Categories
Housing Laws RHNA

Housing Bills AB 9🏣

City leaders discuss priority housing bills and immediate action steps during a virtual call to action

Aug 25, 2021

The current legislative cycle ends on September 10. Cities still have time to stop several harmful housing measures, including SB 9 (Atkins) and AB 989 (Gabriel).

On Tuesday, hundreds of city officials from throughout the state joined a virtual League of California Cities calls to action to receive the latest update on several priority housing bills moving through the Legislature. The briefing featured updates on measures that would hinder cities’ ability to plan for the type of housing that’s needed in their communities and stifle local democracy, as well as steps that cities can take today to help stop these measures.

The call to action focused on five priority bills: AB 989 (Gabriel), AB 1401 (Friedman), and AB 215 (Chiu), AB 500 (Ward), and most notably SB 9 (Atkins). “SB 9 is a top-down, one-size-fits-all approach to land use policy that caters to developers, silences community input, and doesn’t even guarantee affordable housing,” said Cal Cities President and El Centro Mayor Cheryl Viegas Walker.

During the briefing, Cal Cities leadership stressed the urgency of taking action now to ensure the voices of city leaders are heard loud and clear in the Capitol.

“You put it all together and these bills are bad policy,” said Cal Cities Executive Director and CEO Carolyn Coleman. “They are bad for our communities and bad for our state. That’s why the message you are hearing today is we need to stop [these bills] now…Not two weeks from now, but immediately.”

Some bills, including SB 9, may be voted on as early as Thursday, August 26. Cities are encouraged to oppose the measures summarized below and can contact their Regional Public Affairs Manager or visit the Cal Cities Action Center for more information.  

SB 9 (Atkins) Housing Development Approvals — Oppose

Although SB 9 was recently amended, Cal Cities’ core argument remains the same: Cities are collectively identifying sites for more than two million additional homes, and SB 9 disregards these efforts by mandating more housing in existing single-family zones. Lawmakers should avoid pushing unproven policies that undermine local planning, change the rules mid-stream, or conflict with the myriad of new housing laws recently passed.

Under the bill’s new provisions, cities may deny a proposed housing project if it would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health and safety or the physical environment and if there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid said impact. Unfortunately, the amendment’s scope is extremely limited and would likely only apply in a handful of cases.  

Additionally, the measure now requires an applicant to sign an affidavit stating that they intend to occupy one of the housing units as their principal residence for a minimum of three years from the date of the approval of the urban lot split. However, this provision falls short of a mandatory obligation to occupy one of the new units.

What can your city do about SB 9? This bill can be voted on as early as Thursday, August 26. Call your Assembly Member and Senator today and ask them to vote no on SB 9. Then, send a letter of opposition to your Legislator and sign on to Cal Cities’ coalition letter opposing SB 9. Contact your Regional Public Affairs Manager for more information about the bill’s status or the coalition letter.

AB 989 (Gabriel) Housing Appeals Committee — Oppose

Although SB 9 has received the lion’s share of attention, several other bills would also have a negative impact on communities throughout the state. For example, AB 989 would create an Office of Housing Appeals within the California Department of Housing and Community Development, which would have the power to review alleged violations of the Housing Accountability Act for specified housing development projects. The bill allows an appeals panel, not a court, to overturn a local land use decision. Although AB 989 is intended to speed these types of reviews up, it actually slows the process down by adding an additional layer of bureaucracy.

What can your city do about AB 989? Call your Senator if they are a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee and voice your opposition to AB 989.​ Then, send a letter of opposition to your Senator.​

AB 1401 (Friedman) Residential and Commercial Development. Parking Requirements — Oppose

Like the previous measures, AB 1401 fails to consider local conditions, circumstances, or needs. The bill would prohibit local governments (depending on population) from imposing or enforcing a minimum automobile parking requirement for residential, commercial, and other developments if the parcel is located within a one-half mile or one-quarter mile walking distance of public transit. However, restricting parking requirements does not guarantee that individuals living, working, or shopping on those parcels will actually use transit. Many residents will continue to own automobiles and require nearby parking, which will only increase parking demand and congestion.

