HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 14379
City of Palo Alto (ID # 14379)
Policy and Services Committee Staff Report
Meeting Date: 5/10/2022 Report Type: Action Items
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Title: Update and Potential Recommendations on Pending State and Federal
Legislation
From: City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Policy and Services Committee discuss recent legislative updates for
the State and Federal Government and make any recommendations to the City Council
regarding legislation.
Background
On February 7, 2022, the City Council adopted the 2022 Legislative Guidelines (CMR 13904;
Minutes). The guidelines provide a baseline for the City’s legislative advocates at the State and
Federal level to advocate on the City’s behalf in relation to proposed legislation.
The last legislative update to the Policy and Services Committee was on March 8, 2022 (CMR
14117; Summary Minutes).
Discussion
The City’s legislative advocates in Sacramento (Townsend Public Affairs) and legislative
advocates in Washington, D.C. (Van Scoyoc Associates) will be present to discuss updates on
legislation, the budget, and the coming weeks and months in Sacramento and D.C. Below is a
high-level summary of activity at both the state and federal level.
State Update: Attachment A contains the Sacramento update from Townsend Public Affairs.
The State legislative calendar is online here: https://www.assembly.ca.gov/legislativedeadlines
or https://www.senate.ca.gov/legdeadlines. Since the last legislative update to the Committee,
the State has done more deliberation on legislative bills and Attachment A contains
information about some bills of interest to the City. In addition to the legislative update, the
City also sent a letter to State Assemblymember Berman and State Senator Becker asking for
consideration of budget requests from the City. Staff should receive a progress update in the
coming weeks.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Federal Update: The information in Attachment B is the Washington D.C. update from Van
Scoyoc Associates. Since the last legislative update to the Committee, the Federal Community
Project Funding (earmark) process has begun and the City submitted a request with MidPen
Housing for the electrification of over 150 low income units in Palo Alto and for the installation
of electric vehicle charging stations at the same property. The City also submitted a request for
Fire Station 4. The request amount is $3 million for both projects. Both projects have
community support.
Resource Impact
No resource impacts for this particular report.
Stakeholder Engagement
Staff connects with relevant stakeholders as needed throughout the legislative session.
Attachments:
• Attachment A: Memo Palo Alto Summary of Priority Legislation-May 4, 2022
• Attachment B: Van Scoyoc Federal Update - May 2022
State Capitol Office ▪ 925 L Street • Suite 1404 • Sacramento, CA 95814 • Phone (916) 447-4086 • Fax (916) 444-0383
Federal Office ▪ 600 Pennsylvania SE • Suite 207 • Washington, DC 20003 • Phone (202) 546-8696 • Fax (202) 546-4555
Southern California Office ▪ 1401 Dove Street • Suite 330 • Newport Beach, CA 92660 • Phone (949) 399-9050 • Fax (949) 476-8215
Central California Office ▪ 744 P Street • Suite 308 • Fresno, CA 93721 • Phone (949) 399-9050 • Fax (949) 476-8215
Northern California Office ▪ 300 Frank Ogawa Plaza • Suite 204 • Oakland, CA 94612 • Phone (510) 835-9050 • Fax (510) 835-9030
MEMO
To: Ed Shikada, City Manager Chantal Cotton Gaines, Deputy City Manager From: Christopher Townsend, President, Townsend Public Affairs, Inc.
Niccolo De Luca, Vice President Andres Ramirez, Senior Associate Carly Shelby, Legislative Associate
Date: May 4, 2022
Subject: State Legislative Update/Various Legislative Proposals
SUMMARY
Townsend Public Affairs, Inc. (TPA) has prepared this report for the City of Palo Alto as we
move forward in the 2022 Legislative session. April 29th was the deadline for policy committees to hear and report all fiscal bills introduced in
their house of origin. As most bills are keyed fiscal, policy committees have heard thousands of bills over the last few months. Bills that are keyed fiscal and do not receive a policy committee hearing prior to the deadline are deemed inactive for the remainder of the Legislative Session. As discussed with the Policy and Services Committee, we are highlighting a handful of bills and providing a summary to provide a point in time analysis. The city can take a position of support, oppose, or watch. The analysis below is based off text of the legislation, committee analysis, discussions with Members, and others.
Assembly Bill 1944 (Lee) Local Government: open and public meetings
Last amended: April 18, 2022
Status: The bill passed out of its first policy committee hearing and is headed to the Assembly
Appropriations Committee.
Focus of the legislation: Allows members of a legislative body of a local agency to use
teleconferencing without identifying each teleconference location in the notice and agenda of the meeting or proceeding, and without making each teleconference location accessible to the public. This measure sunsets on Jan. 1, 2030.
Argument in Support: A coalition including the Urban Counties of California, the Rural County Representatives of California, the California State Association of Counties, the Association of California Healthcare Districts, the Association of California School Administrators, the California
Association of Public Authorities for IHSS, and the League of California Cities, in support, write, “AB 1944 represents an important modernization to the Brown Act that protects local elected officials’ location when participating from a non-public, remote location, while improving access to members of the public via a teleconferencing option.
2
“As you know, local agencies subject to the Brown Act were able to utilize remote participation for elected officials and for the public during the COVID-19 public health crisis. Those processes
worked well, allowing for local agencies to continue to conduct the public’s business in a safe manner. In fact, many of our local agencies report increased participation and interaction with members of the public who would otherwise have been unable to access such meetings as a
result. At the same time, the ability for local elected officials to participate remotely without having to share the address of their whereabouts allowed them to do so without risking their own well-being and that of their families and neighbors.
“While authority to maintain remote participation continues after the approval of last year’s AB 361 (R. Rivas), based on public health recommendations at the time, this authorization of remote participation by local elected officials, as well as members of the public, is slated to sunset at the end of 2023. Developing a long-term framework for remote participation is a critical update of the Brown Act. We have learned during the pandemic that such participation is effective, transparent, and encourages participation from a broader component of the public than was anticipated.
“These positive effects on the conduct of the public’s business would suggest that the conditions outlined in AB 1944 are both reasonable and appropriate to incorporate into our post-pandemic practice of delivering open and public meetings.”
Argument in Opposition: A coalition including the California News Publisher’s Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, the First Amendment Coalition, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers
Association, Californians Aware, the Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability, the Society for Professional Journalists Los Angeles, the Orange County Press Club, and the National Writers Union of Southern California, in opposition, writes, “…we must respectfully oppose AB
1944 (Lee), which would make a fundamental change to the Brown Act, enshrining government officials’ ability to teleconference from private locations not identified or accessible to the public. While temporary accommodations may be necessary, such as to address public health needs
during the COVID-19 pandemic, this bill would abolish longstanding democratic protections that require public meetings be held in public venues where government officials can be seen and engaged by the public.
