12.07.2015 Views

Plan-it sustainably - Northern California Section

Plan-it sustainably - Northern California Section

Plan-it sustainably - Northern California Section

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Governor vetoesredevelopmentsurrogatesBy Naphtali H. Knox, FAICPBelow are Governor Brown’s veto messages onredevelopment and related bills.“I am returning Senate Bill 1156 w<strong>it</strong>hout mysignature. This bill would allow local governmentsto establish a Sustainable Commun<strong>it</strong>iesInvestment Author<strong>it</strong>y to finance activ<strong>it</strong>ies w<strong>it</strong>hina specified area. …“I prefer to take a constructive look atimplementing this type of program once thewinding down of redevelopment is complete andGeneral Fund savings are achieved. At that time,we will be in a much better pos<strong>it</strong>ion to considernew investment author<strong>it</strong>y. I am comm<strong>it</strong>ted toworking w<strong>it</strong>h the Legislature and interestedparties on the important task of rev<strong>it</strong>alizingour commun<strong>it</strong>ies.”“I am returning Assembly Bill 345 w<strong>it</strong>houtmy signature. This bill makes changes to theCommun<strong>it</strong>y Redevelopment Law regardingredevelopment agencies’ use of the Low andModerate Income Housing Fund. The intent ofthis bill is to govern use of the 20 percent setaside for low and moderate income housingestablished in SB 1156. Given my veto of SB1156, this bill is premature.”“Sincerely, Edmund G. Brown, Jr.”In add<strong>it</strong>ion, the governor vetoed three bills modifyingrules for the establishment of InfrastructureFinancing Districts (IFDs) by local governments —AB 2144, SB 214, and AB 2551 — saying thenew measures “would likely cause c<strong>it</strong>ies to focustheir efforts on using the new tools … instead ofwinding down redevelopment. This would preventthe state from achieving the General Fund savingsassumed in this year’s budget.” n2012 Legislative Year in Review forLand Use <strong>Plan</strong>nersBy Alexandra Barnhill, Legislative Director, APA <strong>California</strong>–<strong>Northern</strong>September 30th marked the end of another busy <strong>California</strong> legislativesession. While <strong>it</strong> is not possible to summarize all the actions takenon bills that are relevant to land use planners, some of the mostsignificant developments are described below.Redevelopment-related bills vetoed as “premature.” The lossof redevelopment as a tool for economic development has deeplyimpacted local governments. Numerous bills were drafted this sessionto create a replacement tool for redevelopment; however, none ofthem secured the Governor’s approval. (See sidebar for Governor’sveto messages. –Ed.)• SB 214 (Wolk), AB 2144 (Perez), and AB 2551 (Hueso)would have modified the cumbersome rules for the establishmentof Infrastructure Financing Districts (IFDs) by local governments.• AB 345 (Torres) would have made changes to the Commun<strong>it</strong>yRedevelopment Law regarding redevelopment agencies’ use ofthe Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund.• SB 1156 (Steinberg) would have allowed local governmentsto establish a Sustainable Commun<strong>it</strong>ies Investment Author<strong>it</strong>yto finance activ<strong>it</strong>ies w<strong>it</strong>hin a specified area.Though these bills were not signed into law, the Governorindicated via his veto messages that he is comm<strong>it</strong>ted to working onrev<strong>it</strong>alization efforts in upcoming sessions. For now, Brown wants localagencies to focus their efforts on the winding down of redevelopment.Although the Governor does not yet broadly support the use ofIFDs for redevelopment, one exception was made. Brown signedAB 2259 (Ammiano), which creates an IFD for San Francisco’supcoming America’s Cup yacht race. This, along w<strong>it</strong>h the vetomessages, signals that IFDs or other redevelopment replacementtools may be approved in the future.Parking Reform measure fails. AB 904 (Skinner) would haveimposed a single statewide parking standard for both nonresidentialand residential infill and close-to-trans<strong>it</strong> projects across <strong>California</strong>.Facing strong oppos<strong>it</strong>ion, the author dropped the bill. Similarproposals also failed to gain support in prior sessions. APA <strong>California</strong>conceptually supports reduced or “smart” parking requirements neartrans<strong>it</strong>-rich areas and has agreed to work w<strong>it</strong>h the bill’s sponsors todevelop a new parking proposal for 2013. <strong>Northern</strong> <strong>California</strong> APAwill be hosting a forum representing all stakeholders’ views on thistopic on November 9, 2012. More information on the workshop isavailable on the following page.(continued on next page)<strong>Northern</strong> News 13 November 2012

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!