AB 1401 also would give developers and transit agencies — who are unaccountable to local voters — the power to determine parking requirements. Additionally, the bill could negatively impact the state’s Density Bonus Law by providing developers parking concessions without also requiring them to include affordable housing units in the project.  

What can your city do about AB 1401? Call your Senator if they are a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee and voice your opposition to AB 1401.​ Then, send a letter of opposition to your Senator.​

AB 215 (Chiu) Housing Element — Oppose

Fortunately, Cal Cities helped secure amendments that addressed many cities’ original concerns with AB 215. Unfortunately, the author also added several new amendments that could negatively impact cities. The measure currently authorizes the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to appoint or contract with other counsel if the Attorney General (AG) declines to represent the department in a lawsuit against a city. AB 215 would also allow a three-year statute of limitation to apply to any action or proceeding brought by the AG or HCD.   

What can your city do about AB 215? These new amendments may be removed. However, cities should draft a letter of opposition in the event that action is needed. Be prepared to contact your Senator and Assembly Member.

AB 500 (Ward) Local Planning. Permitting. Coastal Development — Reconsidering

AB 500 is the bill to pay attention to for cities in the coastal zone. Cal Cities opposed the bill in its original form, which would have granted the California Coastal Commission housing authority, thus potentially creating two conflicting mandates for cities. The measure was recently amended into a study bill, which Cal Cities does not oppose. However, the bill may be amended again, this time closer to its original form, which Cal Cities does oppose.

Categories
Housing Laws

The Elderly Suffer

Why elderly renters are being priced out of their apartments in this California city

BY CASSANDRA GARIBAY

AUGUST 24, 2021 10:11 AM

Play Video

Duration 1:30

Woman leaves Clovis apartment when told rent was going up. Now she lives in her car

Deborah Berlin Cortes was on low-income housing assistance, but when she was told that the Sierra Ridge Apartments was ending compliance with the program, she sold off most of her belongings and began living in her car. BY CRAIG KOHLRUSS

When 66-year old Clovis resident Deborah Cortes received notice that her rent would soon double, she made the decision to sell all of her belongings and move into her Nissan Versa Note.

She said it made more financial sense to keep up with her car payments than to continue to pay rent at an apartment that she would inevitably be priced out of.

“I know my finances; I knew I wouldn’t have made it,” Cortes said. “It’s terrible; it’s very terrible.”

Cortes, who lives off about $2,000 a month, said she fell behind on one month’s rent due to a parking ticket. She moved out July 30, roughly two months after receiving notice that her rent would soon jump from the restricted rate of $591 to the market rate, which she was told was about $1,295, not including utilities.

“I’m living day by day,” said Cortes, who bounces between Clovis and the Bay Area, sleeping in friend’s driveways and at grocery store parking lots.

Now, other tenants at the Sierra Ridge apartment complex in Clovis are fearing the same fate. As many as 36 households at Sierra Ridge are at risk of being priced out of their homes as the apartment complex’s contract to maintain affordable housing units comes to an end.

Tenants living in rent-restricted affordable housing units at Sierra Ridge apartment complex owned by Golden State Financial (GSF) Sierra Ridge Clovis Investors were told in late April that their units would soon become market-rate — doubling the price in some instances from $591 to $1,295 for a one-bedroom or from $699 to around $1,400 for a two-bedroom.

One resident’s daughter, Cheryl Silveira, said her mother June Horton, 82, has lived at the apartment complex for 26 years and is “horrified” that she will be displaced, but “doesn’t get the full scheme of it.”

“Ethically, what they are doing is criminal,” Silveira said.

Legally, however, the property owners are allowed to convert the units to market-rate so long as they follow specific rules during the transition period.

GSF Properties did not return several requests for comment made via phone call.

ELDERLY TENANTS FEAR THEY WILL HAVE NOWHERE TO GO

Silveira, who is her mother’s caregiver, said Horton’s rent is expected to jump from $591 to around $1,295, excluding utilities, according to a notice her mother received about three months ago. It was the same notice that Cortes received.