“Further, this bill would change the Brown Act’s requirement that a quorum be present during a teleconference, allowing government bodies to vote to allow themselves to teleconference from outside the jurisdiction, indefinitely and without justification. While this bill includes some provisions that may expand access for members of the public who wish to participate, the cost to democratic principles and public protection is too great…
“AB 1944 as written, would allow a body to vote to govern themselves with a teleconference scheme that does not require members to identify the location from which they are taking the meeting, nor make that location accessible to the public. Without disclosing the locations, they
are participating from there is no mechanism to ensure that a quorum of members, or any members, are within the jurisdiction about which they are making decisions
Assembly Bill 2449 (Rubio) Open meetings: local agencies: teleconferences Last amended: February 17, 2022 Status: Moved out of its first policy committee hearing and is now in the Assembly Appropriations
Committee Focus of the legislation: Allows members of a legislative body of a local agency to use teleconferencing without identifying each teleconference location in the notice and agenda of the meeting, and without making each teleconference location accessible to the public, if at least a quorum of the members of the body participates in person.
3
Argument in support: Three Valleys Municipal Water District, sponsor of this measure, writes, “As part of his response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Governor Newsom originally issued a series
of Executive Orders to expand public access to meetings of local agencies by suspending some of the restrictions on teleconferencing. The effect was an expanded use of teleconferencing for meetings of the legislative body, resulting in enhanced public access and increased participation
by the public.
“The expiration of the Executive Orders immediately gave way to the new AB 361, essentially allowing for the teleconference provisions detailed in the Executive Orders to continue during a period of emergency declaration. However, once an emergency declaration has ended, local agencies will again be required to comply with antiquated provisions of existing law, making it potentially more difficult to hold meetings of the legislative body by teleconference. While current law does allow for “teleconference locations” under normal circumstances, it requires various actions to be taken at the teleconference locations and fails to recognize in the digital age that a teleconference location is wherever there is a person with a computer, a tablet, or even a mobile phone.
“AB 2449 will eliminate the previously existing concept of teleconference locations and will revise notice requirements to allow for greater public participation in teleconference meetings of local agencies. The bill does not require teleconferencing, rather it modernizes existing law to ensure greater public participation in meetings of the legislative bodies of local agencies who choose to
utilize teleconferencing. Similarly, in acknowledgement of the critical importance of maintaining transparency and accountability, the bill requires that a quorum of the governing body be physically present at a clearly identified meeting location for all public meetings.”
Argument in opposition: A coalition including the California News Publisher’s Association, the ACLU California Action, the First Amendment Coalition, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Californians Aware, the Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability, and the
Society for Professional Journalists Los Angeles, in opposition, writes, “If enacted, AB 2449 would fundamentally alter the Brown Act by providing express authorization to members of legislative bodies to teleconference into public meetings from private locations not identified or accessible to the public at any time, without a compelling reason. While temporary accommodations may be necessary, such as during the COVID-19 public health emergency, this bill would excise the longstanding democratic protection afforded by requiring the entire legislative body to directly face the public. We must be mindful before making substantial changes to the laws that have ensured democracy at the local government level for generations. There are many examples of remote meetings increasing public participation in many respects, but there are still many lessons to learn as we continue to move out of the COVID-19 pandemic…
“To be clear, we support increased public access, such as the provisions of this bill that increase
remote participation for the public; however, AB 2449, as written, ties that expanded access to removal of existing requirements for those who have sought and agreed to public service in local government. We greatly appreciate that the bill has incorporated many of the provisions that were
the result of discussion on AB 339 (Lee) & AB 361 (R. Rivas) last year, including requiring members to be on camera, providing telephonic access for those who do not have stable internet, addressing technological disruptions, and others. However, those bills differed in that AB 339
sought to only expand access for the public, and AB 361’s allowances for legislative bodies are confined to states of emergency and required a vote every 30 days to continue.
“We are also very glad to see that a quorum must be in the same physical location with the public in this bill, but it is essential to narrow the circumstances in which members outside of the quorum can participate remotely, so that the same members cannot avoid physically appearing without
4
circumstances that justifies limiting the public’s access to the member who is supposed to be serving their interests.”
Assembly Bill 2647 (Levine) Local government: open meetings Last amended: April 19, 2022
Status of the Legislation: This bill moved out of its first policy committee hearing and is now in the
Assembly Appropriations Committee.
Focus of the legislation: Allows writings that have been distributed to members of a legislative body of a local agency less than 72 hours before an open meeting to be posted online to satisfy specified requirements of the Brown Act.
Argument in support: The League of California Cities, sponsor of this bill, writes in support, “Recently the Third District Court of Appeals held that posting meeting documents online does not satisfy this requirement of the Brown Act, and that local governments must place physical copies of the document in a designated office open to the public. Requiring physical access at a public location as the only way to satisfy the Brown Act could impair the conduct of the people’s business. Without a legislative solution, the Court’s decision requires local agencies to keep an office open to the public during evenings and/or weekends when a writing is distributed to a local agency’s legislative body. Alternatively, the local agency would have to withhold late breaking information from the legislative body until an office is open which could impact the ability of a
legislative body to be best informed with less time to consider additional information.
“This measure would clarify that writings distributed to the majority of a local legislative body less than 72 hours before a meeting can be posted online if physical copies are made available for
public inspection at the beginning of the next regular business hours at a public office or designated location. By reducing delays, the public and the community will be better informed to engage in the meeting with the flexibility and transparency this measure provides. This change would advance meaningful public access to government information.”
Argument in opposition: There is no argument in opposition, or any opposition listed.
Assembly Bill 1947 (Ting) Hate crimes: law enforcement policies
Last amended: March 24, 2022
Status: The bill has moved out of its first policy committee and is in the Assembly Appropriations
Committee.
Focus of the legislation: This bill requires all California law enforcement agencies to adopt an updated hate crimes policy.
This bill requires every local and state law enforcement agency (LEA) to adopt a hate crimes policy with specific parameters and requires the Commission on Peace Officers Standards and
Training (POST) to develop a model hate crimes policy.
Argument in Support: According to the California Council of Community Behavioral Health Agencies: Despite the spike in reported cases, hate crimes are still notoriously underreported.
For instance, 11 California cities with populations of at least 100,000 reported zero hate crimes in 2019. AB 1947 is a critical first step to address the problem of almost universal non-reporting of hate crimes. The bill would require law enforcement agencies to submit their hate crime policies,
brochures, and training schedules to the Department of Justice to ensure compliance.
Argument in Opposition: According to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL): AB 1947 mandates codification of overly specific requirements that sends a misleading message to communities about what is and is not a hate crime and may undermine law enforcement agencies’ ability to
5
effectively recognize and respond to hate crimes. [E]enshrining a specific hate crime policy into law will create significant logistical hurdles for legislators. What is written into law can only be
amended by more law. AB 1947’s one-size-fits-all approach as … will force lawmakers to revisit the content on a frequent basis to ensure it accurately reflects current trends, circumstances, and language.
Assembly Bill 2011 (Wicks)
Last amended: April 18, 2022, with more amendments coming
Status: The bill has moved out of its first policy committee hearing on April 27th and will be the
subject of many more meetings and amendments.
