COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

County Manager’s Office

DATE:

July 27, 2006

BOARD MEETING DATE:

August 1, 2006

SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:

None

VOTE REQUIRED:

Majority

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:

John L. Maltbie, County Manager

SUBJECT:

County Manager’s Report #14

A.

Resolution in support of AB 1169 (Torrico), Real property: rentals

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution in support of AB 1169 (Torrico), Real property: rentals

VISION ALIGNMENT:

Commitment: Ensure basic health and safety for all.

Goal(s): 8—Help vulnerable people including the aged and disabled achieve a better quality of life.

BACKGROUND:

With some changes, AB 1169 reenacts a sunsetted statute that required the owner of residential property to give a 60-day notice before terminating a periodic tenancy of tenants who have resided in the dwelling for at least a year. Unlike prior law, this bill would condition the 60-day notice requirement only on those dwellings in which all of a dwelling’s tenants and residents have lived in that dwelling for more than a year. This bill would sunset on January 1, 2010.

In 2002, SB 1403 (Kuehl, 2003) required landlords to give 60-days notice before terminating a month-to-month or other periodic tenancy if the tenant had lived in the dwelling for a year or longer. SB 1403 included a three-year sunset provision. While there were two efforts to extend or repeal the sunset, both failed. As a result, the 60-day notice requirement expired on January 1, 2006. Current law requires only a 30-day notice for termination of a periodic tenancy.

DISCUSSION:

AB 1169 proponents argue that the current 30-day notice requirement is an inadequate amount of time to allow a tenant to secure a new dwelling. Tight rental markets, high rental rates and security deposit requirements can exacerbate the need to find housing that meets tenants’ needs such as location, size and services. This can be challenging for low and moderate-income families.

The California Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) asserts that low and moderate income families often need more than 30 days to find new housing because, “it takes several weekends to find a new home that is within their budget and close enough to jobs and their families.” Most families live paycheck to paycheck. They invariably need time to put together the first month’s rent, the security deposit, and application fees.

In San Mateo County, with the high cost of housing, the task of finding replacement housing in 30 days is a challenge for families and low-income renters. The challenge of finding adequate housing in 30 days is particularly acute for the elderly and people with disabilities on fixed incomes. In addition to securing the necessary financial resources, the elderly and people with disabilities face additional barriers when looking for housing, such as accessibility and adequate transportation. The Western Center for Law and Poverty states, “Finding housing in the tight California rental market is very difficult. Needing to find an accessible rental unit for a person with a disability makes the task even more difficult.”

Providing such tenants 60-days notice can provide them more time to find housing that adequately meets their needs.

The Legislative Committee and the Commission on Disabilities have reviewed AB 1169 and recommend a support position.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

B.

Resolution in support of AB 2004 (Yee), Medi-Cal juvenile incarceration

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution in support of AB 2004 (Yee), Medi-Cal juvenile incarceration.

VISION ALIGNMENT:

Commitment: Ensure basic health and safety for all.

Goal(s): 5—Residents have access to healthcare and preventative care.

BACKGROUND:

AB 2004 would suspend, rather than terminate, the eligibility for Medi-Cal health care benefits of minors that become inmates of an institution. The bill would also require that once the minor’s status as an inmate has ended, they have immediate access to Medi-Cal health care benefits.

The federal Medicaid program, called Medi-Cal in California, provides health benefits to low-income people. Current federal law prohibits Medicaid health care coverage for individuals who are inmates in most institutions. However, it allows incarcerated individuals to retain their Medicaid eligibility. Under current practice, the Department of Health Services terminates (not just suspends) juveniles’ Medi-Cal benefits since the minor receives medical care through the juvenile facility.

AB 2004 would prohibit termination of Medi-Cal eligibility for minors based on their inmate status. In addition, this bill would require the establishment of eligibility processes that ensure the Medi-Cal application of an inmate minor, who is not yet determined to be otherwise eligible for Medi-Cal services, is processed and, if eligible, the minor be able to receive Medi-Cal benefits immediately upon release from custody.

DISCUSSION:

According to the author, AB 2004 is intended to prevent delays associated with re-establishing Medi-Cal eligibility for juveniles recently released from custody. Continuity of treatment can be a significant issue. According to the Senate Health Committee analysis, 85 percent of the youth in the state juvenile system have substance abuse problems, and 71 percent have three or more diagnosable mental health disorders.

