2019 Legislative Outcome
2019- 2020 Legislative Cycle
On May 7, 2019, City Council adopted the 2019 Legislative Guiding Principles and Priorities which serves as a guiding document for staff and City Council to follow when responding to legislative issues. In the 2019 Legislative cycle, the City took a position on 12 individual bills in the state legislature. A summary of each bill, the City’s position and submitted letters are provided in the table below.
|Bill||Author||Title and Brief Summary||City Position|
The Age-Friendly California Act of 2019. This bill will require the office of Planning and Research, commencing January 1, 2020, upon the next revision of the guidelines, to amend the guidelines to include elements of the domains of livability developed by the World Health Organization that specifically address livability issues for older adults to its guidelines for the preparation and content of the mandatory elements required in city and county general plans.
|Support||Passed- Chaptered by Secretary of State|
Cannabis: Local Jurisdiction: Retail Commercial Cannabis Activity. Under this bill, if more than 50 percent of the voters of a local jurisdiction voted in favor of Proposition 64, these local jurisdictions would be required to issue a minimum number of licenses authorizing retail cannabis activity within that jurisdiction. More specifically, the bill requires these cities to issue a minimum of one retail cannabis license for every four liquor licenses, or one retail cannabis license for every 10,000 residents.
|Oppose||Did not pass through Assembly- ordered inactive|
Transportation. Emerging Transportation Technologies. California Smart City Challenge Grant Program.This bill would establish the California Smart City Challenge Grant Program to compete for grant funding for emerging transportation technologies. The program would encourage cities to incorporate advanced data and intelligent transportation system technologies to accomplish certain goals, such as: Reducing congestion; Keeping travelers safe; Meeting environmental and climate change goals; Enhancing mobility; Connecting underserved communities; Supporting economic vitality; Attracting private investment; and Spurring innovation.
|Support||Did not pass through Assembly- Held under submission|
Local government financing: Affordable housing and public infrastructure: voter approval. This bill would lower the voter threshold requirements for special taxes by a local government for the purpose of providing funding for affordable housing and public infrastructure projects from 2/3rds approval to 55% approval.
|Support||Did not pass through Assembly- ordered inactive|
|SB 5||Beall||Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program: This bill would establish in state government the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program, which would be administered by the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Committee. The bill would authorize a city, county, city and county, joint powers agency, enhanced infrastructure financing district, affordable housing authority, community revitalization and investment authority, transit village development district, or a combination of those entities, to apply to the Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Committee to participate in the program and would authorize the committee to approve or deny plans for projects meeting specific criteria.||Support||Did not pass- Vetoed by the Governor|
Planning and zoning: housing development: incentives. This bill would prohibit cities from restricting housing developments up to 45 feet tall within a half-mile of major job centers and transit stops, such as a BART or Caltrain station. Within a quarter-mile, projects could be 55 feet tall.SB 50 creates new zoning standards for the construction of housing near job centers and public transportation, while protecting against the displacement of renters and vulnerable communities living in those areas. SB 50 eliminates hyper-low-density zoning near transit and job centers, thus legalizing small to mid-size apartment buildings and affordable housing in these locations so that more people can live near transit and near where they work. It also reduces or eliminates minimum parking requirements for new developments.Current state law leaves most zoning and land use decisions to local governments, and includes no density standards around public transportation and job centers. Due to a lack of adequate and enforceable statewide standards, most California cities are still operating under outdated and highly restrictive zoning ordinances—frequently banning apartment buildings entirely—that make it difficult or impossible to build multi-family dwellings.
