MEETING DATE:
MAY 14, 2024
SUBJECT:
Title
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-9284 - LEGISLATIVE REPORT
Body
Recommendation
Recommendation
ADOPT a resolution taking a position on pending legislation in the California State Legislature and projects of local impacts.
Body
Board or Commission Action
Not applicable
Relevant Council Strategic Theme
Planning for the Future
Good Governance
Introduction
The City Council adopted the 2024 Legislative Platform to guide the consideration of state and federal bills that affect City operations. In keeping with that direction, this report provides updates on State legislative activities and proposed legislation with several recommended positions on current iteration of bills in print and significant projects with local impacts. Staff will continue to monitor and collaborate with Cal Cities and our lobbyist teams to bring forward for future City Council consideration such additional positions on proposed legislation as are consistent with its Legislative Platform.
Discussion
During budget deficit years, virtually all bills with state fiscal impacts will go to the suspense file and be taken up at one “suspense” hearing later in May. Bills with significant fiscal cost will either need to reduce those costs significantly or will be held by the committees and be “dead” for the year. While budget sub-committees continue to meet, all eyes are on the Governor’s May Revision, which must be delivered by May 14. With revenue continuing to trend near or below the Governor’s January 10 budget projections, we expect to hear that the budget deficit continues to be a significant challenge. Earlier this week, the State Department of Finance announced that funding for “one-time resources provided in the Budget Acts of 2021, 2022, and 2023” would cease immediately. While it may sound alarming, this is typical of deficit years and applies to administrative spending in departments.
Many of the bills with the biggest impact to San Marcos are attached for reference to this report (Attachment A). We are beginning to see the bills take shape with either amendments and gaining or losing support as they move through the different committees. The larger associations such as Cal Cities and trade groups are beginning to position themselves on major bills.
Staff is recommending letters in support or opposition for the following bills and projects.
|
Project |
NCTD |
North County Transit District’s (NCTD) application for funding from the Federal Railroad Administration’s Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) Program for the Eastbrook to Shell Double Track Project. This project will improve safety, expand capacity, enhance reliability, and support supply chain resiliency on the nationally significant Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor. |
SUPPORT |
|
AB 1886 |
Alvarez |
Housing Element Law: substantial compliance: Housing Accountability Act. This measure would allow “builder’s remedy” to begin as soon as the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) or a court determines a jurisdiction’s housing element is out of compliance. |
OPPOSE |
|
AB 1893 |
Wicks |
Allows “builder’s remedy” to apply if HCD determines that a local jurisdiction is not in compliance with Housing Element Law and a proposed development project provides a minimum of 10% of the units for low-income or very low-income residents. The measure would also limit the “builder’s remedy” only to areas zoned for residential and mixed-use development and caps maximum density |
OPPOSE |
|
AB 2485 |
Carrillo |
Regional housing need: determination. This bill would require the department to publish on its internet website the data sources, analyses, and methodology, as specified, prior to finalization of the regional determination. |
SUPPORT |
Environmental Review
The proposed action does not constitute a “project” as defined under Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000 - 15387), and is therefore not subject to environmental review pursuant to Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3).
Fiscal Impact
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with adopting the proposed resolution. Unknown fiscal impacts are associated with the bills in Attachment A. A more thorough analysis of each bill’s implementation requirements is needed to demonstrate total fiscal impact.
Attachments
Attachment A: Status and analysis of legislation with a proposed City position
Attachment B: Resolution
Attachment C: Draft letters
Prepared by: Phil Scollick, City Clerk
Approved by: Michelle Bender, City Manager