“I don’t get it under normal circumstances,” Silveira said of the return to market rate. “ I especially don’t get it during COVID-19.”

Silveira said she lives in a two-story house that her mother would not be able to navigate and is on a fixed income herself. She and her sister are struggling to put together a plan for their mother.

“We’re in an impossible situation,” Silveira said. “It’s like throwing a life preserver to somebody, and then you’re going to drown.”

Error! Filename not specified.CRAIG KOHLRUSS CKOHLRUSS@FRESNOBEE.COM

Eloy Cardenas, Horton’s next-door neighbor, said he was told by management that the rent for his two-bedroom apartment would rise from $699 to around $1,400 a month in January 2022.

Cardenas, 67, has lived at Sierra Ridge for two years after waiting one year for a unit to open up at the apartment complex. He shares the two bedroom apartment with his aunt who has moved into a family member’s house since she learned of the upcoming rent increase.

His daughter, Holly Cardenas, a Fresno State student, said she is worried for her father, but she lives in a market-rate one-bedroom that does not have the space for him to move in with her. She has called a handful of affordable housing apartments in Clovis and Fresno and placed her father on waitlists wherever they are open, but with only 583 affordable housing units in Clovis and a shortfall of 36,000 affordable housing units in Fresno, she knows that finding a low-cost unit for her father before the deadline is not realistic.

“Clovis is short on affordable housing units,” Holly Cardenas said. “Village on Shaw no longer has a waitlist, and others have a three to the five-year waitlist. Some even have a seven to the 10-year waitlist.”

Cardenas said he is not sure what he will do when his rent is raised.

specified. CRAIG KOHLRUSS CKOHLRUSS@FRESNOBEE.COM

Other tenants who rely on Section 8 housing vouchers, but do not reside in rent-restricted apartments, said they have had recent rent increases and are also fearful of being eventually priced out.

“They don’t want low-income (tenants) here anymore,” said James Evans, who lives across the way from Cardenas and Horton.

Evans is paraplegic and has lived at the complex for 16 years. His friend Michelle Toler, who lives on the other end of the apartment complex, and relies on Section 8 vouchers, said her rent recently increased by $300.

Toler said if the rent increases again, she will be homeless.

“I don’t think there is anywhere to go; my neighbor upstairs sold everything and moved into her car,” Toler added, referring to Cortes.

HOW AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS CAN BE CONVERTED TO MARKET RATE

Despite the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 — which prohibits landlords from increasing rent more than 10% annually in California — units that were rent-restricted through the low-income housing tax credit program can be raised to market rate once the contract between developers and the state has ended.

The low income-affordable tax credit program has helped create and preserve affordable homes in California and is the biggest driver for new affordable housing developments; but as is the case with Sierra Ridge, when the affordable housing contracts expire, there is no guarantee that the owners will choose to keep them affordable.

Sierra Ridge, which has more than 180 units, received low-income tax credits in 1990 with the stipulation that 36 of the units be rent-restricted from 1990 to Jan. 2021, according to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) as well as a notice tenants received from Sierra Ridge management.

As of Jan. 2021, the developer’s contractual agreement was complete.

Now the property owners are in a transitional period to convert the 36 units to full price, effectively displacing tenants like Cortes, Cardenas and Horton, with fixed incomes. The Bee could not confirm whether all 36 rent-restricted units were currently occupied.

According to Matt Schwartz, the President, and CEO of the California Housing Partnership, converting affordable housing back to market rate “is not very common” in California. However, a 2017 California Housing Partnership analysis of low-income housing tax credit developments found that it is more common if the properties are not owned by a large, stable non-profit or mission-driven developer and if the property doesn’t have overlapping funding that extends affordability.

The 2017 study identified nine developments (274 affordable homes) in the Central Valley which were at risk of conversion.

“There’s no strong mechanism at the statewide level to renew those contracts,” said Andrew Haussler, the Clovis Community and Economic Development director.

“Those developers have the opportunity to either refinance those and be done with the affordability covenants or seek funding for more affordability,” Haussler said. “But these projects cost in the neighborhood of $20 (million) and $40 million, and the level of subsidy needed to make it affordable is significant.”