Focus of the legislation: Establishes the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022 (Act), to create a ministerial, streamlined approval process for 100 percent affordable housing in commercially zoned areas and for mixed-income housing along commercial corridors. One of the main focuses of this bill is to establish new workable labor standards that do not include the skilled and trained work force.
This bill would require housing to be “by right” if it conforms to the provisions below regarding affordability, location, objective standards, and labor. In being by right, it would not be subject to a local government’s discretionary approval process and would be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Local governments would be able to apply objective standards and
design review processes if they do not conflict with the provisions in the bill and do not preclude development of the housing.
Argument in Support: Supporters of the bill include groups that represent construction workers,
groups that support the development of affordable housing, and groups that support an overall increase in the housing supply.
Groups that represent construction workers, including the Northern California Regional
Conference of Carpenters, the Southwest Regional Conference of Carpenters, and affiliated groups, argue that the prevailing wage requirements and enforcement provisions in the bill would benefit workers while the housing provisions in the bill would help put those workers to work. According to the California Conference of Carpenters (a co-sponsor of the bill), the bill “will open the door to middle-class, blue-collar careers for young workers who will actually be able to live in, and eventually even own, the affordable housing they build.”
Groups that support the development of affordable housing, including the California Housing Consortium (a co-sponsor of the bill) argue that the bill would rapidly accelerate the production of affordable housing. They write that the bill “will expand climate-friendly infill affordable housing opportunities for struggling families, seniors, workers, and veterans – while also growing a thriving, well-paid, middle-class construction workforce.”
Groups that support an overall increase in the housing supply argue that the bill is necessary to help overcome the state’s deficit of 2.5 million housing units. According to the California Apartment Association, “By opening new sites to housing, AB 2011 would rapidly accelerate
housing production at all income levels – particularly for lower income Californians.
Argument in Opposition: Opponents of the bill include groups that represent construction workers and three cities. The State Building and Construction Trades Council (SBCTC) and
affiliated groups, argue that the bill should require the utilization of a skilled and trained workforce, as defined in labor law, which would in effect require a certain percentage of each construction craft and trade to be unionized unless the project is subject to a Project Labor Agreement. They argue that, absent these provisions, the bill provides a path to developer profits with little protections for workers and meaningful input from community members. According to the SBCTC,
6
“We remain opposed to any effort that would create a statewide right to develop mostly market-rate and luxury housing without, at a very minimum, basic community protections, including the
requirement to use a skilled and trained workforce and pay area prevailing wages.”
The cities of Laguna Beach, Mission Viejo, and Rancho Santa Margarita argue that the bill would remove local control and the ability of cities to determine the adequacy of sites for housing and
the ability to provide affiliated infrastructure. They also express concern over a potential reduction in tax revenue from the loss of commercial properties.
Assembly Bill 2050 (Lee) Residential Real Property
Last amended: April 18, 2022
Status: The bill has moved out of two policy committees and is in the Assembly Appropriations
Committee.
Focus of the legislation: This bill would introduce several reforms aimed at curbing abuses of the Ellis Act. First, it would prohibit use of the Act to remove a property from the rental market in a rent control jurisdiction until all the owners of the property (including holders of ownership interests in an entity that, in turn, owns the property) have maintained their ownership for a period of at least five continuous years. Second, if a person utilizes the Ellis Act to remove a property from the rental market and then acquires another rental property, that person would have to wait 10 years before being allowed to utilize the Ellis Act to remove the second property from the rental
market. Both provisions, which could be enforced in the courts by tenants, would limit speculators’ misuse of the Act to profit at the expense of tenants’ long-term housing stability,
Argument in Support: AIDS Healthcare Foundation encapsulates the rationale for this bill:
California has a massive problem with people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. Aggravating the problem are the speculator[s]…who take advantage of Ellis to withdraw rental units because they intend to “go out of the rental housing business.” Since many of these
properties provide affordable rent-controlled housing for low-income tenants, these [speculators], many of whom have owned the property for a short period of time, use the Ellis Act to rid themselves of financially unproductive tenants. […] In some cities, where rent protections are less firm, some speculator[s] have replaced low-income tenants with market rate tenants. In some cases, the new owner will sell the now more valuable property to another speculator. In all these cases, the common outcome is to remove more affordable rental properties from the market, leaving low-income tenants scrambling to find housing.
Argument in Opposition: California Rental Housing Association explains why it believes this bill’s provisions are unwise: There are many reasons why an owner may need to sell within 5 years, such as: moving, job relocation, personal, financial, etc. [...] This bill would put significant limitations on the[e Ellis Act’s] protections and will make it much more difficult for housing
providers to exercise their right to go out of business regardless if they are losing money, facing bankruptcy, are attempting to plan their estates or have recently obtained title to the rental property through the passing of a relative. In addition, the provision that prohibits a property owner
from going out of business at one location if they have been forced to go out of business at another location within the past 10 years is especially damaging. Many rental property owners own multiple properties at different locations. Arbitrarily limiting the number of properties that an owner can withdraw accommodations from will not help alleviate the housing crisis, it will only make it more difficult for rental property owners to remain financially solvent.
Assembly Bill 2063 (Berman) Density Bonuses: affordable housing impact fees
Last amended: April 21, 2022
7
Status: The bill has moved out of two policy committees and is in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
Focus of the legislation: This bill prohibits a local government from charging affordable housing impact fees on the bonus units included in a density bonus project. The bill specifies that affordable housing impact fees include inclusionary zoning fees, public benefit fees, and in-lieu
fees. The bill exempts from its provision’s local agencies that, prior to January 1, 2022, adopted ordinances that allow for a density bonus of 50 percent if specified percentages of affordable units are included in the project.
Argument in Support: Habitat for Humanity writes in support, “The State Density Bonus law was enacted to increase the overall housing stock, and subsidized affordable housing stock, in California. In addition to the subsidized affordable housing requirements of the State Density Bonus law, some municipalities have unfortunately applied an equivalent affordable housing fee on state density bonus units which creates a disincentive and financial cost on those bonus units that make it exponentially more difficult to get projects to pencil. The fee itself can add millions to the overall cost of construction to a single project.
Argument in Opposition: The California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation writes in opposition, “As drafted, AB 2063 would undermine an existing local policy in San Francisco despite any evidence that the policy constrains either market-rate or affordable housing development. According to the Department of Housing and Community Development’s Housing Element
Implementation and APR Dashboard, in the fifth housing element cycle so far, which in the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) region runs January 31, 2015- January 31, 2023, San Francisco has already permitted 167.2% of its above moderate-income (i.e., market-rate)
share of the regional housing need. In addition, it has permitted 43.4% of its very low-income RHNA share, 66% of its low-income share, and 43.4% of its moderate-income share. As a comparison, jurisdictions in the ABAG region have permitted 164.3% of the above moderate-income RHNA, 24.6% of the very low-income RHNA, 26.8% of the low-income RHNA, and 44.6% of the moderate-income RHNA
Assembly Bill 2097 (Friedman) Residential and commercial development: parking requirements
Last amended: February 14, 2022
Status: This bill has gone through two policy committees and is in the Assembly Appropriations
Committee.
