|
|
File #:
|
25-2653
Version:
1
|
Name:
|
|
|
Type:
|
Resolution
|
Status:
|
Agenda Ready
|
|
On agenda:
|
6/24/2025
|
Final action:
|
|
|
Title:
|
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-9452 - LEGISLATIVE REPORT
|
MEETING DATE:
June 24, 2025
SUBJECT:
Title
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-9452 - LEGISLATIVE REPORT
Body
Recommendation
Recommendation
ADOPT a resolution taking a position on pending legislation in the California State Legislature that may have local impacts.
Body
Relevant Council Strategic Theme
Planning for the Future
Good Governance
Introduction
The City Council adopted the 2025 Legislative Platform to guide the consideration of state and federal bills that affect City operations. Over 2,300 bills were introduced. June 6 was the last day for each house to pass bills introduced in that house. Staff, lobbyist consultants and Cal Cities continue to review all the legislation that has passed out of each house and is being assigned to committees in the second house.
Discussion
This report provides updates on additional legislation of concern that made it to the second house during the 2025 legislative session. Staff continue to monitor these bills, bills on which the Council has previously taken a position, and others as the legislative session continues. They will also collaborate with Cal Cities and our lobbyist teams on future City Council consideration for official positions on bills that have made it to the second house. Policy committees in the second house are in the beginning their review of the bills that they have been assigned. Policy committees must hear and report on these bills by July 18th.
The Legislature will recess for its summer break on July 18th and will reconvene on August 18th. After it reconvenes, the Legislature’s fiscal committees will have approximately two weeks to hear and report on the bills that they have been assigned.
The following bills best align with the City’s state legislative priorities, and staff believe that they would have a possible impact on the city.
Proposed Legislation Position
|
AB 300 |
Lackey |
This bill would require the State Fire Marshal, at least once every 5 years, to review areas in the state identified as moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones, and to review lands within state responsibility areas classified as fire hazard severity zones. The bill would also require the State Fire Marshal, at least once every 5 years, to re-review areas within the state that are not identified as moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones, and to re-review lands within state responsibility areas that are not classified as fire hazard severity zones, and, if applicable, identify or classify those areas |
Support |
|
AB 893 |
Fong |
This bill would provide that, for purposes of determining whether a property or site satisfies the criteria, objective development standards, or other requirements for receiving streamlined, ministerial review under the act, a local government’s review of the property or site is limited to the area described in the application for streamlined, ministerial review and does not include, unless expressly stated otherwise, other contiguous or noncontiguous areas even if under the ownership or control of the project proponent. This bill would also expand the eligibility for the above-described streamlined, ministerial approval review for mixed-income housing developments to include developments located in a campus development zone, as defined, as long as the development meets certain affordability requirements and objective standards, as provided. The bill would require the outcomes of projects built under campus development zones to be reported in the January 1, 2031, outcomes report. The bill would also make related findings and declarations. |
Oppose |
|
AB 956 |
Quirk-Silva |
Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, provided for the creation by local ordinance, or by ministerial approval if a local agency has not adopted an ordinance, of accessory dwelling units in areas zoned for single-family or multifamily dwelling residential use in accordance with specified standards and conditions. Existing law requires a local agency to ministerially approve building permit applications within a residential or mixed-use zone to create, among others, one detached, new construction, accessory dwelling unit that does not exceed 4-foot side and rear yard setbacks for a lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling, as specified. This bill would increase the number of detached, new construction, accessory dwelling units that a local agency is required to ministerially approve on lots with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling, as described above, to 2. By imposing new duties on local governments with respect to the approval of accessory dwelling units, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. |
Oppose |
|
SB 358 |
Becker |
Existing law, the Mitigation Fee Act, imposes various requirements with respect to the establishment, increase, or imposition of a fee by a local agency as a condition of approval of a development project. Existing law requires a local agency that imposes a fee on a housing development for the purpose of mitigating vehicular traffic impacts to set the rate for that fee, if the housing development satisfies all of certain prescribed characteristics, to reflect a lower rate of automobile trip generation associated with such housing developments in comparison with housing developments without the prescribed characteristics, unless the local agency adopts findings after a public hearing establishing that the housing development, even with those characteristics, would not generate fewer automobile trips than a housing development without those characteristics. This bill would require those findings to be supported by substantial evidence in the record before or as part of the housing development project approval process. Existing law specifies one of those prescribed characteristics described above is that the housing development provides either the minimum number of parking spaces required by the local ordinance, or no more than one onsite parking space for zero- to 2-bedroom units, and 2 onsite parking spaces for 3 or more bedroom units, whichever is less. Under existing law, another prescribed characteristic is that convenience retail uses, as specified, are located within 1/2 mile of the housing development. This bill would revise the characteristic relating to parking spaces, to instead, specify that the housing development provides no more than one onsite parking space for zero- to 2-bedroom units, and 2 onsite parking spaces for 3 or more bedroom units. The bill would eliminate the characteristic related to convenience retail uses, and instead would add a characteristic that the housing development is located within 1/2 mile from 3 or more specified locations, including, among other locations, a restaurant, supermarket, or drugstore. |
Oppose |
Looking forward, the state budget was passed on June 15th and must be signed by June 30th. Budget discussions are ongoing, and the budget has yet to be fully finalized. Staff will continue work with the lobbyist consultant, and Cal Cities to determine areas of concern. Wildfires, MediCal budget overages, continued tariffs and cuts from the federal government continue to put pressure on a state budget that has little capacity to backfill cuts.
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 noted in Attachment A. A more thorough analysis of each bill’s implementation requirements is needed to demonstrate total fiscal impact.
Attachments
Attachment A: Resolution
Attachment B: AB 300 Support Letter
Attachment C: AB 893 Oppose Letter
Attachment D: AB 956 Oppose Letter
Attachment E: SB 358 Oppose Letter
Prepared by: Michael Lieberman, Legislative Analyst
Reviewed by: Phil Scollick, City Clerk/Director of Legislative Affairs
Approved by: Michelle Bender, City Manager
|