BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
By way of background, bills are placed on the priority list because of the potential impacts they present to the City and/or the community. The priority list also contained bills that related directly to the principles contained within the City Council’s adopted Legislative Platform. The principles include the belief in local control and the ability of the City Council to make decisions that address the needs of residents and businesses within the local jurisdiction they directly serve. The City opposes legislation that requires the City to provide a service or benefit without appropriate and full funding; and, the City is opposed to legislation that would negatively impact City finances including the General Fund, enterprise funds, sales tax revenues, and/or property tax revenues.
This year is the first year of the two-year 2017-18 legislative session. With the end of the session’s first year, Governor Brown signed hundreds of bills into law and vetoed many other bills as well. Of the 1307 bills sent to him this year, Brown vetoed 118 bills or 9%, which is one of the lowest percentage of bills he has vetoed since returning to office. He vetoed 14.13% of the bills sent to him in 2010 and 14.37% of the bills he considered in 2011 the first year of his third term.
Each year the legislative advocacy effort includes a strong coordinated effort between City staff, the City’s lobbyist and coalition partners to effectively advocate positions, specifically related to local control and fiscal impacts. The following summary highlights bills discussed with the L&R Committee during their regularly scheduled meetings, as well as with others of particular importance to the City.
Priority List – Executive Action that aligned with City positions (Signed by the Governor)
• AB 236 (Maienschein) – CalWORKS: Housing Assistance (Support) – This bill amends existing law providing that the parent, or parents, shall be considered living with the needy child for a period of consecutive days of the needy child's absence from the family assistance unit. Provides that parents shall be eligible for CalWORKs services, if certain conditions are met. Provides homeless assistance benefits to pay costs of temporary shelter as a service provided to those eligible parents.
Staff Comment: The City supported this bill because it would provide that homeless assistance is available to homeless families who would be eligible for aid under the Cal WORKs program but for the fact that the only child or children in the family are in out-of-home placement based on an order of the dependency court and the county determines that homeless assistance is necessary for reunification to occur. This change would be of assistance for families in our community that are being challenged by lack of housing.
• AB 390 (Santiago) – Pedestrian Crossing Signals (Support) – This bill would authorize a pedestrian facing a flashing "DON'T WALK" or "WAIT" or approved "Upraised hand" symbol with a "countdown" signal to proceed so long as he or she completes the crossing before the display of the steady "DON'T WALK" or "WAIT" or approved "Upraised Hand" symbol. Because the bill would change the definition of a crime, it would impose a state-mandated local program.
Staff Comments: This City supported this bill as it clarifies the timing for the pedestrian use of a signalized crosswalk and removes some of the existing ambiguity associated with crosswalks for pedestrians.
• AB 1505 (Bloom) – Land Use: Zoning Regulations (Support) – Amends the Planning and Zoning Law to authorize the legislative body of a city or county to adopt ordinances to require, as a condition of development of residential rental units, that a development include a certain percentage of residential rental units affordable to, and occupied by households, or by persons and families, of low or moderate income levels.
Staff Comments: The City supported this bill for the new authority it provides to the legislative body of a county or city to adopt ordinances to require development of residential rental units that include a certain percentage of residential rental units affordable to, and occupied by, moderate-income, lower income, very low income, or extremely low income households. This new authority should provide a greater opportunity for communities throughout the state to have these types of housing units constructed, which is needed to help address the housing deficit in the state.
• AB 210 (Santiago) - Homeless Multidisciplinary Personnel Team (Watch) – Authorizes counties to establish a homeless adult, child, and family multidisciplinary personnel team to facilitate the expedited identification, assessment, and linkage of homeless individuals to housing and supportive services and to allow provider agencies to share confidential information for the purpose of coordinating such services. Requires the sharing of information to be governed by protocols developed in each county. Requires each county to provide a copy of its protocols.
Staff Comments: The City watched this bill to understand the opportunities the bill would provide for counties to establish a homeless adult and family multidisciplinary personnel team. The City is interested in opportunities to expand the work the police department’s Social Services Unit has undertaken with Placer County Probation officers and other social service providers to address homelessness.
