BACKGROUND
City staff updated the master and priority lists of tracked and continues to work on developing and advancing the advocacy positions articulated by City departments on specific bills on the priority list of legislation. The City's master and priority lists will continue to be refined as the legislative session moves through the legislative calendar and deadlines.
Staff continues to focus on identifying bills that would impact local control, would have implications to both land use and housing and that would require the City to provide a service or benefit without appropriate and full funding, which ultimately would negatively impact City revenues including the General Fund, Enterprise Funds and sales or property taxes.
The following bills are a representative sample of the bills included in the initial list of priority legislation being tracked for the City:
Housing
• AB 1771 (Bloom) - Planning and Zoning: Regional Housing Needs Assessment (Watch) This bill would revise the objectives required to be addressed in the regional housing needs allocation plan and additionally require the plan to include an objective to increase access to areas of high opportunity for lower-income residents, while avoiding displacement and affirmatively furthering fair housing. The bill would also define the term "areas of high opportunity for lower-income residents" for purposes of these provisions.
Staff Comments: The City is watching this bill and considering an oppose position due to several specific aspects of the bill. Staff is concerned that new requirements outlined by the bill will make the Regional Housing Needs Assessment process more restrictive. The expansion of the role of the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is concerning as well. Staff is not convinced that if appeals are made, regarding how the new criteria is determined and developed and if the new allocations are appropriate, that HCD is the best arbiter for the appeals process. In addition, staff has concerns that the bill is attempting to bring participation, by organizations other than local jurisdictions and councils of governments, into the process and give them standing equal to local jurisdictions. This could weaken local governments’ positions on the development of the new criteria and increase the likelihood those responses will be challenged.
• SB 831 (Wieckowski) Land Use: Accessory Dwelling Units (Oppose) - The bill would require that a permit application for an accessory dwelling unit be approved or disapproved within 60 days and would specify that if a local agency does not act on an application for an accessory dwelling unit within 60 days, then the application shall be deemed approved. The bill would prohibit a local agency from requiring that off-street parking spaces be replaced when a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished or converted in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit.
Staff Comments: The City is opposing this bill for the loss of local control over and concerns with the timeframe defined by the bill for processing accessory dwelling unit applications. The timeframe calls into question whether the City could effectively process the application and ensure the project complies with the City’s standards and building requirements.
Workforce Development
• AB 2420 (Quirk-Silva) – Workforce Development: Soft Skills Training (Support) - This bill would specify that job-related basic and literacy skills training includes soft skills and would define "soft skills" as behaviors and competencies to allow people to navigate professional environments, work well with colleagues, and perform up to standards for professional success.
Staff Comment: The City is supporting this bill for the additional opportunities it would provide to help ensure individuals are prepared to enter and remain in the workplace.
Impacts to Local Governments
• AB 1912 (Rodriguez) Public Employees’ Retirement: Joint Powers Agreements: Liability (Oppose Unless Amended) – This bill specifies that if an agency to a joint powers agreement participates in a public retirement system, all parties are jointly and severally liable for all obligations to the retirement system. Prohibits the PERS Board of Administration from contracting with an agency formed under the Joint Exercise of Powers Act unless all the parties to that agreement are jointly and severally liable for all of the public agency's obligation to the system.
Staff Comment: The City has significant concerns with a number of specific elements contained in the bill. Several of the most concerning are that the bill would impose joint and several liability on members of both new and existing Joint Powers Agreements (JPAs), as well as, on former members of a JPA for all liabilities of the JPA. In addition, there is concern that the bill confuses “joint and several liability” with “apportioned” liability and this confusion could have serious implications for members of a JPA. Finally, the bill also bestows new authority to the Board of the Public Employees Retirement System to assign apportioned liability in cases when members of a JPA cannot agree on assignment of liabilities. These changes, along with others in the bill, raise serious questions over what future liabilities a member of a JPA could be assigned and the implications it has on the budgets of members in a current or future JPA.
Other Areas
• SB 1302 (Lara) – Cannabis: Local Jurisdiction: Prohibitions on Delivery (Oppose) - Prohibits a local jurisdiction from adopting or enforcement any ordinance that would prohibit a licensee from delivering cannabis within or outside of the jurisdictional boundaries of that local jurisdiction.
Staff Comment: The City opposes this bill as it would essentially force local jurisdictions to allow cannabis deliveries within their jurisdictions. Existing law, constructed by both the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA) and Proposition 64, states that local jurisdictions have the ability to adopt and enforce local ordinances to regulate cannabis businesses. SB 1302 would fundamentally alter this mainstay of cannabis legalization by prohibiting local jurisdictions from adopting or enforcing ordinances that would prohibit a cannabis licensee from delivering cannabis within or outside of the boundaries of that local jurisdiction.
Conclusion
Government relations staff will actively advocate on the City’s priority legislation and will continue to refine 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.