While it is within the property owner’s legal right to convert the units to market-rate once the agreement expires, there are certain regulations during the transition process that must be followed, according to the HCD.

Sierra Ridge property owners must give tenants a 12-month notice and then a six-month notice that rent restrictions will expire. All notices to tenants and public agencies affected must be made by first-class mail, according to the state preservation notice requirements.

The property owners must also issue a Notice of Opportunity to Submit an Offer to Purchase, which would allow non-profits and other entities the chance to buy the building and keep the units affordable. Even if GSF Properties does not intend to sell the property, they must give others the opportunity to make a bid, according to the HCD. If they reject any offers made, then they must commit to not selling the property for at least five years.

So far, tenants said they have received only one notice that was posted to their door in late April, not via mail. Beyond being told their rent would increase, tenants also said they’ve been left in the dark about when exactly that change will occur and where else they could move.

Holly Cardenas said she contacted The Bee upon realizing that many tenants impacted by this rent hike were elderly, some without families.

“The thing is,” she said, “a majority of the residents don’t know the gravity of this.”

The Fresno Bee submitted a public records request with Fresno County on Friday to determine whether any bids for the property have been made or rejected.

The HCD said if regulations are not followed, tenants have a “legal footing to enforce their rights under the law.” GSF Properties did not return several requests for comment.

COULD THIS HAVE BEEN PREVENTED?

In the city of Clovis, affordable housing is difficult to come by, so much so that the city is currently in the midst of a lawsuit for not meeting affordable housing zoning requirements based on the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. Haussler said a “financing gap” and lack of state resources have made it challenging to bring new affordable housing units to the city.

According to Haussler, in Clovis, there are 582 multifamily affordable housing units, he said, but “there are waiting lists for almost all of those, and there is a lack of supply; there’s incredible demand throughout the region.”

“We have a lot more (affordable housing) to replace that 36 underway, but it doesn’t mean it is matching up with these residents in particular,” Haussler said.

Haussler said he reached out to Sierra Ridge management and was told that they are meeting their contractual agreements with the state. Haussler also said Clovis tracks when contracts are set to expire — the next complex is set to expire in 2053.

According to the California Housing Partnership, there are several ways local jurisdictions can take part in preserving affordable housing that is at risk of conversion — including, tracking contracts in the area, identifying potential buyers, providing tenants with legal services, setting up local housing trust funds to purchase properties or requiring owners to provide relocation assistance. However, Haussler said Clovis’ limited housing funds has narrowed what the city can do at this point.

“It’s almost easier to build new projects,” Haussler said. “It’s been a challenge, and it’s unfortunate.”

Haussler said tenants at Sierra Ridge who have reached out to the city have been directed to other affordable housing complexes in the area.

While the city said they aren’t able to step in directly, Silveira said Sierra Ridge’s property management company could have.

GSF Properties, which owns and manages Sierra Ridge, also manages Solivita Commons, a new 60-unit affordable housing complex owned by Fresno Housing Authority in Clovis.

A lottery for Solivita Commons was opened to the public from March 22 to April 5, prior to Sierra Ridge tenants receiving a notice dated April 28 that stated the affordable housing program at their complex was ending. Several tenants said they received the notice in May.

“They put it up to the public in a lottery before they would offer it to their own residents who they knew they were displacing,” Silveira said.

Fresno Housing communications manager Brandi Johnson said the housing authority does not track expiring low income housing tax credit contracts throughout the county and does not have affiliation with Sierra Ridge, despite the property management company overlapping.

Silveira said her mother and other Sierra Ridge tenants would not be in the situation they are in now if they had been given priority to apply to Solivita Commons, or even notice that their rent would increase prior to the application window for Solivita Commons closing.

There is currently no availability at Solivita Commons, Johnson said.

Haussler said he did not know why GSF did not prioritize displaced Sierra Ridge tenants for units in Solivita Commons. GSF Properties did not respond to multiple requests for comments.

