City Manager's Office

Transcription

1 AGENDA ITEM I-2 City Manager's Office STAFF REPORT City Council Meeting Date: 3/13/2018 Staff Report Number: CC Consent Calendar: Authorize the Mayor to sign letters of support or opposition on behalf of the City Council regarding pending State legislation in accordance with City policy and the League of California Cities official position and specific authorization for the Mayor to sign letters opposing SB 827 and supporting Propositions 68 and 69 Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign letters of support or opposition on behalf of the City Council regarding pending State legislation in accordance with the City Council s Legislative Policy Guide and official position of the League of California Cities, including the following current legislation and future legislation as it arises: 1. Oppose SB 827 (Wiener) Planning and Zoning 2. Support Proposition 68, the Parks, Environment, and Water Bond 3. Support Proposition 69, the Transportation Taxes and Fees Lockbox and Appropriations Limit Exemption Amendment Policy Issues The City has a Legislative Policy Guide (Attachment A), which is an appendix of the City Council s Procedures Manual. In addition, the City Council has routinely directed staff to draft letters of support or opposition to pending State legislation, often based on the official position of the League of California Cities. This item would grant the Mayor authority to sign letters on behalf of the City, which are in accordance with these same guiding principles. Background Currently, staff receives requests from individual councilmembers to place letters of support or opposition regarding pending State legislation on the City Council s agenda for consideration. These are generally routine and in line with the City s existing policy positions or at the request of the League of California Cities in accordance with the League s official position. The League of California Cities employees full-time lobbying staff who advocate for legislative and regulatory measures and 16 regional public affairs managers who work with city elected officials and coalition partners to augment and support legislative advocacy efforts. The League also has an active Legal Advocacy Program that represents the interests of California cities in both federal and state court and regularly files friend of the court briefs and letters to bring attention to matters of statewide importance. Additionally, there are nearly 400 city officials serving on the League s seven standing policy City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA tel PAGE 37

2 Staff Report #: CC committees, which enable the League s policy-making process to facilitate discussions among cities on issues facing the state and to establish policy directions on those issues. The League's online bill search makes it easy for city officials and others to track the League's position on bills, view letters that the League has sent to legislators or contact the League lobbyist working on a bill. League positions and lobbyist assignments are available for all League-tracked current session bills. Analysis SB 827 (Wiener) Planning and Zoning As proposed, SB 827 would obligate cities to provide transit-rich housing bonuses for multifamily residential projects located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, or along a high-quality transit corridor, which could be miles away from an actual bus stop. In addition to increased density, such bonuses would waive parking requirement and design review standards, and permit structures between forty-five (45) and eighty-five (85) feet tall by right. SB 827 would undermine locally adopted General Plans, Housing Elements and Sustainable Community Strategies. It allows private for-profit housing developers and transit agencies rather than cities to determine housing densities, parking requirements and design review standards for multifamily projects. Under existing law, the City is already required to zone for densities at levels necessary to meet our Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Local land use and zoning laws are designed to protect the quality and integrity of cities. Public hearings allow members of the community to inform their representatives of their support or concerns when planning projects are developed, often leading to better projects. Disregarding such requirements and processes will foster increased public distrust in government and strip cities of local land use authority and autonomy. The League of California Cities urges cities to oppose this legislation. A draft letter of opposition is included as Attachment B. Proposition 68, the Parks, Environment and Water Bond Proposition 68 would authorize $4 billion in general obligation bonds for state and local parks, environmental protection and restoration projects, water infrastructure projects, and flood protection projects. Assuming a 3.5 percent interest rate over a 30-year period, the bond issue would generate $2.53 billion in interest, meaning the state would spend $6.53 billion to pay off the bond issue. The measure would require that percent of the bond s funds, depending on the type of project, be dedicated to projects in communities with median household incomes less than 60 percent of the statewide average; that 60 percent threshold amounted to about $39,980 in The largest amount of bond revenue $725 million would go toward neighborhood parks in park-poor neighborhoods in accordance with the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Act of 2008's competitive grant program. The measure would also reallocate $100 million in unissued bonds that voters approved via Proposition 1 (2014), Proposition 84 (2006) and Proposition 40 (2002). The League of California Cities urges cities to support this proposition. A draft resolution of support is included for informational purposes as Attachment C. A letter of support would be drafted if approved. City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA tel PAGE 38

