Docstoc

SOUTHWEST CALIFORNIA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL www SouthwestCaliforniaAdvocacy biz Temecula V

Document Sample
SOUTHWEST CALIFORNIA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL www SouthwestCaliforniaAdvocacy biz Temecula V Powered By Docstoc
					                               SOUTHWEST CALIFORNIA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
                                     www.SouthwestCaliforniaAdvocacy.biz

                                         Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce
                                             Murrieta Chamber of Commerce
                                        Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce

                                                   MEETING AGENDA
                                                  Monday, March 17, 2008
                                                        12:00pm

                                         Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce
                                                   Conference Room
                                               26790 Ynez Court, Ste. A
                                                  Temecula, CA 92591

                                             Presiding: Greg Morrison, Chair
Call to Order and Roll Call

Introduction of Guests

Chair’s Report
    Committee Hearing on AB 1968 (Jeffries)
    Recent Action

Agenda

    1.   Approval of February 2008 Minutes                                                                 ACTION

    2.   Green Valley Initiative                                                                           ACTION

    3.   Proposition 98: Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property                            ACTION

    4.   Proposition 99: Eminent Domain. Acquisition of Owner-Occupied Residence                           ACTION

    5.   Legislative Report #2                                                                             ACTION

Local, State, Federal Legislative Staff Updates

Chamber Announcements

        Murrieta Chamber’s Reverse Drawing – Pechanga Resort & Casino – March 20th, 2008
        Murrieta Chamber’s Annual Installation & Awards Dinner - South Coast Winery Resort & Spa – June 21st, 2008
        Temecula Valley Chamber State of the City – April 17, 2008 – 7:30 a.m.

Announcements

        Next Meeting April 21, 2008.

Adjourn
                              The Southwest California Legislative Council Thanks Our Partners:
Southwest Riverside County Association of Realtors                      Rancho Ford Lincoln Mercury
Metropolitan Water District                                             Near-Cal Corporation
Economic Development Corporation of Southwest California                The Gas Company
Abbott Vascular                                                         Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce
The Murrieta Temecula Group                                             Temecula Valley Bank
Arrowhead Credit Union                                                  Retail Development Advisors Corp.
Murrieta Chamber of Commerce                                            Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce
                                                                                                       CHAIR’S REPORT
                                                                                    Southwest California Legislative Council
                                                                                                            March 17, 2008
Recent Action

March 10, 2008
Southwest California Businesses Support Flexibility in the Workplace Proposal

The Temecula Valley, Murrieta and Lake Elsinore Chambers of Commerce, through its regional business advocacy coalition
the Southwest California Legislative Council, are cosponsoring and supporting the efforts of AB 2127. This proposed new
law, authored by local Assembly Member John J. Benoit, is designed to allow for employees and employers to have more
flexibility in their work schedules.

This new flexibility will accommodate employees' diverse family obligations, personal pursuits, and commuting issues by
allowing employers to agree to provide scheduling options requested by an employee. AB 2127, known as the Small
Business Family Scheduling Option, would allow a small business with 25 or less employees to offer the option.

“This new law is a win-win for both employers and employees,” stated Greg Morrison, Chair of the Southwest California
Legislative Council. “A flexible work week schedule will allow for a more productive work environment with employees
getting more days off and enabling employers to create an efficient schedule,” Morrison continued.

The option would allow an employer to agree to an employee’s request to work four 10-hour days a week, or eight nine-hour
days and one eight-hour day in two weeks, also known as a 9/80 schedule. This option applies exclusively to small businesses
that are not covered by a collective bargaining agreement.

The Small Business Family Scheduling Option also allows for certain protections and benefits such as;

- The request for the option must be made by the employee, in writing, and it must be made voluntarily,

- The employer is required to maintain a copy of the written agreement
as they would any personnel record – for three years beyond termination of the agreement,

- The agreement must be executed in writing,

- Either the employee or the employer can revoke the agreement at any time, provided they give seven days written notice,

- Any hours worked beyond the compressed workweek hours must be paid at normal overtime rates,

- The employer is prohibited from reducing the employee’s regular rate of pay as a result of the employee adopting an
alternative work week schedule,

- Working a compressed four-day workweek provides up to 50 extra non-work days each year for the average full-time
employee,

- Satisfying employee demands for flexible schedules,

- Reduces traffic and the frequency of long commutes at peak hours,

- Fewer trips to the workplace result in lower carbon emissions, and

- A flexible work life is good for your health according to researchers at the Wake Forest University School of Medicine as
reported in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (December 2007).

March 5, 2008
Improve Transportation Throughout Southwest California

Temecula Valley, Murrieta and Lake Elsinore Valley Chambers of Commerce partnered with the Riverside County
Transportation Commission (RCTC) once again to support two proposed new laws that will allow for more lanes on both the
SR-91 and I-15 freeways.

The Chambers, through their regional business advocacy coalition the Southwest California Legislative Council, hope that
these new pieces of legislation will help alleviate traffic congestion and help with goods movement. RCTC would be charged
with implementation of a high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes on the Interstate 15 and State Route 91 freeways.

In order to accomplish this, two bills authored by Senator Lou Correa (SB 1316) and Assembly Member Kevin Jeffries (AB
1954) have been introduced California State Legislature.

SB 1316 (Correa) would accomplish the following:

- Orange County Transit Authority (OCTA) would eliminate its rights, interests, and obligations on the Riverside County
portion of the SR-91 franchise by partial assignment to RCTC or by amending the franchise agreement.

- The 2030 sunset for OCTA tolling and bonding authority is deleted.

- Excess toll revenue can be used within five miles of the toll lanes for SR-91 corridor-related transportation projects (for
example: additional general purpose lanes on SR-91, freeway access improvements, grade separations, 91 Line Metrolink
capacity).

- RCTC is authorized to impose tolls for 50 years on the Riverside County portion of the express lanes, from the date that the
Riverside County lanes open.

- RCTC, or a nonprofit corporation on RCTC’s behalf, can issue bonds to pay for SR-91 express lanes project.

- The toll lanes will revert to Caltrans at the request of RCTC after all bonds are repaid.

- The SR-91 Advisory Committee created by AB 1010 is eliminated and replaced with a similar advisory committee that
makes recommendations to both OCTA and RCTC.

- RCTC and OCTA are required to conduct an annual audit of toll revenues and expenditures.