• SB 649 (Hueso) - Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (Opposed) – This bill would prohibit local discretionary review of “small cell” wireless antennas, including equipment collocated on existing structures or located on new "poles, structures, or non-pole structures," including those within the public right-of-way and buildings. The proposal preempts adopted local land use plans by mandating that “small cells” be allowed in all zones as a use by-right, including all residential zones.
Staff Comments: The City, as with many other cities and counties that opposed this bill did not disagree that increased access and the effectiveness of wireless technology is beneficial to our communities. However, there is no documented problem to the current process for the approval of the placement of wireless equipment on the public infrastructure that requires the dramatic changes that were contained within this bill. In addition, there were other significant concerns with the bill included the following; that it removed local control over the use of its assets, there were concerns regarding how the structural integrity of the infrastructure would be analyzed for the placement of the equipment, the bill dramatically reducing the revenue collected by cities and counties for the use of the infrastructure; and, the bill lacked accountability for implementing the benefits it promised of upgrading networks.
• SB 345 (Bradford) Law Enforcement Agencies: Public Records (Oppose) - Relates to the California Public Records Act. Requires specified departments and agencies, and each local law enforcement agency, to conspicuously post on their websites current standards, policies, practices, operating procedures, education and training materials that would otherwise be available to the public if a request was made pursuant to the Act.
Staff Comments: The City opposed this bill for the new conditions the bill would have required regarding the posting of certain information relating to the training materials used by the police department on the City’s website. The City was concerned that posting this information could possibly compromise police response to certain types of situations. (The governor vetoed this bill.)
Priority List - Executive Action that contradicted City positions
• SB 506 (Nielsen) - Department of Fish and Wildlife: Lake or Streambed (Support) – Requires the Department of Fish and Wildlife to periodically upgrade the information on its Internet Web site regarding lake or streambed alteration agreements, to update its "Frequently Asked Questions" document and other appropriate sources of information regarding the lake and streambed alteration program, and to provide guidance on its Internet Web site to facilitate members of the public in obtaining individualized guidance regarding the lake and streambed alteration program.
Staff Comments: The City supported this bill for the requirement it would have implemented that the Department of Fish and Wildlife periodically upgrade the information on its website regarding lake or streambed alteration agreements, to update its "Frequently Asked Questions" document and other appropriate sources of information regarding the lake and streambed alteration program, and to provide guidance on its website to facilitate members of the public in obtaining individualized guidance regarding the lake and streambed alteration program. (The governor vetoed this bill.)
• SB 166 (Skinner) – Residential Density and Affordability (Oppose) – This bill, among other things, would prohibit a city, county, or city and county from permitting or causing its inventory of sites identified in the housing element to be insufficient to meet its remaining unmet share of the regional housing need for lower and moderate-income households. The bill also would expand the definition of "lower residential density" if the local jurisdiction has not adopted a housing element for the current planning period or the adopted housing element is not in substantial compliance.
Staff Comments: The City opposed as it authorizes new authorities to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to review any action or failure to act by a city or county that it determines is inconsistent with an adopted housing element or a specified provision and to issue written findings, whether the action or failure to act substantially complies with the housing element. The City opposed this bill for concerns over how HCD will use this new authority and the implications it could have to local control and the development of the housing element. (The governor signed this bill.)
• AB 168 (Eggman) – Employers: Salary Information (Opposed) – Prohibits an employer from relying on the salary history information of an applicant for employment as a factor in determining whether to offer an applicant employment or what salary to offer an applicant. Provides that an applicant is not prohibited from voluntarily disclosing salary history information and would not prohibit an employer from considering or relying on that voluntarily disclosed salary history information in determining salary.
Staff Comments: The City was opposed to this bill as it would prohibit an employer from relying on the salary history information of an applicant for employment as a factor in determining whether to offer an applicant employment or what salary to offer an applicant. (The governor signed this bill.)
Conclusion
City staff from all departments worked closely and effectively to advocate on a multitude of bills during the first year of the state legislative session. The advocacy effort also extended to include many of the City’s coalition partners as well. Staff is preparing for the upcoming 2018 legislative session to ensure the legislative advocacy effort continues to provide timely and effective representation of the City’s adopted legislative platform.