3 Staff Report #: CC Proposition 69, the Transportation Taxes and Fees Lockbox and Appropriations Limit Exemption Amendment Proposition 69 was part of a legislative package that included Senate Bill 1 (SB 1). Without SB 1, Proposition 69 would not affect anything. SB 1, which was also known as the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, enacted an estimated $5.2 billion-a-year increase in transportation-related taxes and fees, including a $0.12 cents per gallon increase of the gasoline excise tax, a $0.20 cents per gallon increase of the diesel excise tax, a 4 percent increase of the diesel sales tax, an annual $25 to $100 Transportation Improvement Fee, and an annual $100 zero-emission vehicles fee. Proposition 69 would require that revenue from the diesel sales tax and Transportation Improvement Fee (TIF) be dedicated for transportation-related purposes. As of 2018, the state constitution prohibited the legislature from using gasoline excise tax revenue or diesel excise tax revenue for general nontransportation purposes. The amendment would require the diesel sales tax revenue to be deposited into the Public Transportation Account, which was designed to distribute funds for mass transportation and rail systems. Proposition 69 would require the TIF revenue be spent on public streets and highways and public transportation systems. Although SB 1 requires revenue from the zero-emission vehicles fee to be placed in the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account, Proposition 69 does not contain a provision creating a constitutional mandate for zero-emission vehicles fee revenue. Proposition 69 would make revenue from SB 1's tax increases and fee schedules exempt from the state appropriations limit, also known as the Gann Limit. In other words, the revenue would not count toward the limit. The Gann Limit prohibits the state government and local governments from spending revenue in excess of per-person government spending in fiscal year , with an adjustment allowed for changes in the cost-of-living and population. Amendments were made to the Gann Limit in 1988 and 1990, modifying the formula and requiring half of the excess revenue to be distributed to public education and the other half to taxpayer rebates. Rejecting the constitutional amendment would make SB 1's revenue subject to the Gann Limit. As of 2018, the Gann Limit had been exceeded just once in The League of California Cities urges cities to support this proposition. A draft resolution of support is included for informational purposes as Attachment D. A letter of support would be drafted if approved. Public Notice Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with the agenda items being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. Attachments A. City Council Procedures Manual, Appendix B-Legislative Policy Guide B. Draft letter of opposition to SB 827 (Wiener) Planning and Zoning C. Draft resolution in support of Proposition 68 D. Draft resolution in support of Proposition 69 Report prepared by: Clay J. Curtin, Assistant to the City Manager/Interim City Clerk City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA tel PAGE 39

4 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK PAGE 40

5 ATTACHMENT A APPENDIX B LEGISLATIVE POLICY GUIDE The City Council of Menlo Park believes: In conducting the business of government with openness, respect, and civility, and including the involvement of all stakeholders in establishing goals and in solving problems. The vitality of cities is dependent upon their fiscal stability and local autonomy, and that local self-governance is the cornerstone of democracy. Therefore: The City supports legislation that reflects the need to conduct the public s business in public. The City opposes legislation that mandates costly and unnecessary procedures. The City supports the use of the general plan as a guide to meeting community planning needs, and opposes mandatory review or approval by another level of government and legislation that restricts the land use authority of cities. The City emphasizes efficiency and effectiveness to achieve the best possible use of city resources and believes the state should implement fiscal and legislative reforms in order to allow local government to adequately finance its service responsibilities, with accountability to the taxpayers for its programs. The City supports additional funding for local transportation and other critical unmet infrastructure needs and enhanced autonomy for local transportation decision-making. The City supports strategic alliances with counties, schools, other cities and local agencies, nonprofit and civic organizations and business and professional associations. September 2005 PAGE 41

6 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK PAGE 42

7 ATTACHMENT B City Council March 13, 2018 The Honorable Scott Wiener California State Senate State Capitol, Rm 4066 Sacramento, CA Empty RE: Opposition to SB 827 (Wiener) Planning and Zoning Empty Dear Senator Wiener: The City of Menlo Park opposes SB 827 (Wiener), which would exempt certain housing projects from locally-developed and adopted height limitations, densities, parking requirements, and design review standards. Specifically, SB 827 would undermine locally adopted General Plans, Housing Elements (which are certified by the Department of Housing and Community Development), and Sustainable Community Strategies (SCS). SB 827 allows private for-profit housing developers and transit agencies to determine housing densities, parking requirements and design review standards within one-half mile of a major transit stop, or along a high-quality transit corridor, which could be miles away from an actual bus stop. Under existing law, cities are already required to zone for densities at levels necessary to meet their entire Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Additionally, SB 827 would provide developers a means to generate additional profits without any requirement to build affordable housing. Exempting large-scale developments from General Plans, Housing Elements, and zoning ordinances goes against the principles of local democracy and public engagement. Public hearings allow members of the community to inform their representative of their support or concerns when planning documents are developed. Public engagement also often leads to better projects. Disregarding such processes will increase public distrust in government and could lead to additional ballot measures dealing with growth management. For these reasons, the City of Menlo Park opposes SB 827. City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA tel PAGE 43