Focus of the legislation: This legislation prohibits public agencies from enforcing minimum automobile parking requirements for developments located close to public transit.
Argument in Support: According to one of the sponsors, SPUR, “AB 2097 will eliminate
requirements that homes and commercial buildings near transit or in neighborhoods with less car use be built with more parking than is necessary. By reducing the overbuilding of parking, this bill would reduce traffic, greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, reduce the cost of housing to
renters and homeowners, and improve the prospects of small neighborhood businesses fighting to survive during the pandemic.”
Argument in Opposition: The League of California Cities writes in opposition, “AB 2097 would
allow developers to dictate parking requirements in large areas of many cities because the definition of public transit includes entire bus routes with fifteen-minute service intervals. Restricting parking requirements within one-half mile of a high-frequency transit route does not guarantee individuals living, working, or shopping on those parcels will use transit. Many residents
8
will continue to own automobiles and require nearby parking, which will only increase parking demand and congestion.”
Assembly Bill 2147 (Ting) Pedestrians
Last amended: February 15, 2022
Status: The bill has moved out of its first policy committee and is in the Assembly Appropriations
Committee.
Focus of the legislation: This bill prohibits enforcement of “jaywalking” laws. Specifically, this bill modifies several existing sections of the vehicle code so that a peace officer may not stop a pedestrian for violating a prohibition against entering an intersection or roadway, unless a careful person would realize there is an immediate danger of a collision with a moving vehicle or other device moving exclusively by human power. The bill specifies its provisions do not relieve either a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for their safety or a driver of a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within the roadway.
Argument in Support: Every day, millions of Californians cross the street outside of an intersection when no cars are present. California’s jaywalking laws criminalize one of our most vulnerable transportation modes and are unevenly enforced. A 2017 study in Sacramento showed Black Californians were cited for jaywalking five times more than the general population. Beyond inequitable enforcement, the prevalence of jaywalking in certain neighborhoods reflects inequities
in street design. People who need to walk in their neighborhoods should not be penalized for decades of infrastructure neglect and auto-first street design that fails to consider the needs of users who aren’t in cars. AB 2147 promotes safe walking and limits unjust enforcement by
prohibiting law enforcement from stopping individuals for jaywalking unless there is an immediate danger of a collision with a moving vehicle.
The National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter, writing in support of this bill, argues “Pedestrians can face fines up to $250 for crossing the street outside of a designated crosswalk. That’s a higher fine than most parking tickets and common traffic citations. California’s vehicle codes are written to prioritize cars and fine pedestrians simply for crossing the road, regardless of if cars are present. These citations are often used as a tool for police to harass communities of color. Across California, police departments stop Black pedestrians at a higher rate than white pedestrians. From 2018-2020, data from the California Racial and Identity Profiling Act shows that Black Californians are severely overrepresented in jaywalking enforcement.
Argument in Opposition: The California Sheriffs Association writes in opposition to this bill, contending it has the effect of “significantly limiting when a peace officer may stop a pedestrian for a violation of one of the affected safety laws.” Differing, the California District Attorneys Association argues the bill “undermines pedestrian safety laws by imposing a new enforcement
standard before violations of those laws can be enforced.” The district attorneys recommend the author amend the bill to “instead redefine what behavior is lawful” while maintaining “a peace officer’s authority to enforce a public offense when that violation occurs.”
Assembly Bill 2181 (Berman) Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority: board of directors
Last amended: May 2, 2022
Status: The bill has moved out of its first policy committee and is now in the Assembly Appropriations committee.
Focus of the legislation: This legislation seeks to make changes to the Board of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), including:
9
1) Specifies that the government of VTA shall be vested in a board of directors that shall consist of 12 voting members, as follows:
a) Two representatives of Santa Clara County, who shall be appointed by the president of the board of supervisors with board of supervisors’ approval by at least a four-fifth vote, consistent with both of the following requirements:
i) One representative shall be a nonelected community member with expertise in financing and accounting. ii) One representative shall be a nonelected community member with expertise infrastructure management, construction management, or project management. b) Five representatives of the City of San Jose, who shall be appointed by the mayor of the City of San Jose with city council approval, consistent with the following: i) At least two representatives shall be city council members or the mayor of the City of San Jose. ii) At least two representatives shall be nonelected community members who, to the extent possible, have expertise, experience, or knowledge relative to transportation issues.
iii) The mayor of the City of San Jose shall appoint at least one representative who uses public transit as their primary mode of transportation. c) Five representatives of the cities in the county, other than the City of San Jose, elected in
a manner consistent with the following: i) At least two representatives shall be nonelected community members who, to the extent possible, have expertise, experience, or knowledge relative to transportation
issues. ii) At least two representatives shall be city council members or mayors of the cities in the county, other than the City of San Jose. iii) To the extent possible, each regional group, as provided for by the agreements among the cities in the county, other than the City of San Jose, shall be represented on the board of directors by a representative elected pursuant to this bill. iv) The representatives shall be elected through the following ranked choice voting process: (1) VTA shall develop an application process. (2) To be eligible to be selected, a candidate shall complete an application and submit the application to VTA.
(3) VTA shall create one ranked choice ballot that includes only those candidates that submitted complete applications. (4) The city council of each city in the county, other than the City of San Jose, shall in
a public forum, rank those candidates using the ranked choice ballot and submit the ranked choice ballot to VTA by a date determined by VTA. (5) VTA shall count the ranked choice ballots submitted pursuant to (4) above.
v) Provides that if a representative who is elected as a city council member or mayor of a city in the county, other than the City of San Jose, no longer serves in that capacity as a city council member or mayor, the representative may continue to serve on the board of directors until their term on the board of directors expires, unless as otherwise specified. 2) Specifies that in addition to the 12 voting members of the VTA Board, VTA’s Board may include ex officio nonvoting members from regional transportation or governmental bodies. 3) Requires VTA to ensure that representatives of a single city do not compose most of the board of directors. 4) Provides that a representative appointed or elected pursuant to this bill shall serve a four-year term and may be reappointed without limitation.
10
5) Specifies that VTA shall implement guidelines for the removal for cause of a representative appointed or elected to the Board.
6) Removes, as of January 1, 2024, the provision in existing law that provides that the term of office for each director shall be two years and until the appointment and qualification of their successor, and specified vacancy requirements.
7) Specifies that this bill shall become operative on July 1, 2023. Argument in Support: There is no formal support.