“Everybody is standing by and saying, ‘Yeah, go ahead and kick these senior citizens out,’” Cardenas said. “Somebody needs to step up and get something corrected.”

The Fresno Bee will be following the stories of tenants who are facing potential displacement through the process.

Categories
Housing Laws RHNA

NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard)

NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard)

What is the position of the City Council of Chino? It appears that the leadership of the council and its mayor embrace NIMBY.

This stance is an attempt to return to “Red Lining” that puts minorities in ghettos and barrios. Or, not to allow for building affordable homes to very low, medium low, and low income individuals as the California housing mandate. This includes single family parents, veterans, students, elderly, middle class, and the homeless.

This is backwards thinking, and not realistic with the current local and National housing crisis. Despite the outcome of this attempt, the California Housing Crisis will continue.

What is your opinion? Homes in California are out of the reach of people, too expensive? What is your position?

Opinion: Amid NIMBY Opposition, Will California Ever Build Enough Housing?

By Dan Walters • CalMatters Columnist

Posted by 

Times of San Diego

 1 day ago

🏘

A building under construction

Description automatically generated with low confidence. An infill townhouse project in San Jose. Photo by Wingchi Poon via Wikimedia Commons

California had a huge and growing housing problem before COVID-19 reared its ugly head 18 months ago, falling well short each year of state construction goals.

The pandemic, which continues to flare up, “exacerbated a long-standing housing shortage, intensified a statewide affordability crisis, and provoked housing instability,” the new state budget declares.

While suddenly unemployed workers struggled and often failed, to make their monthly payments, the prices for homes soared, freezing out many who aspired to ownership.

The budget projects that California will add, at best, about 100,000 housing units this year, which is scarcely half of the 180,000 units state housing authorities say are needed to meet current demand and reduce the backlog. And that projection did not take into account the current COVID-19 surge.

The Legislature has reconvened after its summer vacation and is sprinting toward adjournment in mid-September. Housing is or should be, at the top of its agenda.

While many factors affect the housing shortage, the most important is the reluctance of suburban communities to embrace multi-family housing projects, particularly those for low- and moderate-income renters.

Dubbed “not-in-my-backyard,” or NIMBY, it is by no means a recent phenomenon. One could trace it back to the anti-Asian exclusion laws of the 19th century, and 20th-century anti-okie laws and whites- and Christians-only deed covenants.

As California’s population exploded after World War II, some rural communities attempted to avoid becoming commuter suburbs. When Petaluma adopted a strict growth control law in the early 1970s, developers sued and the case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which allowed Petaluma’s law to remain in effect.

The state has made multiple attempts to overcome NIMBYism, such as imposing residential zoning quotas on regions and cities. Recent versions contain some penalties for cities that ignore their quotas and the state sued one city, Huntington Beach, for ignoring its quota.

One of the state’s many anti-NIMBY actions is the Housing Accountability Act, first enacted in 1982 and later tightened up. It essentially bars local governments from arbitrarily blocking housing projects that are “consistent with objective local development standards.”

Citing the law, pro-housing organizations have been challenging local governments when they reject low- and moderate-income projects and two cases are looming as tests of the law’s efficacy.

One is in Huntington Beach, which rejected a 48-unit project. The California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund (CaRLA) sued but a local judge ruled for the city, declaring that it had valid reasons, such as increased traffic, to deny a permit for the project.

CaRLA is also suing San Mateo, which imposed stringent design requirements on a 10-unit project that its developers said was onerous. Once again, a local judge ruled for the city and even questioned whether the Housing Accountability Act can be constitutionally applied to a charter city under the home rule doctrine.

Both cases are headed up the legal appeals chain and state Attorney General Rob Bonta is intervening in the San Mateo case to defend the law’s application.

That brings us back to back to the final weeks of the legislative session and two highly controversial anti-NIMBY measuresSenate Bill 9 is the latest effort by Senate President Pro Term Toni Atkins to allow small multi-family projects on lots zoned for single-family homes, while SB 10 would allow local governments to approve up to 10 units of housing on any lot, regardless of current zoning, near transit.

Whether they pass or fail will tell us much about the direction of housing policy as California’s crisis continues.