8 ATTACHMENT B 2 Sincerely, Peter I. Ohtaki Mayor City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA tel PAGE 44

9 ATTACHMENT C RESOLUTION NO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSITION 68, THE PARKS, ENVIRONMENT AND WATER BOND WHEREAS, the Legislature adopted and governor signed SB 5, a $4 Billion General Obligation Bond to be placed on the June 2018 ballot entitled the California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act of 2018; and WHEREAS, SB 5 represents the first legislatively authorized debt instrument for parks, resources and environmental improvements since 2002; and WHEREAS, investments in California s urban, suburban and rural park and resourcesrelated landscapes promote the notion of community and provide health, environmental and aesthetic benefits; and WHEREAS, cities are eligible for at least $1.69 billion in funding for parks, water, and climate and environmental programs; and WHEREAS, SB 5 contains $200 million in per capita funding to assist all of California s communities in underwriting priority park-related improvements; and WHEREAS, SB 5 includes an additional $15 million for grants to cities and districts in urbanized counties providing park and recreation services within jurisdictions of 200,000 or less in population; and WHEREAS, SB 5 contains an additional $40 million shall be available in block grant awards for communities that self-tax for park related improvements; and WHEREAS, SB 5 invests $725 million in grants for the creation and expansion of safe neighborhood parks in park-poor neighborhoods under the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Act of 2008 s; and WHEREAS, SB 5 invests no less than $1 billion in California s most economically challenged communities, eradicating blight and promoting greater access to the outdoors and health-related pursuits; and WHEREAS, SB 5 expends $200 million on California s State Park system, addressing a greater than $1 billion backlog in deferred maintenance which will translate into greater tourism and visitorship opportunities in adjacent communities; and WHEREAS, SB 5 invests $30 million in trail network improvements promoting nonmotorized recreational and commuter opportunities throughout the state; and WHEREAS, SB 5 expends hundreds of millions on other important investments in resource-related infrastructure including California s rivers, coast, and other waterways; and PAGE 45

10 ATTACHMENT C WHEREAS, SB 5 invests hundreds of millions toward combatting global warming through investments in urban greening projects, promoting healthy forests and carbon farming applications; and WHEREAS, SB 5 underwrites $250 million in investments in improving local water systems, and providing safe and reliable drinking water to all Californians; and WHEREAS, SB 5 spends $80 million in competitive grants for treatment and remediation to promote access to safe drinking water in some of California s most economically challenged communities; and WHEREAS, SB 5 underwrites improvements in the state flood management systems, armoring against calamities that beset the state including Oroville and elsewhere. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of City Council of City of does hereby support Proposition 68, the Parks, Environment and Water Bond authorized by SB 5, the California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act of 2018 and any subsequent iteration titled otherwise by the Secretary of State that is scheduled to appear on the June 2018 statewide ballot. I,, City Clerk of the City of, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted at a meeting by said City Council on the day of, 2018, by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PAGE 46

11 ATTACHMENT D RESOLUTION NO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSITION 69 AND OPPOSING THE ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT (SB 1-BEAL) REPEAL WHEREAS, California s cities, counties, and transportation agencies fact a statewide backlog of over $130 billion in needed funds to make transportation infrastructure improvements; and WHEREAS, The Road Repair and Accountability Act (SB 1 Beal) passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor last year will raise $5 billion annually in long-term, dedicated transportation funding to make road safety improvements, fill potholes, and repair local streets, highways, bridges, and overpasses, with the revenues split equally between state and local government projects; and WHEREAS, SB 1 provides critically-needed funding in the City of that could be used for critically needed pavement rehabilitation, access ramps, traffic signal replacements, restriping, and other appropriate transportation/traffic infrastructure; and WHEREAS, SB 1 contains strong accountability provisions to streamline projects by cutting bureaucratic redundancies and red tape to ensure transportation funds are spent efficiently and effectively, while also establishing the independent office of Transportation Inspector General to perform audits, improve efficiency, and increase transparency; and WHEREAS, Proposition 69 on the June 2018 ballot would add additional accountability for taxpayers by preventing the State Legislature from diverting or raiding any new transportation revenues for non-transportation improvement purposes; and WHEREAS, there is also a proposed ballot measure aimed for the November 2018 ballot (Attorney General # ) that would repeal the new transportation revenues provided by SB 1 and make it more difficult to increase funding for state and local transportation improvements in the future; and WHEREAS, this proposed November proposition would raid millions of dollars annually from cities resulting in the potential halt to critical investments in future transportation improvement projects in our community. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City of hereby supports Proposition 69, the June 2018 PAGE 47

12 ATTACHMENT D constitutional amendment to prevent new transportation funds from being diverted for non-transportation purposes. Section 2. The City of hereby opposes the proposed November ballot proposition (Attorney General # ) that would repeal the new transportation funds and make it more difficult to raise state and local transportation funds in the future. Section 3. The City of supports efforts on behalf of the League of California Cities and other coalitions of local government agencies, business, labor, transportation, and other organizations throughout the state, in support of Proposition 69 and opposing the repeal of SB 1. Section 4. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. I,, City Clerk of the City of, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted at a meeting by said City Council on the day of, 2018, by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PAGE 48