RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
The Governor has until October 15 to sign or veto any bills sent to him by the legislature. The Governor has taken action on some of the bills on the list of priority legislation, but they remain on the list for the Committee’s reference. Staff requests the L&R Committee’s input on bills of particular importance to the Committee.
| BACKGROUND
The legislative session officially ended on September 15, which was the last day for the legislature to pass any bill. The Governor has until October 15 to sign or veto any bills sent to him by the legislature. Staff continues to advocate during this time on the priority bills that could potentially affect Roseville. The advocacy efforts include sending letters, meeting with other organizations to support mutually agreeable advocacy positions, and meeting with staff from the Governor’s office to discuss the City’s position on critical legislation.
The following are the primary bills that the City has advocated on since the end of the legislative session.
Housing
• AB 1515 (Daly) Housing Affordability Act (Oppose) – This bill makes numerous changes to the Housing Accountability Act. The changes include allowing a court to determine whether a project is consistent with local zoning and general plan by selecting the substantial evidence it wishes to rely on rather than reviewing whether a City Council relied upon substantial evidence.
Staff Comment: The City is concerned that the bill further erodes local control over decisions made by the City Council through the public process for approval of development projects and would increases the potential for lawsuits to be brought against the City. (Action: Letter sent to the Governor requesting his veto.).
• AB 72 (Santiago) Attorney General: Enforcement of Housing Laws (Oppose) – The bill provides the Department of Housing and Community Development broad new authority to review any action by a city or county that it determines is inconsistent with an adopted housing element.
Staff Comment: The City is concerned that the bill grants the Department the right to review “any action or failure to act by the city or county that it determines is inconsistent with an adopted housing element or Section 65583,” but fails to explain how the Department is supposed to determine that an action is inconsistent with the law. The bill creates tremendous uncertainty for cities and counties regarding actions they have taken regarding a housing element. (Action: Letter prepared to be sent to the Governor requesting his veto.).
• SB 540 (Roth) – Workforce Housing Opportunity Zone (Watch) This bill would authorize a local government to establish a Workforce Housing Opportunity Zone by preparing an Environmental Impact Report pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act and adopting a specific plan that is required to include text and a diagram or diagrams containing specified information. The bill would authorize a local government, after a specific plan is adopted and the zone is formed, to impose a specific plan fee upon all persons seeking governmental approvals within the zone. The bill would authorize a local government to apply for a grant or no-interest loan, or both, from the Department of Housing and Community Development to support its efforts to develop a specific plan and accompanying EIR within the zone. The bill would authorize a transfer from the state to the Department of Housing and Community Development for purposes of issuing grants or loans, or both, pursuant to these provisions.
Staff Comment: The City has this bill as a watch during the legislative session and believes it would provide a worthwhile tool for developing workforce housing. While the City may not create such a zone at this time, having it as an option for future consideration would be beneficial. In addition, having the option available to other cities and counties could help address the state’s housing crisis. (Action: Letter sent to the Governor requesting his signature.).
• AB 879 (Grayson) Planning and Zoning: Housing Element (Oppose) - Requires a county housing element analysis to include requests to develop housing at certain densities and the length of time for approval. Requires this analysis to demonstrate local efforts to remove nongovernmental constraints that create a gap between the locality's planning for the development of housing for all income levels and the construction of that housing. Requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to complete a study to evaluate the local fees charged to new developments.
Staff Comment: The City is concerned that the bill would result in lost revenues if the state required that the City to reduce development fees based on the analysis completed by the Department of Housing and Community Development. (Action: Letter prepared to be sent to the Governor requesting his veto.).
Other
• SB 231 (Hertzberg) Local Government: Fees and Charges (Support) – This bill relates to a provision of the California Constitution that requires that assessments, fees, and charges be submitted to property owners for approval or rejection after the provision of written notice and the holding of a public hearing. Clarifies the term “sewer” and makes findings and declarations relating to the definition of the term “sewer” for these purposes.
Staff Comment: The City supports this bill as it clarifies the definition of “sewer” to include systems for “drainage purposes” and “surface or storm waters”. Meeting state and federal requirements for storm sewer systems requires substantial local resources, subsequently, it is not only appropriate but vital that storm sewers be treated as sewers under the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act. (Action: Letter sent to the Governor requesting his signature).
• SB 649 (Hueso) Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (Oppose) – This bill amends existing law, which provides that a wireless telecommunications facility is subject to a city or county discretionary permit and is required to comply with specified criteria. Provides that a small cell is a permitted use, subject only to a specified permitting process adopted by a city or county if the small cell meets specified requirements. Prohibits a city or county from requiring a provider of video services or cable services to obtain any authorization or permit.
Staff Comment: The City remains strongly opposed to this bill for the loss of local control, safety issues, loss of revenue, and absence of community input into the placement of wireless communication equipment on city-owned infrastructure, such as streetlights and traffic signals, and buildings that would occur if this bill is signed into law. (Action: Letter sent to the Governor requesting his veto. City staff also met with the Governor’s staff to discuss specific elements of the bill dealing with the use of the electric infrastructure.)
Conclusion
Government relations staff continues to work closely with the City’s state lobbyist on actively advocating on the City’s priority legislation during the weeks leading up to the October 15 deadline for the Governor to act on bills sent to him by the legislature. Staff also continues to inform the City’s state representatives regarding the City’s final positions on the priority bills.
| FISCAL IMPACT
The costs of these activities are contained within the City’s current budget.
|
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT / JOBS CREATED
The activities detained in this report will not result in job development or creation.
|
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment (CEQA Guidelines §1506(b) (3). The action of reviewing proposed CEQA legislation does not include the potential for a significant environmental effect, therefore is not subject to CEQA.
| Respectfully Submitted,
Mark Wolinski, Government Relations Administrator
Megan MacPherson, Public Affairs and Communications Director | | | 
_____________________________
Rob Jensen, City Manager
|
|