|
Government Affairs Report by Jason Bryant
CDA Prioritizes Major Issues as the Legislature’s Policymaking Kicks into High Gear
With the California Downtown Association’s policy priorities coming into focus on the heels of the West Coast Urban District Forum in San Jose last week – the organization’s legislative priorities are now seeing major action in the Legislature. Ranging from bills to support the vibrancy of our downtowns through flexible dining options, to addressing the way in which the state treats those with server mental illness, CDA’s advocacy efforts are pushing a strong legislative agenda in the Capitol this year.
The spring is dominated by several key legislative deadlines in the State Capitol. The first key date is April 28th which marks the last day for policy committees to hear fiscal bills. June 2nd is the final day for all bills to be passed out of the house in which they were introduced. All bills have to clear these legislative hurdles in order for them to continue to move through the legislative process. That means authors and bill sponsors are working feverishly to get their bills heard, and passed, in both the Assembly and Senate in the next 60 days as these deadlines approach.
With legislative activity in full swing, our advocacy efforts are focused on three top public policy priorities this legislative session:
Priority #1: Economic Recovery and New Development in our Districts
Priority #2: Fostering a Safe & Welcoming Environment in our Downtowns
Priority #3: Enhancing and Protecting the Operational Effectiveness of BIDs
AB 1217 (Gabriel, D-Woodland Hills) – SUPPORT
This legislation will extend provisions of AB 61 (Gabriel, 2021) which has helped to facilitate the state’s restaurant recovery by building on local programs such as the City of San Francisco’s “Shared Spaces” program, San Jose’s “Al Fresco” plan, Sacramento’s “Farm to Fork Al Fresco”, Long Beach’s “Open Streets Initiative”, San Diego’s “Slow Streets Program”, and Los Angeles’s “L.A. Al Fresco Program” to expand outdoor dining opportunities statewide.
These local programs have been a tremendous success — and have proven to be incredibly valuable for so many community restaurants throughout the state. AB 1217 will help community restaurants in the following ways:
- Ensuring restaurants statewide can take advantage of local outdoor dining expansion opportunities;
- Extending the ABC’s regulatory relief, allowing expanded outdoor alcohol;
- Allowing for the preparation and service of food as a temporary satellite food service without obtaining a separate satellite food service permit
AB 1217 contains some of the most successful elements of emergency pandemic relief and continues beyond the timeline provided in AB 61. We know that expanded outdoor dining has been critical to the success of so many community restaurants as they work to recover from the pandemic.
SB 43 (Eggman, D-Stockton) – SUPPORT
This legislation would update the definition of “gravely disabled” to include a new focus on preventing serious physical and mental harm stemming from a person’s inability to provide for their needs for nourishment, personal or medical care, shelter, or attend to self-protection or personal safety, due to their mental or substance use disorder. When making a determination about the risk of harm, the bill would require the court to consider when a person is unable to appreciate the nature of their disorder and that their decision-making is impaired due to their lack of insight into their mental or medical disorders.
It would also create a hearsay exemption for information contained in a medical record, presented by an expert witness, in order to ensure all relevant information is presented to, and considered by, the court when making a gravely disabled determination.
The focus of the gravely disabled definition solely on the ability to provide for one’s food, clothing, and shelter is inadequate to address the real needs in our communities and often leads to criminalization and jail rather than treatment. This standard has remained largely unchanged since 1967 and has become a serious barrier to needed treatment for those at risk of dying on our streets. We are in the midst of a worsening behavioral health crisis and the failure to address this definition has led to tragedy for more and more families desperate to get help for their loved ones.
SB 363 (Eggman, D-Stockton) – SUPPORT
The bill would require, by January 1, 2025, a real-time behavioral health bed database to collect, aggregate, and display information about beds in inpatient psychiatric facilities, crisis stabilization units, residential community mental health facilities, and licensed residential alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities. This information would help provide timely access to care and increase coordination between service settings.
A significant roadblock in our fragmented behavioral health continuum is a lack of care coordination between various provider types and a lack of information about which resources are accessible or available in the community. SB 363 would require the database to include a minimum baseline of information, including the contact information for a facility’s designated employee, the types of diagnosis or treatments for which the bed is appropriate, and the target populations served at the facility. The database would also have the capacity to enable searches to identify beds that are appropriate for individuals in need of inpatient or residential mental health or substance use disorder treatment.
AB 557 (Hart, D-Santa Barbara) – SUPPORT
This legislation eliminates the January 1, 2024 sunset on the provisions of the Brown Act that provided additional flexibility for local agencies looking to meet remotely during an emergency while still maintaining public access and transparency. This legislation will provide a narrow but important emergency authority, allowing local governing bodies to safely meet and take action during applicable states of emergency declared by the Governor.
AB 361 (Rivas, 2021) codified, until Jan 1, 2024, numerous provisions of Governor Newsom’s Executive Orders pertaining to the Brown Act in 2020. The provisions only apply in the event that an emergency situation or public health orders prevent a local agency board from meeting in-person. If the meeting could still be held in-person without endangering local agency board members or personnel, then the local agency would not be permitted to rely on the provisions added to California Government Code section 54953 by AB 361. Local agencies needing to meet remotely pursuant to those provisions are only permitted to do so in concert with an emergency declared by the Governor of California.
By removing the sunset, AB 557 preserves the critical flexibility for local agencies needing to meet remotely to continue providing the public with essential services during a Governor-declared emergency. By adjusting the renewal period for resolutions to 45 days (up from 30 days), AB 557 would provide accommodation for those agencies regularly meeting on a fixed date every month.
Jason Bryant
Bryant Government Affairs
| 
