IN THIS ISSUE: May 25, 2007
Issue #20-2007
Page 4: Prop. 1B Update: Assembly and Senate Budget Subcommittees Differ on Funding Allocation Recommendations
Federal Update: Rep. Albert Wynn Introduces H.R. 2447 - the Energy and Environment Block Grant Act of 2007
Page 5: Department of Justice Seeks Applications for Byrne Grants
Page 6: Register Now Open for the League’s Annual Conference!
3rd Annual Finance Leaders Summit Held in Sacramento
Open and Public IV Now Available
Page 7: Find a Bill, Legislators, Leg Committee, or Ask League Leg Staff
CHANGES TO PROP. 42 FORMULA FUNDING BEING DISCUSSED
Earlier this week, the Assembly Budget Subcommittee #5 discussed and passed out a proposal
to change the Proposition 42 transportation funding formula. Under the proposed formula, the
allocation would change to 35 percent for transit, 30 percent for cities and counties (divided
evenly) and 35 percent for the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
For more, see Page 2.
•••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• ••
EMINENT DOMAIN REFORM PACKAGE INTRODUCED
Legislation Would Ensure Protections for Homeowners and Small Businesses
Californians for Eminent Domain Reform, a broad coalition of homeowner groups, small business
representatives and labor, environmental, community and ethnic organizations, unveiled a
package of eminent domain reforms earlier this week at a press conference in Sacramento.
Authored by Assembly Member Hector De La Torre, D-Southgate, the package has the support
of the League of California Cities board of directors, and includes both a constitutional
amendment (ACA 8) and a companion statutory measure (AB 887 – soon to be amended). The
legislation is aimed at ensuring homeowners and small businesses are given strong protections
against eminent domain. For more, see Page 2.
•••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• ••
SB 303 AMENDED, LEAGUE STILL OPPOSED
SB 303 (Ducheny), a bill with major land use implications for local government, was significantly
amended in the Senate Environmental Quality Committee recently. Although the amendments
addressed a number of changes sought by the League of California Cities, several critical issues
remain. As a result, the League remains opposed to the measure. For more, see Page 3.
2
‘Prop. 42’ Continued from Page 1…
There are a number of concerns for cities with the proposal. Most notably, the reduction of the
cities’ allocation of Prop. 42 funds from 20 percent to 15 percent. Eighty-three percent of the
state’s population lives in cities. Significant growth, leads to wear and tear on streets and roads,
so changing the percentage of funds would be an overwhelming burden on cities’ roadways and
infrastructure.
The new proposal bases the changes on increased “spillover” funds. Supporters argue that the
proposal would capture these funds and put them into Prop. 42, thus increasing the amount of
funding cities receive, despite the decrease in percentage. (For a detailed explanation of
“spillover” funds see “The ‘Spillover’ from the Sales Tax on Gasoline” on
www.CaliforniaCityFinance.com.)
A key sticking point, however, is that projections have only been done for three years and
spillover funds are subject to numerous changes. This would make any alteration of the funding
formula a risky proposition for cities, because there is no guarantee that cities would be allocated
a consistent amount of money.
The League of California Cities testified in opposition of the proposed shift during the meeting.
Asms. Lois Wolk and Laura Richardson also voiced their concerns over changing the existing
formula. While the item passed out of the committee, it did so with a commitment from Assembly
Speaker Fabian Nunez to meet with stakeholders about the issue.
Next Steps
The proposal to alter Prop. 42 formula funding will likely be heard by the Joint Senate Assembly
Budget Conference Committee next week. The League will continue to meet with other
transportation stakeholders. Stay tuned to Priority Focus for updates on this issue as information
becomes available.
______________________________________________________________________
‘Eminent Domain’ Continued from Page 1…
A number of speakers from the coalition joined De La Torre at the press conference announcing
the measure. Those delivering remarks included League First Vice President Jim Madaffer; Ken
Willis, president, League of California Homeowners; Betty Jo Toccoli, president, California Small
Business Association; Frank Moreno, president, State of California Mexican American Chamber
of Commerce; Tom Adams, board chair, California League of Conservation Voters and Robert L.
Balgenorth, president, State Building and Construction Trades Council of California.
Assembly Constitutional Amendment (ACA) 8 would prohibit the use of eminent domain to take
an owner-occupied home to convey to another private party and new restrictions on the taking of
small business properties for conveyance to private parties.
ACA 8 intended for the 2008 ballot. If placed on the ballot and approved by the voters, the
constitutional amendment would:
• Prohibit the state or local governments from using eminent domain to acquire an owner-
occupied home (including townhomes and condos) for transfer to another private party
• Prohibit government from using eminent domain to acquire a small business to transfer to
another private party, except as part of a comprehensive plan to eliminate blight and only
after the small business owner is first given the opportunity to participate in the
revitalization plan
• Require state or local governments that used eminent domain on a home or small
business property give the original owner a right to repurchase the property if the
property isn’t used for a public use
3
If passed, AB 887 would provide enhanced protections for small business owners confronted with
eminent domain. The measure includes the following key provisions:
• If a small business does not participate in the revitalization plan it, can choose between
relocating or receiving the value of the business. If the small business relocates, it will
receive fair market value of the real property (if owned by the small business); plus all
reasonable moving expenses; plus expenses to re-establish the business at a new
location, up to $50,000; plus compensation for the increased cost of rent or mortgage
payments for up to three years
• If the small business does not relocate and is bought out, it will receive fair market value
of the real property (if owned by the small business) and 125 percent of the value of the
business if the business could not have been relocated and remain economically viable
Californians for Eminent Domain Reform, the coalition introducing the measure, includes the
following members (list current as of May 21):
• League of California Homeowners
• Small Business Action Committee
• California Small Business Association
• California Mexican-American Chamber of Commerce
• State Building & Construction Trades Council of California
• California League of Conservation Voters
• League of California Cities
• California State Association of Counties
• California Redevelopment Association
• California Business Properties Association
For more information on the coalition, visit www.eminentdomainreform.com. Further updates on
the eminent domain reform issue will be reported in Priority Focus as information becomes
available.
_____________________________________________________________________________
‘SB 303’ Continued from Page 1…
Recent amendments included the elimination of both the super majority vote requirement to
change zoning on a project and the narrowed definition of “health and safety.”
The Senate Environmental Quality Committee, however, was concerned that the effect of the bill
would be to raise the housing element to a higher level within the general plan than any other
element.