CalMatters is a public interest journalism venture committed to explaining how California’s state Capitol works and why it matters.

Categories
Clean Water

BIA Water Conference August 13, 2021 🏋🏼‍♂️

Categories
Housing Laws RHNA

More Than a Checkbox: Better Community Engagement 🏘

Click below for presentation

Categories
RHNA

LINKING CALIFORNIA’S PROJECT HOME KEY TO HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATES

Click below for information

SCAG 2020 Project Homekey Developments.xlsx

Categories
RHNA SCAG

TACKLING CALIFORNIA’S HOUSING CRISIS – HOUSING STRATEGIES TO HELP ADDRESS THE HOMELESSNESS CRISIS 🏘

Click below for information on webinar

Tackling California’s Housing Crisis – Housing Strategies to Help Address the Homelessness Crisis – Southern California Association of Governments

Categories
Clean Water

Monte Vista Water District🐫

Welcome

Dear Valued Customer,

Monte Vista Water District (MVWD) is dedicated to serving the highest quality water to our customers. We are proud to report that last year, as in years past,

your tap water met all federal and state drinking water health standards.

We hope you will take some time to read this Annual Water Quality Report, which details the quality of the water provided by MVWD, where it comes from,

what it contains and how it compares to federal and state standards. You will also learn about the efforts and challenges involved in providing high-quality

drinking water. For example, stricter standards have led to the expansion of MVWD’s treatment process to enhance the quality of water delivered to your

home or business.

MVWD is committed to providing this information to you because we share an appreciation for the value and importance of clean drinking water for our

community. Together with informed consumers, we can protect our drinking water supplies. For more information on your water supply sources, water

quality, and water distribution system, we invite you to visit the “Your Water” section of our website, www.mvwd.org.

Sincerely,

MVWD Board of Directors MVWD General Manager

Sandra S. Rose, President Philip L. Erwin, Director Justin Scott-Coe

G. Michael Milhiser, Vice President Tony Lopez, Director

Manny Martinez, Board Auditor

“Dedicated to Quality, Service, and Innovation”

2020 Annual Water Quality Report

MVWD obtains its drinking water supply from the

following sources:

S Groundwater: Over many years, water that falls on the ground travels

through the soil, is naturally filtered and collects in “aquifers” hundreds

of feet below the earth’s surface. Groundwater is pumped from the ground

through production wells, disinfected, and distributed to customers. In

2020, approximately 86.7% of MVWD’s water supply was produced

from a series of aquifers known collectively as the Chino Groundwater

Basin.

S Imported Surface Water: Water from rivers and streams in northern

California is collected and transported through the California Aqueduct to

Southern California. MVWD’s imported water supply is treated at the

Agua de Lejos Treatment Plant in the city of Upland prior to distribution to customers. In 2020, approximately 11% of MVWD’s water supply

was imported from northern California.

S City of Upland: Upland’s water supply originates from a local

mountain and canyon runoff, groundwater, and imported water. In 2020,

MVWD received approximately 2.3% of its water supply from San Antonio

Water Company through Upland’s water system.

For more information about MVWD’s water supply sources, visit

www.mvwd.org and follow the “Your Water” link.

MVWD Water Treatment and Testing

State-of-the-art technologies are used to treat and test the water served to

MVWD’s customers. To ensure proper disinfection, MVWD adds chlorine in

the form of sodium hypochlorite, a chemical similar to household bleach,

to the water supply produced by its groundwater wells. The chlorine kills

harmful bacteria and viruses that might enter the system via a broken main

or well contamination. Treated water from the Agua de Lejos Treatment

Plant and the city of Upland’s distribution system is introduced directly into

MVWD’s distribution system.

Groundwater produced by the majority of MVWD’s wells requires minimal

treatment prior to distribution. However, the groundwater basin from which

MVWD draws water has areas of high concentrations of nitrates, a salt that

at certain levels may pose a health risk to vulnerable populations (see below).

