Housing 

AB 35 (Chiu) – Request for Comment
As amended on March 2, 2015 

Assembly Bill 35, by Assembly Member David Chiu, would increase the state’s Low Income Housing Tax Credit by $300 million. The LIHTC program is used for the construction and rehabilitation of affordable housing units across the state. The increase in the state investment would leverage an additional $600 million in federal tax credits and federal tax-exempt bonds. 

AB 1335 (Atkins) – Request for Comment
As introduced on February 27, 2015

Assembly Bill 1335, by Speaker Toni Atkins, would establish a permanent source of funding for affordable housing by placing a $75 fee on real estate transaction documents, excluding home sales. The fee would generate approximately $700 million annually and also leverage another $2-$3 billion in federal, local, and bank investment. 

The Department of Housing and Community Development would be charged with developing an investment strategy to be updated every five years. The investment strategy would identify statewide needs, goals, objectives and outcomes for a five year period and promote a geographically balanced distribution of funds including the direct allocation of funds to local governments. The revenues generate would be used for the following purposes:

• development, acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of rental housing that is affordable to extremely low, very low, low and moderate income households, including necessary operating subsidies;
• affordable rental and ownership housing that meets the needs of a growing workforce up to 120 percent of an area median income;
• matching portions of funds placed into a local or regional housing trust fund;
• matching portions of funds available through the Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund;
• capitalized reserves for services connected to the creation of new permanent supportive housing, including but not limited to developments funded through the Veterans Housing and Homeless Prevention Program, emergency shelters, transitional housing, and rapid rehousing;
• accessibility modifications; and
• homeownership opportunities including but not limited to down payment assistance. 

Land Use/Planning

AB 402 (Dodd) – Request for Comment
As introduced on February 19, 2015

Assembly Bill 402, by Assembly Member Bill Dodd, would allow a Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) to authorize a city or special district to provide services outside its boundaries and Spheres of Influence (SOI) to serve existing or planned uses, subject to approval at publically noticed hearing where the commission makes specified determinations, including that such services will not adversely impact agriculture or open space. 

AB 514 (Williams) – Request for Comment
As introduced on February 23, 2015

Assembly Bill 514, by Assembly Member Das Williams, would provide that a city or county could impose fines for violators of land use codes who did not obtain a permanent that are proportional to the magnitude of the violation. The bill would still retain the current maximum penalty amounts in statute but provide local agencies the discretion to impose appropriate fines within those bounds to deter land use violations.

AB 1236 (Chiu) – Request for Comment
As introduced on February 27, 2015

Assembly Bill 1236, by Assembly Member David Chiu, would require a city or county to approve the installation of electric vehicle charging stations unless the city or county can make findings based upon substantial evidence in the record that the proposed installation would have adverse impacts on public health or safety and there is no feasible method to mitigate or avoid these impacts. 

Transportation

AB 323 (Olsen) – Support
As introduced on February 13, 2015

Assembly Bill 323, by Assembly Minority Leader Olsen, would indefinitely extend the provisions of AB 890 (Olsen, 2012) which allow a city or county with less than 100,000 population to exempt from CEQA review a project to repair, maintain, or make minor alterations to an existing roadway for public safety purposes. CSAC supported AB 890, and will support the removal of the current sunset date. 

AB 323 is set for hearing before the Assembly Natural Resources Committee on Monday, March 23.

AB 1119 (Rendon) – Support
As introduced on February 27, 2015

Assembly Bill 1119, by Assembly Member Anthony Rendon, would provide counties with the same rights as cities when it comes to the ability to challenge a utility project by another public entity in or over a street or highway located in the unincorporated territory. 

Counties need this parity in law so that the interests of local public entities to build utility projects using streets and highways, including those located within other jurisdictions, are balanced with the interest of residents and business that may be impacted by projects initiated by other jurisdiction with elected officials that do not represent them. 

SB 321 (Beall) – Request for Comment
As introduced on February 23, 2015

Senate Bill 321, by Senator Jim Beall, would amend the provisions of the gas tax swap that require the Board of Equalization to adjust the per-gallon excise tax rate on gasoline to ensure that it raises the equivalent amount of revenue as the prior sales tax on gasoline. More specifically, this bill would:

• Allow BOE to use a five-year forecasting period (as opposed to its current one year model) to predict gas prices in order to prevent the disproportionate impact of periods of unusual, extremely low and/or extremely high gas prices;
• Allow BOE to extend the period of revenue neutrality from one year to three years in order to make less volatile annual adjustments (true-ups); and 
• Provide an opportunity for BOE to adjust the excise tax more frequently than annually in the case changes in fuel prices or consumption will clearly effect predicted versus actual revenue.