Several environmental organizations had argued for "parity" for the open space elements –
essentially seeking the same certainty for nondevelopment of habitat and farmlands that
developers were seeking for the development of areas zoned for housing.
After hearing from a number of organizations on the measure, the Senate Environmental Quality
Committee added new requirements to the open space element that mirrored the requirements
for the housing element. Under the amendments, local agencies would have to update their open
space element every five years and submit it to the Department of Resources for a determination
that it was in substantial compliance with state law.
Ducheny Visits with the League’s Board of Directors
Sen. Ducheny spoke to the League's board of directors on SB 303 at the organization’s board
meeting in Sacramento last week. The senator explained that she was concerned about infill
issues and finding a solution to California's housing problems. Several board members described
specific concerns about the housing element process.
In the end, the League believes both sides understood the other just a little more, and the League
appreciates the effort Sen. Ducheny made to reach out to the League.
4
SB 303 will next be heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee, on Tuesday, May 29. It’s
difficult to predict what will happen with the bill. There is a good chance that it will move to the
suspense file, since the measure has significant cost impacts that have not yet been addressed,
but that outcome is far from certain at this point.
____________________________________________________________________________
Prop. 1B Update: Assembly and Senate Budget Subcommittees Differ on Funding
Allocation Recommendations
The Assembly and Senate Budget Subcommittees on Transportation met this week to make their
recommendations for the allocation of the $2 billion included in Proposition 1B for cities and
counties (split evenly at $1 billion each). While the League of California Cities is advocating for
the full $1 billion to cities in FY 2007-08, both subcommittees had very different
recommendations.
The Senate recommendation was to provide $400 million split evenly between cities and
counties. This represents just 20 percent of cities’ guaranteed allocation. The Assembly
recommendation was consistent with the Governor’s May Budget Revision, which proposed an
allocation of $600 million, split evenly between cities and counties.
Because the subcommittees disagree, the issue was referred to the Joint Budget Conference
Committee (comprised of members of both Assembly and Senate subcommittees), to reconcile
the differences on the allocation question. The Joint Budget Conference Committee is tentatively
scheduled to begin deliberations on Friday, June 1.
The League continues to advocate that cities have projects ready to go. Accelerating payments
to cities to fund these projects will meet the goals of both the Governor and legislative leadership.
It also keeps faith with the voters by delivering much needed transportation improvements to
every community in California.
Any delay in receiving bond funds will result in project delays. Additionally, minimizing
appropriations levels will likely lessen the purchasing power of the bonds and it will limit the ability
to construct many mid and large-size projects.
Take Action!
The League is asking cities to contact the Governor's office to request the full $1 billion
appropriation in FY 2007-08. A sample letter is located at www.cacities.org/infrastructure.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Federal Update: Rep. Albert Wynn Introduces H.R. 2447 - the Energy and
Environment Block Grant Act of 2007
H.R. 2447, the “Energy and Environment Block Grant Act of 2007,” was introduced this week by
Representative Albert Wynn, D-Md. This bill supports the efforts of cities, counties and states to
curb greenhouse gas emissions with critical funding to help increase energy efficiency and
reduce energy consumption.
The League has sent in a letter of support to the House and Energy and Commerce Committee
urging co-sponsorship of Wynn. This legislation is based on the U.S. Conference of Mayor’s
(USCM) priority recommendation in the USCM 10 Point Plan: Strong Cities, Strong Families for a
Strong America.
H.R. 2447 proposes the following:
• Establishment of an Energy and Environment Block Grant program at the Department of
Energy, patterned after HUD’s successful Community Development Block Grant
• Building upon successful local and state efforts to help U.S. increase energy efficiency
and reduce energy use to curb greenhouse gases 5
• Emphasizing a bottom-up, community-based approach to help the nation meet its energy
and climate protection goals
Key Elements:
Secretary of Energy allocates funds directly to cities, counties and states for:
• One-time seed money (100 percent federal funding) to support the development of an
energy efficiency and climate protection strategy
• Subsequent annual funding (100 percent federal funding) to support actions and
programs that reduce energy use and lower greenhouse gas emissions, as set forth in
local and state strategies approved by the Secretary
• Cities of 50,000 or more, counties of 200,000 or more, and every state receives annual
formula funding
Allocation of Funds:
• Legislation authorizes $4 billion in FY 2008, rising to $6 billion in FY 2012
• Seventy (70) percent of all funds are allocated to formula recipients (i.e. cities of 50,000
or more and counties of 200,000 or more in population)
• Thirty (30) percent of all funds allocated to the states, but each state must pass through
at least 70 percent of share to non-formula eligible jurisdictions
• Formula funds to cities and counties are allocated based on population factors (i.e., 50
percent population, 50 percent daytime population) and to states based on population
H.R. 2447 also includes funding for expanding weatherization programs, adopting new energy
efficient building codes, conducting energy audits, modernizing traffic lights and lighting,
promoting alternative fuels and conservation, and expanding renewable energy sources.
For more information, contact Legislative Analyst Genevieve Morelos at gmorelos@cacities.org.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Department of Justice Seeks Applications for Byrne Grants
Funds Could Help Bolster Public Safety Programs in Cities
The U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs’ Bureau of Justice Assistance is now
seeking applications for funding under the Edward Byrne Memorial Discretionary Grants
Programs. Funds awarded under this program can be used by cities to help improve various
public safety programs, including drug abuse and crime prevention.
Established in 2006, the Edward Byrne Memorial Discretionary Grants Program helps local
communities improve the capacity of local justice systems. It also provides for national support
efforts including training and technical assistance programs strategically targeted to address local
needs.
The due date to apply for funding is June 25 at 8 p.m. EST. For more information on the program
and how to register, visit www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA. Scroll down to “Available Funding,” and click
on “Edward Byrne Memorial Discretionary Grants Program” to download a brochure.
Questions can also be e-mailed to Byrne.Discretionary@usdoj.gov.
_____________________________________________________________________________
6
Register Now Open for the League’s Annual Conference!
Annual Event Scheduled for September in Sacramento
Registration for the League of California Cities’ 2007 annual conference is
now open at www.cacities.org/ac. The conference will be held in
Sacramento on Sept. 5-8.
There is a change in how you register for the conference and hotel rooms
this year. All attendees must register for the conference first before a
hotel room can be booked. Hotel rooms in Sacramento are extremely
limited, so please take a moment now and ensure that you and the other
individuals from your city are registered for the conference and have
housing.
A tentative schedule for the annual conference is located at
www.cacities.org/ac.