In addition to the administrative burden of re-establishing eligibility, the automatic termination of Medi-Cal benefits can result in otherwise eligible minors not receiving health benefits that can be used to prevent more significant and more costly future medical problems.

The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services sent a letter encouraging states to suspend and not terminate Medicaid benefits while a person is incarcerated.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Unknown.

C.

Resolution in support of AB 2555 (Oropeza), Wages: gender pay equity

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution in support of AB 2555 (Oropeza), Wages: gender pay equity.

VISION ALIGNMENT:

Commitment: Create opportunities for every household to participate in our prosperity.

Goal(s): 17—All households experience real gains in income.

BACKGROUND:

AB 2555 would increase the damages for which an employer may be liable for gender-based pay discrimination and impose a civil penalty for violations of law. The increased damages would include a civil penalty of twice the balance of the wages due to the aggrieved employee, or four times the balance of wages due if the employer's violation is willful. Penalties recovered are to be distributed to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) for the enforcement of pay equity laws and the education of employees and employers of their rights and responsibilities under pay equity laws.

Current law prohibits employers from paying an employee a wage less than that paid to employees of the opposite sex in the same establishment for equal work. Employers who willfully violate the law are guilty of a misdemeanor, may face up to six months in jail and must pay up to a $10,000 fine.

This bill would also establish a nine-member commission, the Equal Pay Commission, which would study wage disparities, make recommendations for ways to eliminate and prevent disparities and report to the Legislature within a year of being appointed.

DISCUSSION:

According to the 2002 US Census Bureau, American women, working full-time, year-round earned on average only $0.766 for every dollar earned by full-time working men. For women of color, the gap is even worse – only $0.69 for African American women and $0.58 for Latinas. A General Accounting Office report on women’s earnings shows that there is an inexplicable wage gap of approximately 20 percent even after taking into account work experience, education, occupation, industry of current employment and other characteristics.

Even though existing law prohibits employers from this unfair practice, additional steps are necessary for the protection of California workers. This bill would provide a greater incentive for employers to comply with existing law and ensure that women are compensated fairly and equally in the workplace.

AB 2555 would also require employers of 50 or more employees to provide each employee with a written statement setting forth the employee's job title, wage rate, and an explanation as to how the employee's wages are calculated.

The Legislative Committee and the Commission on the Status of Women have reviewed AB 2555 and recommend a support position. In addition, the Legislative Committee recommends the author of AB 2555 consider alternatives—rather than creating a new, Equal Pay Commission—to make a full and complete study of wage disparities and to make recommendations to eliminate and prevent wage disparities.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

D.

Resolution in support of AB 2634 (Lieber), Housing elements and with a request to amend the bill to provide local jurisdictions the flexibility either to accept the 50-50% presumption or to determine the Extremely Low-Income (ELI) share of the very low-income

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution in support of AB 2634 (Lieber), Housing elements and with a request to amend the bill to provide local jurisdictions the flexibility either to accept the 50-50% presumption or to determine the ELI share of the very low-income.

VISION ALIGNMENT:

Commitment: Offer a full range of housing choices.

Goal(s): 9—Housing exists for people of all income levels and for all generations of families.

BACKGROUND:

AB 2634 would require local jurisdictions to include in their housing elements an assessment of housing needs and an inventory of suitable land for residential development of ELI households, defined as those earning no more than 30% of the area median income (AMI). In addition, this bill presumes the amount of ELI housing is one-half of the local jurisdiction’s very low-income housing allocation.

Current law requires local governments (cities and counties) to adopt general plans, which must include a housing element. The housing element, in part, assesses the community’s various housing needs and an inventory of land suitable to meet that community’s share of the regional housing need.

Each community is assigned a share of its region’s housing need. The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process allocates the need into four income categories—above-moderate income (>120% AMI), moderate income (<120% AMI), low-income (<80% AMI) and very low-income (<50%) housing.

DISCUSSION:

There is general agreement that there is a tremendous need for affordable housing. According to advocates of AB 2634, the need for housing of families with extremely low incomes is equally acute and is not being addressed adequately by the current housing element planning process which categorizes very low-income families as having incomes of less than 50 percent of AMI.

