Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Legislation Housing Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bakersfield council asked to direct staff to prepare opposition letter to AB 130 VMT provision
Summary
A Home Builders Association representative urged the city to oppose section 58 of AB 130, a provision that would create vehicle miles traveled (VMT) fees for new housing; councilmembers asked staff to prepare a letter seeking repeal and bring it back for formal consideration.
Dave Dummyhowski, with the Home Builders Association of Kern County, urged the Bakersfield City Council on Aug. 27 to oppose a provision in the governor’s budget trailer bill that would impose vehicle-miles-traveled fees on new housing. Council members asked staff to prepare a letter calling for repeal of the provision and bring it back for the council’s vote.
Dummyhowski told the council the trailer bill “included an onerous provision, which puts in a vehicle miles travel tax” on single-family and multifamily development and cited a Caltrans study for Los Angeles County that, he said, showed potential impact fees “of over $200,000 on single family homes and rent increases of up to $1,300 a month in the LA County market.” He said the bill would route funds to a state trust and that local jurisdictions would have to apply to get funds back for local infrastructure or infill projects.
Council member Weir asked whether it would be “in order” to put together opposition. The mayor and city manager indicated it would be appropriate to ask staff to return with a formal letter. Council member Coleman said more analysis was needed and referred staff to prepare a letter supporting immediate repeal of section 58 of AB 130 and bring it back to the council for consideration; the city manager responded, “We’ll do that.”
Dummyhowski also told the council he believed the provision could add CEQA complexity and litigation risk at a time when the governor was proposing CEQA changes to promote housing production. He left materials with the city clerk.
The council did not vote on the policy at the meeting; the action taken was a direction to staff to draft a letter of opposition supporting repeal of section 58 of AB 130 and return it to the council for an affirmative vote.
The city clerk confirmed no additional public speakers on the item.
Looking ahead, staff will prepare analysis and a draft letter for the council’s consideration; no formal council position was adopted at this meeting.