_____________________________________________________________________________
3rd Annual Finance Leaders Summit Held in Sacramento
Leaders of government and nonprofit organizations concerned with local agency finance issues
convened in Sacramento on May 17, for the 3rd Annual California Government Finance Leaders
Summit.
Participants discussed a number of shared concerns and proposed activities, including:
• Promoting best practices for recruiting the next generation of local agency finance
professionals
• Helping local agencies address the fiscal impact of funding public sector retiree health care
and other non-pension benefits
• Surveying local agency finance professionals to identify priorities for training, education and
professional development
• Developing a clearinghouse of legislative tracking resources
Updates on these activities will be posted on the Institute for Local Government’s Web site,
www.ca-ilg.org, as they occur.
The summit was hosted by the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers, the California
Municipal Treasurers Association and the Institute for Local Government (ILG). ILG is the
nonprofit research affiliate of the League of California Cities and the California State Association
of Counties.
For more information, contact Charles Summerell at (916) 658-8259, or summerc@ca-ilg.org.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Open and Public IV Now Available
Open and Public IV: A Guide to the Ralph M. Brown Act has recently been
updated. The publication explains the requirements of California’s open
meeting law in a way so that it is readily understood by local government
officials, employees, the public and news media.
The new edition is available for purchase through CityBooks, the League of
California Cities online bookstore at www.cacities.org/citybooks. For more
information on how to order Open and Public IV, contact Ginarose Perino at
gperino@cacities.org.
____________________________________________________________ 7
Find a Bill, Legislators, Leg Committee, or Ask League Leg Staff
Visit (and bookmark!) the League’s Legislative Resources Web page
(www.cacities.org/legresources). You’ll find a roster and contact information for the League’s
legislative staff; the online Bill Search program, background materials on lobbying your
legislators, and more.
_____________________________________________________________________________
IN THIS ISSUE: June 1, 2007
Issue #21-2007
Page 4: Register Now for the League’s Annual Conference
June Issue of Focus on Housing Released
Find a Bill, Legislators, Leg Committee, or Ask League Leg Staff
PROPOSITION 42 FUNDING AGAIN AT RISK
Proposal Suggests Altering Formula Funding Percentage for Cities
Last November, when voters passed Proposition 1A, it was with the belief that funding for
transportation through the sales tax on gasoline (Proposition 42, passed in 2002) was protected.
Guess again.
Due to a significant increase in spillover funds recently, these funds continue to be a target in
times of state budget shortfalls. There are a number of proposals on the table that seek to protect
the spillover funds so they remain dedicated to transit funding as originally intended.
For more, see Page 2.
•••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• ••
BILL TO ADJUST COUNCIL SALARIES PASSES OUT OF THE ASSEMBLY
Assembly Member Hector De La Torre, D-South Gate, is authoring AB 701, a bill that will adjust
the base salaries of council members in general law cities up to inflationary standards. The
League of California Cities supports AB 701, and encourages general law cities to pay close
attention to the bill. For more, see Page 3.
•••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• ••
LEAGUE PARTNERS TO HOST SAN JOSE NETWORKING RECEPTION
In conjunction with the League of California Cities’ June policy committee meetings in San Jose,
the League Partners program is hosting a networking reception on June 28, from 4:30 p.m. to 7
p.m. at the Sainte Claire Hotel, located one block from the San Jose Hilton.
For more, see Page 3.
2
‘Prop. 42’ Continued from Page 1…
This year, Gov. Schwarzenegger has proposed to divert spillover funds away from transit, leading
to discussions about long term protection of spillover funds dedicated to transit.
A proposal has circulated around Sacramento that would change the Prop. 42 formula funding,
giving cities a lower percentage. The current Prop. 42 formula consists of 40 percent for the
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), 20 percent for cities, 20 percent for counties
and 20 percent to transit. The new proposal reduces STIP to 25 percent, cities to 15 percent,
counties to 15 percent and increases transit to 35 percent.
The new proposal, which passed out of Assembly Budget Subcommittee #5 last week, bases the
changes on increased "spillover" funds. Supporters argue that the proposal would capture these
funds and put them into Prop. 42, thus increasing the amount of funding cities receive, despite
the decrease in overall percentage. (For a detailed explanation and history of "spillover" funds
see "The 'Spillover' from the Sales Tax on Gasoline" on www.CaliforniaCityFinance.com.)
A key sticking point, however, is that projections have only been done for three years and
spillover funds are subject to numerous changes. This would make any alteration of the funding
formula a risky proposition for cities, because there is no guarantee that cities would be allocated
a consistent amount of money.
What this Means for Cities
On its face, the change appears positive because it includes the addition of spillover funds to
Prop. 42, so lowering cities’ percentage share may result in increased funding for the foreseeable
future. In the long term, however it is impossible to accurately project spillover.
The spillover money is, by its nature, highly volatile and unpredictable. If there is a leveling-out of
gas prices, and cities have a lower percentage of the spillover funds, this change could sacrifice
the long term stability in favor of a short term gain. There were 13 years within a 17-year period
from 1986-2003 with no spillover.
In addition, although Prop. 42 funds have achieved Constitutional protection; the same is not true
for spillover funds. Spillover funds are still vulnerable. During any budget cycle, the state has the
ability to divert the funds for other purposes, leaving less money available for cities, counties and
the STIP under the proposed formula change.
In a year when the spillover funds go to Prop. 42, per the proposed formula, cities will share a
smaller portion of a larger pot of money. The concern arises in years when the state attempts to
use spillover monies for other purposes because this means that cities are now sharing a smaller
percentage of a smaller pot of money.
Consequently, cities face significant risk being at the whim of the state. Any reliance on funding
with this sort of turbulence will create uncertainty, confusion and distress in local budgets. Cities
also need to consider that in the long term there are other, better options to provide increased
funding to transit.
Take Action!
If this proposal comes to fruition, cities’ ability to protect, maintain and expand local streets and
roads would be threatened. The League encourages local officials to contact the Republican
members of the State Assembly, letting them know how detrimental any change in the Prop. 42
formula funding would be for cities.
Here are some suggested talking points:
• Cities were recently made aware of a proposal to change the Proposition 42 formula.
• The Legislature should not change the existing formula. Cities counties worked hard to
pass state ballot measures protecting these funds for our local streets and roads. 3
• Changing the existing Prop. 42 formula goes against the intent of voters when they
supported Proposition 1A in 2006.