|Oppose||Did not pass through Senate- Held in Senate Appropriations Committee|
|AB 516||Chiu||Authority to remove vehicles. This bill would delete the authority of a peace officer or public employee, as appropriate, to remove or immobilize a vehicle found upon a highway or public lands and if it is known to have been issued 5 or more notices of parking violations that are delinquent because the owner or person in control of the vehicle has not responded to the appropriate agency within a designated time period. The bill would also modify the authority to remove a vehicle parked or left standing for 72 or more consecutive hours in violation of a local ordinance by requiring the vehicle to remain parked or left standing for 10 5 or more business days after a notice is affixed to the vehicle specifying the date and time after which the vehicle may be removed. The bill would also require the notice to include specified information. The bill would repeal the related authority to conduct a lien sale to cover towing and storage expenses. The bill would make various conforming and technical changes.||Oppose||Did not pass through Senate- Held under submission|
|AB 539||Limon||California Financing Law: consumer loans: charges. This bill would authorize a finance lender, with respect to a loan of a bona fide principal amount of $2,500 or more but less than $10,000, to contract for or receive charges at a rate not exceeding an annual simple interest rate of 36% plus the Federal Funds Rate. The bill would require finance lenders making loans subject to these provisions to, among other requirements, report each borrower’s payment performance to at least one consumer reporting agency that compiles and maintains files on consumers on a nationwide basis and to also offer, at no cost to the borrower, a credit education program or seminar that has been previously reviewed and approved by the commissioner, in accordance with specific requirements.||Support||Passed- Chaptered by Secretary of State|
|AB1487||Chiu||Bay Area Housing Finance Authority. This bill would establish the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority and would state that the authority’s purpose is to raise, administer, and allocate funding for affordable housing in the San Francisco Bay area, as defined, and provide technical assistance at a regional level for tenant protection, affordable housing preservation, and new affordable housing production. The bill would provide that the governing board of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission serve as the governing board of the authority. The bill would require the authority board to provide for regular audits of the authority, including an independent financial and performance audit for bonds secured by ad valorem property taxes, and financial reports, as provided. The bill would include findings that the changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities within the San Francisco Bay area, including charter cities.||Support||Passed- Chaptered by Secretary of State|
|AB 659||Mullin||Transportation. Emerging Transportation Technologies. California Smart City Challenge Grant Program.This bill would establish the California Smart City Challenge Grant Program to compete for grant funding for emerging transportation technologies. The program would encourage cities to incorporate advanced data and intelligent transportation system technologies to accomplish certain goals, such as: Reducing congestion; Keeping travelers safe; Meeting environmental and climate change goals; Enhancing mobility; Connecting underserved communities; Supporting economic vitality; Attracting private investment; and Spurring innovation.||Support||Did not pass through Assembly- Held under submission|
|AB 723||Quirk||Transactions and use taxes: County of Alameda: Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District. This bill would provide that, notwithstanding the combined rate limit under the Transactions and Use Tax Law, neither a transaction and use tax rate imposed by the County of Alameda, either as described above or pursuant to previously existing law, nor a transactions and use tax rate imposed by the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District on or before the effective date of this bill, will be considered for purposes of that combined rate limit within the County of Alameda. The bill would declare that the changes made with regard to taxes imposed by the County of Alameda are declaratory of existing law.||Support||Passed- Chaptered by Secretary of State|
|SB 10||Beall||Mental Health services: peer support specialist certification. This bill would require the State Department of Health Care Services to establish, no later than July 1, 2020, a statewide peer support specialist certification program, as a part of the state’s comprehensive mental health and substance use disorder delivery system and the Medi-Cal program. The certification program’s components would include, among others, defining responsibilities, practice guidelines, and supervision standards, determining curriculum and core competencies, specifying training and continuing education requirements, establishing a code of ethics, and determining a certification revocation process. The bill would require an applicant for the certification as a peer support specialist to meet specified requirements, including successful completion of the curriculum and training requirements.||Support||Did not pass- Vetoed by the Governor|
|AB 143||Quirk-Silva||Shelter crisis: homeless shelters: Counties of Alameda and Orange: City of San Jose. Current law exempts from the California Environmental Quality Act specified actions by a state agency or a city, county, or city and county relating to land owned by a local government to be used for, or to provide financial assistance to, a homeless shelter constructed pursuant to these provisions. Current law requires a city, county, or city and county that declares a shelter crisis pursuant to these provisions to develop a plan to address the shelter crisis on or before July 1, 2019, and to annually report to specified committees of the Legislature on or before January 1, 2019, and annually thereafter until January 1, 2021. This bill would apply these additional provisions to a shelter crisis declared by the County of Alameda, the County of Orange, any city located within the County of Orange, and the City of San Jose and extend the above-described repeal date to January 1, 2023.||Support||Passed- Chaptered by Secretary of State|