AB 1954 (Jeffries) would accomplish the following:

- RCTC is authorized to impose tolls for 50 years on I-15 in Riverside County, from the date that the Riverside County lanes
open.

- RCTC, or a nonprofit corporation on RCTC’s behalf, can issue bonds to pay for I-15 express lanes project.

- Excess toll revenue can be used within five miles of the toll lanes forI-15 corridor-related transportation projects (for
example: additional general purpose lanes on I-15, freeway access improvements, grade separations, mass transit projects).

- The toll lanes will revert to Caltrans at the request of RCTC after all bonds are repaid.

- RCTC is assigned oversight responsibility of the facility.

- RCTC is required to conduct an annual audit of toll revenues and expenditures.

March 1, 2008
Southwest California Businesses Support Redistricting Reform

The Temecula Valley, Murrieta and Lake Elsinore Valley Chambers through their
regional advocacy coalition, the Southwest California Legislative Council (SWCLC)
supports the California Voters FIRST Act concept which seeks to reform the way
state legislators are elected. SWCLC supported the Governor’s proposal, which never came to fruition. This proposal would
go to the voters for their approval.

Every 10 years, after the census, new boundary lines for the United States Congress and California Senate, Assembly and
Board of Equalization districts are drawn. Currently, the California State Legislature draws those lines. This is viewed as a
major conflict of interest.

"We continue to look for ways the business communities in Southwest region can remain competitive with surrounding
communities and redistricting reform is a possible answer," stated Greg Morrison, Chair of the Southwest California
Legislative Council. "The California Voters FIRST Act is only one way we can make our region more business friendly,"
continued Morrison.

The California Voters FIRST Act aims to eliminate the conflict of interest. A 14-person citizens redistricting commission
would be created. The California Voters FIRST Act would create a politically balanced Commission - five democrats, five
republicans, and four others. Commissioners would be chosen for their impartiality, skills, and to reflect our State’s
demographic and geographic diversity.

The Act would protect communities, cities, and counties. The California Voters FIRST Act would create a list of prioritized
mapping criteria for the Commission to follow. This would ensure that our Constitution, federal and state laws are followed.
The U.S. Congressional Districts would continue to be drawn by the State Legislature.

The process would also be open and public. The Commission would hold hearings to receive public input. The California
Voters FIRST Act would end the closed-door political deals by legislators to draw districts that protect themselves.

The Act will be placed on the November 2008 ballot pending count of signatures by the Office of the Secretary of State.

Proposal Details

California Voters FIRST Act is pending count of signatures by the Office of the Secretary of State.

The Commission would be formed by inviting California registered voters to participate. A pool of 60 (20 Democrats, 20
Republicans, 20 others) is selected based on their skills, ability to be impartial, and diversity by a review panel of state
auditors (1 Democrat, 1 Republican, 1 other).

The 4 Legislative Leaders can strike up to 24 people from the pool. Out of the remaining pool, 8 Commissioners are
randomly picked - 3 Democrats, 3 Republicans, 2 others.

The final 6 Commissioners (2 Democrats, 2 Republicans, 2 others) are chosen by the 8 Commissioners from the remaining
pool based on the balance of skills and diversity they would bring.

The mapping criteria for the Commission to follow include, which are ranked in order, are:

- Districts shall comply with the US Constitution, including equal population requirements.

- Districts shall comply with the Voting Rights Act.

- Districts shall be geographically contiguous.

- The geographic integrity of any city, county, or city and county, neighborhoods, or communities of interest shall be
respected. Communities of interest shall not be defined as having a relationship with incumbents, candidates, or parties.

- To the extent possible, after the above criteria have been satisfied, districts shall be compact.

- To the extent possible, after the above criteria have been satisfied, districts shall be nested.

Incumbent residences may not be considered; districts may not be drawn to favor politicians or parties.
The scope of the Citizen’s Redistricting Commission includes the district drawing of the California Senate, Assembly and
Board of Equalization seats in the next redistricting cycle in 2011 and after each decennial census.

The State Legislature will draw Congressional seats, following the same mapping criteria and hearing requirements as the
Commission.

According to California Common Cause (also supporter of the Act):

- 66% support creating an independent redistricting commission to draw district lines instead of incumbent legislators.

- 86% want an open process and an end to back room deals in redistricting.

- 78 - 81% want a redistricting process that keeps their neighborhoods and cities together and divided as little as possible
March 1, 2008
Southwest California Businesses Act on Federal ADA Revisions

The Temecula Valley, Murrieta and Lake Elsinore Valley Chambers through their regional advocacy coalition, the Southwest
California Legislative Council (SWCLC) oppose a federal piece of legislation that aimed to expand Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) with negative consequences for business. H.R. 3195 (Hoyer) would greatly expand ADA’s
scope and create unnecessary lawsuits.

Proponents of H.R. 3195 believe the proposed federal piece of legislation is needed because it has been argued that federal
courts have improperly interpreted the ADA and have inappropriately narrowed its scope. As it stands now, the ADA
currently considers a person "disabled" if he or she has a physical or mental impairment that "substantially limits a major life
activity." H.R. 3195 would extend this to include minor or temporary impairments like near-sightedness, headaches, small
scars, or even "tennis elbow."

SWCLC believes this would create incomprehensible damages to businesses throughout not only the Southwest region, but
all over the United States. H.R. 3195 would broaden the scope to included an employee with a minor cut requiring stitches be
put into the same category as a returning veteran who lost an arm or leg. This would lead to certain increases in requests for
"accommodation" which in turn, overwhelm employers, making it harder for them to assist the severely disabled.
                                                                                                                 ACTION
                                                                                                      AGENDA ITEM 1
                                                                                  Southwest California Legislative Council
                                                                                                          March 17, 2008

Approval of February 2008 Minutes

                              SOUTHWEST CALIFORNIA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
                                    www.southwestcaliforniaadvocacy.biz

                                       Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce
                                      Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce
                                           Murrieta Chamber of Commerce
                                       January 2007 SWCLC Meeting Minutes

                                                   Meeting Minutes
                                               Monday, February 25, 2008


Chamber Advocacy:         Jeremy Harris

2008 Chair:               Greg Morrison (Absent)

Directors Present:        Karen Wikert, Lynn Effinger, Dennis Frank, Dr. Billie Blair, Isaac Lizarraga, Amy Minniear,
                          Roger Ziemer, Gene Wunderlich, Glen Daigle, Michelle Penna, Carl Johnson

