My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2003-06-02
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009 partial
>
2003
>
AgdaPkt 2003-06-02
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/2/2011 2:49:23 PM
Creation date
5/29/2003 3:16:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Agency Type
City Council
Date
6/2/2003
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
144
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
9.4 -30 <br />Legislative Bill Action <br />................................ ............................... <br />a warrant or order authorizing any peace officer to <br />immediately seize and cause the removal of the <br />vehicle. The sponsor contends that unlicensed <br />cabs pose a great threat to public safety and <br />should remain out of operation for a long as <br />possible. To help ensure that this goal is obtained <br />the author introduced this bill to empower local <br />authorities with the ability to impound unlicensed <br />taxicabs for up to 30 days. The sponsors are City <br />of Los Angeles and Taxicab Paratransit Associa- <br />tion of California (TPAC). AB 299 passed out of <br />the Assembly on 4/9 by a vote of 77 -1. Staff: <br />Natasha Fooman; Status: SenTrans, Position: <br />Support. <br />HOUSING AND LAND USE <br />AB 332 (Mullin) Airports, Land Use Commis- <br />sions. Cities that neighbor airports should care- <br />fully examine AB 332 because the bill would allow <br />the Division of Aeronautics at the State Depart- <br />ment of Transportation to become far more in- <br />volved in local land use decisions that occur in <br />close proximity to airports. <br />Airport Land Use Commissions (ALUC), which are <br />established locally, currently work with local <br />agencies to craft a comprehensive airport land use <br />plan (CLUP). Once completed, the ALUC must <br />submit a copy of the plan, and any amendments to <br />that plan to the Division of Aeronautics. Aside from <br />this transmittal requirement, the preparation of a <br />CLUP occurs exclusively between the local ALUC <br />and its corresponding local agencies. The Divi- <br />sion is only involved in the process to the extent <br />that they provide technical assistance to ALUCs, <br />and neither ALUCs or local agencies are not <br />required to seek Division approval or comments <br />when adopting, amending or overruling portions of <br />their CLUP under current law. <br />AB 332 would modify existing law in several ways. <br />First, the bill would clarify that school districts and <br />community colleges should be considered local <br />agencies and are subject to airport land use laws. <br />Second, AB 332 would impose new notification <br />requirements on local agencies. Recall, local land <br />use proposals within the parameters of the CLUP <br />are reviewed by the ALUC once a CLUP is estab- <br />lished, and the Commission can reject projects <br />that conflict with the CLOP. However, local govem- <br />ments can overrule the ALUC decision, in most <br />cases, by a 2/3 vote following a public hearing on <br />the matter. Local agencies are not currently <br />required to notify the ALUC or solicit ALUC com- <br />ments when they intend to overrule a Commission <br />decision. By contrast, AB 332 would require local <br />agencies to notify the ALUC when they propose to <br />overrule a commission decision, and provide the <br />ALUC with the opportunity to comment. <br />Perhaps more troubling, however, are the provi- <br />sions of AB 332 that would force local agencies to <br />notify the Division of Aeronautics and solicit Divi- <br />sion comments each time they propose to over- <br />rule a ALUC decision, particularly since neither <br />ALUCs or local agencies are not required to seek <br />Division approval or comments when adopting, <br />amending or overruling portions of their CLUP by <br />existing law at this time. The city of Concord has <br />sent an oppose letter, and the League is interested <br />in finding out whether other cities have similar <br />concerns. The bill is moving and quickly, and we <br />would like to hear from cities as soon as possible. <br />Please email comments to carriaodno cacities.ora. <br />Staff: Dan Carrigg, Status: AsApps, Hrg -5/21, <br />Position: Review and Comment. <br />ENVIRONMENTAL <br />AB 1051 (Goldberg). Capital Facilities Fees. <br />Cities that have municipal water, sewer, gas or <br />electric utilities should take a close look at AB <br />1051, which is co- sponsored by the City of San <br />Francisco, the City of Los Angeles and the East <br />Bay Municipal Utility District. AS 1051 would clarify <br />existing law regarding how public municipal utilities <br />charge other public agencies for capital facilities <br />fees. This bill is in response to numerous lawsuits <br />filed by schools and other public agencies regard- <br />ing utility fees. The bill was approved unanimously <br />on the Assembly floor. Staff: Yvonne Hunter, <br />Status: SenLG, Position: Support. <br />PAGE 12 /PRIORITY FOCUS Visit the League's Official Web Site -- www.cacities.org <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.