Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/9/2024 Item 6b, Hermann / Harnett - Staff Agenda Correspondence(:;vfi Y o Council• ' • . Correspondence I.s: O ti DATE: January 9, 2024 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Greg Hermann, Deputy City Manager Prepared By: Natalie Harnett, Program and Policy Manager VIA: Derek Johnson, City Manager SUBJECT: Item 6B — 2023 Legislative Briefing Staff received the following questions, regarding the 2023 State Legislative Briefing. The questions are below with staff's response shown in italics. 1) With regard to SB706 and AB400, could you please talk about what these two bills will do and explain "design build" a little more clearly? "Design -build" is a project delivery method in the construction and design industry where both the design and construction phases are handled by a single entity or a team. In traditional project delivery methods, such as design -bid -build, these responsibilities are typically split between different entities — an architect or engineer for the design phase and a contractor for the construction phase. In design -build, the design and construction teams work collaboratively, often under a single contract with the owner/agency. At its most effective, design -build contracting can encourage collaboration and streamline decision -making, reduce risk, and simplify communication via a single responsible contractor, provide better cost -certainty earlier in the project, and introduce a potential for faster delivery through earlier involvement with the construction team. Downsides can include potential conflicts of interest between design and construction teams, resulting in reduction in quality and workmanship for the purpose of cost savings and fast track construction; design -build can also be incompatible with highly complex or specialized projects where a more detailed and phased approach would reduce risk of unforeseen cost increases. Note that Article IX of the City Charter does not explicitly allow design -build project delivery. Staff plan to bring a study session to Council for consideration in Fall 2024 to determine whether Council would like a work item included in future Financial Plans to amend the City's Charter to expressly allow for such project delivery alternative. Below is a synopsis of SB706 and AB400, which are only applicable to agencies with design -build authority. City of San Luis Obispo Item 6B — 2023 Legislative Briefing Page 2 SB 706 - Public contracts: progressive design -build: local agencies Current law, until January 1, 2029, authorizes local agencies, defined as any city, county, city and county, or special district authorized by law to provide for the production, storage, supply, treatment, or distribution of any water from any source, to use the progressive design -build process for up to 15 public works projects in excess of $5, 000, 000 for each project, similar to the progressive design -build process authorized for use by the Director of General Services. This bill would, until January 1, 2030, provide additional authority for cities, counties, cities and counties, or special districts to use the progressive design -build process for up to 10 public works in excess of $5, 000, 000, not limited to water -related projects, excluding projects on state-owned or state -operated facilities. The bill would require information to be provided under penalty of perjury and would require similar reports due no later than December 31, 2028. AB 400 — Local Agency Design -Build Projects: Authorization Current law authorizes a local agency, as defined, with approval of its governing body, to procure design -build contracts for public works projects in excess of $1, 000, 000, awarding the contract either to the lowest bid or the best value. "Local agency" is defined, in part, for this purpose to include specified local and regional agencies responsible for the construction of transit projects, including any joint powers authority formed to provide transit service. Current law, among other requirements for the design -build procurement process, requires specified information submitted by a design -build entity to be certified under penalty of perjury. These provisions authorizing the use of the design -build procurement process are repealed on January 1, 2025. This bill would delete from the definition of "local agency" any joint powers authority formed to provide transit services and would instead expand that definition to include any joint powers authority responsible for the construction of transit projects, thereby authorizing additional joint powers authorities to use the above -described design -build procurement process. The bill would extend the repeal date to January 1, 2031. 2) AB 1332 —can you say a little more about the pre -approvals this bill requires? I thought that the process for building ADUs was already streamlined and "by right" in most circumstances due to previous legislation (SB 9, and maybe others)? Several bills in recent years have significantly streamlined the process to construct ADUs. This bill streamlines the process further by requiring that a City develop a program for the preapproval of ADU plans. These ADU plans may not necessarily be associated with a specific address but would be reviewed by the agency for compliance with required standards. Once "preapproved" by the agency, the plans and contact information for the applicant (assumed to be the architect or designer), would be posted on a website. This would allow property owners to peruse "pre -approved" plans that have already been reviewed and approved by the City. Should a property owner choose to propose to construct an ADU that was preapproved on their property, then the City review of the project would be limited to 30 days (instead of the now -current 60-day timeline). This program would essentially allow designers and architects to request that the City review and approve designs forADUs that can then be chosen by property owners (thus creating a sort of menu of ADU options that are known to be compliant with City and State Item 613 — 2023 Legislative Briefing Page 3 standards). This would also reduce building plan check fees as review would only be needed to ensure building placement on the lot is in compliance with Zoning and Building regulations. 3) AB 965 — can you explain more about what this means for broadband permit applications locally? This bill requires the City to "batch" certain broadband permit applications if they are for substantially similar broadband project sites and are submitted by the same applicant. It also establishes timelines to provide approvals or denials to applicants. The provisions of this bill strain City resources for review of such permits depending on the number of permits that are batched and number of batches that are submitted at a given time. Staff is working on assessing how this bill could impact workflows and determine what work processes need to be adjusted to ensure compliance with this law. 4) AB 935 — with this have an impact of any kind on our local enforcement efforts? This measure will not have a direct impact on local enforcement efforts, but it is welcomed legislation to help remove access of flavored tobacco to children. It was enacted to address some of the implementation concerns about SB 793 (the state's restriction on the sales of flavored tobacco products). Specifically, AB 935 notes that the state's licensing board shall suspend or revoke a state -issued license for a retailer who has violated the flavor ban at least three times. It also expands the language of "retail location" to include vending machines, mobile units, booths, etc. It will have an impact on illegal sales, but not on drawing down local Police resources. It will encourage the City to work closely with the State and our Special Enforcement Team (SET) for scheduled local tobacco enforcement operations. 5) How will AB 1114 impact our local permitting processes? The changes in AB 1114 will not impact our local permitting processes significantly. The City will be required to provide additional information on our website. Existing law already provides timelines for review of housing projects, including timelines for both entitlement permits and "post entitlement phase permits" (which is what AB 1114 addresses) in order to ensure timely review of such projects by agencies. The provisions of this bill amend the definition of post entitlement phase permits, and also state that post entitlement phase permits (such as building permits) cannot be subject to appeal or additional hearing requirements once the agency has determined that the permit is compliant with all applicable standards. This bill closes a loophole that existed in The City/County of San Francisco, where project opponents could appeal post entitlement phase permits (such as building permits). This was a practice unique to San Francisco and not a common practice statewide.