My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2005-05-09
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009 partial
>
2005
>
AgdaPkt 2005-05-09
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/16/2012 4:51:15 PM
Creation date
5/5/2005 2:07:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Date
5/9/2005
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.
/
242
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, � -�' <br /> Le9islative Bill Action <br /> ................... ............................................ <br /> of the conduit process might limit the public has the ultimate authority to approve or disapprove � <br /> participation in the process of issuing these them (including, the ability to preempt local land <br /> bonds. In addition, we are concemed about use authority for a legitimate statewide need). <br /> expanding this state tax subsidy to an entit�r that is <br /> not currently required to comply with critical state The bill requires the commission to review its <br /> laws, as are both state and local govemments. plans periodicaly and if necessary, de-designate a <br /> Staff: Jean Korinke; Status: Senate Revenue and TCZ. Although periodic review is appropriate, if a <br /> Taxation Committee, Hrg. April 27; Position: TCZ is de-designated, the local agency would be <br /> Oppose required once again to amend its general plan. <br /> This process would impose uncertainty on local <br /> ENVIRONMENTAL govemments and property owners about whether, <br /> and if so, how and when, land within the zone <br /> SB 1059 (Escutia). Transmission Lines. could be developed, since it would be unclear <br /> Land Use Preemption. Bewar�e!!! The Califor- what the compatible uses vu�uld be. <br /> nia Energy Commission may become a new land <br /> use-permitting agency in your city if it decides that The League, CSAC and RCRC have proposed <br /> a high voltage electricity transmission corridor an altemative proposal that includes a robust <br /> zone (TC� should go through your city sometime upfront collaborative pfanning process, notification <br /> in the future. Beware again — the Energy Com- of existing and prospective landowners and a <br /> mission could change its mind in five or ten years public hearing and comment by the Energy Com- <br /> and decide that the TCZ no longer should go mission before a city or county could take any <br /> through your city. And, in the intervening years, if action on a project within the TCZ. The local <br /> SB 1059 is enacted as currently wriiten, your city govemment proposal deletes the preemption <br /> would be required to amend its general plan iwice problems now in SB 1059. <br /> to be consistent with the Energy Commission's � <br /> statewide plan, regardless of whether or not the While some Senate Local Govemment Corr� <br /> proposed TCZ is consistent with your general plan mittee members expressed concems about local <br /> and zoning and current and future land use projeG control, the uncertain impacts on land owners, <br /> tions. Projects proposed within the zone could and potential takings/compensation issues, the bill <br /> only be permitted with commission approval. And, passed overwhelmingly in the Senate Local <br /> beware again — landowners whose property is Govemment Committee. The League will con- <br /> within a designated area would have little or no tinue to worlc with the author and administration to <br /> certainty as to what they ultimately will be able to find a way to allow the state to engage in thought- <br /> do with their property. And, as currenty drafted, ful long range planning for transmission corridors <br /> SB 1059 does not define the width of a TCZ. It without allowing the Energy Commission to <br /> could be 1000 feet wide, one mile or three miles become the land use permitting authority in cities . <br /> wide, resutting in significant impacts on local land and counties. <br /> use plans and projects. <br /> In the meantime, cities should contact their <br /> While the need for a statewide transmission senators and urge a no vote unless the local land <br /> planning process is a serious issue, the solution use, planning and landowner issues are satisfac- <br /> proposed in SB 1059 would pneempt local zoning torily address. They should also begin to educate <br /> and results in bad planning at the local level. In their local business and housing development <br /> doing so, it will have the effect of tying up large community about the potential impacts of the bill, <br /> swaths of land in these zor�es for five to ten to and the uncertainty that would result about per- <br /> twenty years, until 4he transmission project missible land uses should it be enacted in its <br /> reaches the Public Utilities Commission, which current form. Staff: Yvonne Hunter, Status: <br /> Visit the League's Official Web Site--www.cacities.org PRIORITY FOCUS/PAGE 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.