• Current Prop. 42 formula: 40 percent to the State Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP), 20 percent to cities, 20 percent to counties and 20% to transit.
• Proposed Prop. 42 formula: 35 percent to STIP, 15 percent to cities, 15 percent to
counties and 35 percent to transit.
• While some may say that the addition of “spillover” funds to this formula means more
money in the short term for cities, we see no stability in the long term.
• Spillover is by its nature extremely volatile and unpredictable. There was no spillover in
13 of the 17 years between 1986 and 2003.
• Any reliance on spillover funding with this sort of turbulence creates uncertainty,
confusion, distress in local budgets.
• Cities deserve the stability of being able to rely on these funds in the future as promised
to us.
Cities clearly support transit funding. But the proposed change Prop. 42 destabilizes local street
and road funds and is not the way to go.
______________________________________________________________________
‘AB 701’ Continued from Page 1…
The Legislature has not adjusted base salaries for general law cities’ council members since
1984. AB 701 is consistent with the agreement Assembly Member De La Torre made to the
League last year in response to the outdated and inconsistent adjustment of general law city
council member salaries.
To assist De La Torre’s efforts with AB 701, the League is considering forming a small sub group
to examine how best to approach adjusting the base salaries so that a change does not abuse
any prior agreement or future salary schedule.
The legislation is part of De La Torre’s two-prong approach which began last year with AB 11.
The assembly member authored AB 11 to address what he viewed as council salaries that were
exuberant, including commission salary spiking and excessive automobile allowances. While
carrying AB 11, De La Torre, agreed to revisit general law city council member "base" salaries in
2007, which is the reason behind AB 701.
The League has submitted a letter of support in favor of the bill. AB 701 passed off the Assembly
Floor on Thursday, May 17, on a vote of 64-8. The bill now moves to the Senate but it has not
yet been set for a policy committee.
_____________________________________________________________________________
‘League Partners’ Continued from Page 1…
The reception is an opportunity for policy committee members, League Partners, League staff
and local Silicon Valley business leaders a chance to mix and mingle in a relaxed environment.
In addition, the reception is part of an ongoing effort on behalf of the League Partners program to
provide social and networking opportunities in conjunction with League meetings and events.
For more information or to RSVP, contact Mike Egan at (916) 658-8271 or egan@cacities.org.
_____________________________________________________________________________
4
Register Now for the League’s Annual Conference!
Annual Event Scheduled for September in Sacramento
Registration for the League of California Cities’ 2007 annual conference is
now open at www.cacities.org/ac. The conference will be held in
Sacramento on Sept. 5-8.
There is a change in how you register for the conference and hotel rooms
this year. All attendees must register for the conference first before a
hotel room can be booked. Hotel rooms in Sacramento are extremely
limited, so please take a moment now and ensure that you and the other
individuals from your city are registered for the conference and have
housing.
A tentative schedule for the annual conference is located at
www.cacities.org/ac.
_____________________________________________________________________________
June Issue of Focus on Housing Released
The June issue of Focus on Housing, the League of California Cities’ monthly electronic
newsletter covering affordable housing, was published on Wednesday, May 30.
This edition features profiles of two affordable housing developments and a roundup of the latest
affordable housing news in California. Read the current issue, or to sign-up as a subscriber at
www.imakenews.com/focusonhousing or www.cacities.org/focusonhousing.
Get Involved!
Do you have an affordable housing success story or a housing event in your city you want to
promote? Let us know! Focus on Housing is seeking submissions for feature articles. For more
information and specific article requirements, contact League Communications Specialist Brian
Heaton at bheaton@cacities.org.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Find a Bill, Legislators, Leg Committee, or Ask League Leg Staff
Visit (and bookmark!) the League’s Legislative Resources Web page
(www.cacities.org/legresources). You’ll find a roster and contact information for the League’s
legislative staff; the online Bill Search program, background materials on lobbying your
legislators, and more.
_____________________________________________________________________________
IN THIS ISSUE: June 8, 2007
Issue #22-2007
Page 4: Infrastructure Bond Implementation Update
Page 5: Court Holds Public Employee Relations Board Has Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Labor Disputes
Page 6: Find a Bill, Legislators, Leg Committee, or Ask League Leg Staff
PROP. 1B IMPLEMENTATION: CITIES READY TO GO ON PROJECTS
Series of News Conferences Planned Across California
On Tuesday, June 12, a series of news conferences on Proposition 1B funding implementation
gets under way in Elk Grove. Tuesday’s press conference will be held at the Sheldon
Road/Route 99 interchange - a $70.5 million dollar regional facility project.
The press conference starts at 7:45 a.m. and will include civic leaders who want to bring attention
to the fact that their cities have local transportation projects ready to go, contingent on Prop. 1B
funds. For more, see Page 2.
•••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• ••
TWO LEAGUE-SPONSORED HOUSING BILLS HELD IN COMMITTEE
When city officials are asked what they need to build affordable housing, they often say “give us
more incentives, not mandates.” Aiming to do just that, Sen. Alan Lowenthal and Assembly
Member Anna Caballero introduced two League-sponsored bills, SB 934 (Lowenthal) and AB
1254 (Caballero).
Unfortunately, both measures have been held in their respective Appropriations Committees’
suspense files, stifling any chance of either bill being signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in
2007. For more, see Page 2.
•••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• ••
THIS WEEK IN CONGRESS: FY 2008 HOMELAND SECURITY
SPENDING BILL
The House Appropriations Committee voted unanimously this week to approve a $36.2 billion
Homeland Security spending bill for FY 2008. The bill contains a number of key investments of
note for cities, including grants for urban areas, transit and port security. For more, see Page 3.
2
‘Prop. 1B Update’ Continued from Page 1…
Featured speakers at the Elk Grove conference include:
• Elk Grove Mayor Jim Cooper
• Elk Grove Council Member Sophia Sherman
• Elk Grove Council Member Pat Hume
• Rancho Cordova Council Member Ken Cooley
• Davis Council Member Don Sailor
• Lincoln Mayor Kent Nakata
Why Full Funding of Prop. 1B to Cities is Important
Every trip starts and ends on our local streets and roads which is why voters overwhelmingly
supported Prop. 1B last November at the polls. They voted to allocate $1 billion of the total $19.9
billion state transportation bond money for city needs. Solid streets and roads, and efficient transit
systems are vital to both quality of life and economic vitality.
