and do line 3 either of the following:
line 4 (i)  If the local agency or state agency determines that the line 5 complete application is not compliant with the permit standards, line 6 return in writing a full set of comments to the applicant with a line 7 comprehensive request for revisions.
line 8 (ii)  If the local agency or state agency determines that the line 9 complete application is compliant with the permit standards, return line 10 the approved permit application on each postentitlement phase line 11 permit requested.
line 12 (B)  The local agency or state agency shall immediately transmit line 13 that determination to the applicant by electronic mail and, if line 14 applicable, by posting the response on its internet website in the line 15 manner prescribed in subdivision (b) of Section 65913.3.5 not later line 16 than 60 business days after the local agency or state agency line 17 determines that an application for a postentitlement phase permit line 18 is complete pursuant to subdivision (b).
line 19 (C)  (i)  As part of its review, the local agency or state agency line 20 shall not require or request more than two plan check and line 21 specification reviews in connection with an application for a line 22 building permit, unless the local agency’s or state agency’s line 23 requirement or request for additional review is accompanied by line 24 written findings based on substantial evidence in the record that line 25 the additional review is necessary to address a specific, adverse line 26 impact on public health or safety. permit.
line 27 (ii)  Notwithstanding clause (i), a local agency or state agency line 28 may deny an application that is not compliant with the permit line 29 standards following two plan check and specification reviews. line 30 (iii)  An applicant may request additional submittals of line 31 applications that are not compliant with the permit standards. line 32 (iv)  This subparagraph shall not be construed to affect the line 33 number of submittals that a local agency or state agency may line 34 require or request for any postentitlement phase permit other than line 35 a building permit.
line 36 (3)  Once a local agency or state agency determines that a line 37 postentitlement phase permit is compliant with applicable permit line 38 standards pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2), the local agency or state line 39 agency shall not subject the postentitlement phase permit to any line 40 appeals or additional hearing requirements.
97 — 35 — AB 1621
Attachment 5

line 1 (4)  The time limits in this subdivision shall not apply if the local line 2 agency or state agency makes written findings within the time line 3 limits specified in paragraph (1) or (2) based on substantial line 4 evidence in the record that the proposed postentitlement phase line 5 permit might have a specific, adverse impact on public health or line 6 safety and that additional time is necessary to process the line 7 application.
line 8 (5)  (A)  If federal or state law requires review of the application line 9 by another public agency that is independent of the local agency line 10 or state agency before the local agency or state agency is authorized line 11 to act on the application, the time limits in this subdivision shall line 12 be tolled for the application until the public agency completes the line 13 review and returns the application to the local agency or state line 14 agency.
line 15 (B)  After the public agency returns the application to the local line 16 agency or state agency, the local agency or state agency shall line 17 complete the review within the time remaining under the time line 18 limit, subject to subparagraph (C).
line 19 (C)  Within three business days of the start of the tolling and line 20 within three business days of the resumption of the time limit, the line 21 local agency or state agency shall notify the applicant of the tolling line 22 and the resumption of the time limit, respectively, by electronic line 23 mail and, if applicable, by posting the notification on its internet line 24 website in the manner prescribed in subdivision (b) of Section line 25 65913.3.5.
line 26 (d)  (1)  If a local agency or state agency finds that a complete line 27 application is noncompliant, the local agency or state agency shall line 28 provide the applicant with a list of items that are noncompliant line 29 and a description of how the application can be remedied by the line 30 applicant within the time limits specified in subdivision (c). line 31 (2)  The local agency or state agency shall provide the list and line 32 description authorized by paragraph (1) when it transmits its line 33 determination to the applicant as required by subdivision (c). line 34 (3)  If a local agency or state agency denies a postentitlement line 35 phase permit application based on a determination that the line 36 application is noncompliant, the applicant may attempt to remedy line 37 the application.
line 38 (4)  If an applicant submits an application pursuant to paragraph line 39 (3), the additional application is subject to the timelines of a new line 40 application as specified in subdivision (c).
97 AB 1621 — 36 —
Attachment 5

line 1 (5)  The local agency or state agency shall not request or require line 2 any action or inaction as a result of a building inspection line 3 undertaken to assess compliance with the applicable building line 4 permit standards that would represent a deviation from a previously line 5 approved building plan or similar approval for the building permit, line 6 unless the local agency’s or state agency’s requirement or request line 7 is accompanied by written findings based on substantial evidence line 8 in the record that both either of the following apply:
line 9 (A)  A reasonable person could not interpret the building plan line 10 or similar approval that was approved by the local agency or state line 11 agency as being compliant with the applicable standards for the line 12 building permit.
line 13 (B)  The deviation is necessary to address a specific, adverse line 14 impact on public health or safety.
line 15 (e)  (1)  If a postentitlement phase permit is determined to be line 16 incomplete under subdivision (b) or denied or determined to be line 17 noncompliant under subdivision (c) or (d), the local agency or state line 18 agency shall provide a process for the applicant to appeal that line 19 decision in writing to the governing body of the agency. line 20 (2)  (A)  With respect to a postentitlement phase permit line 21 concerning housing development projects with 25 units or fewer, line 22 a local agency or state agency on the appeal shall provide a final line 23 written determination by not later than 30 business days after line 24 receipt of the applicant’s written appeal.
line 25 (B)  With respect to a postentitlement phase permit concerning line 26 housing development projects with 26 units or more, a local agency line 27 or state agency on the appeal shall provide a final written line 28 determination by not later than 45 business days after receipt of line 29 the applicant’s written appeal.
line 30 (3)  If the applicant’s appeal pursuant to this subdivision is line 31 denied, or a decision on the appeal is not made within the timelines line 32 provided, or an appeals process is not provided as required, the line 33 applicant may seek a writ of mandate to compel approval of the line 34 application.
line 35 (f)  If a local agency violates subdivisions (b) to (e), inclusive, line 36 it shall be in violation of Section 65589.5.
line 37 (g)  If a state agency violates subdivisions (b) to (e), inclusive, line 38 the permit shall be deemed approved and any related reviews shall line 39 be deemed complete.
97 — 37 — AB 1621
Attachment 5

line 1 (h)  Except as provided in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of, line 2 and subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of, subdivision (c), this line 3 section does not place limitations on the amount of feedback that line 4 a local agency or state agency may provide or revisions that a local line 5 agency or state agency may request of an applicant. line 6 (i)  For residential or residential mixed-use developments that line 7 are subject to the requirements set forth in Section 65913.4, the line 8 provisions of paragraph (2) of subdivision (h) of Section 65913.4 line 9 shall apply. Permits for these developments that are subject to line 10 paragraph (2) of subdivision (h) of Section 65913.4 shall not be line 11 in conflict with the requirements of this section. The local agency line 12 or state agency shall comply with both sets of standards. line 13 (j)  This section does not preclude an applicant and a local agency line 14 or state agency from mutually agreeing to an extension of any time line 15 limit provided by this section. However, a local agency or state line 16 agency shall not require an agreement as a condition of accepting line 17 the application for, or processing of, a postentitlement phase permit, line 18 unless the agreement is obtained for the purpose of permitting line 19 concurrent processing of related approvals or an environmental line 20 review on the same housing development project. line 21 (k)  For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
line 22 (1)  “Housing development project” has the same meaning as in line 23 paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 65905.5. line 24 (2)  “Local agency” means any county, city, or city and county. line 25 (3)  (A)  “Postentitlement phase permit” includes all of the line 26 following:
line 27 (i)  All nondiscretionary permits and reviews that are required line 28 or issued by the local agency after the entitlement process has been line 29 completed to begin construction of a development that is intended line 30 to be at least two-thirds residential, excluding discretionary and line 31 ministerial planning permits, entitlements, and other permits and line 32 reviews that are covered under Chapter 4.5 (commencing with line 33 Section 65920). A postentitlement phase permit includes, but is line 34 not limited to, all of the following:
line 35 (I)  Building permits, and all interdepartmental reviews required line 36 for the issuance of a building permit, including plan checking and line 37 building inspection.
line 38 (II)  Permits for minor or standard offsite improvements. line 39 (III)  Permits for demolition.
line 40 (IV)  Permits for minor or standard excavation and grading. 97 AB 1621 — 38 —
Attachment 5