Directors Absent:         Joan Sparkman, Scott Crane

Members Present:          Jeff Greene-Office of Kevin Jeffries, Kari Reuther-Granite Construction
                          Tamra Middlecamp-City of Temecula, Jolene Allred-Eastern Municipal Water District,
                          Tom Rogers-State Senator Hollingsworth, Dave Willmon-League of California Cities
                          Aaron Hake-RCTC, Marsha Swanson-Wildomar Chamber of Commerce, Merrcy Moore-Fairfield
                          Properties, Denis Nurmela-VitaLift, Karen Brown-Congresswoman Mary Bono

Staff Present:            Alice Sullivan and Laura Turnbow – Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce
                          Kim Cousins - Lake Elsinore Chamber of Commerce
                          Rex Oliver – Murrieta Chamber of Commerce

Meeting called to order at 12:08pm by Roger Ziemer

Chair’s Report
     Ziemer reported the outcome on the following Propositions:
         Proposition and Outcome                                      SWCLC Position
         Proposition 91-Transportation Budget-Failed                  Neutral
         Proposition 92-Community Colleges-Failed                     Opposed
         Proposition 93-Term Limits-Failed                            Opposed
         Propositions 94-97-Indian gaming Compacts-Passed             Support

        Ziemer reported that AB 2127 was introduced by Assemblyman Benoit. The SWCLC took a position in support of
         this bill which would allow for a flexible work week schedule. Greg Morrison was interviewed by KZSW regarding
         AB 2127. The interview will be posted to the SWCLC website.

    1.   Approval of January 2008 Minutes
         Motion was made to approve the January 28, 2008 meeting as written. The motion was seconded and carried
         by a unanimous vote.

    2.   RCTC Hot Lane Program – Aaron Hake from the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) discussed
         their ongoing efforts related to the Let’s Get Moving campaign. Councilman Ron Roberts, Murrieta Councilman
         Rick Gibbs and Lake Elsinore Councilman Bob Magee are the local representatives on the RCTC. Hake stated that
         California is currently short $13-15 Billion needed to achieve the goal of a minimum of 35 MPH during peak hours.
     Some of the proposed improvements include two HOT lanes and one general lane from the OC line to I-15, two
     HOT lanes from San Bernardino to SR-74, and one HOV lane from SR-74 to I-215. The I-15 Congestion Reduction
     Initiative would allow RCTC to leverage the tolls, generating 145 new lane miles of tolled highway capacity
     available. The motion was made to support the RCTC High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lane Program and
     support the proposed pieces of legislation. The motion was seconded and carried by a unanimous vote.

3.   H.R. 5012 (Calvert) On Time Act – This legislation would provide a trade-based funding stream dedicated to high
     priority projects that will alleviated congestion in the nation’s trade corridors. The motion was made to table this
     item, pending a presentation from Calvert’s office. The motion was seconded and carried by a unanimous
     vote.

4.   ADA – H.R. 3195 (Hoyer) – As written, H.R. 3195 would expand the ADA’s scope and create unnecessary
     lawsuits. The motion was made to oppose H.R. 3195 as written. The motion was seconded and carried by a
     unanimous vote.

5.   California Voters First Act – California First aims to eliminate the conflict of interest resulting from the method by
     which district lines are drawn. A 14-member citizens redistricting commission would be chosen for their
     impartiality, skills and would reflect the State’s demographics. This item will effect only the state legislators. The
     motion was made to support California Voters FIRST Act. The motion was seconded and carried by a
     unanimous vote.

6.   Public Purpose Program – Ziemer reported that there is an effort from The Gas Company to spread the costs of
     programs for low income more equitably between business customers and residents. Residents would see an
     increase of approximately 1%. Ziemer requested a letter of support for this Public Purpose Program. The motion
     was made to support the Public Service Program. The motion was seconded and carried.

7.   Local, State and Federal Staff Updates

     Congresswoman Mary Bono-Mack – Karen Brown introduced herself as the new representative for
     Congresswoman Bono-Mack. Brown distributed press releases regarding the economic stimulus package and
     Protect America Act. Brown reported that her office can provide assistance regarding grant money that is available.

     Assembly Member Dennis Hollingsworth – Tom Rogers reported that Hollingsworth’s office is looking at several
     possible bills for introduction including the possibility of deducting the trade-in value of a vehicle from the taxable
     value of the new vehicle. The main item of concern is the discussions regarding the proposed budget. Rogers has
     been meeting with school superintendents to discuss ways to minimize job losses.

     Assembly member Kevin Jeffries Office – Jeff Greene reported that the proposed deficit is now $14-16 Billion
     and we are currently $600 million per month behind projected revenues. Greene will provide a list of bills at next
     month’s meeting.

     City of Lake Elsinore – Cousins reported that the lake Elsinore Redevelopment Agency recently purchased lake
     front property. March 20th Luncheon will host the Mayor who will address the RCTC issues at the Diamond Club.

     Murrieta Chamber of Commerce – Oliver announced that the Reverse Drawing is set for March 20, 2008 at
     Pechanga Resort & Casino. Rancho Ford Lincoln Mercury is the key sponsor of this event. Their Installation
     banquet is set for June 21, 2008 at South Coast Winery Resort & Spa.

     Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce – Sullivan congratulated Isaac Lizarraga as the recipient of the
     Chairman’s Choice award and Lynn Effinger with the Blood Bank of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties as
     recipient of the Charitable Organization of the Year.

     Wildomar Chamber of Commerce – Marsha Swanson announced that their Installation Dinner will be held on
     March 1, 2008 at Trevi Center. There was discussion on the proposed foreclosure issue requiring homeowners to
     maintain the property or, if approved, the city would have the option of fining or lien the property up to $100,000.

     League of California Cities – Dave Willmon requested to be added on the March 17, 2007 agenda.

