The initial list of priority legislation of 2018 includes 46 bills (Attachment A).  Meetings with city departments are currently underway to review the more than 1,800 bills currently being tracked for the city. As the legislative session progresses, staff will continue to bring the revised priority list back to the L&R Committee to provide updates and to receive the Committee’s input on bills of particular importance. 

This year, the legislature introduced more than 2,400 bills that staff has reviewed and determined would be tracked for the various City departments.  As in years past, the bills spanned the gamut of topics including public safety, the utilities, housing, homelessness, cybersecurity, economic development, land use public finance, and human resources/public pensions.  Meetings are currently underway with all city departments to review their lists of legislation for the purposes of refining the lists, designating priority legislation, and developing advocacy positions and strategies on bills of critical importance to each department.    

The following bills are a representative sample of the bills included in the initial list of priority legislation being tracked for the City:  

Housing

• SB 827 (Wiener) - Planning and Zoning: Affordable Housing: Approval (Oppose). This bill would require a local government to, if requested, grant a development proponent of a transit-rich housing project a transit-rich housing bonus if that development meets specified planning standards, including complying with demolition permit requirements, local inclusionary housing ordinance requirements, preparing a relocation benefits and assistance plan, any locally adopted objective zoning standards, and any locally adopted minimum unit mix requirements.

Staff Comments: The City opposes this bill as it would exempt certain housing projects from locally developed and adopted height limitations, densities, parking requirements, and design review standards.

• SB 828 (Wiener) – Land Use: Housing Element (Watch) - States the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would require the Department of Housing and Community Development to take certain actions relating to unmet housing needs.  This bill would increase the percentage of the need for housing for very low and low-income households that the program is required to accommodate to 200%.

Staff Comment: The City is watching this bill because it is an intent bill. As an intent bill, the bill does not currently include all the bill language, which makes it impossible to understand the implications of the bill. Staff has concerns regarding what the final bill language will include and what the impacts they might present for the City. 

Homelessness

• AB 2287 (Kiley) Mental Services Health Act (Support) - This bill would establish the Office of Mental Health Services within the California Health and Human Services Agency, as specified. The bill would transfer various functions of the State Department of Health Care Services under the act to the office. Under this bill, the office would succeed to, and be vested with, all the duties, powers, responsibilities, and jurisdiction, vested in the department, regarding oversight of the Mental Health Services Fund, as specified.

Staff Comment: The City is supporting this bill for the potential efficiencies it would create for the effective use of mental health funds that provide various mental health programs and services.  The effective and efficient use of these funds have important implications to our community including the ability to address and reverse homelessness and chronic homelessness.  .   

Staff Comments: The City is watching this bill for the opportunities it would provide for to move an individual out of the cycle of chronic homelessness.  Chronic homelessness is the most difficult segment of homeless community to help and this bill may provide a new resource in helping individuals who are chronically homeless.   . 

Other Areas

• AB 3037 (Chiu) Redevelopment (Watch) - This bill states the intent of the Legislature to enact subsequent legislation that would authorize a city or county, subject to the approval of the Department of Finance, to form a redevelopment housing and infrastructure agency, and would authorize that agency to exercise powers that are similar to powers previously granted to redevelopment agencies in order to finance housing and infrastructure projects.  

Staff Comment: The City is watching this intent bill to understand the possible positive outcomes it could provide to overcome the loss of Redevelopment Agencies (RDA).  The loss of RDAs significantly impacted the ability for cities and counties to fund redevelopment and infrastructure projects.  Staff is interested to understand how this bill would replace those lost funding opportunities and what process would need to be implemented to established a redevelopment housing and infrastructure agency.

• AB 1792 (Frazier) – Local Government: Municipal Improvements Projects – (Watch) - This bill states the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would provide local governments with resources and streamlining for municipal improvements and restoration projects.

   

  Staff Comment: The City is watching this intent bill for the possible resources and opportunities it may provide to local governments to undertake municipal improvements and restoration projects.       

Conclusion

Government relations staff will actively advocate on the City’s priority legislation as advocacy positions are developed during departmental meetings and will continue to develop the priority list during the coming weeks of the legislative session.  Staff will remain actively engaged in informing the City’s state and federal representatives regarding the City’s positions as the bills move through the legislative process.  

The costs of these activities are contained within the City’s current budget. 

The activities detained in this report will not result in job development or creation.

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.

_____________________________
Rob Jensen, City Manager