07-26-2011 CC RPT 49a - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

`Plastic Bag Ban' Continued from Page 1... The city originally adopted the ordinance in 2008, prohibiting retailers from providing plastic bags to customers. An association of plastic bag manufacturers and distributors challenged the ordinance, arguing that the city was required to prepare an EIR because a decrease in the use of plastic bags would yield an increase in the use of paper bags, which would have a significant negative impact on the environment. The trial and appellate courts agreed with the association, finding that an EIR was required for the ordinance. However, the Supreme Court found that when it considered the actual scale of the environmental impacts that might result from increased paper bag use in Manhattan Beach following the plastic bag ban (instead of comparing the global impacts of paper and plastic bags), the city acted within its discretion when it determined that the ban would not have a significant effect on the environment. The Court noted that the only strictly local impacts of the ban appeared to be those related to transportation of additional paper bags and possibly their disposal. But neither of those impacts required the preparation of an EIR, nor did the uncertain impact of the ban in areas outside of the city, which were both indirect and difficult to predict. As a result, the court restated that common sense led it to conclude that environmental impacts were not significantly implicated by the plastic bag ban in the city. The League thanks Christian L. Marsh (now with Downey Brand), and the law firm of Briscoe, Ivester & Bazel LLP, for preparing the League's amicus letter in support of the Supreme Court's review of this case, as well as the amicus brief supporting Manhattan Beach on the merits of the case. The Court's opinion can be found at www.courtinfo.ca.c v /opinions /documents /S180720.PDF League Removes Opposition to HR 1002, Wireless Tax Fairness Act League Amendment Adopted During Markup On Thursday during the House Judiciary Committee markup of HR 1002, the Wireless Tax Fairness Act, an amendment was adopted to exempt a local tax that has been adopted by the voters in accordance with state law. The League- sponsored amendment was adopted after hundreds of California cities contacted their Congressional representatives to oppose the bill unless it was amended. HR 1002 has 236 cosponsors supporting the bill, virtually guaranteeing the measure's passage in the House. Thursday's markup presented the only opportunity to favorably amend the legislation to protect California cities. As originally written HR 1002 would have jeopardized a critical source of future revenue for California cities and prohibited cities from adopting or updating utility user taxes for five years, regardless of changes in telecommunications technology. The League- sponsored amendment ensures that local governments maintain the flexibility needed modify tax structures to adapt to changes in telecommunications technology delivery systems. The League continues to oppose the Senate version of the Wireless Tax Fairness Act, S. 543, which at this time does not include the League- sponsored amendment that was included in HR 1002 on Thursday. Street Financing Program Accepting Applications for Fall 2011 Pool California Communities, in partnership with the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties, is now accepting applications for the fall 2011 financing pool of the Total Road Improvements Program (TRIP) program. Street deterioration and continued deferral of street maintenance remain a critical issue for local agencies throughout the state. As streets age, the cost to repair them grows exponentially. TRIP is a financing pool program which enables cities and counties to borrow against their future gas 3 49a -3