     Eastern Municipal Water District – Allred discussed a possible shift of $188 million from water and waste water
     agencies to fund the public safety realignment account which is designed to keep parolees out of prison. The
     council will continue to track this issue.
Meeting was adjourned at 1:15pm

Next meeting will be Monday, March 17, 2008 at the Temecula Chamber of Commerce, 26790 Ynez Court, Temecula, CA

The Southwest California Legislative council thanks our partners:
Southwest Riverside Country Association of Realtors Rancho Ford Lincoln Mercury
Metropolitan Water District                                 Near-Cal Corporation
Economic Development Corp. of Southwest California          Elsinore Valley Municipal Water Dist.
The Gas Company                                             Abbott Vascular
The Murrieta Temecula Group                                 Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce
Arrowhead Credit Union                                      Temecula Valley Bank
Murrieta Chamber of Commerce                                Retail Development Advisors Corp.
Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce
                                                                                                           INFORMATION
                                                                                                         AGENDA ITEM 2
                                                                                     Southwest California Legislative Council
                                                                                                             March 17, 2008

Green Valley Initiative

Presentation

Jeremy M. Harris
Legislative Counsel

Daniel Cozad
Program Director
Green Valley Initiative

Recommended Action

         To support the Green Valley Initiative (GVI) and sign onto the GVI’s resolution as the board sees fit.

Summary

    1.   Green Valley Initiative aims to make the Inland Empire the center of Green Technologies with Balanced Economic
         and Community Development.

    2.   The Initiative will transform Riverside and San Bernardino counties into a region that integrates people and
         businesses with natural resources to create new jobs, greater opportunities and higher quality-of-life.

    3.   This will reduce the region’s long commutes, under-utilized resources and non-cohesive business and land-use
         practices to transform Riverside and San Bernardino counties into a place where sustainable economic development
         and quality of life go hand-in-hand.

    4.   Stakeholders include representatives from area city, tribal and county governments and agencies, universities, school
         districts, utilities, business, cultural and environmental groups, the media and the community.

Background
As provided by the Green Valley Initiative

         History

    1.   On June 1, 2007, ninety-eight of Inland Southern California’s most influential leaders came together to identify
         prospects for a new vision for the Inland Empire: a vision focused on bringing new jobs, greater opportunities and a
         higher quality of life to the region.

    2.   The First Principals Forum launched The Green Valley Initiative, where representatives from area cities and
         government agencies, universities, school districts, businesses and environmental groups met at the historic Mission
         Inn to discuss the opportunities for focused growth in the region.

    3.   The plan: to bring in businesses that will transform the Inland Empire into the nation’s leader in the emerging
         industries of renewable energy, green technology, and recyclable materials.

    4.   Sponsored by GIVE, the Green Institute for Village Empowerment, the forum focused on the steps to be taken to
         channel today’s challenges into tomorrow’s solutions.

    5.   Representatives from the First Principals Forum were split into three groups and asked to consider specific areas of
         sustainability. From that June 1 meeting, they formulated their own set of implementation recommendations during
         a series of three meetings held in July, August and September:

    6.   Group 1: Policy and Sustainable Approaches:
         a) Identified and documented existing areas and models to evaluate for the Inland Empire
         b) Projected the results of implementing policy changes in the I.E.
        c) Created a benchmark for progress and investment
        d) Integrated MSHCP and other environmental/conservation efforts

   7.   Group 2: Sustainable Economic Development:
        a) Identified strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats for the region
        b) Identified capital and funding options
        c) Addressed branding, marketing and perception

   8.   Group 3: The Green Brain Trust/Education:
        a) Refocused education at all levels
        b) Identified and market the quality of IE
        c) Identified a model for technology development plan
        d) View videos from the stakeholder meetings

   9.   A general meeting was held on October 22, 2007, involving all participants from the June Principals Forum as well
        as state officials. It is at this meeting where recommendations from each of the three groups were presented.

        Why the Inland Empire was chosen for a Green Valley

   10. More than 2 million new residents will arrive in the Inland Empire within the next 15 years. As a result, the IE will
       maintain its role as the fastest growing region in the state in terms of job and population expansion.

   11. The Inland Empire region has the capacity to build more than 30 million square feet of Class A office space and
       according to the 2007 Inland Empire Regional Outlook Conference the area has 361million square feet of industrial
       space, of which approximately 310 million (85.8%) is warehouse and distribution.

   12. The Inland Empire boasts five local and international airports, four major railroad systems and 10 interstates and
       highways with access to the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. This positions the region as a critical player in
       the goods-movement infrastructure.

   13. The region has over 40 colleges, universities, private training schools and institutes. Many of these institutions
       maintain strong focus in the applied sciences, engineering, business and entrepreneurial studies and medicine. More
       than 400,000 degreed workers presently live in the region with an additional 222,000 expected by 2020.

   14. Residents of the Inland Empire are motivated to conserve. Nine out of ten recycle and one-third actively conserve
       water. There is a prevailing sentiment that government should take the lead in providing incentives for businesses to
       adopt environmentally-friendly technology.

   15. Several leading-high tech companies are located within the region including Kramer Junction’s solar farms in
       Barstow, Heliostate’s thermal electric farm, Palm Spring’s wind farms, Phoenix Motorcars’ electric car company
       and many more. International Interest in Green Technologies

   16. According to the December 2007 poll by the National Venture Capital Association, over 80 percent of venture
       capitalists believe that in 2008 firms involved in CleanTech will attract a greater share of VC funds, both
       domestically and internationally.

   17. The Inland Empire’s climate is well suited for renewable energy production with over 270 days of sunshine and
       consistent wind patterns.

   18. Residents of the Inland Empire are willing to support businesses working to be environmentally-friendly. In a recent
       regional survey, 90 percent of respondents indicated being more inclined to purchase from companies that had an
       environmentally supportive vision. They also indicated willingness to pay a premium price to support these
       businesses.

   19. Inland Empire residents face some of the longest commute times in the country adding to the region’s air quality
       concerns. This indicates a clear need for professional and skilled-labor positions within the region. According to the
       American Lung Association, the Inland Empire is at the top of list of most air polluted regions.

Arguments in Support
    1.   A survey conducted by the Green Valley Imitative shows that Inland Empire residents are looking for balance in
         their lives when it comes to social, economic and environmental factors that ultimately determine their quality of
         life.

    2.   The Inland Empire has been identified a baseline of green assets from businesses built on sustainable concepts to
         protection and preservation of natural resources.