One of MVWD’s newest wells is equipped with an ion-exchange treatment

facility that removes nitrates from the pumped groundwater. MVWD also

operates three nitrate blending facilities that ensure nitrate levels in water

entering the distribution system meets drinking water requirements.

MVWD safeguards the distribution system by actively monitoring for 88

contaminants. MVWD collects water samples from 16 California State Water

Resources Control Board-approved locations evenly dispersed throughout

our distribution system every week, as well as from each of the District’s

active wells each month.

Your Drinking Water Sources

The sources of drinking water (both tap water and bottled water) include

rivers, lakes, streams, ponds, reservoirs, springs, and wells. As water travels

over the surface of the land or through the ground, it dissolves naturally-occurring

minerals and, in some cases, radioactive material, and can pick up

substances resulting from the presence of animals or from human activity.

Contaminants that may be present in source water include:

S Microbial contaminants, such as viruses and bacteria that may come from

sewage treatment plants, septic systems, agricultural livestock operations, and wildlife.

S Inorganic contaminants, such as salts and metals that can be naturally

occurring or result from urban stormwater runoff, industrial or domestic

wastewater discharges, oil and gas production, mining, or farming.

S Pesticides and herbicides that may come from a variety of sources such

as agriculture, urban stormwater runoff, and residential uses.

S Organic chemical contaminants, including synthetic and volatile organic

chemicals that are by-products of industrial processes and petroleum

production, and can also come from gas stations, urban stormwater

runoff, agricultural application, and septic systems.

S Radioactive contaminants that can be naturally occurring or be the result

of oil and gas production and mining activities.

In order to ensure that tap water is safe to drink, the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the State Water Resources Control Board

(State Water Board) prescribe regulations that limit the number of certain

contaminants in water provided by public water systems. State Water Board

regulations also establish limits for contaminants in bottled water that provide

the same protections for public health.

Drinking water, including bottled water, may reasonably be expected to

contain at least small amounts of some contaminants. The presence of

contaminants does not necessarily indicate that water poses a health risk.

More information about contaminants and potential health effects can be

obtained by calling the U.S. EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Hotline (1-800-426-

4791).

Source water assessments were conducted in 2002 and 2008 to determine

the contamination vulnerabilities of MVWD’s active wells. The sources

are considered most vulnerable to the following activities associated with

contaminants detected in the water supply: high-density housing and

commercial complexes, parks, and schools, graveyards, grazing, sewer

collection systems, automobile body shops, and industrial sites. In addition,

the sources are considered most vulnerable to these activities: gas stations,

dry cleaners, mining operations, hospitals, parking, and transportation, above

ground storage tanks, and permitted waste discharges. You may request

a more detailed summary of the assessment by contacting the State

Water Board sanitary engineer for MVWD at (909) 383-4328 or MVWD at

(909) 624-0035.

Stay Informed

MVWD encourages customers to stay informed by attending our regularly

scheduled Board of Directors meetings, which are held on the 2nd and 4th

Wednesdays of each month, 6:30 p.m., at MVWD’s offices located at 10575

Central Avenue, Montclair. Meeting agendas can be found on the MVWD

website at www.mvwd.org. A time for public comment is included on each

meeting’s agenda.

Questions?

If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact Bill Schwartz,

Director of Engineering, Operations and Maintenance, at (909) 624-0035.

¿Necesita este informe traducido al español?

Este informe contiene información muy importante sobre su agua potable.

Tradúzcalo o hable con alguien que lo entienda bien. Para conseguir copias

de este informe traducidas en español, llame al (909) 624-0035 o visite

www.mvwd.org/reporte.

2020 Annual Water Quality Report

MVWD Water Sources

www.mvwd.org

10575 Central Avenue • Post Office Box 71

Montclair, California 91763

Categories
SCAG Transportation

SCAG Using Data to Craft Safety Narrative High Injury Networks

Click Link for Information

Categories
California AB (Assembly Bills) & SB (Senate Bills) Democracy

Senate Appropriations of California🌎

Click Below for Important Information

Senate Appropriations

·  AB 14 (Aguiar-Curry) Communications: broadband services: California Advanced Services Fund |Cal Cities position: Support

·  AB 33 (Ting) Energy Conservation Assistance Act of 1979: energy storage systems and electric vehicle charging infrastructure: Native American tribes |Cal Cities position: Support

·  AB 43 (Friedman) Traffic safety |Cal Cities position: Support

·  AB 46 (Rivas, Luz) California Youth Empowerment Act |Cal Cities position: Support

·  AB 48 (Gonzalez, Lorena) Law enforcement: kinetic energy projectiles and chemical agents| Cities position: Oppose

·  AB 89 (Jones-Sawyer) Peace officers: minimum qualifications | Cities position: Oppose

·  AB 215 (Chiu) Housing element: regional housing need: relative progress determination | Cal Cities position: Oppose

·  AB 339 (Lee) Local government: open and public meetings | Cal Cities position: Oppose

·  AB 500 (Ward) Local planning: coastal development: affordable housing |Cal Cities position: Oppose

·  AB 585 (Rivas, Luz) Climate change: Extreme Heat and Community Resilience Program |Cal Cities position: Support

·  AB 602 (Grayson) Development fees: impact fee nexus study |Cal Cities position: Oppose Unless Amend                

·  AB 758 (Nazarian) Marks-Roos Local Bond Pooling Act of 1985: electric utilities: rate reduction bonds |Cal Cities position: Support

·  AB 816 (Chiu) Homelessness: Housing Trust Fund: housing projects |Cal Cities position: Oppose Unless Amend

·  AB 838 (Friedman) State Housing Law: enforcement response to complaints |Cal Cities position: Oppose Unless Amend

·  AB 897(Mullin) Office of Planning and Research: regional climate networks: regional climate adaptation and resilience action plans |Cal Cities position: Support

·  AB 1311 (Wood) Recycling: beverage containers |Cal Cities position: Support

·  AB 1401 (Friedman) Residential and commercial development: remodeling, renovations, and additions: parking requirements | Cal Cities position: Oppose 

Priority Bill Summaries

Cal Cities strongly supports AB 14 (Aguiar-Curry), the subject of a broadband action alert. The measure would prioritize the deployment of broadband infrastructure in unserved and underserved communities throughout California through the ongoing collection of the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) surcharge. The bill would also expand the definition of “unserved” to include areas with speeds slightly faster than dial-up, which is obsolete in an internet-driven economy.

Unfortunately, AB 48 (Gonzalez, Lorena) would severely limit the tools at a police officer’s disposal to protect public safety. The bill’s broad restrictions do not consider the dynamic and sometimes unruly nature of public demonstrations. Cal Cities opposes the measure as peace officers need non-lethal options for atypical situations that involve violence or significant risk to infrastructure.

Cal Cities also opposes AB 89 (Jones-Sawyer), which would increase a police officer candidate’s age from 18 to 25, unless they have obtained a college degree prior to being hired. The measure would narrow the pool of eligible candidates to unattainable levels for smaller agencies. Moreover, due to different rates of college enrollment and graduation, the requirements would also hinder the recruitment of officers of color.

AB 339 (Lee) would require city councils and boards of supervisors in jurisdictions with over 250,000 residents to provide in-person and a two-way telephonic option or a two-way internet-based service option for the public to attend their meetings. While this measure has been amended significantly from when it was introduced, it still contains fatal flaws that potentially hinder cities’ ability to be transparent and accessible. As such, Cal Cities opposes the bill.

Two housing-related bills are up for consideration. AB 215 (Chiu) would create a new, mid-cycle regional housing needs progress determination process that does not account for variation in local economies. Moreover, the measure would require cities with “low progress” in meeting those housing targets to consult with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and adopt new pro-housing policies. Cal Cities opposes the bill, as it turns what was meant to be an incentive program into a mandatory requirement for some jurisdictions.

Finally, Cal Cities opposes AB 1401 (Friedman), as its definition of “public transit” would give developers and transit agencies — who are unaccountable to local voters — the power to determine parking requirements. Additionally, the bill could negatively impact the State’s Density Bonus Law by providing developers parking concessions without also requiring them to include affordable housing units in the project.