line 1 (ii)  All building permits and other permits issued under the line 2 California Building Standards Code (Title 24 of the California line 3 Code of Regulations) or any applicable local building code for the line 4 construction, demolition, or alteration of buildings, whether line 5 discretionary or nondiscretionary.
line 6 (iii)  (I)  Except as provided in subclause (II), any postentitlement line 7 review by a state agency that is necessary to begin construction of line 8 a development that is intended to be at least two-thirds residential, line 9 excluding discretionary and ministerial planning permits, line 10 entitlements, and other permits and reviews that are covered under line 11 Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 65920).
line 12 (II)  Notwithstanding subclause (I), a postentitlement phase line 13 permit does not include either of the following:
line 14 (ia)  A permit issued by a state agency acting pursuant to line 15 delegated federal permitting or enforcement authority under the line 16 federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. Sec. 1251 et seq.) or the federal line 17 Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 300f et seq.). line 18 (ib)  A permit authorizing discharges of waste to waters of the line 19 state.
line 20 (B)  A local agency or state agency may identify a threshold for line 21 determining whether a permit constitutes a “minor” or “standard” line 22 permit for the purposes of this paragraph, which shall be supported line 23 by written findings. A local agency that identifies a threshold line 24 pursuant to this subparagraph shall adopt the threshold by line 25 ordinance.
line 26 (C)  A postentitlement phase permit does not include a permit line 27 required and issued by the California Coastal Commission, a line 28 special district, or a utility that is not owned and operated by a line 29 local agency.
line 30 (4)  “Specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, line 31 direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified, and line 32 written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions line 33 as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. line 34 (5)  “State agency” has the same meaning as that term is defined line 35 in Section 11000.
line 36 SEC. 3. The amendments of subclause (I) of clause (i) of line 37 subparagraph (A) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (k) of Section line 38 65913.3 of the Government Code made by this act do not constitute line 39 a change in, but are declaratory of, existing law. 97 — 39 — AB 1621
Attachment 5

line 1 SEC. 4. The Legislature finds and declares that Section 2 of line 2 this act amending Section 65913.3 of the Government Code line 3 addresses a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal line 4 affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the line 5 California Constitution. Therefore, Section 2 of this act applies to line 6 all cities, including charter cities.
line 7 SEC. 5. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to line 8 Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because line 9 a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service line 10 charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or line 11 level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section line 12 17556 of the Government Code.

O
97 AB 1621 — 40 —
Attachment 5

17575 Peak Avenue
Morgan Hill, CA 95037-4128
TEL: (408) 779-7271
FAX: (408) 779-3117
www.morganhill.ca.gov
June 24, 2026
The Honorable Sharon Quirk-Silva
Member, California State Assembly
1021 O St., Room 4210
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 1751 (Quirk-Silva) Missing Middle Townhome Ownership Act.

Notice of OPPOSITION (As of 5/18/26)
Dear Honorable Sharon Quirk-Silva,
The City of Morgan Hill respectfully opposes AB 1751 (Quirk-Silva), which would require local agencies to ministerially approve both the application for a townhome development project and the parcel map or tentative and final map in multifamily residential zones or underutilized single-family zones.

The City of Morgan Hill supports efforts to increase housing production and expand homeownership opportunities. However, AB 1751 would bypass important local review processes that help ensure new subdivisions are supported by adequate infrastructure, public services, and orderly development. Under the Subdivision Map Act, local agencies review and approve proposed subdivisions, including parcel maps for four or fewer parcels and tentative and final maps for subdivisions of five or more parcels. This process is essential to ensure that new housing can be served by roads, utilities, water, sewer, emergency response, and other local services. This is especially concerning for the City of Morgan Hill as residential development is now allowed in areas never anticipated for this sort of growth.

AB 1751 bypasses the state-mandated local planning effort and forces cities to approve all maps for a townhome development project, even if it would exceed the residential capacity and infrastructure assumptions evaluated and certified by the state, creating potential unintended consequences for infrastructure and public services. AB 1751 disregards state-approved housing plans and zoning requirements, despite the multi-year effort to identify sites suitable for new housing development in coordination with smart residential growth.

Additionally, the measure may require a city to approve a townhome development at a lower density than the amount of planned density in that multifamily zone. Specifically, AB 1751 allows projects that are three stories or fewer and meet at least 75 percent of the state’s minimum density standards to qualify for by-right approval. In jurisdictions that planned for higher densities on specific sites, this could result in fewer units being built than planned for, requiring cities to identify additional sites to remain compliant with state Housing Element Law and “no net loss” requirements. In jurisdictions like Morgan Hill, building townhome products at even lower densities could result in reduced ability to adequately develop the limited land the City has available for residential development.

For these reasons, the City of Morgan Hill respectfully opposes AB 1751 (Quirk-Silva).

Attachment 6

Sincerely,
Mark Turner
Mayor
cc: Assemblymember Gail Pellerin
Senator Dave Cortese
Montana Cruz, Regional Public Affairs Manager, League of California Cities, [email protected] Meg Desmond, League of California Cities, [email protected] Attachment 6

AMENDED IN SENATE JULY 2, 2026
AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 29, 2026
AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 17, 2026
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 18, 2026
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 20, 2026
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 16, 2026
california legislature—2025–26 regular session
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 1751
Introduced by Assembly Members Quirk-Silva and Wicks
February 9, 2026
An act to add Section 65852.29 to, and to add Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 66499.45) to Division 2 of Title 7 of, the Government Code, relating to housing.
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 1751, as amended, Quirk-Silva. Missing Middle Townhome Ownership Act.

Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, contains various provisions requiring a local government that receives an application for certain types of qualified housing developments to review the application under a streamlined, ministerial approval process, depending on the type of housing development, as specified. Existing law, the Subdivision Map Act, vests the authority to regulate and control the design and improvement of subdivisions in the legislative body of a local agency and sets forth procedures governing the local agency’s processing, approval, conditional approval or disapproval, and filing of tentative,

93 Attachment 7

final, and parcel maps, and the modification thereof. The act generally requires a subdivider to file a tentative map or vesting tentative map with the local agency, as specified, and the local agency, in turn, to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the map within a specified time period. Existing law, known as the Starter Home Revitalization Act of 2021, among other things, requires a local agency to ministerially consider, without discretionary review or a hearing, a parcel map or a tentative and final map for a housing development project that meets certain requirements, including that the housing development project on the lot proposed to be subdivided will contain 10 or fewer residential units, except as provided.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA does not apply to the approval of ministerial projects.