Supporting

Green Valley Initiative Co-Conveners
Paul Biane, Chairman: San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors
John Tavaglione, Chairman: Riverside County Board of Supervisors
Al Karnig, President: Cal State University San Bernardino
Joe Norbeck, Director: CE CERT-University of California Riverside
William Carney, President/CEO: Inland Empire Economic Partnership
Dan Silver: Endangered Habitats League
Jane Block: Riverside Land Conservancy
Rick Bishop, Executive Director: Western Riverside Council of Governments
John Wohlmuth, Executive Director: Coachella Valley Association of Governments
Cindy Roth, President/CEO: Riverside Chamber of Commerce
Judi Penman, Executive Vice President: San Bernardino Area Chamber of Commerce
Lynn Valbuena, Chair TASIN: San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
Ali Sahabi, President/CEO: SE Corporation/Dos Lagos

Arguments in Opposition
Unknown at this time.

Opposing
Unknown at this time.

RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION OF THE _______________ CHAMBER RECOGNIZING THE GREEN VALLEY INITIATIVE
(GVI) AND ENDORSING PARTICIPAITON AS A GREEN VALLEY ORGANIZATION

WHEREAS, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties along with other government, business education, community and
tribal representatives convened the initial efforts in June, 2007 and over 400 parties have participated in the development of
the recommendations of the Green Valley Initiative; and

WHEREAS, the Green Valley Initiative is a project of the Green Institute for Village Empowerment (GIVE) which seeks to
empower, encourage and promote principles of sustainability through education, training, and leading by example; and

WHEREAS, the vision of the Green Valley Initiative is to see the Inland Empire Region become a center of green
technology with balanced economic and community development; and

WHEREAS, its mission is to transform Riverside and San Bernardino counties into a region that integrates people and
business with natural resources to create jobs, new ventures, greater opportunities and a higher quality of life; and

WHEREAS, the Green Valley Initiative works with the County and all jurisdictions, civic, business, economic development,
educational and tribal groups, to develop model policy and programs for sustainable economic development, education and
growth; and

WHEREAS Regional organizations, counties and cities and businesses will work together through Green Valley
Coordinators to accomplish the goal of creating a healthy economic and environmental future; and

WHEREAS, the efforts of this initiative benefit all Green Valley participants and the public;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the __________ Chamber of Commerce that we hereby become a Green
Valley Organizations and will provide a Chamber coordinator and participate in the development and implementation of
Sustainable Economic Development Programs for the Region.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the _______________Chamber of Commerce this _______ day of____________ 2008.
                                                                                                           INFORMATION
                                                                                                         AGENDA ITEM 3
                                                                                     Southwest California Legislative Council
                                                                                                             March 17, 2008

Proposition 98: Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property

Proposition 98, also known as the California Property Owners & Farmland Protection Act (CPOFPA) is on the ballot for the
June 3, 2008 election. Proposition 98 is a competing proposition with Proposition 99: Eminent Domain. Acquisition of
Owner-Occupied Residence, also known as the Homeowners and Private Property Protection Act.

Presentation

Jeremy M. Harris
Legislative Counsel

Larry Gilbert
Orange County Chairman
Proposition 98 Campaign

Recommended Action

         Staff does not have a recommended position at this time.

Summary

    1.   Proposition 98 aims to protect private property, including businesses and farms, from government profiting by
         seizing property from one private property owner and giving it to another private entity.

    2.   Private property may not be taken by eminent domain for private use under any circumstances (e.g. to build a
         shopping center, auto mall or industrial park).

    3.   Property may be taken by eminent domain only for public use (e.g.. freeway construction, parks, schools).

    4.   Property may not be taken by government and used for the same purposes (e.g. residential housing cannot be used
         for government housing).

    5.   Family farms and open space are protected from seizures by government for the purpose of selling the natural
         resources.

Background

    1.   Provides full compensation to the property owner, even when property is seized for public projects.

    2.   Removes the current $10,000 cap on reimbursable expenses associated with legal or other expenses.

    3.   Property owners will be compensated for all reasonable costs associated with moving, loss of business, and
         reestablishment of the business.

    4.   Should a public agency take immediate possession of property, the owner is entitled to prompt release of the money
         offered while keeping the right to challenge the agency's offer, and its right to take the property.

    5.   Includes a provision that requires a public agency to return the seized property to its original owner if the public
         project is ever abandoned. Under this provision, property would also be taxed at the pre-condemnation value. This
         is known as the abandonment clause in the proposition.

    6.   Limits government’s ability to decide the amount a property owner can charge to sell or lease his property.
    7.   Does not limit government’s ability to use eminent domain for public projects like roads, parks and water supply
         projects, nor does it limit local zoning ordinances and land use decisions, workplace regulations or projects that
         benefit the health and safety of a community or environment.

Arguments in Support

    1.   The most controversial provision of the proposition is one that stops the government from setting “the price at which
         property owners sell or lease their property.” It is argued, in a free society, it should not be controversial at all.

    2.   The Constitution of the State of California provides that "All people by nature are free and independent and have
         inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting
         property . . ." Proposition 98 reaffirms and strengthens the private property protections set forth in our state
         constitution.

    3.   According to Californians for Property Rights Protection, among the 1000 or more cases of eminent domain abuse
         in California, small business owners are the most common victims.

    4.   Property rights are a fundamental, core value among California voters. Statewide survey research shows more than
         67% support for an eminent domain reform ballot initiative - Republicans, Democrats, independents, seniors and
         baby boomers all support the initiative.

    5.   Enhanced farmland protections provided in this amendment increase support for this measure among
         environmentally concerned voters. Prohibiting sale or lease price regulations protects property owners when they
         sell or lease their property to others.

    6.   Nothing in Proposition 98 would prohibit or limit legitimate land use decisions, zoning, work place laws, or
         environmental protections. Nor would it expose public agencies to costly litigation.

Arguments in Opposition

    1.   Wealthy landlords spent millions to get this proposition on the ballot to eliminate rent control as a hidden agenda
         and not about eminent domain.

    2.   Would allow landlords to raise rents on seniors and working families by eliminating rent control.

    3.   Would stop future water projects, destroy local-use planning, erode environmental protections and lead to higher
         taxpayer costs.

