AgdaPkt 2005-06-13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

/A.. It:!' Legislative Bill Action ...............................................~c~............. '-- composed of city attomeys and housing advocates CDuld discuss issues with the law and se~k pos- sible CDnsensus. The League has been WDrking , . with the author and sponsors of S8 575, and progress has been made, but a number of out- . standing issues remain to be resolved. The League will continue to WDrk with the author and sponsors of this bill, and will keep you posted as the discussions evolve. Staff: Dan Carrigg; Status: AsLG, Hearing: June 15; Position: Review and Comment. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AB 348 (Arambula) Small Business Certifica- tion and Reciprocity Prognlm. This bill would authorize the State Department of General Ser- vices (DGS) to accept small business certifications by a local agency, ifthe agency has used ceriifica- tion criteria and a review process similar to tt"ose used by DGS. DGS WDuld be required to WDrk with cities, CDunties and special districts to develop a statewide small business certification application that all agencies CDuld use. Cities wiih small business certification programs should review this bill for potential impacts. Staff: Dan Carrigg; Status: SenGO Mod, Eft & Acct; Position: Review and Comment. ENVIRONMENTAL SB 1 05~ (Escutia). Electricity Transmission Lines. Land Use Preemption. Beware - a state designated electric line transmission corridor may be CDming to your city and you WDn't be able to do anything about it! In spite of intense effort$ to by the League, CSAC, RCRC, Southem California Edison Company and the Califomia Fann Bureau Federa- tion to educate members of the Senate, the real world problems with S8 1059 CDntinue to be ignored, This 'Neek, the bill passed the Senate on a vote of 32-0, Only Senator Mike Machado spoke out about the problems with the bill. SB 1059 WDuld authorize the California Energy Commission to designate "transm.ssion CDrridor zones.. Local govemments WDuld be required to amend their general plans to be CDnsistent with the TCZs - without reimbursement. In an at- tempt to promote statewide'transmission line planning, a WDrthy goal, SB 1059 WDuld result in local land use preemption, CDstly and mandatory general plan revisions for local govemments, uncertainty and CDnfusion regarding what" is a . CDmpatible use or permitted project within a TCl (thus impacting both local governments and the development CDmmunity), and potential regula- tory takings lawsuits filed against local govern- ments. S8 1059 is silent on how wide the TCl would be. Would it be 1000 feet, one mile or five miles wide? In a 1989 report, the CEC describes a transmission line CDrridor êJlS a'sirip of land varying from two to five miles in width ("Electric Power Line. Permitting in Califoll1i~.). We have asked the GEC if this definition reflects their current thinking. To date, we have not received a definitive response. Regardless of the width, the bill would tie up large swaths of land for five, 10, 20, or more years until the transmission line planning process moves to the Public Utilities Commission phase. During that time period, property owners would have no certainty about whether they could develop their property or what the CDmpatible uses CDuld be. Further, if a TCl is de-desig- nated, who will reimburse the property owner and local community for lost development opportuni- ties (it is important to note that the PUC currently has the authority to approve a transmission line route, which is about 300 feet wide and at that time, can preempt local land use authority and give the project proponent eminent domain authority)? S8 1059, which is sponsored by the Adminis- tration, moves next to the Assembly, where it is likely to be heard by both the Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee and the Assembly Local Government Committee. Cities should PAGE 6/PRIORITY FOCUS Visit the League's Official Website -- www.cacities.org