Per the author, “Valley Transportation Authority provides essential public transit options that help get Santa Clara County’s two million residents to and from work, school, and home. However, three Civil Grand Jury Reports over the last 17 years have concluded that VTA’s governance structure is a root cause of the agency’s poor performance and is in need of structural reform. AB 2181 delivers this structural reform by transitioning the current board—a rotating group of 12 elected officials and 6 alternates in Santa Clara County—to a 12-member hybrid board composed of both elected officials and qualified members of the public. This bill honors local control by building in flexibility, while prioritizing both regional accountability and equity in using a regional ranked choice voting process. The new VTA board members would be selected by city and county officials in a transparent public process, ensuring that expertise related to transportation, infrastructure or project management, and budgetary expertise are represented on the board. A more experienced, transparent, and regionally focused VTA Board will be better positioned to
meet Santa Clara County’s complex transportation needs.”
Argument in Opposition: There is no formal opposition.
Per the most recent Grand Jury report, “The Grand Jury concluded that today, more so than in
2004 or 2009, the VTA Board is in need of structural change to enable it to better protect the interests of the County’s taxpayers and address the many complex challenges presented by emerging trends in transportation, rapidly evolving technology and the changing needs of Silicon Valley residents. The Grand Jury recommends several changes to the governance structure and operations of the VTA Board which will improve the Board’s ability to effectively perform its important oversight and strategic decision-making functions.”
Assembly Bill 2630 (O’Donnell) California Interagency Council on Homelessness
Last amended: April 21, 2022
Status: The bill has moved out of its first policy committee and is now in the Assembly Appropriations committee.
Focus of the legislation: This legislation requires a city, county, or city and county that has used funds from any state funding source to assist in addressing homelessness to provide a public
report on its internet website on the use of those funds by July 1, 2023
The 2021-22 state budget provides multi-year funding for the HHAP which funds local efforts to
responds to homelessness. To access this funding, eligible applicants (Continuums of Care
(CoCs), counties, and eligible cities) are required to submit a Local Homelessness Action Plan
that demonstrates how HHAP funds and all local dollars for homelessness can reduce the number
of people experiencing homelessness. The local action plans are required to include: analysis
that assesses the current number of people experiencing homelessness and existing programs
and funding which address homelessness within the jurisdiction; Identification of the number of
individuals and families served, including demographic information and intervention types
provided, and subpopulations that are underserved relative to their proportion amongst those
11
experiencing homelessness in the jurisdiction; and identification of all funds, including state,
federal and local funds, currently being used, and budgeted to be used, to provide housing and
homelessness-related services to persons experiencing homelessness or at imminent risk of
homelessness, how this funding serves subpopulations, and what intervention types are funded
through these resources.
This bill would require all cities and counties to complete a homelessness action plan consistent with the requirements of HHAP and publish the report on the cities or county’s internet website. Those cities and counties that apply for HHAP can use the local homelessness action plan they
submit to for HHAP funds to fulfill this requirement.
Argument in Support: There are no arguments yet in support of this legislation.
Argument in Opposition: There are no arguments yet in opposition of this legislation.
Senate Bill 897 (Wiecowski) Accessory dwelling units
Last amended: April 21, 2022
Status: The bill has moved out of its first two policy committees and is the Senate Appropriations
Committee.
Focus of the legislation: This legislation would make a handful of changes to the laws governing
ADUs and JADUs including that standards imposed on an ADU by a local agency must be
objective, clarify that a local agency must explicitly approve or deny an application for an ADU or
JADU within the 60 day timeframe, rather than act on the application, specify that construction of
an ADU does not constitute a Group R occupancy change under the local building code, as
specified, or trigger a requirement for fire sprinklers to be installed in the proposed or existing
primary dwelling, allow for the construction of ADUs along with a proposed multifamily dwelling,
in addition to existing authority that applies to proposed single-family dwellings, allow a JADU to
be attached to a detached ADU and clarify that enclosed uses within the residence are considered
a part of the proposed or existing single-family dwelling, and repeal the January 1, 2025 sunset
on the prohibition on local owner-occupancy requirements, and repeal the existing owner-
occupancy requirement in JADU law.
SB 897 would also require HCD, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to establish and
administer a grant program to fund the construction and maintenance of ADUs and JADUs. The
bill would establish the California Accessory Dwelling Unit Fund in the State Treasury and require
HCD to distribute funds to eligible recipients, upon appropriation of those funds by the Legislature.
Argument in Support: “California was and continues to be in an ongoing housing crisis since I introduced my first ADU bill in 2016. While California has seen a significant increase in the amount of ADU building permit applications and ADU construction since that time, the lack of housing, and in particular affordable housing, is one of the most significant drivers of institutional and generational poverty cycles and will not be resolved until more housing can be developed. Eliminating any unnecessary barriers to ADU construction is a cost-effective approach that will allow homeowners to make better use of their property. ADU’s can provide additional rental
availability in their communities and allow homeowners to create more financial stability for themselves. Additionally, ADU’s provide housing options for those homeowners who want to age in place as well as providing flexible living space for their family, friends, or caregivers. SB 897
builds upon previous ADU legislation by addressing some of the remaining barriers to ADU construction and supporting the development of housing that is more affordable by design.”
Argument in Opposition: SB 897 continues what has been a annual tradition of numerous
significant revisions to ADU law. Beginning in 2016, when the Legislature rewrote ADU law, the
12
Legislature has enacted 11 measures that amend ADU law to some degree, including three bills in 2019 that sent local agencies back to the drawing board on their ADU ordinances, including to
prohibit local agencies from requiring owner-occupancy until January 1, 2025. SB 897 proposes more significant changes that will require local agencies to update their ordinances yet again. Among those changes are to repeal the sunset on the prohibition on owner-occupancy
requirements--less than three years into the six-year pilot program. Given the short amount of time that has elapsed, it is unclear whether the Legislature has enough information to determine whether the prohibition on owner-occupancy requirements have led to undesirable changes in the ownership of ADUs, such as to encourage large institutional investors with little stake in a community to invest in ADU development and ownership. Should the Legislature wait on further changes to ADU laws until local governments have had a chance to catch their breath and the Legislature can evaluate the effect of recent changes on ADU development?
Senate Bill 932 (Portantino) General plans: circulation element: bicycle and pedestrian calming
Last amended: March 23, 2022
Status: The bill has moved out of its first two policy committees and is in the Senate Appropriations
Committee.
Focus of the legislation: This bill requires the circulation element of a general plan to include
specified contents related to bicycle plans, pedestrian plans, and traffic calming plans, and to implement those plans; provides that failure to implement the plans creates a cause of action for victims of traffic violence.
Argument in Support: Per the author, most California streets have grown more dangerous in recent years. California follows a nationwide trend; the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration saw a 20% increase in traffic fatalities in the first six months of 2021 compared to
2020 or 2019. Some California cities lack data on addressing the epidemic of traffic violence, particularly regarding death and serious injuries to pedestrians, cyclists, and other human-powered-transit users. In certain cities where the most dangerous streets and corridors have been identified, no plan exists to remedy these deadly situations. Even in cities that have developed plans, like Los Angeles’ Vision Zero and Mobility Plan 2035, meaningful changes that would save lives have yet to be implemented. SB 932 requires a county or city to include in its General Plan, a map of the high injury network within its boundaries and would further require a county or city to identify and prioritize safety improvements. Thus saving countless lives.