    4.   According to the Association of California Water Agencies Proposition 98 could derail needed groundwater and
         surface water storage projects around the stateand calls this flaw in the measure "cause for alarm."
    5.   Proposition 98 could lead to thousands of frivolous lawsuits and paralyze approval of new homes, businesses and
         other projects.
    6.   Opponents of Proposition 98 and Proponents of Proposition 99 argue that in the definitions section of the
         Proposition 98 has a clause that would prohibit laws and regulations that “transfer an economic benefit to one or
         more private persons at the expense of the private owner.” Courts have ruled that virtually all local land-use
         decisions can transfer economic benefit from one party to another, which would lead to countless lawsuits.

Support
As of February 29, 2008
                                                                    Taxpayer Groups
Property Rights Organizations                                       California Republican Taxpayers Association
California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights              California Taxpayer Protection Committee
Californians United for Redevelopment Education,                    Central Solano Citizen/Taxpayer Group
Orange County                                                       Contra Costa Taxpayers Association
Grantville Action Group                                             Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Property Owners Association of Riverside County                     Inland Empire Taxpayers Association
Property Rights Alliance                                            League of Placer County Taxpayers
Sonoma County Land Rights Coalition                                 National Tax Limitation Committee
                                                                    National Taxpayers Union
Sacramento County Taxpayers League                     Senator George Runner
San Diego Tax Fighters                                 Assemblymember Joel Anderson
Shasta County Taxpayers Association                    Assemblymember John J. Benoit
Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association                   Assemblymember Chuck DeVore
Sonoma County Taxpayers Association                    Assemblymember Ted Gaines
United Organizations of Taxpayers, Inc.                Assemblymember Bob Huff
United Taxpayers of Imperial County                    Assemblymember Doug La Malfa
Ventura County Taxpayers Association                   Assemblymember Bill Maze
Yolo County Taxpayers Association                      Assemblymember Sharon Runner
                                                       Assemblymember Jim Silva
Agriculture                                            Assemblymember Audra Strickland
California Canning Peach Association                   Assemblymember Van Tran
California Dairies, Inc.                               Assemblymember Mimi Walters
California Farm Bureau Federation                      Bill Leonard, Board of Equalization
Fresno Cooperative Raisin Growers, Inc.
Kern County Farm Bureau                                Elected Officials - Local
Al Montna, Montna Farms                                Stephen Atchley, Pomona City Council
Nevada County Farm Bureau                              Bill Crawford, South Lake Tahoe City Council
Sacramento County Farm Bureau                          Jack Fuller, Oceanside City Council
San Diego County Farm Bureau                           Kevin Hanley, Auburn City Council
                                                       Calvin Hinton, Pacifica City Council
Faith Based                                            Sue Horne, Nevada County Board of Supervisors
Capitol Resource Family Impact                         Bruce Kranz, Placer County Board of Supervisors
Victory Chapel, San Bernardino                         Dan Logue, Yuba County Board of Supervisors
                                                       Jack Lynch, Angels Camp City Council
Business                                               Jeff Miller, Corona City Council
California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce               John Nicoletti, Yuba County Board of Supervisors
National Federation of Independent Business            Chris Norby, Orange County Board of Supervisors
Port Hueneme Chamber of Commerce                       Curt Pringle, Anaheim City Council
Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council              Gail Reavis, Mission Viejo City Council
                                                       Leo Trujillo, Santa Maria City Council
Housing Providers                                      Robert Twist, San Marino City Council
Apartment Association, California Southern Cities      Kurt Vander Weide, Turlock City Council
Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles (AAGLA)   Kim Dolbow Vann, Colusa County Board of Supervisors
Apartment Owner Association of California (AOA)        Larry Wahl, Chico City Council
Berkeley Property Owners Association                   Marie Waldron, Escondido City Council
California Housing Providers Coalition                 Eric Ziedrich, Healdsburg City Council
California Mobilehome Parkowners Alliance
Manufactured Housing Educational Trust                 Oppose
Manufactured Housing Institute                         As of February 29, 2008
Orange County Apartment Association
Western Manufactured Housing Communities               Senior Rights Organizations
Association                                            AARP
                                                       California Alliance for Retired Americans
Political                                              Older Women's Leage of California
California Federation of Republican Women              Gray Panthers California
California Republican Party                            San Francisco Gray Panthers
Libertarian Party of California                        Senior Action Network
Riverside County Libertarian Party
                                                       Public Safety
Cities                                                 California Police Chiefs Association
City of Rancho Santa Margarita                         California Fire Chiefs Association
City of Westminster
                                                       Homeowner Rights Associations
Elected Officials - Statewide                          League of California Homeowners
Senator Jim Battin                                     Golden State Manufactured-Home Owners League, Inc.
Senator Dave Cox                                       (GSMOL)
Senator Jeff Denham                                    California Mobile Homes Resource and Action
Senator Tom Harman                                     Association
Senator Dennis Hollingsworth                           Coalition of Mobile Home Owners- California
Senator Tom McClintock                                 Resident Owned Parks, Inc. (ROP)
California Coalition for Rural Housing               San Francisco Tenants Union
American Canyon Manufactured Home Owners Coalition   Santa Monicans for Renters' Rights
Butte County Mobile-Home Owners Association          Tenderloin Housing Clinic (THC)
GSMOL Chapter 1613
GSMOL Chapter 1539                                   Environmental
GSMOL Chapter 1517                                   National Wildlife Federation
GSMOL Chapter 1279                                   Sierra Club California
GSMOL Chapter 708                                    California League of Conservation Voters
Homeowners Association of Cameron Mobile Estates     Natural Resources Defense Council
Mobile Home Owners Coalition                         Wild Heritage Planners
Mobilehome Residents Alliance of Nevada County       Defenders of Wildlife
Mobile Parks West Homeowners Association             Environmental Defense
New Frontier Homeowner Association                   Planning and Conservation League
Neighborhood Friends                                 California Oak Foundation
Palos Verdes Shores Homeowners Association           Greenbelt Alliance
Santa Ana Mobile Home Owners Association             Healthy Homes Collaborative
                                                     Mariposans for the Environment and Responsible
Consumer Rights Organizations                        Government
Consumer Federation of California
Consumers Coalition of California                    Water
                                                     Association of California Water Agencies
Business                                             Public Interest/Community
California Black Chamber of Commerce                 League of Women Voters of California
Silicon Valley Leadership Group                      Western Center on Law and Poverty
                                                     San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association
Agriculture                                          (SPUR)
Western Growers Association                          Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center
                                                     Community Advocacy Center
Education                                            Inner City Law Center
California Teachers Association                      Los Angeles Community Action Network
California School Boards Association                 Los Angeles Community Legal Center and Educational
Association of California School Administrators      Miracle Mile Action Committee
                                                     One Stop Immigration Counselor
                                                     Our City
Renter Advocates/Housing Providers                   People's CORE
Housing California                                   Union de Vecinos
California Housing Consortium (CHC)
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation         Labor
Coalition for Economic Survival                      State Building and Construction Trades Council
Coalition to Protect California Renters              AFSCME 2712
Tenants Together                                     International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Eviction Defense Collaborative                       Marin County Building and Construction Trades Council
Coalition L.A.                                       Koreatown Immigrant Workers Alliance
Council of Tenants- Los Angeles
Eviction Defense Network                             Ethnic
First Community Housing                              Black, Asian, Minority and Ethnic Renaissance CDC
Housing Justice Campaign
Community Housing Partnership                        Associations
Concilio de Inquilinos: Local 1012                   League of California Cities
Housing Rights Center                                California State Association of Counties
Inquilinos Unidos                                    California Special Districts Association
Just Cause Oakland                                   California Chapter of the American Planning Association
Lincoln Place Tenants Association                    California Redevelopment Association
Oakland Tenants Union
San Diego Renters Union                              Faith
San Francisco Council of Community Houing            California Church Impact
Organizations                                        St. Anthony Foundation
                                                                                                             INFORMATION
                                                                                                           AGENDA ITEM 4
                                                                                       Southwest California Legislative Council
                                                                                                               March 17, 2008