This bill, the Missing Middle Townhome Ownership Act, would authorize a development proponent to submit an application for a townhome housing development project that is subject to a prescribed ministerial approval process if the development complies with certain procedural requirements and satisfies specified objective planning standards. The bill would also require a local agency to ministerially consider, without discretionary review or a hearing, a parcel map or a tentative and final map for a townhome development project that meets specified requirements, including that the proposed subdivision will result in parcels and residential units that will meet prescribed densities complies with the requirements established by the bill for ministerial approval of a townhome development project, as described in the preceding sentence, and that the newly created parcels are no smaller than 600 square feet. The act would define “townhome” for these purposes to mean a single-family dwelling unit that is less than or equal to 3 stories of occupiable square footage and either shares a common wall, as specified, or is separated from one or more neighboring units 93 AB 1751 — 2 —
Attachment 7

by an air gap, no more than a specified fire separation distance, and would define “townhome development project” to mean a housing development project consisting that consists entirely of residential units that satisfy this definition of townhome and meeting meets prescribed density requirements, size requirements, and unit limits. The bill would authorize a local agency to disapprove a townhome housing development project, or deny the issuance of a parcel map, a tentative map, map or a final map for a townhome development project, allowed under the bill’s provisions if it makes written findings based upon a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed townhome housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact, as provided in specified law, upon public health and safety and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact.

The bill would authorize a local agency to adopt an ordinance to implement its provisions and would provide that the adoption of such an ordinance is not a project under CEQA.

By establishing new ministerial approval processes relating to townhome development projects, as described above, this bill would expand the scope of the exemption from CEQA for ministerial projects.

Further, by adding to the duties of local officials with respect to the review and approval of townhome development projects, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would exempt the City and County of San Francisco from its provisions.

The bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City and County of San Francisco.

The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities, except as provided.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.

Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.

State-mandated local program: yes.
93 — 3 — AB 1751
Attachment 7

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. This bill shall be known, and may be cited, as line 2 the Missing Middle Townhome Ownership Act.
line 3 SEC. 2. Section 65852.29 is added to the Government Code, line 4 to read:
line 5 65852.29. (a)  A development proponent may submit an line 6 application for a townhome housing development project that line 7 meets the requirements of this section. section and Section 66499.5. line 8 A townhome housing development project application under this line 9 section includes any city, or for townhome development projects line 10 located in an unincorporated area of a county, land use and zoning line 11 approvals required to authorize construction and occupation of the line 12 townhome housing development project, including, but not limited line 13 to, subdivision, building, grading, and other permits. line 14 (b)  (1)  For any townhome housing development project line 15 application submitted pursuant to this section, a local agency may line 16 impose objective general plan standards, objective zoning line 17 standards, objective subdivision standards, or objective design line 18 standards that are applicable to the townhome housing development line 19 project, and do not conflict with this section. line 20 (2)  Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a local agency shall not line 21 impose on a townhome housing development project an objective line 22 general plan standard, objective zoning standard, objective line 23 subdivision standard, or objective design standard that does or is line 24 any of the following:
line 25 (A)  Physically precludes the development of a proposed line 26 townhome housing development project that complies with at least line 27 75 percent of the applicable density specified in subparagraph (B) line 28 of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583.2. line 29 (B)  Imposes (i)  Except as provided in clause (ii), imposes any line 30 requirement that applies to a townhome housing development line 31 project solely or partially on the basis that the project receives line 32 approval pursuant to this section.
line 33 (ii)  If the townhome development project is proposed on a site line 34 with a general plan designation or zoning classification that does line 35 not allow the density proposed by the townhome development line 36 project, the local agency may require the project to comply with line 37 the objective general plan standards, objective zoning standards, line 38 objective subdivision standards, and objective design standards 93 AB 1751 — 4 —
Attachment 7

line 1 that would have applied to the project had it been proposed on a line 2 site with a general plan designation and zoning classification that line 3 allow the density and unit type proposed by the applicant. line 4 (C)  Requires that parking be enclosed or covered or requires line 5 parking capacity or parking designs that are prohibited or restricted line 6 by other law.
line 7 (3)  In addition to any other requirements imposed in accordance line 8 with this section, a local agency may require the construction or line 9 dedication of any improvements, facilities, infrastructure, or line 10 rights-of-way necessary for the townhome development project to line 11 be consistent with the local agency’s general plan. line 12 (c)  (1)  A local agency shall ministerially consider, without line 13 discretionary review or a hearing, an application submitted to a line 14 local agency pursuant to this section.
line 15 (2)  This section is subject to the applicable housing application line 16 procedures, inclusive of the preliminary application, process for line 17 completing the application, and standards, permitting timelines as line 18 well as other requirements applicable to housing applications, set line 19 forth in the Housing Accountability Act (Section 65589.5) and the line 20 Permit Streamlining Act (Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section line 21 65920)).
line 22 (d)  A local agency may disapprove a townhome housing line 23 development project that meets the requirements of this section if line 24 it makes a written finding, based upon a preponderance of the line 25 evidence, that the proposed townhome housing development project line 26 would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined and determined line 27 in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon public line 28 health and safety and for which there is no feasible method to line 29 satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. line 30 (e)  A local agency may adopt an ordinance to implement the line 31 provisions of this section. An ordinance adopted to implement this line 32 section shall not be considered a project under Division 13 line 33 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. line 34 (f)  A local agency shall follow the tribal consultation procedures line 35 described in subdivision (b) of Section 21080.66 of the Public line 36 Resources Code.
line 37 (g)  Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or line 38 in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California line 39 Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) line 40 of the Public Resources Code).
93 — 5 — AB 1751
Attachment 7

line 1 (f)
line 2 (h)  This section shall not apply to the City and County of San line 3 Francisco.
line 4 (g)
line 5 (i)  For purposes of this section:
line 6 (1)  “Townhome” means a single-family dwelling unit that is line 7 less than or equal to three stories of occupiable square footage, line 8 and meets either of the following conditions:
line 9 (A)  Shares a common wall with other single-family dwelling line 10 units on one or two sides.
line 11 (B)  Is separated from one or more neighboring units by an air line 12 gap. no more than the minimum fire separation distance as set line 13 forth in the building standards for residential buildings in Chapter line 14 3 of Part 2.5 of Title 24 of the California Building Standards Code. line 15 (2)  “Townhome development project” means a housing line 16 development project consisting project, as defined in Section line 17 65589.5, that consists entirely of residential units that satisfy the line 18 definition of townhome and meeting at least 75 percent of the line 19 applicable density described in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) line 20 of subdivision (c) of Section 65583.2 and a townhome, and that line 21 satisfies both all of the following:
line 22 (A)  The average total area of floorspace for the proposed line 23 townhomes in a townhome development project does not exceed line 24 1,750 net habitable square feet. For purposes of this paragraph, line 25 “net habitable square feet” means the finished and heated floor line 26 area fully enclosed by the inside surface of walls, windows, doors, line 27 and partitions, and having a headroom of at least six and one-half line 28 feet, including working, living, eating, cooking, sleeping, stair, line 29 hall, service, and storage areas, but excluding garages, carports, line 30 parking spaces, cellars, half-stories, and unfinished attics and line 31 basements.
line 32 (B)  It contains no more than 150 total units.
line 33 (C)  It has at least 75 percent of the applicable density described line 34 in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section line 35 65583.2.
line 36 (D)  At least 10 percent of the total units, as defined in line 37 subparagraph (A) of paragraph (9) of subdivision (o) of Section line 38 65915, are dedicated to lower income households, as defined in line 39 Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
93 AB 1751 — 6 —
Attachment 7

