California 2011-2012 Regular Session Status: Enacted

SB 310 — Local development.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 446, Statutes of 2011.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. ✓
    Passed Senate
  4. ✓
    Passed Assembly
  5. ✓
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 14, 2011. Enacted.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 70% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

High

How often bills like it became law.

  • Enacted

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 1 sponsor

    1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 5 recorded votes so far.

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

Summary

 (1) Existing law authorizes the legislative body of a city or county to adopt an infrastructure financing plan, which is required to contain specified information, for the purpose of financing certain infrastructure facilities, if specified procedural requirements are met, and requires the legislative body, if it adopts the plan, to submit the proposal to the voters. Existing law authorizes the legislative body to create an infrastructure financing district, by ordinance, if 23 of the qualified electors of the proposed district vote in favor of adoption of the plan, and also authorizes the legislative body to initiate proceedings to issue bonds to finance the infrastructure facilities if 23 of those electors vote in favor of the issuance. Existing law authorizes infrastructure finance districts to finance specified projects, including financing certain infrastructure facilities. This bill would authorize a district to reimburse a developer that meets specified requirements for permit expenses or expenses related to the construction of affordable housing units pursuant to the Transit Priority Project Program described below. This bill would also require that an infrastructure financing plan also include a plan to finance any potential costs for reimbursing a developer that meets specified requirements for permit and affordable housing expenses related to a project of the Transit Priority Project Program. (2) The Transit Village Development Planning Act of 1994 authorizes a city or county to create a transit village plan for a transit village development district that addresses specified characteristics. In order to increase transit ridership and to reduce vehicle traffic on the highways, the act encourages local, regional, and state plans to direct new development close to transit stations and provide financial incentives to implement these plans. This bill would establish the Transit Priority Project Program, and authorize a city or county to participate in the program by adopting an ordinance indicating its intent to participate in the program and by forming an infrastructure financing district. The bill would require a city or county that elects to participate in the program to amend, if necessary, its general plan, and any related specific plan, to authorize participating developers to build at an increased height of a minimum of 3 stories within the newly created infrastructure financing district. This bill would exempt from its provisions a city or county that has adopted specified language in its charter, or by ordinance or resolution.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 446, Statutes of 2011.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 10:30 a.m.

  4. Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 22. Noes 15. Page 2451.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.

  5. In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.

  6. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 49. Noes 27. Page 3047.) Ordered to the Senate.

  7. Ordered to third reading.

  8. (Ayes 51. Noes 27. Page 2736.) .

  9. Action rescinded whereby the bill was re-referred to Com. on RLS. pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.2.

  10. Re-referred to Com. on RLS. pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.2.

  11. Ordered to third reading.

  12. Read third time and amended. (Page 2630.)

  13. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  14. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 6. Noes 3.) (July 6).

  15. Hearing postponed by committee.

  16. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.

  17. Referred to Com. on L. GOV.

  18. In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

  19. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 22. Noes 17. Page 1033.) Ordered to the Assembly.

  20. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  21. Ordered to second reading.

  22. Withdrawn from committee.

  23. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on RLS. (Ayes 6. Noes 3. Page 762.) (April 27). Re-referred to Com. on RLS.

  24. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on GOV. & F.

  25. Set for hearing April 27.

  26. Re-referred to Coms. on GOV. & F. and RLS.

  27. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.

  28. Referred to Com. on RLS.

  29. From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 17.

  30. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

  • Hancock · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 6 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Hancock

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Unfinished Business SB310 Hancock Concurrence

Passed 22 Yea · 15 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 201403
Democratic 2000
Republican 0100
Total 221503
% of votes cast 55%38%0%8%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Yee — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
De León — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Evans — Not Voting
Fuller — Nay
Cannella — Nay
Runner — Nay
Hancock — Yea
Negrete McLeod — Not Voting
Harman — Nay
Hernandez — Yea
Huff — Nay
Leno — Yea
Anderson — Nay
Blakeslee — Nay
Corbett — Yea
Dutton — Nay
Liu — Yea
Price — Yea
Simitian — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Walters — Nay
Wolk — Yea
Wright — Yea
Alquist — Yea
Kehoe — Yea
Lieu — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Vargas — Yea
Wyland — Nay
Emmerson — Nay
Correa — Not Voting
DeSaulnier — Yea
Beth Gaines — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Nay
La Malfa — Nay
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Nay

