Laserfiche WebLink
<br />8A <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />whether this bill creates a new legal standard upon which may invite interest groups to litigate <br />specific elements of the general plan. <br /> <br />Economic Development <br /> <br />SB 103 (Cedillo). VETO. Requires local agencies to generate a hold a public hearing before <br />granting any economic subsidy (include reduced revenues), post the information on the agency's <br />Web site (if applicable), and then generate a report on all economic development subsidies that <br />remain in effect every two years. The bill is also applicable to redevelopment agencies. <br /> <br />Infrastructure <br /> <br />SB 586 (Dutton). SIGN. This bill implements the $100 million innovation fund authorized by <br />Prop. 1 C (the provisions of which requires a two-thirds approval by the Legislature). <br />Appropriations include $35 million for local housing trust funds, $50 million for a land acquisition <br />loan fund, $10 million for innovative home ownership programs, and $5 million for a pilot <br />construction liability insurance reform program. <br /> <br />Flood PackaQe <br /> <br />SB 5 (Machado). SIGN. This bili is a comprehensive planning proposal to improve development <br />practices in flood plains. While it requires 200-year protection in the most vulnerable areas of the <br />Central Valley it also provides relief in the form of "adequate progress" provisions that will allow <br />cities and counties to continue to grow during the interim period until they reach the 200-year <br />level of protection. <br /> <br />This bill is part of a package of flood bills (S8 5, AB 5, SB 17, SB 162) that are the result of <br />extensive stakeholder negotiations and are supported by a coalition of cities, planners, business <br />and environmental groups. AB 70 (Jones) is not part of this answer. <br /> <br />AB 5 (Wolk). SIGN. This bill is a technical cleanup vehicle to the package of flood bills (SB 5, <br />SB 17, SB 162) that are the result of extensive stakeholder negotiations and are supported by a <br />coalition of cities, planners, business and environmental groups. <br /> <br />AB 162 (Wolk). SIGN. This bill expands the requirements for flood management in city and <br />county general plans. <br /> <br />SB 17 (Florez). SIGN. This bill reforms and renames the State Reclamation Board to improve <br />proficiency, and requires development of State Plan of Flood Control for the Central Valley. <br /> <br />Flood Liabilitv <br /> <br />AB 70 (Jones). VETO. This bill shifts millions of dollars in potential legal liability from the state <br />to local governments in the event that state-maintained levees fail. It is extremely flawed policy to <br />attempt to saddle local governments with liability for the failure of levees over which they have no <br />control. This bill is not part of the consensus package of flood bills supported by the League and <br />passed by the Legislature this year. <br /> <br />Transportation <br /> <br />AS 193/AB 196 (Committee on Budget). SIGN. The bills contain the League-sponsored <br />cleanup language to SB 88 (Budget Committee) to clarify allocation and oversight for Prop. 1 B <br />local streets and roads funding. AB 196 is especially important to cities because it clarifies the <br />split of the $950 million for local streets and roads funding between cities and counties so cities <br />receive $550 million and counties receive $400 million as per their budget request. This <br />clarification is supported by both the League and the California State Association of Counties <br />(CSAC). <br /> <br />AB 945 (Carter). SIGN. Requires the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to <br />develop an assessment of the unfunded costs of programmed state projects and <br /> <br />5 <br />