line 1 SEC. 3. Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 66499.45) is line 2 added to Division 2 of Title 7 of the Government Code, to read:
line 3
line 4 Chapter 9. The Missing Middle Townhome Ownership line 5 Act
line 6
line 7 66499.45. For purposes of this chapter:
line 8 (a)  “Townhome” has the same meaning as defined in Section line 9 65852.29.
line 10 (b)  “Townhome development project” has the same meaning line 11 as defined in Section 65852.29.
line 12 66499.46. A local agency shall ministerially consider, without line 13 discretionary review or a hearing, a parcel map or a tentative and line 14 final map for a townhome development project that meets all of line 15 the following requirements:
line 16 (a)  (1)  The proposed subdivision will result in parcels and line 17 residential units that will meet at least 75 percent of the applicable line 18 density specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of line 19 subdivision (c) of Section 65583.2.
line 20 (a)  (1)  The requirements of Section 65852.29. line 21 (2)  The proposed subdivision meets all of the following line 22 requirements:
line 23 (A)  The subdivision site satisfies either of the following line 24 eligibility criteria:
line 25 (i)  Zoned to allow multifamily residential dwelling use. line 26 (ii)  Underutilized and zoned exclusively for single-family line 27 residential development. For purposes of this clause, line 28 “underutilized” means having no permanent residential structure, line 29 unless the permanent residential structure is abandoned and line 30 uninhabitable. “Underutilized” does not include either of the line 31 following:
line 32 (I)  Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, line 33 or law that restricts rent or sales price to levels affordable to line 34 persons and families of low, very low, or extremely low income. line 35 (II)  Housing that is subject to any form of rent or sales price line 36 control through a local public entity’s valid exercise of its police line 37 power by adopted ordinance. power.
line 38 (B)  The lot is not located on any site where a housing line 39 development would be an allowed use as a transit-oriented housing 93 — 7 — AB 1751
Attachment 7

line 1 development pursuant to the applicable requirements of Section line 2 65912.157.
line 3 (C)  The proposed subdivision is not located on a site where an line 4 existing parcel of land or site is governed under any of the line 5 following:
line 6 (i)  The Mobilehome Residency Law (Chapter 2.5 (commencing line 7 with Section 798) of Title 2 of Part 2 of Division 2 of the Civil line 8 Code).
line 9 (ii)  The Recreational Vehicle Park Occupancy Law (Chapter line 10 2.6 (commencing with Section 799.20) of Title 2 of Part 2 of line 11 Division 2 of the Civil Code).
line 12 (iii)  The Mobilehome Parks Act (Part 2.1 (commencing with line 13 Section 18200) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code). line 14 (iv)  The Special Occupancy Parks Act (Part 2.3 (commencing line 15 with Section 18860) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code). line 16 (D)  If the lot is not located in a nonmetropolitan county or line 17 suburban jurisdiction, as defined in subdivisions (d) to (f), line 18 inclusive, of Section 65583.2, the lot is on an infill site. This line 19 subparagraph shall not apply to a lot located in a metropolitan line 20 county, as defined in subdivisions (d) to (f), inclusive, of Section line 21 65583.2. an urban area, as defined by the United States Census line 22 Bureau, the lot is on an infill site. For purposes of this line 23 subparagraph:
line 24 (i)  “Infill site” means a site where at least three sides of the line 25 perimeter of the site adjoin parcels that are developed. line 26 (ii)  Parcels that are only separated by a street, pedestrian path, line 27 or bicycle path shall be considered to be adjoined. line 28 (3)  The newly created parcels are no smaller than 600 square line 29 feet.
line 30 (4)  The housing units on the lot proposed to be subdivided in line 31 the proposed subdivision are one of the following:
line 32 (A)  Constructed on fee simple ownership lots.
line 33 (B)  Part of a common interest development.
line 34 (C)  Part of a limited-equity housing cooperative, as defined in line 35 Section 817 of the Civil Code.
line 36 (D)  Constructed on land owned by a nonprofit or community line 37 land trust, and the housing unit is sold to the resident in a shared line 38 equity transaction. For the purpose of this subparagraph, line 39 “community land trust” means a nonprofit corporation organized 93 AB 1751 — 8 —
Attachment 7

line 1 pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that line 2 satisfies all of the following:
line 3 (i)  Has as its primary purposes the creation and maintenance of line 4 permanently affordable single-family or multifamily residences. line 5 (ii)  All dwellings and units located on the land owned by the line 6 nonprofit corporation are sold to qualified owners to be occupied line 7 as the qualified owner’s primary residence or rented to persons line 8 and families of low or moderate income. For the purpose of this line 9 clause, “qualified owner” means a person or family of low or line 10 moderate income, including a person or family of low or moderate line 11 income who owns a dwelling or unit collectively as a member line 12 occupant or resident shareholder of a limited-equity housing line 13 cooperative.
line 14 (iii)  The land owned by the nonprofit corporation or land trust, line 15 on which a dwelling or unit sold to a qualified owner is situated, line 16 is leased by the nonprofit corporation to the qualified owner for line 17 the convenient occupation and use of that dwelling or unit for a line 18 renewable term of 99 years, or is subject to an alternate form of line 19 shared equity transaction pursuant to which residents recoup all line 20 or most of the mortgage or similar payments paid to the nonprofit line 21 or land trust, and 10 percent of any increase in the value of the line 22 unit is allocated to the departing resident.
line 23 (E)  Part of a tenancy in common, as described in Section 685 line 24 of the Civil Code.
line 25 (5)  The proposed subdivision will not result in any existing line 26 dwelling unit being alienable separate from the title to any other line 27 existing dwelling unit on the lot.
line 28 (6)  The lot proposed to be subdivided is not identified to line 29 accommodate any portion of the jurisdiction’s share of the regional line 30 housing need for low-income or very low income households. line 31 (7)  The development of a townhome development project on line 32 the lot proposed to be subdivided in the proposed subdivision does line 33 not require the demolition or alteration of any of the following line 34 types of housing:
line 35 (A)  Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, line 36 or law that restricts rent to levels affordable to persons and families line 37 of low, very low, or extremely low income.
line 38 (B)  Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control line 39 through a local public entity’s valid exercise of its police power line 40 through an adopted ordinance. power.
93 — 9 — AB 1751
Attachment 7

line 1 (C)  Housing occupied by tenants and subject to rent or price line 2 control within the five years preceding the date of the application, line 3 including housing that has been demolished or that tenants have line 4 vacated prior to the submission of the application for a development line 5 permit.
line 6 (D)  A parcel on which an owner of residential real property has line 7 exercised the owner’s rights under Chapter 12.75 (commencing line 8 with Section 7060) of Division 7 of Title 1 to withdraw line 9 accommodations from rent or lease within 15 years before the date line 10 that the development proponent submits an application. line 11 (E)  A parcel that contained five or more units within the five line 12 years preceding the date of the application.
line 13 (8)  If the proposed townhome development project would result line 14 in 11 or more units, the project shall comply with any applicable line 15 local inclusionary housing requirements.
line 16 (9)  The lot proposed to be subdivided is not located on a site line 17 that is any of the following:
line 18 (A)  Either prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance, line 19 as defined pursuant to United States Department of Agriculture line 20 land inventory and monitoring criteria, as modified for California, line 21 and designated on the maps prepared by the Farmland Mapping line 22 and Monitoring Program of the Department of Conservation, or line 23 land zoned or designated for agricultural protection or preservation line 24 by a local ballot measure that was approved by the voters of that line 25 jurisdiction.
line 26 (B)  Wetlands, as defined in the United States Fish and Wildlife line 27 Service Manual, Part 660 FW 2 (June 21, 1993).
line 28 (C)  Within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined line 29 by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to line 30 Section 51178, or within a high or very high fire hazard severity line 31 zone as indicated on maps adopted by the Department of Forestry line 32 and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 4202 of the Public line 33 Resources Code.
line 34 (D)  A hazardous waste site that is listed pursuant to Section line 35 65962.5 or a hazardous waste site designated by the Department line 36 of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to former Section 25356 of line 37 the Health and Safety Code, unless either of the following applies:
line 38 (i)  The site is an underground storage tank site that received a line 39 uniform closure letter issued pursuant to subdivision (g) of Section line 40 25296.10 of the Health and Safety Code based on closure criteria 93 AB 1751 — 10 —
Attachment 7