Proposition 99: Eminent Domain. Acquisition of Owner-Occupied Residence

Proposition 99, also known as the Homeowners and Private Property Protection Act is on the ballot for the June 3, 2008
election. Proposition 99 is a competing proposition with Proposition 98: Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private
Property also known as the California Property Owners & Farmland Protection Act (CPOFPA).

Presentation

Jeremy M. Harris
Legislative Counsel

Dave Willmon
Regional Public Affairs manager
League of California Cities

Recommended Action

         Staff does not have a recommended position at this time.

Summary

    1.   Aims to prohibit the government from using eminent domain to take a home to transfer to another private party.

    2.   Will not change state or local rent control laws or ordinances as Proposition 98 would abolish rent control.

Background

    1.   Amends the California Constitution to respond specifically to the facts and the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court
         in Kelo v. City of New London, in which the Court held that it was permissible for a city to use eminent domain to
         take the home of a Connecticut woman for purpose of economic development.

    2.   Since that U.S. Supreme Court decision, more than 40 states have reformed their eminent domain laws.

    3.   Respects the decision of the voters to reject Proposition 90 in November 2006, a measure that included eminent
         domain reform but also included unrelated provisions that would have subjected taxpayers to enormous financial
         liability from a wide variety of traditional legislative and administrative actions to protect the public welfare.

    4.   Provides a comprehensive and exclusive basis in the California Constitution to compensate property owners when
         property is taken or damaged by state or local governments, without affecting legislative and administrative actions
         taken to protect the public health, safety and welfare.

Arguments in Support

    1.   True eminent domain reform without the “hidden agenda” of eliminating rent control laws and ordinances.

    2.   Proposition 99 will not threaten California’s water quality and supply as does Proposition 98, argued by proponents
         of this proposition.

Arguments in Opposition

    1.   According to the Institute of Justice, a non-profit organization, it says of Proposition 99, “Californians require real,
         substantive reform for everyone and the Act does not come close to providing it.”

    2.   Argues that many provisions have been left out of Proposition 99, but are included in Proposition 98 such as “quick
         take” protection, abandonment clause and just compensation.
Supporting
As of February 29, 2008

Homeowners                                           Consumer Federation of California
League of California Homeowners                      Consumers Coalition of California
Golden State Manufactured-Home Owners League, Inc.
(GSMOL)                                              Faith
California Mobile Homes Resource and Action          California Church Impact
Association
Coalition of Mobile Home Owners- California          Ethnic
Resident Owned Parks, Inc. (ROP)                     Black, Asian, Minority and Ethnic Renaissance CDC
California Coalition for Rural Housing
American Canyon Manufactured Home Owners             Renter Advocates/Housing Providers
Coalition                                            Housing California
Butte County Mobile-Home Owners Association          California Housing Consortium (CHC)
GSMOL Chapter 1613                                   California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
GSMOL Chapter 1539                                   Coalition to Protect California Renters
GSMOL Chapter 1517                                   Coalition for Economic Survival
GSMOL Chapter 1279                                   Eviction Defense Collaborative
GSMOL Chapter 708                                    Tenants Together
Homeowners Association of Cameron Mobile Estates     Coalition L.A.
Mobilehome Residents Alliance of Nevada County       Concilio de Inquilinos: Local 1012
Mobile Parks West Homeowners Association             First Community Housing
New Frontier Homeowner Association                   Housing Rights Center
Neighborhood Friends                                 Inquilinos Unidos
Palos Verdes Shores Homeowners Association           Just Cause Oakland
Santa Ana Mobile Home Owners Association             Sacramento Mutual Housing Association
                                                     San Diego Renters Union
Senior                                               San Francisco Council of Community Houing
California Alliance for Retired Americans            Organizations
Older Women's Leage of California                    San Francisco Tenants Union
Gray Panthers California                             Santa Monicans for Renters' Rights
San Francisco Gray Panthers                          Tenderloin Housing Clinic (THC)
Senior Action Network                                Housing Justice Campaign

Public Safety                                        Labor
California Police Chiefs Association                 State Building and Construction Trades Council
California Fire Chiefs Association                   SEIU 721
                                                     AFSCME 2712
Environmental                                        International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
National Wildlife Federation                         Marin County Building and Construction Trades Council
Sierra Club California                               Ironworkers Union 433 Los Angeles
California League of Conservation Voters             Koreatown Immigrant Workers Alliance
Natural Resources Defense Council
Wild Heritage Planners                               Public Interest/Community
Defenders of Wildlife                                League of Women Voters of California
Environmental Defense                                Western Center on Law and Poverty
Planning and Conservation League                     Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center
California Oak Foundation                            Community Advocacy Center
Greenbelt Alliance                                   Los Angeles Community Legal Center and Educational
Healthy Homes Collaborative                          Los Angeles Community Action Network
Mariposans for the Environment and Responsible       Miracle Mile Action Committee
Government                                           Our City
                                                     People's CORE
Business                                             Union de Vecinos
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
                                                     Associations
Education                                            League of California Cities
Association of California School Administrators      California State Association of Counties
                                                     California Special Districts Association
Consumer                                             California Chapter of the American Planning Association
California Redevelopment Association