A survey conducted earlier this year by the League found that every city in California has local
transportation-related projects on the drawing board, waiting for funds to improve local traffic
conditions and make street and road repairs. Cities are requesting the allocation of the full $1
billion this fiscal year. Because cities will not receive any Proposition 42 funds (gasoline sales
tax) this year, the full allocation of Prop. 1B funds will enable cities to continue funding projects
already underway without interruption.
SB 286
League-sponsored SB 286 (Lowenthal and Dutton) sets forth specific accountability,
transparency and deliverability requirements for Prop. 1B funds to ensure public funds are spent
responsibly and on projects the voters were promised. In addition, the measure stipulates that
the funds must be spent within three years, allowing the public to benefit from the projects sooner
rather than later.
Call to Action!
Now is the time for city officials to contact their legislators, urging them to support the full $1
billion to cities immediately. In the next 10 days, let them know that supporting the full funding to
cities keeps faith with the voters intent when they passed Prop. 1B last November. It is important
that they know that transportation-related projects are ready to go. Make this a priority for
lawmakers in the capitol as the budget is coming together.
______________________________________________________________________
‘League-Sponsored Housing Bills’ Continued from Page 1…
Given the widening state budget gaps, the bills were held specifically over cost issues. Although
a bill in a committee’s suspense file is not dead (a bill held over in this legislative session has until
January 2008 to be re-evaluated and passed), it is very unlikely SB 934 or AB 1254 will be
resurrected.
Ultimately, had the measures passed, they would have provided the following:
• SB 934 (Lowenthal) would have established a new financial tool to assist local
governments seeking to develop high-density developments in infill areas through the
use of tax increment financing.
• AB 1254 (Caballero) would have rewarded local governments that approve affordable
housing units operated by non-profit entities through a reduction of their required
educational revenue augmentation funds (ERAF) payments.
3
The League thanks Sen. Lowenthal and Assembly Member Caballero for carrying these bills and
continuing to advocate for incentive-based approaches to housing and land use issues.
Despite this disappointment, the outlook for local government resources in 2007 remains bright
with the anticipated release of infrastructure and housing funds approved by the state’s voters.
_____________________________________________________________________________
‘This Week in Congress’ Continued from Page 1…
Below is a partial summary of the funding levels for programs under the bill. For a complete
overview, visit http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/HomelandFC.pdf.
Key Investments
First Responder and Port Security Grant Programs: $4.52 billion, $1.97 billion above the
president's request and $863 million above 2007. These grants were funded at $4.92 billion in
2004 and have been cut every year since even as homeland security costs have continued to
rise. Included within this total are the following:
• State Grants (including law enforcement): $950 million, $50 million above 2007 and $700
million above the president's request for grants used to plan, equip and train local first
responders to respond to terrorist attacks and catastrophic incidents.
• Urban Area Grants: $800 million, $30 million above 2007 and equal to the president's request
to help high risk urban areas improve their ability to prevent, protect, respond to, and recover
from acts of terrorism.
• Transit Grants: $400 million, $225 million above 2007 and the president's request, to protect
critical transit infrastructure, including rail and ferry systems, in high-threat areas.
• Emergency Management Performance Grants: $300 million, $100 million above 2007 and the
president's request, for all-hazard grants for State and local emergency managers. The
National Emergency Management Agency's 2006 Performance Grant Report estimates a
$287 million shortfall in this program.
• Fire Grants (including Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response [SAFER]): $800
million, $138 million above 2007 and $500 million above the president's request, to address
the communication, equipment and staffing problems facing local fire departments.
• Metropolitan Medical Response System: $50 million, $17 million above 2007, eliminated in
the president's request, to help high threat communities respond to mass casualty incidents
including terrorism, epidemics, natural disasters and hazardous materials incidents.
• Interoperable Communications Grants: $50 million to continue a program funded by the
Department of Commerce in 2007 to help local police, firefighters and emergency responders
to talk to each other during a crisis.
• Port Security Grants: $400 million, $190 million above 2007 and the president's request, for
grants to protect critical port facilities and infrastructure, meeting the level authorized in the
Safe Ports act. This is the largest single investment Congress has made to implementing the
security requirements of the Maritime Transportation Security Act.
Transportation Security Administration: $6.62 billion, $307 million above 2007 and $219
million above the president's request. This includes:
• Explosive Detection System: $849 million for procurement, installation and maintenance of
equipment to protect commercial aircraft, allowing the Transportation Security Administration
(TSA) to address the most pressing needs identified in their recent aviation baggage
screening study.
4
• Air Cargo Explosive Screening: $78 million to double the amount of cargo screened on
passenger aircraft.
• Secure Flight Certification: Requires the head of TSA to certify that no security risks are
raised by TSA's Secure Flight plans that would limit screening of airline passenger names
only against a subset of the full terrorist watch list.
Customs and Border Protection: $8.8 billion, $50 million above the request and $797 million
above 2007. $1 billion is provided for border security fencing and tactical infrastructure and 3,000
additional border patrol agents are funded.
The committee mark adds $27 million for 250 additional Customs and Border Patrol Officers for
commercial operations and C-TPAT validation - verifying that "trusted shippers" have in place
necessary security measures - as mandated in the SAFE Port Act.
US-VISIT: $462 million, $99 million above 2007 and matching the president's request, for tracking
foreign visitors to the U.S. $230 million is withheld until the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) provides a complete schedule for the exit program or a certification that it cannot be
implemented within five years, as well as a detailed accounting of operations and maintenance
and contractor costs.
Infrastructure Protection: $272 million, $32 million above the president's request and $44
million above 2007 to identify critical infrastructure, and assess security vulnerabilities.
FEMA Management: $685 million, $17 million above the president's request and $150 million
above 2007, including funding for regional offices tasked with helping state and locals prepare for
and respond to disasters. This includes improvements to the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's (FEMA) management operation called for after Katrina such as knowing where
resources are located or tracking who applies for assistance and whether or not they qualify.
Disaster Relief Fund: $1.7 billion, equal to the president's request and $200 million above 2007,
for assistance to state and local governments following a declared disaster or emergency.
Flood Map Modernization: $230 million, $35 million above the president's request and $31
million above 2007, to modernize and digitize over 100,000 flood maps used to determine rates
for the National Flood Insurance Program.
Pre-Disaster Mitigation: $120 million, $20 million above the president's request and 2007, for
projects that reduce the risks associated with disasters.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Infrastructure Bond Implementation Update
Below is an update on the implementation of each of the infrastructure bonds passed in
November 2006. This update will be run periodically in Priority Focus as new developments with
each bond occur.