line 1 established by the State Water Resources Control Board for line 2 residential use or residential mixed uses. This section does not line 3 alter or change the conditions to remove a site from the list of line 4 hazardous waste sites listed pursuant to Section 65962.5. line 5 (ii)  The State Department of Public Health, State Water line 6 Resources Control Board, Department of Toxic Substances Control, line 7 or a local agency making a determination pursuant to subdivision line 8 (c) of Section 25296.10 of the Health and Safety Code, has line 9 otherwise determined that the site is suitable for residential use or line 10 residential mixed uses.
line 11 (E)  Within a delineated earthquake fault zone as determined by line 12 the State Geologist in any official maps published by the State line 13 Geologist, unless the housing development project complies with line 14 applicable seismic protection building code standards adopted by line 15 the California Building Standards Commission under the California line 16 Building Standards Law (Part 2.5 (commencing with Section line 17 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code), and by any line 18 local building department under Chapter 12.2 (commencing with line 19 Section 8875) of Division 1 of Title 2.
line 20 (F)  Within a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by line 21 the 1-percent annual chance flood (100-year flood) as determined line 22 by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in any official line 23 maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. line 24 If a development proponent is able to satisfy all applicable federal line 25 qualifying criteria in order to provide that the site satisfies this line 26 paragraph and is otherwise eligible for streamlined approval under line 27 this section, a local government shall not deny the application on line 28 the basis that the development proponent did not comply with any line 29 additional permit requirement, standard, or action adopted by that line 30 local government that is applicable to that site. A housing line 31 development project may be located on a site described in this line 32 subparagraph if either of the following is met:
line 33 (i)  The site has been subject to a Letter of Map Revision line 34 prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and line 35 issued to the local jurisdiction.
line 36 (ii)  The site meets Federal Emergency Management Agency line 37 requirements necessary to meet minimum flood plain management line 38 criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program pursuant to Part line 39 59 (commencing with Section 59.1) and Part 60 (commencing 93 — 11 — AB 1751
Attachment 7

line 1 with Section 60.1) of Subchapter B of Chapter I of Title 44 of the line 2 Code of Federal Regulations.
line 3 (G)  Within a regulatory floodway as determined by the Federal line 4 Emergency Management Agency in any official maps published line 5 by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, unless the housing line 6 development project has received a no-rise certification in line 7 accordance with Section 60.3(d)(3) of Title 44 of the Code of line 8 Federal Regulations. If a development proponent is able to satisfy line 9 all applicable federal qualifying criteria in order to provide that line 10 the site satisfies this subparagraph and is otherwise eligible for line 11 streamlined approval under this section, a local government shall line 12 not deny the application on the basis that the development line 13 proponent did not comply with any additional permit requirement, line 14 standard, or action adopted by that local government that is line 15 applicable to that site.
line 16 (H)  Land identified for conservation in an adopted natural line 17 community conservation plan pursuant to the Natural Community line 18 Conservation Planning Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with Section line 19 2800) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code), habitat line 20 conservation plan pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act line 21 of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.), or another adopted natural line 22 resource protection plan.
line 23 (I)  Habitat for protected species identified as candidate, line 24 sensitive, or species of special status by state or federal agencies, line 25 fully protected species, or species protected by the federal line 26 Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.), line 27 the California Endangered Species Act (Chapter 1.5 (commencing line 28 with Section 2050) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code), or line 29 the Native Plant Protection Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with line 30 Section 1900) of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code). line 31 (J)  Land under conservation easement.
line 32 (10)  The subdivision would not result in the demolition of a line 33 historic structure that was placed on a national, state, or local line 34 historic register before the date a preliminary application was line 35 submitted for the project pursuant to Section 65941.1. line 36 (10)  The development is not located in either of the following:
line 37 (A)  A contributing structure within a historic district included line 38 on the State Historic Resources Inventory, as defined in Section line 39 5020.1 of the Public Resources Code, or a historic property or line 40 district pursuant to a city or county ordinance. 93 AB 1751 — 12 —
Attachment 7

line 1 (B)  A parcel individually listed as a historical resource included line 2 in the State Historic Resources Inventory, as defined in Section line 3 5020.1 of the Public Resources Code, or within a property line 4 individually designated or listed as a city or county landmark line 5 under a city or county ordinance.
line 6 (11)  The proposed subdivision conforms to all applicable line 7 objective requirements of this division, except as otherwise line 8 expressly provided in this section.
line 9 (12)  The proposed subdivision complies with all applicable line 10 standards established pursuant to Section 65852.29. line 11 (13)  Any parcels proposed to be created pursuant to this section line 12 will be served by a public water system an existing community line 13 water system, as that term is defined in Section 116275 of the line 14 Health and Safety Code, that has a valid domestic water supply line 15 permit, and a municipal sewer system.
line 16 (14)  If the local zoning applicable to the parcel establishes a line 17 minimum residential density, the minimum residential density, line 18 including the lower end of an applicable residential density range, line 19 is no more than 60 units per acre.
line 20 (b)  A townhome development project on a proposed site to be line 21 subdivided pursuant to this section is not required to comply with line 22 either of the following requirements:
line 23 (1)  A minimum requirement on the size, width, depth, frontage, line 24 or dimensions of an individual parcel created by the housing line 25 development project beyond the minimum parcel size specified line 26 in, or established pursuant to, paragraph (3) of subdivision (a). line 27 (2)  (A)  The formation of a homeowners’ association, except line 28 as required by the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development line 29 Act (Part 5 (commencing with Section 4000) of Division 4 of the line 30 Civil Code).
line 31 (B)  Subparagraph (A) shall not be construed to prohibit a local line 32 agency from requiring a mechanism for the maintenance of line 33 common space within the subdivision, including, but not limited line 34 to, a road maintenance agreement.
line 35 (c)  A local agency shall approve or deny an application for a line 36 parcel map or a tentative map for a townhome development project line 37 submitted to a local agency pursuant to this section pursuant to line 38 the timelines set forth in the Housing Accountability Act (Section line 39 65589.5) and the Permit Streamlining Act (Chapter 4.5 line 40 (commencing with Section 65920) of Division 1). 93 — 13 — AB 1751
Attachment 7

