AgdaPkt 2003-05-05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

9.A -)I Legislative Bill Action ................................ ............................... Bond Proposals AB 531 (Kehoe) Community Infrastructure and Economic Development Bond Act. AB 531 which was described in more detail in last week's Priority Focus, would enact the Community Infrastructure and Economic Development Bond Act of 2004. If adopted, the Community Infrastruc- ture and Economic Development Bond Act would authorize the issuance of $10 billion in general obligation bonds to finance a broad variety of local infrastructure and economic development projects. The Assembly Committee on Jobs, Economic Development and the Economy passed the bill by a 7 -2 vote on April 22. AB 531 is now pending before the Assembly Appropriations Committee, and cities are strongly urged to send letters to both Assemblywoman Kehoe and As- sembly Appropriations Committee members. Visit the League's Legislative Advocacy Center at, www.cacities.oro/advocacvicenter to find a sample letter on this topic. Staff: Dan Carrigg, Status: Pending in Assembly Appropriations Committee, Position: Support. SB 321 (Torlakson) Invest in California Infrastructure Bond Act. SB 321 would enact the Invest in California Infrastructure Bond Act of 2004. This Act, upon approval by voters would authorize the state to issue of $15 billion in revenue bonds. Revenue generated as a result will be distributed to the California Transportation Commission (CTC), the State Department of Housing and Community Development and the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank. California Transportation Commission dollars would be used to fund the implementation of the Inter - Regional Partnership (IRP) State Pilot project to improve the balance of Jobs and Housing or the Traffic Congestion Relief Fund. CTC would also support projects that promote public transit use and bicycle /pedestrian friendly development. Funding allocated to HCD would be used both for the Multi - Family Housing Program, and to create financial incentives for local governments to approve affordable housing pursuant to IRP State Pilot Project guidelines. Finally, funding adminis- tered through the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank would be available to support projects that facilitate various types of development in urban and older suburban neigh- borhoods. SB 321 passed the Senate Local Government Committee by a vote of 4-1 on April 7th. On April 21 the bill passed the Senate Housing and Community Development Commit- tee, 6-2. SB 321 is now pending in the Senate Transportation Committee. Staff: Dan Carrigg, Status: Pending in the Senate Transportation Committee, Position: Review and Comment. HOUSING AND LAND USE SB 744 (Dunn). Housing Accountability Committee. Any community that opposed last year's SB 910 (Dunn), should oppose this legisla- tion which would permit housing developers to appeal any condition that is imposed on an M Prove d housing development, or want to overturn a local decision to deny a project, to take the matter to a state developer - friendly panel — five - political appointees who lack any direct political accountability in the community where the project is proposed — to overturn the local decision. The panel would then vote by majority on whether on not they thought the conditions imposed were "reasonable and consistent with a state regional housing need allocation process. The political appointees are empowered to order approvals at the local level, and for the developer or panel to enforce these decisions in court. There is no provision in the bill for a local appeal to a judicial body. A copy of the League's letter on this bill, is available from the League's website. Staff: Dan Carrigg, Status: Passed the SenHou &ComDev 7 -1, will be heard next in SenApps, Position: Oppose. AB 1123 (Parrs) California Main Street Program. This bill transfers control of the Califor- nia Main Street Program from the Technology, Trade and Commerce Agency to the Office of Historic Preservation within the Department of Parks and Recreation. This proposal is spon- sored by the California Main Street Alliance in response to proposed budget cuts to the program, PAGE 16/PRIORITY FOCUS Visit the League's Official Web Site-- www.cacities.org