To view graphic version of this page, refresh this page (F5)

Skip to page body

Meeting Information

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 





Wednesday, April 29, 2009


City Hall, Room 421


Meeting Minutes




MEMBERS Present:


Mayor’s Office (Chair) – Nancy Kirshner-Rodriguez

Supervisor Alioto-Pier – Catherine Stefani

City Attorney’s Office – MaryJane Winslow

Treasurer’s Office –David Augustine

Assessor’s Office – Kevin Matthews




Supervisor Chiu – David Noyola

Controller’s Office – Peg Stevenson



The Committee approved the minutes of the March 30, 2009 meeting of the State Legislation Committee.



The Committee took action on the following state legislation affecting the City andCounty of San Francisco


City Attorney's Office

MaryJane Winslow


SB 282 (Wright) - Gang injunctions:  5 year limit

This bill would provide that an injunction issued against an individual who is a criminal street gang member shall have a duration of not more than 5 years, and that at any time within 3 months before the expiration of the injunction, Attorney General or any district attorney or prosecuting city attorney  may apply for a renewal of the injunction by filing a certification  that  a court has determined that  an individual subject to the  injunction has violated the  injunction or committed a new crime. This bill would authorize the court, after a noticed hearing, to issue an order for an extension of the injunction against that individual for an additional 5 years.   The bill would express legislative findings, declarations, and intent regarding the enactment of its provisions.

Recommended action: Oppose

Action taken: Oppose


Department of the Environment

Mark Westlund


SB 346 (Kehoe)

The bill, commencing on January 1, 2014, would prohibit the sale of any motor vehicle brakes containing specified constituents, including, but not limited to, copper, cadmium, lead, and mercury, in amounts that exceed certain concentrations.

Recommended action: Support

Action taken: Support


                Department of Public Health

                Jim Soos


SB 733 (Leno)

The California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board administers a program to assist state residents to obtain compensation for their monetary losses suffered as a direct result of criminal acts.  Payment is made under these provisions from the Restitution Fund, which is continuously appropriated to the Board for these purposes.  This bill would authorize the Board to administer a program to award up to $5.1 million in grants, annually, to trauma centers, including the Trauma Recovery Center at San Francisco General Hospital, with the amount of each grant being no more than $1.7 million.

Recommended action: Support

Action taken: Support


SB 744 (Strickland)

This is an urgency measure that modifies the clinical laboratory licensing fee structure, facilitates the use of private accrediting organizations to inspect clinical laboratories, and requires public health laboratories to pay laboratory and personnel licensing fees.

Recommended action: Oppose unless amended

Action taken: Oppose unless amended


                Mayor’s Office of Housing

                Doug Shoemaker


AB 767 (Ammiano and Bass)

This bill would extend the date of encumbrance for homeless youth housing funds available under Proposition 1-C for an additional two years.  Approximately $24 million is still unencumbered.

Recommended action: Support

Action taken: Support


AB 1084 (Adams)

This bill would resolve longstanding legal debate about Inclusionary Housing by expanding the definition of Mitigation Fee.  It would also add a host of new requirements and restrictions, substantially increasing the administrative burden associated with levying any development-related fee or set-aside.

Recommended action: Oppose

Action taken: None taken, watch


ACA 9 (Huffman)

This bill would ease Prop 13’s voter thresholds for local taxes three different ways: 1) Add an exception to the 1% cap on real-estate taxes to allow for taxes to pay interest on voter-approved bonded indebtedness accrued to fund facility-related construction work.; 2) Lower the voter-approval threshold for accruing debt to 55% from two-thirds when the debt's proceeds will fund “construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement” of public improvements, public safety agency facilities, affordable housing, the purchase or lease of real property for any of those, or any combination of the above 3) Lower the voter-approval threshold for imposing, extending, or increasing local special taxes from two-thirds to 55%.

Recommended action: Support

Action taken: None taken, table


SB 16 (Lowenthal) - Low-income housing tax credits.

This bill allows sponsors who received a tax credit allocation between July, 2008 and January, 2010 to receive refund if they have credit left over after offsetting existing tax liability.  SB 16 will invigorate LIHTC investment in three ways: 1) Disconnecting federal partnership rules from state allocated tax credits and allowing refundable LIHTCs  will increase the pool of investors that can provide project capital. 2) Non-profit developers may take the refundable state credit themselves and receive direct funds. 3) If the non-profit takes the state credit themself, then federal tax credits may be marketed to investors at increased value (the interaction between state and federal tax credits can diminish the value of state LIHTCs to approximately $.65 for each $1 of credit).

Recommended action: Support

                Action taken: Support


Planning Department

AnMarie Rodgers


SB 690 (Leno)

This bill would remove the so-called “rebuttable presumption” provision, so that illegal billboards would no longer be afforded special consideration simply because they managed to avoid enforcement actions.  The Business and Professions Code currently allows illegal billboards located along highways to be presumed legal if no enforcement action is taken within 5 years of the creation of the billboard.