line 1 (d)
line 2 (c)  (1)  Any townhome development project constructed on the line 3 lots proposed to be subdivided pursuant to this section shall comply line 4 with all applicable objective general plan standards, objective line 5 zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective line 6 design standards as established by the local agency that are not line 7 inconsistent with this section and paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) line 8 of Section 65852.29.
line 9 (2)  In addition to any other requirements imposed in accordance line 10 with this section, a local agency may require the construction or line 11 dedication of any improvements, facilities, infrastructure, or line 12 rights-of-way necessary for the townhome development project to line 13 be consistent with the local agency’s general plan. line 14 (e)
line 15 (d)  (1)  (A)  Except as provided in paragraph (2), a person shall line 16 not sell, lease, or finance any parcel or parcels of real property line 17 resulting from a subdivision under this section separately from line 18 any other such parcel or parcels, unless each parcel that is sold, line 19 leased, or financed meets one of the following criteria:
line 20 (i)  The parcel contains a residential structure completed in line 21 compliance with all applicable provisions of the California Building line 22 Standards Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations) line 23 that includes at least one dwelling unit.
line 24 (ii)  The parcel already contains an existing legally permitted line 25 residential structure.
line 26 (iii)  The parcel is reserved for internal circulation, open space, line 27 or common area.
line 28 (iv)  The parcel is the only remaining parcel within the line 29 subdivision that is not developed with a residential structure that line 30 was completed in compliance with all applicable provisions of the line 31 California Building Standards Code (Title 24 of the California line 32 Code of Regulations).
line 33 (B)  A violation of this paragraph shall constitute the sale of real line 34 property that has been divided in violation of the provisions of this line 35 division and shall be subject to the penalties and remedies set forth line 36 in Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 66499.30). line 37 (2)  A local agency may, by ordinance or map condition, line 38 authorize the sale, lease, or finance of any parcel or parcels of real line 39 property resulting from a subdivision under this section without line 40 compliance with the provisions of paragraph (1). 93 AB 1751 — 14 —
Attachment 7

line 1 (f)
line 2 (e)  A local agency may deny the issuance of a parcel map, a line 3 tentative map, map or a final map for a townhome development line 4 project allowed under this section if it makes a written finding, line 5 based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed line 6 townhome development project would have a specific, adverse line 7 impact, as defined and determined in paragraph (2) of subdivision line 8 (d) of Section 65589.5, upon public health and safety and for which line 9 there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the line 10 specific, adverse impact.
line 11 (g)
line 12 (f)  A local agency’s approval of a townhome development line 13 project pursuant to this section shall not be considered a project line 14 under Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public line 15 Resources Code.
line 16 (h)  (1)
line 17 (g)  Notwithstanding Section 66411.7, 66411.7 or 66499.41, a line 18 local agency is not required to permit an urban lot split on a parcel line 19 created through the exercise of the authority contained within this line 20 section.
line 21 (2)  Notwithstanding Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7, those line 22 sections shall not apply to a site that meets both of the following line 23 requirements:
line 24 (A)  The site is located within a single-family residential line 25 horsekeeping zone designated in a master plan, adopted before line 26 January 1, 1994, that regulates land zoned single-family line 27 horsekeeping, commercial, commercial-recreational, and existing line 28 industrial within the plan area.
line 29 (B)  The applicable local government has an adopted housing line 30 element that is compliant with applicable law.
line 31 (i)
line 32 (h)  A local agency may adopt an ordinance to implement the line 33 provisions of this section. An ordinance adopted to implement this line 34 section shall not be considered a project under Division 13 line 35 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. line 36 66499.47. This chapter shall not apply to the City and County line 37 of San Francisco.
line 38 SEC. 4. The Legislature finds and declares that a special statute line 39 is necessary and that a general statute cannot be made applicable line 40 within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California 93 — 15 — AB 1751
Attachment 7

line 1 Constitution because of the unique circumstances of the City and line 2 County of San Francisco.
line 3 SEC. 5. The Legislature finds and declares that Sections 2 and line 4 3 of this act adding Section 65852.29 to, and adding Chapter 9 line 5 (commencing with Section 66499.45) to Division 2 of Title 7 of, line 6 the Government Code address a matter of statewide concern rather line 7 than a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article line 8 XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, except as provided line 9 therein, Sections 2 and 3 of this act apply to all cities, including line 10 charter cities.
line 11 SEC. 6. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to line 12 Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because line 13 a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service line 14 charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or line 15 level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section line 16 17556 of the Government Code.

O
93 AB 1751 — 16 —
Attachment 7

17575 Peak Avenue
Morgan Hill, CA 95037-4128
TEL: (408) 779-7271
FAX: (408) 779-3117
www.morganhill.ca.gov
June 29, 2026
The Honorable Catherine Blakespear
Chair, Environmental Quality Committee
1021 O St., Suite 3230
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 1436 (Avila Faris) State Air Resources Board: air pollution regulations: private fleets:
exception - Notice of SUPPORT
Dear Senator Blakespear,
On behalf of the City of Morgan Hill, I write in strong support of AB 1436, which would provide an important exemption from California Air Resources Board clean fleet regulations for certain private fleets, allowing more flexibility in compliance timelines as zero-emission vehicle technology and infrastructure continue to develop. This measured approach recognizes the practical and economic realities facing local service providers and the communities they serve.

While the City supports California’s long-term transition to cleaner vehicle technologies, in alignment with our adopted Climate Action Plan, the implementation timeline for current clean fleet regulations is premature and creates significant operational and financial challenges for local communities. Morgan Hill experienced a major transition when our waste hauler, Recology, invested heavily to convert its fleet to compressed natural gas (CNG) to meet environmental goals. Requiring another transition to electric vehicles would impose substantial new costs at a time when the technology for larger heavy-duty vehicles is not yet practical, reliable, or affordable.

These costs will ultimately be passed on to residents through increased rates for essential services such as solid waste collection. For cities like Morgan Hill, this creates an administrative and financial burden without meaningful market transformation, as California’s clean fleet regulations alone are too limited in scale to drive broader technological advancements or affordability.

AB 1436 provides important flexibility by allowing the market and technology to mature before imposing mandates that communities and service providers are not yet equipped to meet. We support the transition to zero-emission fleets when the technology becomes commercially viable and cost-effective, but the current timeline is too aggressive and risks unfairly penalizing Morgan Hill and California residents.

For these reasons, the City of Morgan Hill respectfully urges your support of AB 1436.

Sincerely,
Mark Turner
Mayor
Attachment 8

cc: Assemblymember Gail Pellerin
Senator Dave Cortese
Montana Cruz, Regional Public Affairs Manager, League of California Cities, [email protected] Meg Desmond, League of California Cities, [email protected] Attachment 8

AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 22, 2026
AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 11, 2026
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 2, 2025
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 24, 2025
california legislature—2025–26 regular session
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 1436
Introduced by Assembly Member Ávila Farías
February 21, 2025
An act to add Section 43110 to the Health and Safety Code, relating to air pollution.
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 1436, as amended, Ávila Farías. State Air Resources Board: air pollution regulations: private fleets: exception.

Existing law requires the State Air Resources Board to adopt and implement motor vehicle emission standards, in-use performance standards, and motor vehicle fuel specifications for the control of air contaminants and sources of air pollution that the state board has found necessary, cost effective, and technologically feasible. The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 establishes the state board as the state agency responsible for monitoring and regulating sources emitting greenhouse gases and requires the state board to adopt rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emission reductions from those sources.

Pursuant to its authority, the state board has adopted the Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation, which imposes various requirements for transitioning local, state, and federal government fleets of medium- and

95 Attachment 9

heavy-duty trucks, other high-priority fleets of medium- and heavy-duty trucks, and drayage trucks to zero-emission vehicles.

Existing federal law, the Clean Air Act, prohibits any state or any political subdivision thereof from adopting or attempting to enforce any standard relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, except through a waiver, as provided.

This bill would prohibit the state board from adopting or enforcing any regulation that directly or indirectly compels compliance by private fleets, as provided, unless until the state has obtained a required waiver or authorization under the federal Clean Air Act.

Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.

State-mandated local program: no.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. (a)  The Legislature finds and declares both of line 2 the following:
line 3 (1)  Extending regulatory requirements to privately operated line 4 vehicle fleets through mandates placed on public entities or line 5 contracts, whether directly or indirectly, may have unintended line 6 impacts on affordability and the continuity of services provided line 7 to residents through public and private partnerships. line 8 (2)  Providing regulatory clarity and predictability for public line 9 entities and their private partners is necessary given the potential line 10 fiscal and operational constraints that could be imposed and the line 11 need to maintain reliable delivery of essential public services. line 12 (b)  It is the intent of the Legislature to ensure that regulatory line 13 actions described in subdivision (a) do not occur unless the State line 14 Air Resources Board obtains authorization to regulate privately line 15 operated vehicle fleets under applicable federal law. line 16 SEC. 2. Section 43110 is added to the Health and Safety Code, line 17 to read:
line 18 43110. (a)  The state board shall not adopt or enforce any line 19 regulation that directly or indirectly compels compliance by private line 20 fleets, including, but not limited to, those operated by contractors line 21 or subcontractors of the state or a local entity, including, but not line 22 limited to, a city, a county, or a city and county. fleets that would line 23 be preempted under Section 209(a) of the federal Clean Air Act line 24 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7543(a)) until the required waiver or authorization 95 AB 1436 — 2 —
Attachment 9

line 1 is obtained in accordance with Section 209(b) of the federal Clean line 2 Air Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7543(b)).
line 3 (b)  Subdivision (a) does not apply to a regulation adopted after line 4 the state has obtained a required waiver or authorization under line 5 Section 209 of the federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7543). line 6 (b)  The use of private fleets in subdivision (a) includes, but is line 7 not limited to, those operated by contractors or subcontractors of line 8 the state or a local government entity, including, but not limited line 9 to, any city, county, public utility, special district, local agency or line 10 district, and any department, division, public corporation, or public line 11 agency of the State of California.
line 12 (c)  Any provision of a regulation adopted in violation of this line 13 section is void and unenforceable.

O
95 — 3 — AB 1436
Attachment 9

Attachment 10
Cal Cities Action Alert
Oppose Forthcoming Reforms to Limit Public Agency Recovery from Utility-Caused Wildfires
Action Requested: Cal Cities is requesting cities urgently oppose a proposal by the Governor for an end-of-session, gut-and-amend package to bail out electric utilities and limit how cities can recover damages following a utility-caused wildfire. Cities should take three immediate actions:

1. Call or Text Legislators to REJECT Wildfire Liability Reforms that Limit Public Agency Recovery. Call members involved in the legislative Wildfire Working Groups, who are actively discussing this proposal. Call or Text your Assemblymember and Senator express your opposition.

Our message is clear: Protect public infrastructure. Safeguard emergency response and mutual aid. Protect taxpayers from this utility bailout.

Legislator Phone
Asm. Robert Rivas (916) 319-2029
Asm. Cottie Petrie-Norris (916) 319-2073
Asm. Lisa Calderon (916) 319-2056
Asm. Ash Kalra (916) 319-2025
Asm. Isaac Bryan (916) 319-2055
Asm. Steve Bennett (916) 319-2038
Asm. Rhodesia Ransom (916) 319-2013
Senator Josh Becker (916) 651-4013
Senator Steve Padilla (916) 651-4018
Senator Ben Allen (916) 651-4024
Senator Henry Stern (916) 651-4027
Senator Sasha Renee Perez (916) 651-4025
Senator Laird (916) 651-4017
Senator Umberg (916) 651-4034

2. Join Cal Cities on Wednesday, August 12 from 10am to 10:30am for a briefing about this emerging proposal. Register here.

3. Submit your City logo or individual name and sign-on to a NASCAR letter urging Legislators to oppose any reforms that Limit Public Agency Recovery. Sign-on or send your city logo to your regional public affairs manager.

What the Proposal Does: The Governor’s Wildfire Liability Reform is not in writing but shared verbally that the package includes a variety of changes, including caps on what utilities would be required to pay to public agencies when there is a utility-caused wildfire. The proposal would:
• Limit damage claims of public property or public infrastructure to the depreciated value of the asset that the utility would need to pay. Utilities would not have to pay for the full replacement costs of essential water, sewer, fire stations, schools, parks, and libraries that are damaged from the utility-caused fire.
• Eliminate emergency response and mutual aid as recoverable costs from the utility.
• Eliminate property tax loss revenue as a recoverable cost from the utility.

Why this is Important to Cal Cities Members: Cities must strongly oppose the wildfire liability reforms that limit public agency recovery from utility-caused wildfires and urge the Legislature to reject them outright from being included in any wildfire package.

When a utility causes a wildfire, they are required to fully compensate for property damage. Public infrastructure, lost tax revenue, emergency response, and mutual aid are necessary and critical for local governments to function following such catastrophic utility-caused wildfires. If public agencies cannot recover costs from negligent utilities, local taxpayers will pay instead. The very survivors whose community burned will foot the bill. Limiting public agency recovery will only shift costs to survivors and taxpayers and financially strand local governments, increasing severe strain on municipal budgets or even bankruptcy.

Links and Attachments: Local Government Primer on Wildfire Liability Reform Package Background information:
• SB 254 (Becker, 2025)
• SB 254 Report
Recent news coverage:
• Politico - The election year gamble behind California's wildfire talks • Cal Matters - LA fire survivors say Newsom is trying to help utilities reduce their wildfire costs again
• Cal Matters - California cannot keep rewarding utilities after catastrophic wildfires • Politico - Wildfire's risky business
• LA Times - Wildfire Survivors angered as utility-funded group claims to represent them Where to Send Logos: Send your individual name or city logo to Montana Cruz [email protected]
Questions? Contact your regional public affairs manager for more information or questions.

[INSERT CITY AND COUNTY LOGOS]

Attachment 11
August XX, 2026
The Honorable Monique Limón The Honorable Robert Rivas
Senate President pro Tempore Assembly Speaker
California State Senate California State Assembly
1021 O Street, Suite 8518 1021 O Street, Suite 8330
Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Senate Pro Tem Limon and Assembly Speaker Rivas,
On behalf of the League of California Cities and the undersigned cities, we are calling on you to reject efforts to limit public agency recovery from utility-caused wildfires in the Governor’s proposed wildfire liability reforms as prompted by the SB 254 Report.

This proposal will wrongly shift costs to taxpayers and force devastating consequences on public agencies and wildfire victims already struggling to rebuild their communities.

The proposal relies on the false hopes that public property, infrastructure and emergency response costs can be recovered from FEMA or insurance. Limiting public agency recovery will only shift costs to taxpayers and leave public agencies financially stranded – or even worse, bankrupt. We strongly oppose the following reforms and urge the Legislature to reject them outright from being included in any wildfire package that will advance this legislative session.

1. Limiting Public Property and Infrastructure Damages Imperils Public Agencies Tasked with Rebuilding their Communities
The proposal will have negligent utilities pay just pennies on the dollar to rebuild critical infrastructure and public facilities that are destroyed. Limiting such costs to the mere depreciated value of the public facility or infrastructure will impact the rebuilding of:
• Public facilities and buildings
• Water, sewer, roads, communication, and traffic signal infrastructure • Parks, schools, libraries, and fire stations
When a utility causes a wildfire, they are required to fully compensate for property damage. Public agencies cannot rebuild damaged infrastructure on recovery dollars that only cover the depreciated value of an asset. Rebuilding public facilities and infrastructure is not a luxury - it is an essential public service for homeowners, businesses, and communities to return home.