Argument in Opposition: American Planning Association California Chapter, California State
Association of Counties, League of California Cities, Rural County Representatives of California,
Safer Streets LA, and Urban Counties of California raise concerns relating to SB 932 significantly
expands local government liability for traffic collisions by creating a cause of action if cities and
counties fail to fully implement the provisions of the bill, potentially making them liable for injuries
that may result from the actions of third parties, such as motorists, and exposing local
governments to significant costs in the process that might otherwise have gone to support the
infrastructure that SB 932 seeks to encourage.
In addition, SB 932 requires every city and county in the state to adopt bicycle and pedestrian
plans, including a prescriptive list of infrastructure that must be constructed, without regard for
local conditions that may influence whether a given area is likely to have significant bike or foot
traffic.
Senate Bill 1000 (Becker) Law enforcement agencies: radio communication
13
Last amended: March 16, 2022
Status: The bill has moved out of its first policy committee and is now in the Senate Appropriations
Committee.
Focus of the legislation: The purpose of this bill is to ensure public access to law enforcement radio communications and require law enforcement agencies to prevent or minimize criminal
justice information or personally identifiable information from being broadcast in a manner that is accessible to the public.
Argument in Support: According to the California Public Defender’s Association:
“We have proudly supported recent efforts by members of the California Legislature to put police
policies and procedures online (SB 978 (Bradford), increase transparency of some police
disciplinary records (SB 1421 (Skinner) and SB 16 (Skinner)) and to create a commission to
investigate and decertify police officers (SB 2 (Bradford). Yet despite these efforts to move toward
more openness, some police agencies have continued to try to shield information from the public
eye. For 80 years, news outlets, journalists and the public have had access to police radio
communications. This access is critically important for police transparency, accountability, and
reporting activity to the public. However, in October 2020, the California Department of Justice’s
California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) issued a memo regarding the
requirement for police agencies to protect identifying information via encryption.” […]
“We agree that now is not the time to reduce public access to police activity. Access to critical
information regarding police activity is not an “operational change” that should be taken without input from the public, the media, or city, county and state elected officials. Nuanced approaches like the one CHP has chosen to take strike a better balance between openness and protecting
private information and should be adopted by other police agencies rather than wholesale encryption. SB 1000 is a much-needed correction to the actions of certain local law enforcement agencies seeking to completely shield important information from the public view. It is also a
preventative measure to keep this problem from becoming a statewide issue.”
Argument in Opposition: According to the California State Sheriff’s Association:
“To comply with state and federal requirements, some law enforcement agencies have encrypted
their radio communications. SB 1000’s general default to unencrypted radio communications
would represent a significant burden to agencies that went to tremendous expense to obtain new
technology or have previously encrypted their communications. Additionally, to switch back to
unencrypted radio communications will require costly and time-consuming training to protect CJI
and PII.
Also, the bill’s contemplation of using alternate, non-broadcasting radio technology to protect
information may not be easy or achievable in some geographic locations due to unavailable cell
service or computers that cannot connect. Switching to encrypted or alternate media in tactical or
undercover situations will likely complicate already complex scenarios."
Senate Bill 1067 (Portantino) Housing development projects: parking
Last amended: April 28, 2022
Status: The bill has moved out of its first two policy committees and is now in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Focus of the legislation: This bill prohibits local governments from imposing parking minimums on certain housing developments near a major transit stop, as specified.
14
Argument in Support: “Cities and counties require property owners to provide and maintain a certain number of off-street parking spaces. The imposition of mandatory parking minimums can
increase the cost of housing, limit the number of available units, lead to an oversupply of parking spaces, and increased greenhouse gas emissions. While some cities have voluntarily moved towards removing parking minimums, others review projects on a case-by-case basis, and some
provide for reduced parking requirements with safeguards for protecting the production of units for low-income, senior citizens, and disabled persons. To this end, SB 1067 prohibits a city from imposing any minimum automobile parking requirement on a housing development project that is located within 1⁄2 mile of public transit if specific conditions are met. The project must either dedicate 25% of the total units to lower-income households, the elderly, or persons with disabilities, or the developer must demonstrate to the local agency that the development would not have a negative impact on the local agency’s ability to meet specified housing needs and would not have a negative impact on traffic circulation or existing residential or commercial parking within 1⁄2 mile of the project.”
Argument in Opposition: Local governments and community groups oppose this bill due to a lack of local control, reduced parking requirements, and a general concern over continually changing state housing laws. South Pasadena Residents for Responsible Growth are opposed because they would like to see the bill expanded to provide that all housing development parking requirements are eliminated. The State Building and Construction Trades are opposed because
the bill does not allow for electric vehicle owners to park their cars and would prefer investments in public transit.
Senate Bill 1100 (Cortese) Open Meetings; orderly conduct
Last amended: April 21, 2022
Status: The bill has moved out of its first two policy committees and is now on the Senate Floor.
Focus of the legislation: This bill authorizes the presiding member of a legislative body conducting a meeting to remove an individual for disrupting the meeting and defines “disrupting” for these purposes. More specifically,
1) Authorizes the presiding member of the legislative body conducting a meeting to remove an individual for disrupting the meeting.
2) Provides that removal must be preceded by a warning from the presiding member of the
legislative body that the individual is disrupting the proceedings, a request that the individual
curtail their disruptive behavior or be subject to removal, and a reasonable opportunity to
curtail their disruptive behavior. This warning is not required if the individual is engaging in
behavior that includes use of force or true threats of force.
3) Defines “disrupting” as engaging in behavior that disrupts, disturbs, impedes, or renders
infeasible the orderly conduct of the meeting and includes, but is not limited to, both:
a) A failure to comply with reasonable and lawful regulations adopted by a legislative body
pursuant to existing law.
b) Engaging in behavior that includes the use of force or true threats of force.
4) States various findings and declarations of the Legislature, including:
a) It is the intent of the Legislature to prescribe requirements for governing public meetings
to protect civil liberties in accordance with the United States Constitution, the California
Constitution, and relevant law.
15
b) It is the intent of the Legislature to codify the authority and standards for governing public
meetings in accordance with Acosta v. City of Costa Mesa, 718 F.3d 800, 811 (9th Cir.
2013), in which the court explained that an ordinance governing the decorum of a city
council meeting is not facially overbroad if it only permits a presiding officer to eject an
attendee for actually disturbing or impeding a meeting.
c) Finds and declares that this bill imposes a limitation on the public’s right of access to the
meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies within the meaning
of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution. Pursuant to that constitutional
provision, the measure makes findings to demonstrate the interest protected by this
limitation, and the need for protecting that interest is furthered by giving legislative bodies
clear authorization to restore order to meetings in the event of actual disruptions that are
disturbing, disrupting, impeding, or rendering infeasible the orderly conduct of the meeting
and, thereby, preserve the rights of other members of the public at the meeting and allow
the legislative body to continue its work on behalf of the public.