Proposition 1B: $19.92 billion on various transportation projects to rebuild California. Of this total
amount, $1 billion is allocated for cities and $1 billion for counties for local streets and roads
improvement projects.
Significant potential open issues: Allocation schedule of $1 billion for cities for local streets and
roads; development of $2 billion State-Local Partnership Program; development of $3.1 billion
“goods movement” and air quality programs; allocation schedule of $4 billion for public transit,
intercity and commuter rail and waterborne transit.
Current update: The allocation of the Prop. 1B local streets and road funds has been held as an
open item in the Budget Conference Committee. This means that it will require further debate
before a decision is made. The League is sponsoring SB 286 with the California State
Association of Counties (CSAC). This legislation establishes accountability and oversight for the 5
use of the bond money. SB 286 passed off the Senate floor with bipartisan support and is now
heading to the Assembly.
Proposition 1C: This measure allocates $2.85 billion for housing projects. Approximately half of
the bond ($1.45 billion) is going out through existing programs such as the Multifamily Housing
Program (MHP), Emergency Housing Assistance Program (EHAP), and the Building Equity and
Growth in Neighborhoods program (BEGIN). The remaining funds ($1.4 billion) are designated
for infill infrastructure ($850 million), parks ($200 million), transit-oriented development ($300
million), and innovative programs ($100 million).
Significant potential open issues: One of the most significant issues outstanding is who will be
eligible to apply for infill infrastructure funding.
Current update: The infill infrastructure fund has attracted the most legislative attention, where
two bills have emerged as the front runners. AB 1053 (Nunez) distributes $450 million to a
competitive infrastructure program administered by the California Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD).
The remaining $400 million is split evenly between the Infrastructure Bank, a workforce housing
program administered by HCD, MHP, and the Cal-Reuse Brownfields program. As a result, a
total $750 million will go directly to local agencies for infrastructure related to housing.
SB 46 (Perata) on the other hand creates a single competitive grant program for infill
infrastructure and affordable housing that can be applied for by local governments and nonprofit
housing developers.
Proposition 84: $5.4 billion for improving natural resources and water programs including state
projects and flood control, safe drinking water, water quality improvement, integrated water
management, water planning and sustainable communities.
Significant potential open issues: Further definition of elements of the $580 million for climate
change, including $90 million for incentives for planning; how the $1 billion for local agencies to
meet local water needs will be spent and anticipation of a possible effort to redirect $400 million in
park funds to create a per capita grant program for grant funds.
Current update: There are several legislative proposals to further refine the allocation of dollars
under Prop. 84. The most significant of these proposals is SB 732 (Steinberg).
Proposition 1E: $4.09 billion for critical river levee repair and construction, flood control projects
and the updating and repair of old water mains and sewage systems. The allocation also
includes $290 million for the creation of flood protection corridors and floodplain mapping.
Significant potential open issues: Effort to include water storage into funding categories; addition
of liability link to allocation of levee improvement funds.
Current update: The Budget Conference Committee has created a Water Working Group that will
address most, if not all of the Prop. 1E and Prop. 84 flood and water issues in the budget
process. This group may also address flood management issues.
Proposition 1D: $10.5 billion for performing school building repairs and providing innovative
learning facilities for California students, including seismic retrofitting and classroom repairs.
Significant potential open issues: Allocation of $29 million to fund joint-use projects for
construction of K-12 school facilities.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Court Holds Public Employee Relations Board Has Exclusive Jurisdiction Over
Labor Disputes
The 1st District Court of Appeal recently issued a decision important for cities that negotiate with
labor unions. The court held that the Public Employee Relations Board (PERB) – the state 6
agency responsible for investigating and making decisions related to charges of unfair labor
practices – had exclusive jurisdiction over labor disputes, even when the matter in dispute is
contained in a city’s charter.
The particular dispute the court considered involved San Francisco’s negotiation with one of its
labor unions to renew the union’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). After months of
negotiation with the union, the city declared an impasse, which under San Francisco’s charter
required that the matter be submitted to mandatory binding arbitration.
The union refused to participate in arbitration and the city sued the union in court to compel its
participation. The court declined to accept the case stating that the matter had to be submitted to
PERB instead. The city appealed to the 1st District Court of Appeal arguing that PERB did not
have jurisdiction. The court disagreed, holding that PERB has exclusive jurisdiction to decide
whether the union was required by the terms of the city’s charter to participate in mandatory
binding arbitration.
This decision is of increased importance to cities given two cases currently awaiting decisions
from the court of appeal. Both cases involve similar facts where a union is threatening to strike,
and the agency seeks an injunction in superior court to prevent certain employees who perform
critical health and safety functions from striking.
In one case, the superior court held that it did not have jurisdiction to issue an injunction as PERB
had exclusive jurisdiction. In the other case, a different court held the exact opposite and issued
the injunction. The League has submitted friend-of-the-court briefs in both cases and is awaiting
the decisions.
The three cases are: City and County of San Francisco v. Int’l Union of Operating Engineers,
Local 39, 2007 WL 1560299; City of San Jose v. Operating Engineers Local No. 3, Case No.
H030272; and County of Contra Costa v. Public Employees Union Local 1, Case No. A115095.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Find a Bill, Legislators, Leg Committee, or Ask League Leg Staff
Visit (and bookmark!) the League’s Legislative Resources Web page
(www.cacities.org/legresources). You’ll find a roster and contact information for the League’s
legislative staff; the online Bill Search program, background materials on lobbying your
legislators, and more.
_____________________________________________________________________________
IN THIS ISSUE: June 15, 2007
Issue #23-2007
Page 4: Group Home Facilities Discussed by Legislators and Governor’s Staff
Annual Conference Resolutions Introduction Deadline Approaching
Page 5: Legal Decision Reaffirms Cities’ Right to Zone Property to Promote Business Activity
Greenlight Initiative Seeking Grant Applicants
Page 6: Find a Bill, Legislators, Leg Committee, or Ask League Leg Staff
SB 303 MOVES TO ASSEMBLY: TIME TO LOOK AT THIS BILL AGAIN
SB 303 (Ducheny), a bill with significant land use implications for cities, passed off the Senate
floor to the Assembly last week, with amendments that would address open space issues. The
bill has had a rocky road in part because of the numerous letters cities sent in opposition.
For more, see Page 2.