Opposing
As of February 29, 2008

National Federation of Independent Business
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Californians for Property Rights Protection
                                                                                                                 INFORMATION
                                                                                                               AGENDA ITEM 5
                                                                                           Southwest California Legislative Council
                                                                                                                   March 17, 2008

Legislative Report #2

Presentation

Jeremy M. Harris
Legislative Counsel

Jolyn Murphy
District Director
Congressman Ken Calvert’s District Office

Tabled Legislation

H. R. 5102 (Calvert) ON TIME Act

Recommended Position:

         The SWCLC conceptually supports the proposed draft legislation by Congressman Calvert and will reserve the right
         to take a position once the legislation is introduced.

Summary

    1.   The ON TIME Act is the Our Nation’s Trade Infrastructure, Mobility and Efficiency Act. In its current form, this
         legislation will provide a trade-based funding stream dedicated to high priority projects that will alleviate congestion
         in the nation’s trade corridors.

    2.   Examples of trade corridor improvements include truck-only freeway lanes (designed to free up other lanes) and
         underpasses or overpasses at train crossings so vehicles would no longer have to wait as trains crawl by.

    3.   The fee would be three-quarters of 1 percent of the value of each import or export shipment and capped at $500 per
         shipment. A shipment could be one or more cargo containers.
    4.   It is estimated that the fee could raise $3 billion to $5 billion a year annually during the 10-year life span of the bill.
         This includes up to $500 million a year for projects in Southern California.

    5.   The Act establishes an 80% federal, 20% non-federal funding matching requirement for projects within each state.

    6.   The ON TIME Act would sunset in 10 years.

Background

The Goods Movement Challenge

    1.   The U.S and global economies continue to experience tremendous growth – driven largely by increases in
         international trade.

    2.   Increases in U.S. trade have and will continue to result in an exponentially greater rise in the amount of goods moved
         into and out of our nation’s ports of entry.

    3.   The growth in the amount of goods moving to and from our ports of entry increasingly concentrates transportation
         impacts in our nation’s trade corridors.

    4.   Our nation lacks a national goods movement policy. Current funding mechanisms are inadequate to address these
         specific challenges.

Proposed Solution

                                                                                                                                       19
1.   The ON TIME Act would:

         o    Direct Department of Transportation (DOT) to define National Trade Gateway Corridors;
         o    Establish strict and meaningful project eligibility;
         o    Set forth a .075 % fee (capped at $500) on the value of freight moving in and out of our nation’s ports of
              entry, all of which is dedicated to transportation projects in the Corridor in which it is collected;
         o    Empower state transportation agencies to prioritize and select eligible projects;
         o    Require an 80% Federal, 20% Non-Federal match; and Sunsets in 10 years.

2.   No more than 2% of the revenue generated by the fee will be set aside for administration of the fee. 2/3 of that 2%
     will go to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to collect the fee on the import side. 1/3 of that 2% will go to
     DHS and the Department of Commerce to collect the fee on the export side.

3.   The Act apportions collected funds to State departments of transportation at a level equal to the annual amount of fees
     generated by the ports and gateways in each State.

4.   Each State shall apportion its annual allotment of fees to eligible projects within the boundaries of the National Trade
     Gateway Corridor Fund.

5.   Annual apportionments to eligible projects within the boundaries of a National Trade Gateway

6.   Corridor must total the amount of fees collected at the Corridor’s corresponding port or gateway.

7.   If a corridor within the boundaries of one or more state the money will be distributed; 50% going to the total lane
     miles of Federal-Aid Highways and 50% going to the total vehicle miles traveled on lanes on Federal-Aid Highways.

8.   The projects will be chosen by directing the Secretary to establish project selection guidelines which a State
     department of transportation shall follow in providing funds to eligible projects.

9.   The selection guidelines shall include, but not be limited to, a requirement that a State department of transportation:
         o Consult with local governments, port authorities, regional planning organizations, as well as public and
              private freight stakeholders during the project selection process.
         o Adhere to already established metropolitan and/or statewide planning processes. Develop a selection process
              that is transparent, in writing, and publicly available.
         o Establish a process for rating proposed projects that clearly identifies the basis for rating projects in
              accordance with the purpose of this act.

10. The Secretary of Transportation shall allocate money to State transportation departments for eligible projects.

11. The National Trade Gateway Corridor defines that corridors cannot extend more than 300 miles from a port of entry.

12. The Secretary can determine that only a single corridor is necessary for multiple ports of entry.

13. The Secretary shall release its proposed National Trade Gateway Corridors no later than 180 days after the enactment
    of this law.

14. The Secretary will allow for 45 days of public comments by the public to receive comments regarding the boundaries
    of the corridors

15. The Secretary shall release its final National Trade Gateway Corridors no later than 360 days after the enactment of
    this law.

16. Directs the Secretary to issue regulations to carry out the objectives of the Act no later than one year after enactment.

17. Defines “eligible project” as a project or activity eligible for assistance under chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code,
    or a publicly-owned intermodal freight transfer facilities, access to the facilities, and operational improvements for the
    facilities (including capital investment for intelligent transportation systems), except that projects located within the
    boundaries of port terminals shall only include the surface transportation infrastructure modifications necessary to
    facilitate direct intermodal interchange, transfer, and access into and out of the port.

                                                                                                                             20
Current Positions

State Legislation

Bill                Author     Title                                               Position

AB 1954             Jeffries   High-Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes                     Support 02/25/08

AB 1968             Jeffries   Transportation Infrastructure Emergencies           Support 11/14/07

AB 2127             Benoit     Small Business Family Scheduling Option 2008        Support 01/28/08

SB 1316             Correa     Transportation Facilities: Tolls: Orange & Riverside Support 02/25/08

Federal Legislation

Bill                Author     Title                                               Position

H.R. 3195           Hoyer      Restore Intent & Protection of the ADA of 1990      Oppose 02/25/08




                                                                                                       21

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Description: Economic Development Corporation of Southwest Riverside Co document sample