HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-01-23 - AGENDA REPORTS - AB 2540/AB 939 ELSMERE (2)Capital
Representation Group
January 12, 1990
TO: George Caravalho
Ken Pulskamp
David Jones
FROM: Tim Egan
SUBJECT: AB 2540 (Wricght)
Element
JANUARY 21, 199Q
ITEM 21
General Plan/School Facilities
I met today with Catherine Morrison, Administrative
Assistant to Cathie Wright, to discuss AB 2540 (copy
attached) which the Assemblywoman has introduced in response
to the Mira Decision.
The Assemblywoman would like to work with the City on this
issue if possible through AB 2540. It's Catherine's
understanding that their District Office staff has held
discussions with City staff to review the .impact of the Mira
Decision on the City and what alternatives may be available
to address this situation, including the introduction of
specific legislation.
Recommendation
o City formally support AB 2540 and indicate
through our office the Ci-y's resolve to
work with Ms. Wright on this legislation.
o Develop for the Assemblywoman's
consideration possible amendments for AB
2540 to strengthen and expand upon Section
65302 (h). Ms. Wright recognizes that'
this subsection needs to be developed
further for the legislation to have the
necessary impact which the City may
require to address this issue.
If the City concurs with our recommendations, we should
prepare as soon -as possible any suggested amendments for
consideration by the Assemblywoman.
_ Sacramento office: 1 127 - I Ith St. 9 Suite 1003 • Sacramento, CA 95814 • (916) 444-5433
Washington Office: 888 16th Street, N.W. 6 Suite 600 0 Washington. D.C. 20006 0 (202) 223.5133
CALIFORNIA LEGISLA.TURE-19Ss;W R1.GULAR SESSION
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 2540
Introduced by Assembly Member Wright
January 3, 1990
An act to amend Section 65302 of the Goverm -hent Code,
relating to local agencies.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 2540, as introduced, Wright. Local agencies.
Existing law requires each planning agency and the
legislative n iVee, of each long-term general plan fand or the physical
to adopt a
comprehensive, g and land outside. its
development of the county or c 'judgment. bears
boundaries which in the planning agency's
relation to its planning. The general plan contains, among
other elements, a- land use element which designates . the
proposed general distribution and general location and extent
of the uses of the land for specified purposes.
This bill would impose a state -mandated local program by
requiring the general plan to include a school facilities
element which would berequired ools�testo include co consistent with the and
phic
projections and potential sch
use planning element.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse
local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated
by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures .for =
making that reimbursement, including the creation of a State
`J Mandates Claims Fund to pay the costs of mandates which do
not exceed $1,000,000 statewide and other procedures for
claims whose statewide costs exceed. $1,000,000.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State
Mandates determines that this bill contains costs mandated by
�.i
the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made
gg 60
cu
It
�G> �► , o ci�a �•;
�tu a� • X30
mai roo >,
�•+ O O td O q � � �I 'b � .�, � �
co
pz
SLI "Jg
WV
o a a.� y�,►,�a �� b�°o'er bao►..�bD
ail
vi' c3 c�
�' �'a-' 8•
PO PA
�c�c^���ccNooc�o��1CO)0.-0°,'�c�vc�`c�c�ic�`��ic°g�c�e�c�`c•3c�'c�`c�c��r
0 4" wo vi w rC '�' Q3 "L7 0 '0 y3 � st GbGh,"� o
cr} y' Ub of oo
•�'.�
;0 8 D'A. pp ffi
� � ,� ° o � c.� ;.o 'gyp., � � ' � " a a°u a °a � m 'd �' �' �' `� � *� ' �, • ::
ybD
log
c�
�to°UaoIt 0
� �•+�
rz
Zv
Ou Q-4
42 0 E oil
Vo] •aa�jNN O
fj LW
Peg
!t� - P e Q
�
p
,� J � rO
14
j Vow O .'9 `�` +��+ O �'' O 4! O C C a b bq O �.. ++ O +' yO� O@ Q) �+ L?,po
_ �NQ v� vi
� Q � �' �0, � � b •� ,�7 � 0J O O0 tsA� ' C ' d �i3
°��
b
O Pen. O � � •O 4? c?D O '� '� � •O � 'C�+i � .O � ,� •�� t.
wry. !� 0 •i G '.+� O ' �+,
`' • '? 2uO � �O'' � O �
a
0 0
OW
v 0
0 Fu
+,
rod, �, awl c
p �,�, �'4. a��;` � e❑°i cy oar va��. �'O �L}'oQ0 � 'w
q �` CC..y/�A' C .a,, �.+ ,,i F.i V y'� Qi die% •�J Q± Q� V .N
W � � ,A{ O p{ 1.V •� W � V V � O � �� S"'1.J "'K � l.+if W � � Yf.� '„� �y � M
o.i 1,44
��Vc�erincD�-aoO�Or+"-4P"Mt+uocatioorn�•.+e�c c�vc�.`c c��3c�c5c e' e` 'c�c c��c�c�'�v�•
11-� U
a� Q � � �i "O'"C�jt ,� •�, �,"
tl.. V! r"i •�.I" q q 4i 'O '' .�.� .'� "41 i.+ Fy ."q Qi •�
°' � .� � � � b a� :d � � •bpm � o .� �'n� ,� y c.' � ,'tip � F7 Q � ;�
bo
04 bl)
0 � O ,� o ago Y� ��to
ZI—t 00Co
ZI �.oi g roa gib`"°Tr�."79
> V eek2
9 yW 'ryj
OD
cd pp y � GJ +r V
�.+ O to00 kR p 8-
•y. 1.+ wC
o
14 '!
Cd
c" bG v� . bQ4 bl) 0' .� c• Q O .Q .� e�
V ~ y ,-i ►� Q a +.+ a q
.-1 p .y
^''',..��z O O•bW o.�Q �p41;` '� Ca �"".Q�`e� U.p•"
AB 250 —6.--
1
6-1 Government Code, if the Commission on State Mandates
2 determines that this act contains costs mandated by the
3 state, reimbursement to local agencies and school
4 districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7
5 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of 'T'itle
6 2 of the Government Code. If the statewide cost of the A
7 claim for reimbursement does not exceed one million
8 dollars ($1,000,000), reimbursement shall be made from
-9 the State Mandates Claims Find: Notwithstanding
10 Section 17550 of the Government Code, unless otherwise
11. specified in this act, the provisions of this act shall become
12 operative on the same date that the act takes effect
13 pursuant to the California Constitution.
0
Capital
Representation o _ p
January 12, 1990
T0: George Caravalho
Ken Pulskamp
David Jones
,_
FROM! Tim Egan
SUBJECT: Elsmere Legislation
•
�G
__ I O�CL,
This past week we hold meetings with Senator Davis, and
League of Cities Lobbyists Dwight Stenbakken and Yvonne
Hunter regarding Elsmere and the status of clean-up
legislation to AB 939. Presented here is a brief summary of
our meetings and where. we currently stand on the prospect of
legislation for Elsmere.
o Senator Davis reaffirmed his desire to
work with the City on developing and
authoring legislation which has a
reasonable chance of passage. During our
1 1/2 hour meeting, we reviewed a range of
options from.a total ban on the landfill,
to a requirement that the City be formally
included in the discussions on the
proposed.JPA. The Senator realizes, as we
do, that the prospect of any new
legislation will be extremely difficult,
especially in fight of last year's
enactment of AB 939.
o We had an excellent meeting with Dwight
and Yvonne where we reviewed, in detail,
our current situation and the outlook for
State legislation. Yvonne is the lead
lobbyist for the League on legislation
dealing with Solid Waste, -and is
recognized as.one of the few experts in
_ Sacramento Office: 1127 - 1.1th St. • Suite 1003 • Sacramento. CA 95814 • (916) 444-5433
Washington Offices 888 16th Street, N.W. 0 Suite 600 6 Washington, D.C. 20006 a (202) 223.5133
this field.. Both felt that Santa
Clarita's situation is most unique and
therefore could be ripe for some form of
legislative relief. They agreed to work
with the City not only on the Davis bill,
but also on the possibility of including
language in the proposed AB 939 clean-up
legislation for the City.
o AB 939 Advisory Task Force - attached,
which appeared in the recent League
Legislative Bulletin, is the announcement
for this important Task Force. If the
City has an interest in participating,
either contact me or Yvonne directly with
the name of the City's representative.
The League is looking for participation
from individuals (primarily from Public
Works Directors) who are directly
responsible for a City's solid waste
program, and therefore, will be able to
assist in the review and drafting of
responses to the Waste Board on their
proposed AB 939 regulations. we would
strongly encourage the City's direct
participation on this Task Force:.
Following these meetings, as well as other discussions we
have had, we believe the City may have an opportunity to
address legislative the issue of Elsmere. Both the Senator
and League lobbyist strongly cautioned though, that what we
do introduce will probably meet with strong opposition from
the City/County of Los Angeles and possibly from the
J Administration, and therefore, the more reasonable our
approach the better our chances will be for legislative
success.
When we meet with you in City Hall next Friday, we would
like to;review more thoroughly our legislative options, and
from that agree on the initial form of our bill. We have
until the 26th of January for submittal to Legislative
Counsel of a proposed draft bill. As you know, we will have
opportunities once the legislation is introduced to amend
the bill to reflect any future Council direction on this
issue.
Please give Pete or me a call should you have any questions.
In the meantime, we look forward to meeting with you on the
19th.
Support for SCA 2 should be communicated Immediately by telephnngLpr telegraM to members of
the Assembly Local Government Committee: Cortese (Chair), Ferguson, Frazee, Hannigan, Hauser,
Hughes, Lancaster, Moore, Murray, and Pringle.
4. . INFORMATION
As Bulletin readers know, last year the Legislature passed and.the Governor signed AB 939 (Sher),
"The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989" (Chapter 1095, Statutes of 1989). AB
939 enacts a comprehensive reorganization of the state's solid waste management planning process,
changing the focus from "solid waste management" to "integrated waste management." AB 939
includes four major parts. The first reorganizes the California Waste Management Board; � the
second creates a new integrated waste management planning process, including recycling goals for
cities and counties; the third strengthens the certification criteria and performance standards for
Local Enforcement Agencies; the fourth simply reorganizes and consolidates existing law (AB 2448
- Eastin) into different code sections in the Public Resources Code.
Due to the way AB 939 was amended in the last days of the 1989 Legislative Session, it includes
many technical problems that require attention, such as conflicting dates, confusing language and
drafting errors. It also includes several policy issues with which the League continues. to take
exception and which we will attempt to address this session. At this time, it is unclear which
legislative vehicle or vehicles will be used for the clean-up legislation.
While many of the issues of concern to the League are technical in nature, broadly supported and
non -controversial, others do not enjoy the same level of broad support. Thus, it will be important
for cities to respond as requested for letters and phone call to legislators.
On the regulatory side, AB 939 requires the Waste Board to promulgate regulations by January 1,
1990 for the city and county Source Reduction and Recycling EIements, required in the bill. These
regulations still are in the drafting stage. At its December meeting, the Board agreed to delay
unveiling the draft regulations. until its January meeting, since several outstanding issues still need
to be resolved. These regulations will follow the emergency regulations process, which provides an
expedited process to adopt "interim" regulations, followed by the traditional 120 day regulatory
comment and review process, as specified in California's Administrative Procedures Act.
LhTas
st in reviewing the regulations and provide input for AB 939 clean-up Iegislation, the League
ablished an AB 939 Advisory Task Force. City officials Interested in serving on the Taskhould notify the League. We will keep you informed on A13 939 activities - both regulatoryislative - through the Bulletin or special letters.
Finally, in December the League sent to all cities a coy of "A Guide to Understanding AB 939."
Additional copies are available from the League's Sacramento office.
4 January 4, 1990