•••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• ••
CITY SUPPORT NEEDED ON H.R. 2447 – THE ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
H.R. 2447, the Energy and Environment Block Grant Program (EEBG), was introduced in May by
Rep. Albert Wynn, D-Md. Sponsored by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, H.R. 2447 would assist
local and state governments in the development and implementation of a comprehensive energy
efficiency strategy.
This is an important program for cities, as EEBG would provide funds to cities, counties and
states for a variety of building, transportation and energy efficiency programs. The League is
asking city officials to send a letter of support to your congressman supporting H.R. 2447.
A sample letter is located at www.cacities.org/federalresources. For more, see Page 2.
•••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• ••
COMPETING LEGISLATION EMERGING FOR INFILL FUNDS IN PROPOSITION 1C
Two bills – AB 1053 (Núñez) and SB 46 (Perata) have emerged as the main contenders for how
the $850 million in Proposition 1C for infill infrastructure will be spent. These funds are
particularly important for cities because they represent a unique source of funding to address
critical infrastructure issues that otherwise could not be addressed through typical development
fees. For more, see Page 3.
2
‘SB 303’ Continued from Page 1…
The basic intent of the legislation is to require local agencies to complete all zoning for their
regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) at the beginning of the five-year planning period
instead of the current 10-year timeframe. The general plan consistency requirement would be
applied to all charter cities as well.
There are many problems with this bill, including how all of these new mandates will be funded.
This issue has not been addressed by Sen. Ducheny or the bill’s sponsors.
The bill was amended in the Senate Environmental Quality Committee in order to place the open
space element of the general plan on par with the housing element. If SB 303 is adopted, it
would essentially “mirror” the housing element.
The open space changes in the bill seem extreme. For example, local agencies will have to
develop inventories, programs, and determine the open space needs for each income category.
Moreover, open space elements would have to be submitted to the state Department of
Resources for a substantial compliance determination at the same time the local agency submits
its housing element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD).
Supporters of SB 303 argue the legislation is needed because local agencies are slow to comply
with housing laws, which slows project approvals. However, a new HCD report negates this
argument, finding that 79 percent of all local agencies (representing 88 percent of the state’s
population) have an approved housing element. These findings beg the question: why does the
state need expensive new mandates when the overwhelming majority of cities are meeting state
requirements?
The bill is currently at the Assembly Desk awaiting committee assignment. The League
continues to oppose this measure. Because of the significant new amendments, local
agencies—even those that have submitted a letter in opposition—should send in a new letter of
opposition addressed to Senator Denise Ducheny with a “cc” to your Assembly Member.
A sample letter is available by looking up SB 303 using the League of California Cities Web site’s
bill search program, located at www.cacities.org/billsearch.
Please look for continued monitoring of SB 303 in future issues of Priority Focus. For additional
background on SB 303, see “SB 303 Amended, League Still Opposed” at www.cacities.org/hced.
______________________________________________________________________
‘H.R. 2447’ Continued from Page 1…
Details of the EEBG Program
H.R. 2447 emphasizes a community-based approach to help the nation meet its energy and
climate protection goals. Below is a short summary of the EEBG Program put together by the US
Conference of Mayors:
• Eligible Communities: Funds would be directed to cities, counties and states by the
Department of Energy through a formula program
• Eligible Activities Include:
o Expanding weatherization programs, adopting energy efficient building codes and
conducting energy audits
o Implementing fuel conservation and alternative fuels programs; and
o Developing and further expanding the use of alternative energy sources
• Authorization Levels
o $4 billion in FY 2008-09 3
o $5 billion in FY 2010 and 2011
o $6 billion in FY 2012
Key Benefits of EEBG
• Significant Energy Savings in the New Building Sector: The updating and revision of building
codes within cities and counties will result in significant increases in energy efficiency
• Energy Audits and Retrofits for Existing Buildings: Existing buildings utilize significantly less-
efficient energy technology, accounting for the majority of energy consumed by building
sectors. Local energy audits to identify cost-efficient retrofits in the public, residential and
business sectors would increase energy efficiency
• Community-based Transportation Programs: President Bush has asked the public to reduce
gasoline consumption by 10 percent. Cities and counties are well-positioned to launch
programs that encourage activities such as car pooling, increased transit readership, flex-
time by employers, and other initiatives to reduce vehicle miles traveled
• Promotion of Alternative Energy Technologies: Cities and communities are laboratories for
new energy technologies that can serve as models prior to public use. Cities can expedite
the acceptance of new and innovative technologies resulting in significant energy
• Design for Energy Efficient Communities: Cities can increase energy efficiency through
transit-oriented and mixed-use development; alternative transportation use; pedestrian-
oriented communities; and other design approaches that encourage fewer vehicle miles
traveled
Where the Legislation Stands
H.R. 2447 has been referred to both the House committee on Energy and Commerce and also
the Committee on Science and Technology. For more information on H.R. 2447, contact League
Legislative Analyst Genevieve Morelos at gmorelos@cacities.org.
_____________________________________________________________________________
‘Infill Funds in Prop. 1C’ Continued from Page 1…
Both SB 1053 and SB 46 contemplate a combination of basic threshold criteria (such as having a
certified housing element, general plan consistency, and a basic percentage of affordable
housing) and optional preferences (number of units of housing created, increased affordability
levels, proximity to mass transit, consistency with reduction in greenhouse gases).
How the Bills Differ
The major difference between these bills is how the funds will be allocated and who will be
eligible to receive the funding. AB 1053 divides the funds into five separate pots:
• $450 million for infill related to housing administered by the California Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD)
• $100 million to the state Infrastructure Bank for infill infrastructure
• $100 million for the California ReUse (Brownfield) Program
• $100 million for a Workforce Housing Reward Program to reward smart growth projects
• $100 million to the Multifamily Housing Program for infill affordable housing projects
SB 46, on the other hand, allocates the entire fund to one program administered by HCD for
infrastructure and housing.
Another difference between the two measures is whether the $850 million should be used solely
for infrastructure projects related to housing or for actual housing projects. SB 46 allows nonprofit
and for-profit developers to compete with cities, counties and redevelopment agencies for the
funds and to use the money directly for housing projects. AB 1053, however, allocates $100
million directly to the Multifamily Housing Program, but reserves the remaining $750 million in
competitive loans and grants for local agencies.
Another significant difference is how the two bills intend to leverage other funds. AB 1053
specifically seeks to leverage additional matching funds to increase the funding availability for 4
infrastructure. One analysis estimates that the leverage requirement would increase the amount
available for infill infrastructure to $1.3 billion or more.