Argument in Support: According to the author, “It has become increasingly clear that the mechanisms provided by the Brown Act to deal with disruptions during public meetings are insufficient. Across California, public officials and public attendees continue to deal with disorderly conduct during meetings at such a high magnitude that critical business and the legislative process has become impaired. As we have undoubtedly seen, many troubling incidents across
the state, including those involving harassment and threats of violence, have demonstrated the need to protect public safety and public meeting access by modernizing the Brown Act so that it provides clearer standards around when removal of a meeting participant is warranted and what
authority members of a legislative body can exercise.”
Argument in Opposition: The bill is opposed by Californians for Good Governance, Stand UP, and two individuals. Educate Advocate also expressed concerns with the current language in the
bill. The opposition feels that the language in the bill is either vague or does not give enough guidance to local governing bodies about what behavior can and should warrant removal. They argue that disturbing, disrupting, and impeding is too subjective and worry about how locals will apply the law. The opposition arguments do not account for the fact that the language in the bill says disrupts, disturbs, impedes, or renders infeasible the orderly conduct of the meeting (emphasis added). Furthermore, the bills findings make it clear the intent of the bill is for its provisions to be interpreted and applied consistently with the holding in Acosta v. City of Costa
Mesa. It is impossible to state that all local governing bodies will apply the law consistently with the First Amendment. These scenarios would be as applied challenges to the law under First Amendment jurisprudence and would be highly fact specific. The bill on its face, as described above, is in line with current Ninth Circuit case law on this matter and the proposed amendments
provide additional protections for members of the public in exercising their right to access public meetings.
Senate Bill 1338 (Umberg) Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment Program (CARE Court)
Last amended: April 7, 2022
Status: The bill has moved out of its first two policy committees and is now in the Senate
Appropriations Committee.
Focus of the legislation: Establishes the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment
(CARE) Court Act for the purpose of providing a court-ordered CARE plan to individuals who have a severe mental illness and meet other specified criteria that includes behavioral health treatment
16
services, a trained supporter to assist the respondent in navigating the process and identifies an appropriate housing plan.
Argument in Support: According to the authors, this bill creates the CARE Court program, which
is a proposed framework to deliver MH and SUD services to the most severely impaired
Californians who too often languish—suffering in homelessness or incarceration—without the
treatment they desperately need. The proposed CARE Court program is a response to the urgent
need for innovative solutions for individuals who are suffering with untreated schizophrenia
spectrum and psychotic disorders, often unhoused in our communities, and who face high risks
for repeated hospitalization, incarceration, institutionalization, conservatorship, and premature
death. In California and nationally, comprehensive care, medication, and housing have been
clinically proven to successfully treat and stabilize individuals with severe mental illness but are
too often available only after arrest or in secure facilities. Therefore, this bill will create a program
to connect a person in crisis with a court-ordered CARE plan for up to 12 months, with the
possibility to extend for an additional 12 months. The program provides individuals with a clinically
appropriate, community-based set of services and supports that are culturally and linguistically
competent. This includes short-term stabilization medications, wellness and recovery supports,
and connection to social services, including housing.
CARE Court proposal. In early 2022, Governor Newsom proposed the CARE Court program, as
an alternative to amending the LPS Act, to help connect a person in crisis with a court-ordered
CARE plan for up to 12 months, with the possibility to extend for an additional 12 months. The
framework provides individuals with a clinically appropriate, community-based set of services and
supports that are culturally and linguistically competent, which includes short-term stabilization
medications, wellness and recovery supports, and connection to social services and a housing
plan. According to the CHHSA’s website, housing is an important component—finding stability
and staying connected to treatment, even with the proper supports, is next to impossible while
living outdoors, in a tent, or in a vehicle. CHHSA states that CARE Court is an upstream diversion
to prevent more restrictive conservatorships or incarceration, based on evidence that
demonstrates many people can stabilize, begin healing, and exit homelessness in less restrictive,
community-based care settings. With advances in treatment models, new longer-acting
antipsychotic treatments, and the right clinical team and housing plan, individuals who have
historically suffered tremendously on the streets or during avoidable incarceration can be
successfully stabilized and supported in the community. CHHSA further states that CARE Court
is not for everyone experiencing homelessness or mental illness; it focuses on people with
schizophrenia spectrum or other psychotic disorders who lack medical decision-making capacity,
before they enter the criminal justice system or become so impaired that they end up in a LPS
conservatorship due to mental illness. CHSSA states that although homelessness has many
faces in California, among the most tragic is the face of the sickest who suffer from treatable
mental health conditions, and the CARE Court proposal aims to connect these individuals to
effective treatment and support, mapping a path to long-term recovery. CARE Court is estimated
to help thousands of Californians on their journey to sustained wellness.
Argument in Opposition: A coalition of opponents, most of the listed opposition comprised of
advocates that advance and protect the civil rights of Californians living with disabilities,
experiencing homelessness, and involved in the criminal legal system, argues that the CARE
Court framework is unacceptable for a number of reasons:
• It does not guarantee housing as a solution to address homelessness.
17
• Evidence shows that resourced intensive voluntary outpatient treatment is more
effective than court-ordered treatment.
• It will perpetuate institutional racism and worsen health disparities.
• There are flaws in this bill’s reliance on a person’s lack of capacity to make medical
decisions.
• Use of the terms “supportive decision-making” and “supporter” reflects a
misunderstanding of the concepts behind the terms and obscures the involuntary
nature of CARE Court; and,
• Critical terms and concepts are not defined in this bill or elsewhere in California law.
The coalition in opposition further states that CARE Court is a system of coerced, court-ordered
treatment that strips people with mental health disabilities of their right to make their own decisions
about their lives. CARE Court is antithetical to recovery principles, which are based on self-
determination and self-direction, and is based on stigma and stereotypes of people living with
mental health disabilities and experiencing homelessness. While the coalition in opposition
agrees that state resources must be urgently allocated towards addressing homelessness,
incarceration, hospitalization, conservatorship, and premature death of Californians living with
severe mental illness, CARE Court is the wrong framework. The right framework allows people
with disabilities to retain autonomy over their own lives by providing them with meaningful and
reliable access to affordable, accessible, integrated housing combined with voluntary services.
The coalition in opposition argues that California law is very clear about the process to determine
whether a person lacks capacity to make medical decisions, which includes the right to a court
hearing, which must be followed, and this bill does not require any of these steps. Instead, it
allows unacceptable shortcuts.
Other Bills:
Assembly Bill 1953 (Maienschein) Drinking water; accessible water bottle refill stations
Last amended: March 29, 2022
Status: The bill has moved out of its first policy committee and is in the Assembly Appropriations
Committee.
Focus of the legislation: To require, by January 1, 2025, the owner or operator of a transit hub, local park, public building, publicly owned building, shopping mall or golf course to install and maintain at least one, or maintain at least one existing, accessible water bottle refill station.
