Laserfiche WebLink
April 19, 2002 <br /> Issue #16-2002 <br /> <br /> anaty~i~,, commenlary and updates on legislath, e and policy issues that affect cafifornia cities <br /> <br /> HOUSING ELEMENT NEGOTIATIONS CONTINUE <br /> Hot Bills e2 3 L ,le Con 'nu /n din Pa nat of y Pat i <br /> The long and complicated negotiations over a potential comprehensive <br />· · · · tO Watch housing element reform package are continuing in a taskforce led by Assem- <br />_' bly Member Pat Wiggins, Chair of the Assembly Local Government Committee, <br />; sa 1521 and Assembly Member Alan Lowenthal, Chair of the Assembly Housing Com- <br />_' (Kuehl). Land mittee. <br /> <br />· Use. Model Land <br />i As with any complicated negotiations, there have been numerous high <br />Use Planning and Iow points in the discussions, but there appears to be a general sense <br />: Ordinance. from all parties that progress is being made, and the opportunity continues <br />-' AB 1890 to exist for a larger deal. A most recent encouraging sign occurred in a <br />· meet. ing on April 16 during which the Department of Housing and Commu- <br />· (Horton). City nity Development proposed a revised draft of language on the regional <br />· Employees. Civil housing need allocation process (RHNA) incorporating some concepts advo- <br />· SerVice Board. cated by local government groups. Given that the concurrence and approval <br />-" of the Administration is key to the success of any broad housing element <br />_' reform legislation, the department's engagement in drafting language is <br />· appreciated. For more, see page 2. <br /> <br />· RESPONSE ISSUED TO CPUC CONCERNING RECENT DECISION <br />· ON FRANCHISE FEES <br /> <br />· The City and County of San Francisco submitted a reply to the California <br />· Public Utilities Commission's (CPUC) request for comments on a recent decision <br /> Want more details on <br />these and other bills? on franchise fees related to California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) <br />Log on to the League of energy purchases. (See related article in Priority Focus April 12, 2002.) The <br />California Cities Web site CPUC referred the issue to the Administrative Law Judge for a legal opinion. <br />at www. cacities, org andAdministrative Law Judge (ALJ) Pulsifer posed a series of questions related to <br />click on Legislative franchise fees and the CDWR rate agreement (Decision 02-02-052) and re- <br />Advocacy. <br /> quested reply comments by April 16, 2002. For more, see page 3. <br /> <br /> Page 3 · CABLE MODEM SERVICE NOT SUBJECT TO FRANCHISE FEES <br /> · CITIES URGED TO PARTICIPATE IN HOUSING SURVEY <br /> Page 4 · LEGISLATIVE BILL SUMMARIES <br /> <br /> <br />