My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2005-09-12
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009 partial
>
2005
>
AgdaPkt 2005-09-12
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/6/2012 4:45:24 PM
Creation date
9/8/2005 1:47:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Date
9/12/2005
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.
/
210
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 />¿/;{-7' <br /> <br />Bill <br /> <br />Action <br /> <br />............................................................... <br /> <br />Furthermore, the League's suggested amend- <br />ments delete the requirement that local govern- <br />ments adopt the best management practices <br />developed by the Task Force into local ordinances. <br />Instead, prior to approving a project, a city or <br />county would require a project proponent to <br />provide a summary of how it plans to implement <br />the mitigation measures required by the local air <br />district, which already has the authority to require <br />NOA mitigation for most large projects. For those <br />projects not subject to air district authority, a city <br />or county would be required to provide a one-page <br />summary of mitigation measures that could be <br />taken. Finally, local governments would be re- <br />quired to consider the best management practices <br />suggested by the Task Force, and adopt those it <br />deems appropriate. <br /> <br />The League thanks Senator Ortiz and her staff <br />for working closely with the League and for under- <br />standing and responding to our concerns. It is <br />likely that the amended version of SB 655 will not <br />be available until later next week. Staff: Yvonne <br />Hunter; Status: Pending on Assembly Floor; <br />Position: Watch; anticipated neutral. <br /> <br />ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES <br /> <br />SB 412 (Figueroa). Massage Therapy. <br />State and ü:x:a1 ~B 412 is a two- <br />year bill. The intent of SB 412 is to provide a <br />statewide regulatory and licensing framework for <br />massage therapists. However, in doing so, the <br />current version of the bill would preempt most of <br />local government's regulatory authority over <br />massage therapists. Many local governments <br />regulate massage therapy establishments and <br />therapists. This is done as a way of differentiating <br />between legitimate establishments and practitio- <br />ners and those that are, to put it politely, less than <br />legitimate and more attuned to the darker side of <br />our cities. <br /> <br />The League has been in discussions with the <br />author's office and supporters about the preemp- <br />tion issue and held a conference call this week <br />that included representatives from city police <br /> <br />departments, counties, the author's office and the <br />supporters. While the conversation was produc- <br />tive, it is clear that there is still much to discuss <br />and negotiate relative to preemption in SB 412. <br />Based upon that conversation and other issues, <br />the author decided to make SB 412 a two-year bill, <br />since only two weeks remains in the session, and <br />that is not enough time to resolve the numerous <br />outstanding issues. <br /> <br />The League has told the author that we are <br />willing to continue discussions through the fall and <br />will withhold sending an oppose letter at this time. <br />Although all involved hope that resolution can be <br />reached, the League also has made it clear that <br />we are prepared to oppose the bill if agreement is <br />not reach. <br /> <br />We thank Senator Figueroa and her staff for <br />their willingness to engage in serious discussions <br />with local government to address our concerns. <br />In the meantime, city officials should not get too <br />bent out of shape about the provisions of SB 412. <br />We are attempting to massage the language to <br />address our concerns and won't throw in the <br />towel until the discussions are complete. Staff: <br />Yvonne Hunter; Status: Pending in Assembly <br />Appropriations Committee (two-year bill); Posi- <br />tion: Watch. <br /> <br />SB 861 (Speier). Animal Control. Local <br />Regulation of Vicious Dogs. SB 861 would <br />return some limited authority to local governments <br />to regulate vicious dogs. The bill is in response to <br />several tragic accidents where children have been <br />mauled or killed after being attacked by pit bulls. <br />While the bill would permit cities and counties to <br />enact dog breed-specific ordinances pertaining to <br />mandatory spay or neuter programs and breeding <br />requirements, it would not permit a city or county <br />to ban a specific breed or declare that a breed or <br />mix breed is potentially dangerous. <br /> <br />SB 861 passed the Assembly this week and is <br />expected to be heard next week in the Senate <br />Local Government Committee. It would then go to <br />the Senate Floor for concurrence in Assembly <br /> <br />Visit the league's Official Web site n www.cacities.org <br /> <br />PRIORITY FOCUS/PAGE 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.