The Department of General Services (DGS) estimates costs ranging from $85 million to $324 million to purchase and install accessible water bottle refill stations at state office buildings and publicly owned buildings that have water infrastructure sources.
Argument in Support: According to a coalition in support, including Californians Against Waste and the Clean Seas Lobbying Coalition, "AB 1953 will improve water accessibility, reduce waste, and support consumer choices by requiring various public areas to install and maintain accessible water bottle refill stations in addition to existing water fountains. Ensuring water refill stations not
18
only improves accessibility to drinking water, but also creates lasting infrastructural support for consumers opting for reuse. In addition to bridging the gap in water access, making water refill
stations more accessible and investing in reuse infrastructure to support reuse systems for reusable water bottles and other refillable containers can prevent pollution and waste. Around 60 million plastic bottles end up in landfills every single day, and Americans alone send more than
38 billion water bottles to landfills every year, the equivalent of 912 million gallons of oil."
Argument in Opposition: There is no opposition to this legislation.
Assembly Bill 1737 (Holden) Children’s camps: local registration and inspections
Last amended: April 20, 2022
Status: The bill has moved out of its first two policy committees and is in the Assembly
Appropriations Committee.
Focus of the legislation: Requires specified employees and volunteers of children’s camps to undergo background checks and to complete training in child abuse and neglect reporting
This bill would redefine “organized camps” to include children’s camps. A children’s camp would be defined as a camp that offers daytime or overnight experiences administered by adults who provide social, cultural, educational, recreational, or artistic programming to more than five children between 3 and 17 years of age for 5 days or longer during at least one season.
Argument in Support: According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, California, “We are
aware of children suffering abuse and injuries at camps, including Roxie Forbes who was killed at an unlicensed camp without proper training, certifications, operational plans, or any county safety oversight. Roxie’s parents established a foundation with a mission to protect kids, not
destroy camps. To that end, they have advocated for the need of long, overdue changes reflected in this bill.
Argument in Opposition: According to the California State Association of Counties, “We
commend the author’s goal to create an oversight and enforcement structure for children’s camps that ensures their safety and the well-being of children in their care. However, we believe AB 1737 falls short of that goal by placing this responsibility with local health departments that exist to protect communities from public health threats, including but not limited to infectious diseases, climate-related illness, and chronic diseases.
Assembly Bill 2631 (O’Donnell) Government Claims Act
Last amended: February 18, 2022
The bill is not moving forward currently.
Focus of the legislation: This bill would provide that a public entity is liable for injury relating to the effects of that public entity’s homelessness policies on another public entity
Argument in Support: There are no arguments yet in support of this legislation.
Argument in Opposition: There are no arguments yet in opposition of this legislation.
TO: City of Palo Alto, Policy and Services Committee
FROM: Steve Palmer and David Haines, Van Scoyoc Associates
DATE: May 5, 2022
RE: Federal Update
This memo is to provide an update of activities in Washington, D.C. and the advocacy we are
undertaking on behalf of the City of Palo Alto. This summary highlights the FY 2023 appropriations
process, including the City’s requests for Community Project Funding, otherwise known as congressional
earmarks, as well as a brief summary of upcoming grant opportunities from the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act.
Much of the attention that the Council will likely hear about will be on the surprise leak of a possible
Supreme Court decision on abortion, the war in Ukraine, immigration and the southern border, and
efforts by the Federal Reserve to control inflation. However, we continue to work with the Congress
and federal agencies on these and other legislative priorities for the City.
Federal Budget
The President’s proposed FY 2023 budget was submitted to Congress on April 4, about two months later
than normal, due largely to the delay in completing the FY 2022 budget. After a two week recess in
April, Congress is now beginning to hold hearings with Cabinet officials. Bipartisan discussions between
House and Senate Appropriations Committee leaders have begun, as they seek to reach agreement on
an overall spending limit for the next fiscal year.
The schedule for consideration of the twelve appropriations bills for FY 2023 is expected to be along
these lines:
• Mid- to Late June: House Appropriations Committee markups
• July: Full House to approve the appropriations bills
• July/September: Senate Appropriations Committee to develop 12 funding bills
• September: House and Senate will attempt to finalize as many funding bills as they can and then
pass a Continuing Resolution to keep the federal government operating beyond October 1.
• November/December: Post-election, Congress will try to finalize FY 2023 funding bills
Palo Alto Earmarks
The two earmark requests highlighted below were submitted last week to the congressional offices.
Because Representative Eshoo is limited to a total of 15 earmark requests, we do not yet know if she
chose to submit them to the Appropriations Committee. If one or both earmark requests were
submitted, we will not know until late June if the House Appropriations Committee has included them in
their bills, and as noted in the schedule above, we will not know until the much later this year whether
they are signed into law.
Fire Station #4 Replacement Project
• A Community Project Funding, or earmark request for FY 2023 appropriations was submitted to
Senator Feinstein, Senator Padilla, and Congresswoman Eshoo to request funding to replace Fire
Station #4 at the corner of Middlefield Road and East Meadow.
• The $3 million request covers approximately 30 percent of the project costs.
• The current facility is operationally and technologically deficient.
• The funding requested would ensure a new facility could be built to the standards required for
essential service and improve the likelihood that it would be fully operational after a major
disaster, such as a significant earthquake.
• Project funding was requested by Senator Padilla for FY 2022 appropriations but was ultimately
not funded by the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Palo Alto Gardens Electrification Project
• A Community Project Funding, or earmark, request for FY 2023 appropriations was submitted to
Congresswoman Eshoo to request funding to remove gas from all apartment units and replace
gas equipment with electric alternatives at the Palo Alto Gardens housing complex.
• The request is for $3 million to fully fund the project.
• The City would work with MidPen Housing Corporation to accomplish this project that is similar
to the completed project at the Page Mill Court housing complex.
• Working with MidPen Housing Corporation to remove gas appliances from over 150 affordable
housing units will advance City efforts on climate change and the improvement of affordable
housing.
• The Palo Alto Gardens Electrification Project is a new request and project for FY 2023.
Upcoming Federal Grant Opportunities
Federal agencies continue to issue Notice of Funding Opportunities (NOFO) for competitive grants based
on the funds provided in the FY 2022 appropriations bills. As always, the Van Scoyoc Associates team is
working with those agencies to understand the timing of the release of the NOFOs and the criteria on
how grant applications will be evaluated, which we share with the City. Additionally, the Department of
Transportation, which is taking the lead in the implementation of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, has
said it intends to issue the NOFOs for these competitive grants in May:
The May NOFOs are listed below with links to additional information on each grant opportunity:
• Transit-Oriented Development Pilot
• Natural Gas Distribution Infrastructure Safety and Modernization
• Safe Streets and Roads for All
• Bridge Investment
We will be happy to coordinate with the City on these and any other grant opportunities to which the
City has an interest in submitting an application.
###