Recommended action: Support

                Action taken: Support


                Public Utilities Commission

                Nathan Purkiss


                AB 444 (Caballero) - Non Profit land stewardship management funds.

Existing law authorizes an agency that, in the development of its own project, is required to transfer an interest in real property to mitigate an adverse impact upon natural resources, to transfer the interest to a nonprofit organization that meets the specified requirements. This bill would authorize funds set aside for the long-term management of any lands or easements conveyed to a nonprofit organization. The bill would also require the nonprofit organization to hold, manage, invest, and disburse the funds in furtherance of managing and stewarding the land or easement for which the funds were set aside. The bill would authorize the state or local agency to impose certain requirements on the nonprofit organization and impose on the state or local agency specified due diligence requirements.

Recommended action: Support

                Action taken: Support


AB 804 (Hall) - Water facilities control of mussels.

Existing law prohibits generally a person from possessing, importing,  shipping, or transporting in the state, or from placing, planting, or causing to be placed or planted in any water within the state, dreissenid mussels. This bill would provide that an operator of water delivery and storage facilities, who has prepared and implemented a plan to control and eradicate dreissenid mussels would not be subject to any civil or criminal liability for the introduction of dreissenid mussel species as a result of operations of those facilities. This bill is a result of good faith negotiations between the sponsor, Sierra Club, and the Consumer Attorneys of California as proposed to be amended.  There is no known opposition. 

Recommended action: Support

                Action taken: Support


AB 1061 (Liu) - Water-Efficient Landscapes at Common Interest Developments.

This non-controversial legislation tightens up requirements that Common Interest Developments must allow water efficient landscaping options within the developments. Existing law requires a local agency to adopt a specified updated model ordinance regarding water-efficient landscapes or a water-efficient landscape ordinance that is at least as effective in conserving water as the updated model ordinance. Existing law allows certain water providers to take specified actions regarding water conservation. The Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act provides for the creation and regulation of common interest developments. The act provides that the architectural guidelines of a common interest development shall not prohibit or include conditions that have the effect of prohibiting the use of low water-using plants as a group. This bill would, instead, provide that a provision of any of the governing documents of a common interest development shall be void and unenforceable if it prohibits, or includes conditions that have the effect of prohibiting, the use of low water-using plants as a group, or has the effect of prohibiting or restricting compliance with a local water-efficient landscape ordinance or water conservation measure described above. Passed unanimously by the Assembly.

Recommended action: Support

                Action taken: Support


AB 1408 (Krekorian) - Subdivisions: Water Conservation Mitigation Fund.

Background on Subdivisions and Water Conservation: The Subdivision Map Act prohibits approval of a tentative map for a subdivision of property of more than 500 dwelling units, unless the legislative body of a city or county provides written verification from the applicable public water system that a sufficient water supply is available or, in addition, a specified finding is made by the local agency that sufficient water supplies are, or will be, available prior to completion of the project.  This bill establishes a Water Conservation Mitigation Fund (Fund) that a public water system may authorize a subdivision project applicant to voluntarily contribute to in order to offset at least 100% of the projected water demand associated with the subdivision, and requires all monies in the Fund to be expended on water conservation measures that will offset at least 100% of the subdivision's projected water demand. AB 1408 would also provide the framework for an optional program that would allow developers to get credit in the water supply assessment for implementing conservation measures at the development that go beyond what is required. This includes the use of a legally enforceable mechanism, such as the CC&Rs, to notify the purchasers of the homes that they are buying a special home with unique requirements to conserve water.  These legally enforceable mechanisms will help ensure that the anticipated level of conservation is achieved and remains durable over time.  The author states that AB 1408 also provides the framework for an optional arrangement between developers and water suppliers where developers can offset 100% or more of the projected water demand of the development by paying into a water conservation mitigation fund that is managed by the water supplier.  The author believes that for highly water constrained areas, this optional program can provide water suppliers with a way to provide a water supply assessment so that developers can proceed with a development that might otherwise be uncertain.

Recommended action: Support

                Action taken: Support


SB 102 (Committee on Local Government) Validations.

This non-controversial bill would enact the Second Validating Act of 2009, which would validate the organization, boundaries, acts, proceedings, and bonds of the state and counties, cities, and specified districts, agencies, and entities. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Background: For nearly 70 years, the Legislature has adopted annual Validating Acts that retroactively fix public officials' inadvertent procedural errors or omissions.  Starting in the mid-1920s, the Legislature passed separate validating acts for different types of bonds, several classes of special districts, and various local boundary changes.  By the late 1930s, the practice had been streamlined into annual, comprehensive validating acts.  The Acts protect investors from the chance that a minor error might undermine the legal integrity of a public agency's bond.  The annual bills affect the state government, as well as counties, cities, special districts, school districts, and redevelopment agencies.

Recommended action: Support

Action taken: None taken, watch



No public comment