Current Status
AB 1053 was last heard in the Assembly Committee of Housing and Community Development on
June 6. The bill is now in the Assembly Committee on Rules, awaiting a first hearing and then
assignment to a Senate committee. SB 46 was last heard in the Senate Rules Committee. It is
now in the Assembly awaiting assignment to a committee.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Group Home Facilities Discussed by Legislators and Governor’s Staff
On Tuesday, June 12, several California legislators met with key members of Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger’s Administration to open a dialogue on how the Governor could help alleviate
problems at the local level with respect to siting and operations of group home facilities.
Led by Assembly Member Bill Emmerson, R-Redlands; Assembly Member John Benoit, R-Palm
Desert; Assembly Member Todd Spitzer, R-Orange; and Sen. Bob Dutton, R-Inland Empire; the
members discussed their frustrations with not being able to address the concerns of constituents
in their districts with group homes facilities.
Ideas were presented on how the Administration could help, including the need for an adoption of
policies and practices that would improve the coordination and communication between the
various agencies and local governments.
The meeting is a result of a letter that was sent to the Governor with signatures from all
Republican members of the Assembly and the Senate requesting that the Governor adopt a
“Good Neighbor Policy” that would improve interaction between state agencies and local
communities.
Legislators were hopeful that their conversation with the Governor would be a starting point to
work with the Administration to begin to make needed improvements to the operation of group
home facilities. The League appreciates the efforts of Assembly Members Emmerson, Benoit,
Spitzer and Sen. Dutton on this important issue that affects so many of our local communities.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Annual Conference Resolutions Introduction Deadline Approaching
The deadline to introduce a League of California Cities Annual Conference Resolution is quickly
drawing near. The deadline is Friday, July 6, at 5 p.m. for submittals by mail and Saturday, July 7
at midnight for submittals by e-mail or fax.
Policy development is a key part of the League’s legislative effectiveness and the League’s
Annual Conference Resolutions process is one way that city officials can directly participate in the
development of League policy. Any elected or appointed city official, individual city, division,
department, policy committee, or the board of directors may submit a resolution for consideration
at the conference.
Resolutions submitted by the deadline will be distributed to cities in mid-to-late July and
considered at the Annual Conference. More information about the resolutions process, including
key deadlines and an explanation of the review process at the Annual Conference is available on
the League Web site at www.cacities.org/resolutions.
_____________________________________________________________________________
5
Legal Decision Reaffirms Cities’ Right to Zone Property to Promote Business
Activity
In a decision handed down last week in Hernandez v. City of Hanford, the California Supreme
Court unanimously upheld a city’s right to zone property in a way that promotes business activity
in one area of the city, by limiting the same activity in another area.
This is an important case for cities because it affirms cities’ right to choose where particular types
of businesses are located in order to promote a valid public purpose such as economic vitality.
Hernandez v. City of Hanford focused on a city ordinance that generally prohibits the sale of
furniture in one part of the city (the Commercial District), but allows furniture sales in another part
of the city (the Downtown District). The city enacted the ordinance, in part, to protect the
economic viability of its Downtown District.
The ordinance exempts “large department stores” from the prohibition and allows them to sell
furniture in Hanford’s Commercial District. The rationale behind the exemption was to ensure the
Commercial District remained an attractive location for these stores because loss of these types
of businesses would have a detrimental effect on the economic vitality of the city as a whole.
The owners of a small store in the Commercial District sued the city, arguing it was improper for
Hanford to prohibit their business from selling furniture in order to foster sales in the Downtown
District. The owners also argued it was improper for the city to allow “large department stores” to
sell furniture in the Commercial District, while prohibiting small stores in the district, such as
theirs, from doing the same.
The court rejected the owners’ arguments, overturning a lower court’s decision that limited cities’
ability to make these determinations. In its decision, the California Supreme Court concluded that
as long as the ultimate objective of a zoning ordinance was to achieve a valid public purpose, the
ordinance would not be struck down merely because it effects business competition.
The court held that furthering a municipality’s general plan for controlled growth or for localized
commercial development is a valid public purpose and that Hanford acted accordingly.
In addition, the court concluded there was a rational basis for allowing “large department stores”
to sell furniture in the Commercial District, while not allowing small stores in the district to do the
same. If not allowed to sell furniture, these businesses may choose to leave Hanford, an effect
the city determined was not in the best interest of its citizens.
The League of California Cities, along with the California State Association of Counties (CSAC),
submitted a “friend of the court” brief in Hernandez v. City of Hanford (Cal.Rptr.3d, 2007 WL
1629830) in support of cities’ right to make these zoning choices. The League thanks Thomas B.
Brown of Hanson Bridgett Marcus Vlahos & Rudy LLP for drafting an amicus brief on behalf of the
League and CSAC.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Greenlight Initiative Seeking Grant Applicants
The Greenlight Initiative, a program started by AAA of Northern California, Nevada and Utah to
promote the development and understanding of new automotive fuels and fuel-efficiency-related
technologies, has launched the Greenlight Initiative Grant Program. The program is looking to
award grants to qualified applicants working on projects related to alternative fuels.
The Greenlight Initiative Grant Program is seeking applications from individuals and organizations
pursuing projects in three key areas:
• Awareness: Increase awareness and promote use of alternative fuels among a defined
population of residents in Northern California, Nevada and Utah. 6
• Vehicle Conversion(s): Conversion of conventionally fueled vehicles to run on alternative
fuels with the ultimate goal of increasing awareness and promote use of alternative fuels
among a defined population of residents in Northern California, Nevada and Utah.
• Dedicated Research: Existing or planned research which directly focuses on the
development and understanding of new automotive fuels and fuel-related technologies.
AAA is seeking qualified applications from three distinct groups:
• Higher Education, including graduate and undergraduate students and programs
focusing on the field of alternative fuels and vehicle technology related to efficiency.
• Government Organizations, including municipalities, townships, and counties.
• Not-for-profits, including qualified 501(c)(3) organizations specifically working in the areas
of alternative fuels and vehicle efficiency technology.
For more information and application materials, send an e-mail to greenlightgrants@csaa.com.
Please note the deadline for proposal submission is July 20.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Find a Bill, Legislators, Leg Committee, or Ask League Leg Staff
Visit (and bookmark!) the League’s Legislative Resources Web page
(www.cacities.org/legresources). You’ll find a roster and contact information for the League’s
legislative staff; the online Bill Search program, background materials on lobbying your
legislators, and more.
_____________________________________________________________________________