2. Limiting Recovery for Emergency Response and Mutual Aid Forces Public Agencies to Absorb Costs and Increase Financial Risk, Waiting Years For FEMA Reimbursement While Communities Struggle to Recover
The proposal prevents public agencies from recovering emergency response and mutual aid costs from the very utilities who cause these devastating wildfires and inappropriately suggest FEMA as the solution. Limiting emergency response cost recovery will be catastrophic for small jurisdictions and fracture our mutual aid system upon which the state and communities rely on. There is a federal obligation to pursue negligent parties per the Stafford Act. This will create ambiguity when negligent parties must meet that requirement and will jeopardize federal reimbursement. FEMA has strict rules on recoverability, and some events aren’t even eligible for FEMA reimbursement.

Since FEMA is a reimbursement model, funds must be spent upfront. Interpretations in FEMA change from Administration to Administration, creating uncertainty whether future relief will even be available for these incidents.

3. Eliminating Property Tax Losses Leaves Communities Financially Stranded Schools, cities, counties, and special districts rely on property taxes to fund basic needs in our communities. The proposal will financially strand public agencies by eliminating the ability to bring claims for lost property taxes. This has tremendous consequences for essential public services, including fire, police, social services programs, drinking water, public infrastructure, and drastically risks school closure.

There is no evidence in the SB 254 Report to suggest that public agency claims are unreasonable or unjustified. Public agency damages amounted to merely 4% of the total wildfire claims that utilities paid from 2017 to 2024. Public infrastructure, lost tax revenue, emergency response, and mutual aid are necessary and critical for local governments to function while struggling to rebuild their communities.

If public agencies cannot recover costs from negligent utilities, local taxpayers will pay more instead. The very survivors whose community burned will foot the bill which is NOT an equitable approach to socializing wildfire risk.

While we oppose these provisions from being in the wildfire package, we support the state’s efforts to strengthen community wildfire mitigation efforts.

However, if public agencies cannot recover costs from negligent utilities, local taxpayers will pay instead. The very survivors whose community burned will foot the bill, which is NOT an equitable approach to socializing wildfire risk. We respectfully request the Legislature to protect public infrastructure, safeguard emergency response and our mutual aid system, and protect taxpayers from this utility bailout – and to reject the Governor’s proposal to limit public agency recovery from utility-caused wildfires.

Sincerely,
League of California Cities
California State Association of Counties
Rural County Representatives of California

[LIST SIGNATORIES]
cc: The Honorable Governor Gavin Newsom
Members, California State Senate
Members, California State Assembly

16 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 19, 2026
PREPARED BY:

Michelle Bigelow, City Clerk
APPROVED BY: City Manager
APPOINT VOTING DELEGATES FOR THE 2026 CALCITIES (LEAGUE)

ANNUAL CONFERENCE AND APPROVE CITY SUPPORT OF THE

RESOLUTION TO BE CONSIDERED

RECOMMENDATION(S)

1. Appoint a voting delegate and up to two (2) alternate voting delegates to the CalCities Annual Conference;

2. Direct the Clerk team to complete and forward the voting delegate form to CalCities;

3. Confirm "support" for the resolution to be considered calling for a working group to consider a state constitutional amendment or other form of initiative to ensure final local authority over housing and land use decisions; and

4. Authorize the City’s voting delegate(s) to vote on the resolution to be considered at the CalCities annual conference.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES, GOALS & STRATEGIES
City Council Ongoing Priorities
Enhancing Public Safety and Quality of Life
Supporting our Youth, Seniors, and Entire Community
Fostering a Positive Organizational Culture
Enhancing Diversity and Inclusiveness
Advocating for Local, Regional, and State Legislative Initiatives Promoting a Healthy Community
Strategic Priorities 2026-2027
Fiscal Sustainability
Public Safety
Affordable Housing and Homelessness
Economic Development and Tourism
Transportation
Economic Mobility
REPORT NARRATIVE:

CalCities is holding its Annual Conference from September 23 to 25, 2026, at which it

16 will conduct its General Assembly Meeting, allowing members to directly participate in developing League policy. The League’s bylaws provide that each city is entitled to one vote on matters affecting municipal or League policy. The voting delegate and/or alternate(s) must be registered for the conference and present to vote. The Voting Delegate Information Packet provides information and protocols on appointing voting delegates and voting guidelines.

The City Council has traditionally appointed the mayor as the primary voting delegate and the mayor pro tem as the alternate voting delegate. Staff requests that the Council appoint a primary voting delegate and up to two alternate voting delegates. In 2006, the League authorized the appointment of up to two alternates to plan for unforeseen situations (bylaw amendment).

The General Assembly Meeting will convene on Friday, September 25th, at 8:30 a.m. to consider the resolution that has been brought forward:

A RESOLUTION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE LEAGUE OF

CALIFORNIA CITIES CALLING FOR A WORKING GROUP TO CONSIDER A STATE

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT OR OTHER FORM OF INITIATIVE TO ENSURE

FINAL LOCAL AUTHORITY OVER HOUSING AND LAND USE DECISIONS The Resolution Packet provides the draft resolution and information and protocols regarding the resolution. By approving the recommendation, our League representatives are authorized to vote on amendments as they deem best for the City.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

Inform
This report serves to inform the community of the voting delegates to be appointed for the 2026 League of California Cities Annual Conference.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:

None.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION ACTIONS:

Each year, the City Council appoints voting delegates to attend and vote at the League of California Cities Annual Conference.

FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:

The cost of the conference registration is included in the adopted FY 2026-27 City Council budget.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

Not a project.

The appointment of voting delegates is not a project, as defined in Section 15378 of the State CEQA guidelines.

16

17 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 19, 2026
PREPARED BY:

Dat Nguyen, Finance Director
APPROVED BY: City Manager
RECEIVE MONTHLY BUDGET UPDATE; PRELIMINARY FY 2025-26
FINANCIAL AND INVESTMENT REPORTS; AND CITY MANAGER

AUTHORITY REPORT

RECOMMENDATION(S)
Accept and file report.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES, GOALS & STRATEGIES
City Council Ongoing Priorities
Preserving and Cultivating Public Trust
Strategic Priorities 2026-2027
Fiscal Sustainability
REPORT NARRATIVE:

As part of the City Council’s expectation to maintain a high level of transparency and to be responsible stewards of public funds, staff is providing the monthly budget update, and the preliminary Fiscal Year (FY) ending June 30, 2026 financial and investment reports.

Preliminary Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2026
General Fund:

Revenues totaled $59.7 million, about $0.5 million more than projected during development of the FY26-27 and FY27-28 Biennial Budget. This increase is mainly due to higher sales tax revenue. Preliminary General Fund expenditures and encumbrances for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2026, totaled $62.1 million, of which approximately $1.7 million is attributable to outstanding encumbrances, compared to prior year expenditures, including encumbrances, of $60.9 million. This represents an increase of $1.2 million, including encumbrances, compared to the prior year. Excluding encumbrances, expenditures increased by about $1.4 million, primarily due to negotiated salary adjustments, and overall cost increases.

Including the $1.0 million allocation to reserves, as approved by the City Council, designated for potential Excess Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) exposure resulting from the ongoing uncertainty surrounding the State Controller's Office interpretation and the related litigation, the General Fund reserve is