AB 2634 would effectively divide the current very low-income category into two categories—extremely low-income (0-30% AMI) and very low-income (30-50% AMI). This would, according to advocates, draw more attention to the housing needs of ELI families.

While there would be additional work related to expanding the number of income categories considered by the housing element, there is a recognized value in separating ELI housing needs from a community’s housing need for those earning less than 50 percent AMI.

It should be noted that in accommodating housing needs by income categories, housing elements rely on density as a proxy for affordability. While not all high-density housing is affordable, it is generally agreed that higher densities are needed to make affordable housing fiscally viable. Current law has guidelines detailing densities that can accommodate very low and low-income housing. However, AB 2634 does not require a density difference between very low and ELI housing in the housing element planning process.

San Mateo County’s AMI for a family of three is $85,500. The income limits for the housing income categories are:

• Above-moderate (>120% AMI)

>$102,600

• Moderate (<120% AMI)

<$102,600

• SMCo AMI for a family of three

$85,500

• Low-income (<80% AMI)

<$68,400

• Very low-income (<50%)

<$42,750

• Extremely low-income (<30%)

<$25,650

As currently drafted, AB 2634 would determine the number of ELI families for each local jurisdiction by presuming that half of the families in the very low-income category are ELI. This is of concern to some opponents to AB 2634 who question the validity of presuming a 50-50% split between ELI (<30% SMI) and very low-income (30-50% AMI) allocations. Alternatives include requiring the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the Councils of Governments (COGs including Association of Bay Area Governments) to expand their current analyses to include ELI or requiring local jurisdictions to conduct their own analyses. While an HCD/COG approach best conforms with current practice there is growing concern about the cost of developing RHNA allocations.

The Commission on Disabilities and the Legislative Committee have reviewed AB 2634 and recommend a support position. In response to the concerns noted above, the Legislative Committee recommends the bill be amended to provide local jurisdictions the flexibility to either accept the 50-50% presumption or to determine the ELI share of the very low-income allocation.

According to staff of Assembly Member Lieber, the bill will be amended to provide such flexibility. The amendments are expected to provide that a local agency may either use available census data to calculate the percentage of very low-income households that qualify as extremely low-income households or presume that 50 percent of the very low-income households qualify as extremely low-income households.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Unknown. Likely increased costs.

E.

Resolution in support of SB 419 (Simitian), Hazardous materials: railroad tank cars

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution in support of SB 419 (Simitian), Hazardous materials: railroad tank cars.

VISION ALIGNMENT:

Commitment: Ensure basic health and safety for all.

Goal(s): 7—Maintain and enhance the public safety of all residents and visitors.

BACKGROUND:

SB 419 would create a registration and certification program for railroad tank cars that are used to transport hazardous materials. This would authorize the state Office of Emergency Services (OES) to charge rail tank car owners/lessees a fee to maintain a hazardous rail tank car database and a process to certify that rail tank cars, regardless of date of construction, meet certain standards including industry and federal construction and safety standards adopted in 2006. Owners/lessees would also be required to verify the certification annually.

Current law requires people transporting hazardous waste (regardless of the mode of transport) to register with the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Rail companies transporting hazardous materials must submit maps to the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and detail hazardous materials emergency handling guidelines to OES. And in the event of a release, to provide emergency response agencies with relevant information.

DISCUSSION:

The intent of SB 419 is to assure that hazardous materials shipped in rail tank cars meet minimum safety standards. In establishing heightened (modern) safety standards, this bill would have the effect of hastening the retirement of older, less safe rail tank cars.

Senator Simitian also argues the risk of terrorist attack on such rail cars. The author notes, “The federal government considers these ultra hazardous cargoes as "potential weapons of mass destruction," and very attractive targets for terrorists. A study by the Naval Research Laboratory reveals that 100 people per second could die if a terrorist were to blow up a tank car full of chlorine.”

While different, AB 2822 (Mullin) would have created a Local Emergency Response Hazardous Spill program funded by fees on rail companies. This bill was, in part, a response to a number of Union Pacific rail cars “parking” along the Caltrain line in South San Francisco.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.