As counties know, this provision of the swap has led to significant swings in the excise rate and the resulting revenues for county road maintenance. Most recently, the Board reduced the excise rate by 6-cents for 2015-16 due to a rate that was set too high for actual prices in 2013-14, as well as the decline in gas prices over the last several months.

Public Works Administration

AB 251 (Levine) – Request for Comment
As introduced on February 9, 2015

Assembly Bill 251, by Assembly Member Marc Levine, would define a de minimis public subsidy for the purposes of determining whether reimbursement by the state or a county of a private project cost that would normally not be borne by the public makes the project a public work. The bill would define a de minimis subsidy as both less than $25,000 and less than one percent of a total project cost. 

CSAC staff understands that while current law does not explicitly define a de minimis subsidy, courts have held that three to five percent as the maximum. CSAC is interested in comments from counties as to the impacts of this bill.

AB 251 is set for hearing before the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee on Wednesday, March 18. 

AB 1347 (Chiu) – Request for Comment
As introduced on February 27, 2015

Assembly Bill 1347, by Assembly Member David Chiu, would establish a new “claim resolution process” for public entity contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2016. Specifically, AB 1347 would:

• Authorize contractors to submit a written demand or assertion by certified mail to a public entity to make a variety of requests/demands related to public contracts. The bill would define a written demand or assertion as “including a request for a modification, contract amendment, or change order, seeking an adjustment or interpretation of the terms of the contract documents, payment of money, extension of time, or other relief, including a determination of disputes or matters arising out of, or related to, the contract documents or the performance of work on a public work”;
• Require the public entity to review and provide a written response to the contractor within 30 days addressing what parts of the claim are disputed and what parts are undisputed;
• Require any payment due on an undisputed portion of the claim to be processed and made within 7 days after the public entity issues its written response;
• Deem a claim approved in its entirety if a public entity fails to respond to a contractor;
• Require nonbinding mediation for any disputed portion of the claim. The public entity and contractor shall mutually agree to a mediator within 10 days after the disputed portion of the claim has been identified in writing; and
• Apply an interest rate of 10% to amounts not paid in a timely manner.

Sponsored by United Contractors, CSAC understands that this measure is a new proposal in response to the same contractors’ concerns with change orders expressed last year in our work on AB 2471 (Frazier), which would have, among other things, required public entities to issue change orders for undisputed work within a prescribed time period.

SB 119 (Hill) – Request for Comment
As introduced on January 14, 2015

Senate Bill 119, by Senator Jerry Hill, would make substantial changes to the statutes governing excavation near subsurface installations. This legislation is important to counties, as they are often both excavators as well as the owners of underground installations that may need to be marked when excavation will occur. The bill’s key provisions would: 

• Require the Contractor’s State License Board to adopt a program to enforce violations of excavation provisions by authorizing the board to require a contractor to undergo training, levy a fine, and suspend licenses for violations;
• Clarify and revise provisions related to excavation notification;
• Change the definition of a subsurface installation to an underground or submerged duct, pipeline, or structure, thereby extending notification/marking requirements to storm drains and non-pressurized sewer lines and other drains;
• Delete the existing exemption for Caltrans’ participation in the notification/marking requirements;
• Require owners of subsurface installations to maintain and preserve all plans as records for any subsurface installation as that information becomes known;
• Limit the existing exemption for real property owners to only residential property owners using only hand tools;
• Prohibit excavators from being held liable for damages to an installation due to inaccurate marking, provided that the excavator follows the provisions of the law;
• Award attorney’s fees to excavators sued by subsurface installation owners if the court/arbitrator finds that the excavator complied with the law;
• Require the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board to revise and publish standards to clarify excavation best practices by 2017 and convene an advisory committee hearing;
• Create the California Underground Utilities Facilities Safe Excavation Authority to enforce laws relating to the protection of underground infrastructure through civil penalties; and
• Allow the Public Utilities Commission and State Fire Marshall to enforce the requirement to locate and mark subsurface installations operated by utilities, unless they are municipal utilities.

CSAC has already heard from several counties with concerns, but given the bill’s broad scope we would like to hear from as many counties as possible as to the potential impacts of this legislation. We would appreciate hearing any comments or concerns counties may have with the bill as soon as possible.