Official roll call →

SB 310 Hancock Senate Third Reading By WILLIAMS

Passed 49 Yea · 27 Nay · 4 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Republican 0200
Unaffiliated 492503
Democratic 0001
Total 492704
% of votes cast 61%34%0%5%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Butler — Yea
Feuer — Yea
Furutani — Yea
Hill — Yea
Fong — Yea
Huber — Yea
Allen — Yea
Huffman — Yea
Cedillo — Yea
Portantino — Yea
John A. Pérez — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Davis — Yea
Perea — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Swanson — Yea
Williams — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Gordon — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Gorell — Not Voting
Hagman — Nay
Campos — Yea
Halderman — Nay
Fletcher — Nay
Hall — Yea
Harkey — Nay
Jeffries — Nay
Carter — Not Voting
Lara — Yea
Logue — Nay
Mendoza — Yea
Miller — Nay
Beall — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Conway — Nay
Dickinson — Yea
Donnelly — Nay
Monning — Yea
Morrell — Nay
Nestande — Nay
Nielsen — Nay
Olsen — Nay
Pan — Yea
Smyth — Nay
Torres — Yea
Wagner — Nay
Wieckowski — Yea
Achadjian — Nay
Alejo — Yea
Block — Yea
Blumenfield — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Brownley — Yea
Buchanan — Not Voting
Hayashi — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Knight — Nay
Ma — Yea
Mansoor — Nay
Norby — Nay
Silva — Nay
Solorio — Yea
Valadao — Nay
Cook — Nay
Eng — Yea
Fuentes — Yea
Garrick — Nay
Gatto — Yea
Yamada — Yea
Beth Gaines — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Nay
Bonnie Lowenthal — Yea
Roger Hernández — Yea
V. Manuel Pérez — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Not Voting
Grove, Shannon Republican Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 6 Yea · 3 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 6300
Total 6300
% of votes cast 67%33%0%0%
How each member voted (9)
Member Party Vote
Gordon — Yea
Campos — Yea
Lara — Yea
Smyth — Nay
Bradford — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Knight — Nay
Norby — Nay
Williams — Yea

Official roll call →

3rd Reading

Passed 22 Yea · 17 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 201601
Democratic 2000
Republican 0100
Total 221701
% of votes cast 55%43%0%3%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Yee — Yea
Fuller — Nay
Lowenthal — Yea
De León — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Cannella — Nay
Negrete McLeod — Nay
Hancock — Yea
Hernandez — Not Voting
Runner — Nay
Huff — Nay
Kehoe — Yea
Leno — Yea
Alquist — Yea
Anderson — Nay
Dutton — Nay
Lieu — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Simitian — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Walters — Nay
Wright — Yea
Blakeslee — Nay
Harman — Nay
Liu — Yea
Price — Yea
Vargas — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Wyland — Nay
Corbett — Yea
Emmerson — Nay
Correa — Nay
Evans — Yea
DeSaulnier — Yea
Beth Gaines — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Nay
La Malfa — Nay
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Subjects

housing transportation
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does SB 310 do?
 (1) Existing law authorizes the legislative body of a city or county to adopt an infrastructure financing plan, which is required to contain specified information, for the purpose of financing certain infrastructure facilities, if specified procedural requirements are met, and requires the legislative body, if it adopts the plan, to submit the proposal to the voters. Existing law authorizes the legislative body to create an infrastructure financing district, by ordinance, if 23 of the qualified electors of the proposed district vote in favor of adoption of the plan, and also authorizes the legislative body to initiate proceedings to issue bonds to finance the infrastructure facilities if 23 of those electors vote in favor of the issuance. Existing law authorizes infrastructure finance districts to finance specified projects, including financing certain infrastructure facilities. This bill would authorize a district to reimburse a developer that meets specified requirements for permit expenses or expenses related to the construction of affordable housing units pursuant to the Transit Priority Project Program described below. This bill would also require that an infrastructure financing plan also include a plan to finance any potential costs for reimbursing a developer that meets specified requirements for permit and affordable housing expenses related to a project of the Transit Priority Project Program. (2) The Transit Village Development Planning Act of 1994 authorizes a city or county to create a transit village plan for a transit village development district that addresses specified characteristics. In order to increase transit ridership and to reduce vehicle traffic on the highways, the act encourages local, regional, and state plans to direct new development close to transit stations and provide financial incentives to implement these plans. This bill would establish the Transit Priority Project Program, and authorize a city or county to participate in the program by adopting an ordinance indicating its intent to participate in the program and by forming an infrastructure financing district. The bill would require a city or county that elects to participate in the program to amend, if necessary, its general plan, and any related specific plan, to authorize participating developers to build at an increased height of a minimum of 3 stories within the newly created infrastructure financing district. This bill would exempt from its provisions a city or county that has adopted specified language in its charter, or by ordinance or resolution.
Who sponsors SB 310?
SB 310 is sponsored by Hancock.
What is the current status of SB 310?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 14, 2011. Enacted.
Where can I track SB 310?
Track SB 310 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 310

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of SB 310

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →