HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-03-13 - AGENDA REPORTS - LEGISLATION (2)I
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval
Item to be presented by:
CONSENT CALENDARMichael P. Murphy
DATE:
SUBJECT:
DEPARTMENT:
BACKGROUND
March 13, 1991
Legislation
City Manager
There are six bills currently pending before the California Legislature which
may have a potential impact on the City of Santa Clarita. These measures are:
1) SB 169 (Boatwright); 2) SB 72 (Davis); 3) SB 203 (Maddy); 4) AB 54
(Friedman); 5) AB 72 (Cortese); and 6) AB 350 (Costa).
Summaries with local impact analysis and Legislative Counsel Digests on each
bill are attached.
All six bills have been reviewed by the City Council Legislative Committee.
Three bills, AB 54, AB 72, and AB 350, were reviewed by the Parks and Recreation
Commission prior to Legislative Committee consideration.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the recommendations,of the City Council Legislative Committee on.each bill.
ATTACHMENTS
Bill Analyses (6)
Bill Summaries (6)
MPM/spk 2243
APPIDWEN
Agenda llem:ll..([
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Michael P. Murphy, Intergovernmental Relations Officer
DATE: March 13, 1991
SUBJECT: SB 169 (Boatwright)
Background•
In 1990 the California Legislature approved and the Governor
signed into law Senate Bill 25.57, Chapter 466, Statutes of
1990. This law gives counties the authority to charge cities
the cost of booking prisoners in county jails and
administrative costs for property tax collection. In addition,
SB -2557 contains provisions for counties to levy a business
license tax and utility user tax in the unincorporated areas
subject to applicable voter approval. This legislation was
enacted in an effort to partially offset the.state deficit.
SB 2557 is enabling legislation and therefore, is discretionary
to the counties as to implementation. This creates
inconsistency between jurisdictions and potential conflict
between cities and counties.
The League of California Cities has taken the lead in
developing a legislative proposal which repeals the provisions
of SB 2557 with the exception of the county business license
tax and utility user tax for unincorporated areas. The revenue
loss to counties will be addressed through a freeze on the
vehicle depreciation schedule. The increase in vehicle license
fees, a constitutionally protected local revenue source, is
projected to fully offset the potential revenue loss to
counties.
Senator Dan Boatwright (D -Contra Costa) has authored SB 169
containing the above outlined provisions. It is anticipated
that League of California Cities members will be the foot
soldiers in securing support for the measure from their local
legislators.
Comments•
1. There are at least seven other legislative proposals which
have been introduced to repeal various individual elements
of SB 2557. Senator Davis (R -Santa Clarita) has authored
SB 72, which would repeal the booking fee but does not
address the property tax administration or any other
element of SB 2557.
The Council may wish to consider whether or not to review
and.consider taking positions on these other bills.
Page two
Memo re: SB 169 (Boatwright)
2. Governor Wilson has identified the Vehicle License Fee
(VLF) as-a.source of revenue to the counties for purposes
of addressing funding needs for mental health.
3. The Vehicle License Fee (VLF) is a constitutionally
protected local revenue and will not be subject to claim
by non -local government entities.
An increase in VLF has historically been a high visibility
and key contact issue for constituents with their state
representatives.
4. Even with a partial repeal of SB 2557 and identification
of a funding source, itis still anticipated that local
governments will suffer some state revenue loss as
California seeks to address a projected $8 - $10 billion
budget shortfall.
Local Impact•
1. At the present time, because Santa Clarita is a contract
City for law enforcement services, the City is not subject
to a separate booking fee.
2. The City Department of Finance is currently attempting to
quantify the administrative costs of property tax
collection. This is part of a larger dialogue between the
City and Los Angeles County predating passage of SB 2557.
Recommendation:
The City Council Legislative Committee reviewed Senate Bill 169
and recommends the City Council support SB 169 and transmit
letters of support to Santa Clarita's legislative delegation
appropriate legislative committees, Senator Boatwright and the
League of California Cities.
MPM/tn-1998
1
SENATE BILL
No. 169
Introduced by Senator Boatwright
January 14, 1991
An act -to repeal Article 12 (commencing with Section
29950) of Chapter 2 of Division 3. of Title 3 of the Government
Code, to amend Sections 97 and 10753.2 of; to add Section
11001.5 to, and to repeal Section 97.43 of, the Revenue and
Taxation Code, relating to local government finance, malting
an appropriation therefor, and declaring the urgency thereof.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST -
SB 169, as introduced, Boatwright. Local government:
financing.
(1) Existing law authorizes counties to impose fees upon
other local agencies or colleges or universities for county costs
incurred in processing or booldng _ persons arrested by
employees of other local agencies or colleges or universities
and brought to county facilities for booldng or detention.
This bill would repeal this authorization.
(2) Existing law provides for the allocation in each fiscal
year of property tax revenues to local jurisdictions, and
generally provides that each jurisdiction shall be allocated an
amount equal to the amount of property tax revenue
allocated to that jurisdiction in the prior fiscal year, as
modified.
Existing law requires, however, for purposes of property tax
revenue allocations for the 1990-91 .fiscal year, that the
amount of property tax revenue deemed received by a county
in the prior fiscal year shall be increased by property tax
administrative costs attributable to incorporated cities within
that county, as determined by the county auditor according
to specified procedures, and authorizes, as specified, the
county auditor to determine property tax administrative costs
proportionately attributable to local jurisdictions other than
99 90
SB 169 -2-
the
2_
■
W
the county or city and county, and cities, and submit invoices
to the relevant jurisdictions for those costs.
This bill would repeal these 1990-91 fiscal year provisions.
(3) Under existing property tax law, the auditor in each
county with qualifying cities, as defined, is required to make
property tax revenue allocations to those cities in accordance
with a specified tax equity allocation formula and to make
corresponding reductions in the county's property tax
revenue allocation. Qualifying cities include generally those
cities which existed but did not levy a property tax in the
1977-78 fiscal year and those cities which incorporated prior
to June 5, 1987, and had a property tax allocation for the
1987-88 fiscal year which is less than an amount which would
have been received by applying a.specified tax rate to its
1987-88 assessed value.
Existing law prohibits, notwithstanding existing property
tax revenue allocation provisions, a qualifying city from
receiving in the 1990-91 fiscal year a property tax revenue
allocation which is greater than 90% of the allocation received
by that city in the 1989-90 fiscal year.
This bill would repeal this prohibition.
(4) Under existing law, revenues from vehicle license fees
in excess of the costs of collection are apportioned to the cities
and counties according to a specified formula.
Existing law provides for the annual depreciation of the
market value of vehicles for the purpose of determining the
amount of the vehicle license fee.
This bill would make changes in the method of calculating
ttie annual depreciation for the purpose of determining the
amount of the vehicle license fee.
This bill would provide that all additional money collected
by the Department of Motor Vehicles that is attributable to
the changes in the method of calculating the annual
depreciation pursuant to this bill shall be deposited in the
State Treasury to the credit of the County Assistance Fund,
which would be created by the bill. It would appropriate the
moneys in that fund to the Controller for allocation to
counties pursuant to an unspecified formula.
The bill would express the intent of the Legislature to
further review and determine the allocation of new revenue
99 100
-3— SB 169
deposited in the County Assistance Fund.
(5) This bill would declare that it is to take effect
immediately as an urgency statute.
Vote: %. Appropriation: yes. Fiscal committee: yes.
State -mandated local program: no.
i
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Michael P. Murphy, Intergovernmental Relations Officer
DATE: March 13, 1991
SUBJECT: Senate Bill 72 (Davis)
Background
In 1990 the California Legislature approved and the Governor
signed into law Senate Bill 2557, .Chapter 466, Statutes of
1990. This enabling legislation affords counties the option of
instituting tax increases under specified guidelines or cost
recovery fees to cities and special districts.
Senator Ed Davis (R - Santa Clarita)' has introducted SB 72,
repealing the authorization given to counties under SB 2557 to
charge booking fees to local agencies. SB 72 only addresses
one element of SB 2557.
The League of California Cities has taken the lead in
developing a legislative proposal, SB 169, which repeals all
provisions of SB 2557 with the exception of the county business
license tax and utility user tax for unincorporated areas.
Local Impact
1. At the present time, because Santa Clarita is a contract
City for law enforcement services, the City is not subject
to a separate booking fee.. Therefore, the bill would not
have any direct impact under current conditions.
2. The bill does attempt to remove at least one source of
conflict in the relations between cities and counties.
generally. Future law enforcement services contract
negotiations between Santa Clarita and Los Angeles County
may reflect this conflict.
Recommendation
The City Council Legislative Committee reviewed SB 72 and
recommends the City Council support SB 72 and transmit letters
of support to Santa Clarita's legislative delegation,
appropriate legislative committees, Senator Davis and the
League of California Cities.
MPM/tn-2208
SENATE BILL No. 72
Introduced by Senator Davis
December 5, 1990
An act to repeal Article 12 (commencing with Section
29950) of Chapter 2 of Division 3 of Title 3 of the Government
Code, relating to local government finance, and declaring the
urgency thereof, to take effect immediately.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSELS DIGEST
SB 72, as introduced, Davis. Local government: financing:
booking fees.
Existing law authorizes counties to impose fees upon other
local agencies or colleges or universities for county costs
incurred in processing or booking persons arrested by
employees of other local agencies or colleges or universities
and brought to county facilities for booking or detention.
This bill would repeal this authorization.
This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately
as an urgency statute.
Vote: %. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State -mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
1 SECTION 1. Article 12 (commencing with Section
2 29550) of Chapter 2 of Division 3 of Title 3 of the
3 Government Code is repealed.
4 SEC. 2. This act is an urgency statute necessary for
5 the immediate preservation of the public peace, health,
6 or . safety within the meaning of Article IV of the
7 Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts
8 constituting the necessity are:
9 In order to ensure that important changes are made to
10 local government financing provisions during the
1 1990-91 fiscal year, it is necessary that this act go into
2 immediate effect.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Michael P. Murphy, Intergovernmental Relations Officer
DATE: March 13, 1991
SUBJECT: Senate Bill 203 (Maddy)
Background
In 1990 the California Legislature -approved and the Governor
signed into law, Senate Bill 2557, Chapter 466, Statutes of
1990. This law gives counties the authority to charge cities
the cost of booking prisoners in county jails and
administrative -costs for property tax collection. In addition,
SB 2557 contains provisions for counties to levy a business
license tax and utility user tax in the unincorporated areas
subject to applicable voter approval. This legislation was
enacted in an effort to partially offset the state deficit.
Senator Ken Maddy (R -Fresno) has introduced Senate Bill 203 in
an effort to clarify and further implement vague provisions of
SB 2557. SB 203, introduced on behalf of the counties,
broadens the definition of booking, extends the county property
tax charges to redevelopment agencies, and permanently links
the amount of property tax received by no/low property tax
cities to the level of state revenues provided to counties for
trial court funding.
The League of California Cities opposes SB 203. The League has
taken the lead in developing a legislative proposal which
repeals the provisions of SB 2557 with the exception of the
county business license tax and utility user tax for the
unincorporated areas. The revenue loss to the counties will be
addressed through a freeze on the vehicle depreciation schedule
as outlined in the League sponsored SB 169 (Boatwright).
Local Impact
1. While SB 2557 may have some as yet undetermined impact on
Santa Clarita with respect to property tax administration
costs, these costs would not appear to increase under SB
203.
Page two
Memo re: Senate Bill 203 (Maddy)
2. Other provisions of SB 203 expanding the definition of
"booking" and the no/low property tax cities linkage to
trial court funding may have an undetermined negative
future impact.
3. A -key concern of SB 203 is the continued adversarial
relationship between cities and counties regarding local
revenues.
Recommendation
The City Council Legislative Committee reviewed SB 203 and
recommends the City Council'oppose SB 203 and transmit letters
of opposition to Santa Clarita's legislative delegation,
appropriate legislative committees, Senator Maddy and the
League of California Cities.
MPM/tn-2197
CA ;B 203 AUTHOR: Haddy
TITLE: Local government financing
INTRODUCED: 01/18/91 URGENCY
LOCATION: Senate Local Government Committee
CODE SECTIONS:
An act to amend Sections 29550, 77200, and 77204 of the
Government Code, and to amend Sections 97 and 97.5 of, and to
repeal and add •Section 97.43 of, the Revenue and Taxation Code,
relating to local, government financing, and declaring the
urgency thereof, to take effect immediately.
SUMMARY:
Specifies a fee upon other local agencies or colleges or
universities for county costs incurred in processing or booking
Persons arrested by employees of those agencies is for costs
incurred up to the time the arrested persons are released from
custody or committed to a housing unit at a county jail
facility, and would impose a deadline for payment. Provides
for block grants under the Brown -Presley Trial Court Funding
Act. More related provisions.
SB 203, as introduced, Haddy. Local government financing.
(1) Existing law authorizes counties to impose a fee upon
other local agencies or colleges or universities forcounty
costs incurred in processing or booking persons arrested by
employees of other local agencies or colleges or universities
,and brought to county facilities for booking or detention.
This bill would additionally provide that a city and county
may impose that fee, would specify that the fee is for costs
incurred up to the time the arrested persons are released from
custody or committed to a housing unit at a county jail
facility, and would impose a deadline for payment.
(2) Existing law provides that the base trial court funding
block grant available to counties under the Brown -Presley Trial
Court Funding Act shall be $44,944 per judicial officer per
fiscal quarter for.the 1990-91 fiscal year, and $50,562 per
Judicial officer per fiscal quarter for the 1991-92 fiscal
year,- and each fiscal year thereafter. Prior law provided for
an amount of $530000 per judicial officer per fiscal quarter in
each fiscal year. Beginning with the 1989-90 fiscal year, a
county opting into the block grant system is required to
.appropriate and authorize for expenditure each flscal.year an
amount not less than the amount appropriated for court
operations for the first"full fiscal year in which the county
was an•option county, as adjusted each fiscal year by a certain
percentage.
This bill would revise the available amount to $42,135 for
the 1990-91 fiscal year, and would require that the
determination of the amount a county is required to authorize
for expenditure for court operations account for any reduction,
pursuant to current law and the revisions made by this bill, in
the amount of a county's block grant as compared to the
previous year.
CA SB 203 (3) Existing law provides, for purposes of property tax
revenue allocations for the 1990-91 fiscal year, that thew
amount of property tax revenue deemed received by a county in
the prior fiscal year shall be increased by property tax
administrative costs attributable to incorporated cities within
the county, as determined by the county auditor according to
specified procedures. The,county auditor is also authorized to
determine property tax administrative costs proportionately
attributable to local jurisdictions other than the county or
city and county, cities, and special districts and submit
invoices to the relevant jurisdictions for those costs.
This bill.would revise the procedures by which the county
auditor determines the proportionate share of administrative
costs allocated to each jurisdiction. It would authorize the
auditor, for each jurisdiction failing to pay the property tax
administration fee within the deadline, to impound either 1/2
of the annual tax increment computed for the jurisdiction or
the amount invoiced pursuant to the determination, until the
amounts invoiced have been paid to the county.
By requiring the county auditor to implement these provisions
during the 1990-91 fiscal year, this bill.would impose a
state -mandated local program.
(4) Existing law provides that no qualifying city shall
receive in the 1990-91 fiscal year a property tax revenue
allocation which is greater than 90% of the allocation received.
by that city in the 1989-90 fiscal year, pursuant to,the Tax
Equity Allocation (TEA) formula.
This bill would repeal these provisions, and, instead,
provide that, for the 1990-91 fiscal year, each qualifying city
shall receive 90% of the amount received pursuant to the TEA
formula for the 1989-90 fiscal year, and that, commencing with
the 1991-92 fiscal year and each fiscal year thereafter, each
qualifying city shall receive a proration of the amount
computed pursuant to the TEA formula, as specified, under
certain conditions.
(5) 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 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 51,000,000.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State
Mandates determines that this bill contains costs mandated by
the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant
to those statutory procedures and, if the statewide cost does
not exceed $1,000,000, shall be made from'the State Mandates
Claims Fund.
(6) This bill would declare that it is to take effect
immediately as an urgency statute.
Votes 2/3. Appropriations no. Fiscal committees yes.
State -mandated local programs yes.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Michael P. Murphy, Intergovernmental Relations Officer
DATE: March 13, 1991
SUBJECT: Assembly Bill 54 (Friedman)
f7SLiR:T7:SSCt1
On December 3, 1990, Assembly Member Terry.Friedman (D -Sherman
Oaks) introduced Assembly Bill 54 relative to tree protection
and planting.
This bill was introduced in response to constituent concerns in
Assembly Member Friedman's district that new development along
the Mulholland Drive corridor appears to have significantly
contributed to the destruction of a.number of native oak and
walnut trees.
AB 54 specifies that the Board of Forestry establish statewide
criteria and minimum standards for the protection of
historically, environmentally, or culturally significant
trees. Local jurisdictions will determine "historically" or
"culturally" significant trees for their individual .
communities. The Board of Forestry will define types of trees
by geographic region which are "environmentally" significant
trees. Cities and counties must adopt a tree ordinance
incorporating the minimum standards of the statewide model
ordinance by June 30, 1992.
The model ordinance which.is based upon a Los Angeles County
Ordinance will contain the following elements:
• Prohibit the removal of any oak or other designated
tree without a removal permit.
• Require that any tree removed by permit be replaced
by two trees of the same kind and specifies
priority planting locations.
• Require one tree to be planted for every 500 square
feet of new construction, with at least half of the
trees being species native to California.
• Specify trees native to each region throughout
California and trees which will maximize energy
conservation, air quality benefits and natural
habitat.
AB 54 creates civil and misdemeanor penalties and requires
monetary restitution for the willful or repeat violation of any
tree protection or planting ordinance.
The Parks and Recreation Commission at their February 27, 1991,
Study Session recommended conceptual support of AB 54, with two
suggestions for amendment. The first amendment proposal would
exempt cities, such as Santa Clarita, from the model statewide
ordinance by "grandfathering" local tree protection ordinances
adopted prior to the effective date of AB 54. The second
proposed amendment would encourage planting of native and/or
drought tolerant trees in specified proportions.
The City Council Legislative Committee reviewed AB 54 on March
5, 1991. The Committee recommends support for AB 54 as written
with one suggestion for amendment incorporating the drought
tolerant tree planting element as suggested by the Parks and
Recreation Commission.
Local Impact
The City Council adopted the City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree
Preservation Ordinance (89-10) on April 25, 1989. This local
ordinance would comply with the proposed statewide ordinance
for oak trees only. Additional trees as designated by the
state would require protection through further Council
ordinance adoption.
The City currently requires planting of trees along .the public
rights-of-way for residential development but does not impose
similar standards for commercial development. The model
statewide ordinance would mandate tree planting requirements
for all new development.
City adoption of the statewide model ordinance, as proposed,
would require ordinance regulation of as yet unknown trees on
both public and private property.
Recommendation
Support AB 54 and suggest amendment to Assembly Member Friedman.
Transmit letters of support to Santa Clarita's legislative
delegation, appropriate legislative committees, Assembly Member
Friedman and the League of California Cities.
MPM/tn-2183
nMLNunu 1N AaJBMbLY EEBRUARY 28, 1991
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY FEBRUARY 13, 1991
ASSEMBLY BILL. No. 54
...................................................................... I........
Introduced by Assembly Member Friedman
[A> (Principal coauthors: Assembly Members Farr and Gotch) <A]
[A> (Coauthors: Assembly Members Bronzan, Isenberg, Klehs, and Lee) <A)
(A> (Coauthors: Senators McCorquodale, Rosenthal, and Watson) <A)
December 3, 1990
........................................ a...................
An act to add Division 32 (commencing with Section 51000) to the
Public Resources Code, relating to trees.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 54, as amended, Friedman. Trees: protection d
an planting.
(1) Existing law generally regulates forest practices and
timberlands.
This bill would require the State Board of Forestry (A> , in
consultation with the State Energy Resources Conservation and
Development Commission, <A) to adopt regulations establishing a model
ordinance to protect existing trees, and require the planting of trees
as a condition of project construction. By requiring cities and counties
to adopt an ordinance by a specified date, and by establishing criminal
penalties for the violation of the ordinance, or of the regulations
which would have the force of state law in cities and counties which
have not adopted an ordinance, the bill would impose a state -mandated
local program.
(2) 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 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 for certain costs no reimbursement is
required by this act for a specified reason.
Moreover, the bill.would provide that no reimbursement shall be made
from the State Mandates Claims Fund for other costs mandated by the
state pursuant to this act, but would recognize that local agencies and
school districts may pursue any available remedies to seek reimbursement
for these costs.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State -mandated local program: yes.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Michael P. Murphy, Intergovernmental Relations Officer
DATE: March 13, 1991
SUBJECT: Assembly Bill 72 (Cortese)
Backaround
On. December 3, 1990, Assembly Water Parks and Wildlife
Committee Chairman, Dominic Cortese (D -San Jose) introduced
Assembly Bill 72 relative to enacting the California Park,
Recreation and Wildlife Enhancement Act of 1992.
This bill is the legislative vehicle for placing $928,000,000
of State General Obligation Bonds before the states' voters at
the November 3, 1992 General Election. This measure, if
enacted by the Legislature and adopted by a simple majority of
the state electorate, would authorize for purposes of
financing, a specified program for the acquisition,
development, rehabilitation, or restoration of.real property
for wildlife, park, beach, recreation, coastal,.historic and
museum purposes. This is a standard bond act for these
purposes as presented during each statewide election cycle.
Local Impact
Although the allocation of funds is not project.specific, funds
are to be allocated under specified general apportionments.
For example, the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy is slated
to receive $30,000,000 under this proposal and the State Lands
Commission will receive $40,000,000 toward the acquisition,
development, maintenance or restoration of river riparian
parkways as outlined under AB 350. Santa Clarita may benefit
directly from these and other program opportunities dependent
upon allocation criteria and statewide project competition.
Recommendation
The -Parks and.Recrpation Commission at their February 27, 1991,
Study Session recommended support of AB.72. The City Council
Legislative Committee concurs in the action and recommends the
City Council support AB 72 and transmit letters of support to
Santa Clarita's legislative delegation, appropriate legislative
committees, Assembly Member Cortese and the -League of
California Cities.
MPM/tn-2172
CALIFORNIA LECISLATURE-1991-92 REGULAR SESSION
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 72
Introduced by Assembly Member Cortese
(Principal coauthor. Assembly Member Costa)
December 3, 1990
An act to add Chapter 1.692 (commencing with Section
5096.300) to Division 5 of the Public Resources Code, relating
to financing of a program of acquiring, developing,
rehabilitating, or restoring real property for wildlife, state and
local park, beach, recreation, coastal, or museum purposes by
providing the funds necessary therefor through the issuance
and sale of bonds of the State of California and by providing
for the handling and disposition of those funds.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSELS D[GESr
AB 72, as introduced, Cortese. California Park,
Recreation, and Wildlife Enhancement Act of 1992.
Under existing -law, there are state park system programs
and local assistance grant programs established for park,
beach, recreational, coastal, and historical resources
preservation project purposes.
This bill would enact the California Park, Recreation, and
Wildlife Enhancement. Act of 1992 which, if adopted, would
authorize, for purposes of financing a specified program for
the acquisition, development, rehabilitation, or restoration of
real property for wildlife, park, beach; recreation, coastal,
historic, and museum purposes, including the acquisition,
development, restoration, enhancement, or management of
real property within the Lake Tahoe region, the issuance,
pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law, of bonds
in an amount of $928,000,000.
The bill would provide for submission of the bond act to the
voters ai the November 3, 1992, general election in
accordance with specified law.
Vote: %. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State -mandated local program: no.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
I N T E'R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Michael P. Murphy, Intergovernmental Relations Officer
DATE: March 13, 1991
SUBJECT: Assembly Bill 350 (Costa)
Backaround
On January 29, 1991, Assembly Member Jim Costa (D -Fresno)
introduced Assembly Bill 350, the California Rivers Riparian
Parkway Act. This bill is sponsored by the State -Lands
Commission in response to concerns that California's riparian
habitat is dwindling and cannot be replaced.
Under provisions of AB 350, as introduced, local public
entities would be eligible to receive grant monies for the
creation and implementation of parkway plans'on and along
California's waterways. These parkways would provide for
preservation, protection and restoration of riparian habitat
and for recreational opportunities for the waterway.
AB 350 also creates the Natural Resources Restoration and
Development Fund. Appropriations may be made from this fund on
a continuous basis to local agencies, without regard to fiscal
year, for specified purposes.
Local Impact
This bill provides presently unknown funding opportunities to.
the City of Santa Clarita for purposes of implementing the
Santa Clara River Recreation and Water Features Study should it
be adopted by the City Council.
Funding levels would be predicated on fund balance in the
Natural Resources Restoration and Development Fund and the
number of competing projects.
Recommendation
The Parks and Recreation Commission at their February. 27, 1991,
Study Session recommended support of AB 350. The City Council
Legislative Committee concurs in the action and recommends -the
City Council support AB 350 and transmit letters of support to
Santa Clarita's legislative delegation, appropriate legislative
committees, Assembly Member Costa and.the League of California
Cities.
MPM/tn-2171
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE -1991-92 REGULAR SESSION
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 350
Introduced by Assembly Member Costa
(Principal Assembly coauthor: Assembly Member Cortese)
(Principal Senate coauthor: Senator Bergeson)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Alpert, Gotch, and Hauser
(Coauthors: Senators Alquist, Killea, and Rosenthal)
January 29, 1991
An act to add Chapter 1.85 (commencing with Section
5098.50) to Division 5 of the Public Resources Code, relating
to riparian parkways, and making an appropriation therefor.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSELS DIGEST
AB 350, as introduced, Costa. River riparian parkway
plans.
Existing law does not establish a program for state review
and funding for implementation of local river riparian
parkway plans.
This bill would require the State Lands Commission to
review and approve proposals submitted by a local agency, as
defined, for the preparation. of California rivers riparian
parkway plans and would require the commission to develop
and promulgate plan standards and elements to protect
specified state interests. The bill would authorize the
commission to undertake specified actions to participate in
the preparation of the plans, including financial participation
as prescribed. The bill would require the commission and
local agency to consult and cooperate with specified state
agencies and would require the plans to be in the form of an
amended local general plan containing specified elements.
The bill would create the Natural Resources Restoration
and Development Fund, would specify the sources of moneys
which may be deposited in the fund, and would continuously
99 80
AB 350 —2—
appropriate
2—
appropriate the moneys in the fund to the commission for
financial assistance in preparing and implementing plans, for
the acquisition of land or interests in land, and for reasonable
administrative expenses of the commission.
The bill would require the commission to review and
approve proposed plans in accordance with prescribed
procedures and would authorize the commission to make
grant's from the fund for implementation of approved plans in
accordance with prescribed requirements. The bill would
require the commission to administer state sovereign lands
within the boundaries of an approved plan in a manner
consistent with the plan and prescribed requirements.
The bill would require the commission to submit a specified
annual report to the Governor and -the Legislature and would
require local agencies receiving moneys from the fund to file
specified progress reports.
The bill would make legislative findings and declarations.
Vote: %. Appropriation: yes. Fiscal committee: yes.
State -mandated local program: no.