My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2005-07-11
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009 partial
>
2005
>
AgdaPkt 2005-07-11
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/12/2005 11:23:18 AM
Creation date
7/7/2005 4:08:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Date
7/11/2005
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
213
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Legislative <br /> <br />Ø1-/3 <br /> <br />Bill <br /> <br />Action <br /> <br />............................................................... <br /> <br />The League's request for an amendment was <br />not approved by the Assembly Local Government <br />Committee. Staff: Daniel Carrigg; Status: <br />AsApps; Position: Oppose Unless Amended. <br /> <br />ENVIRONMENTAL <br /> <br />S8 1059 (Escutia). Transmission Corridor <br />Zones. Local Preemption. S8 1059 is a two- <br />year bill and as such it is dead for the year! Spon- <br />sored by the Administration, this measure would <br />authorize the California Energy Commission to <br />designate "transmission conidor zones" (TCZs) <br />and require local governments to amend their <br />general plans to reflect any TCZ within their <br />boundaries. While the League agrees with the <br />need to do better long range planning for future <br />transmission line needs, the process included in <br />S8 1059 is severely flawed, to say the least. <br /> <br />The coalition of local governments opposed to <br />S8 1059, led by the League, the California State <br />Association of Counties (CSAC) and the Regional <br />Council of Rural Counties (RCRC), were recently <br />joined by a growing number of private business, <br />landowner and developer groups, who either <br />officially opposed the bill or expressed strong <br />reservations about its provisions. Given this <br />growing level of opposition, the author and Admin- <br />istration decided to make S8 1059 a two-year bill. <br /> <br />Discussions will take place during the fall to try <br />to find a workable compromise that will promote <br />better long range planning without the problems <br />associated with the current version of S8 1059. <br />Thanks to cities that responded to the League's <br />requests to send letter of opposition. Staff: <br />Yvonne Hunter; Status: AsRules, two-year bill; <br />Position: Oppose unless amended. <br /> <br />ACA 13 (Harman). Storm Water and Flood <br />Control Fees. Proposition 218. ACA 13, which <br />is sponsored by the Administration and strongly <br />supported by the League, would add storm water <br />and flood control fees to those types of fees that <br />currently are exempt from the voter approval <br /> <br />requirements of Proposition 218. The bill is part of <br />the Administration's legislative package to address <br />flood control issues, which also includes AB 1665 <br />(Laird). <br /> <br />As a Constitutional amendment, ACA 13 faces <br />the daunting task of securing a two-thirds vote on <br />the Assembly Floor - and at this time, it is clear <br />that in its current form, that is not possible. Thus, <br />the League has been told by representatives of the <br />Administration that ACA 13 will not move ahead in <br />its current form this year and most likely is a two- <br />year bill. <br /> <br />The negotiations on A8 1665, while ongoing <br />and productive, appear to have stalled. The newly <br />amended version of the bill now in print soon will <br />form the basis of continued negotiations. It is <br />unclear whether they have stalled temporarily or <br />permanently this year. The League has no posi- <br />tion on A8 1665, but has been participating in the <br />stakeholder meetings. It appears at this time that <br />AB 1665 is a two-year bill as well. <br /> <br />We'll keep you posted as events unfold. Staff: <br />Yvonne Hunter; Status: AsLG; Position: <br />Support. <br /> <br />S8 861 (Speier). Dangerous and Vicious <br />Dogs. Local Regulation. As amended last week, <br />SB 861 would authorize local governments to <br />enact regulations related tD dangerous and vicious <br />dogs that are specific to individual breeds, pro- <br />vided that the local regulations do not constitute a <br />ban on the breed. Additional amendments <br />adopted by the author this week in the Assembly <br />Local Government Committee would narrow the <br />types of local agency regulation to breed-specific <br />requirements for neutering and spaying, and <br />breeding restrictions, The bill returns to local <br />governments some limited regulatory authority <br />that was lost in the late 1980s when legislation <br />banned any type of breed-specific local ordi- <br />nances. <br /> <br />SB 861 is in response to a number of tragic <br />situations in which Pit Bulls and other large dogs <br /> <br />PRIORITY FOCUSIPAGE 5 <br /> <br />Visit the League's Official Websiteuwww.cacities.org <br /> <br />_U,""" '""T"""-'"'" <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.