HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-03-17; City Council; 6545; Legislative Issues-
CITY OF CARLSBAD
AGENDA BILL NO. _,,6"'-P..::.5...._Lf.._5;:x_ _________ _
DATE: ________ ._M_a_r_ch __ 17 ___ ,_1_98_1 _______ _
DEPARTMENT: ____ ~C~i~t~y~M;;.:;.;.;:.an~a~g~e_r ________ _
SubJect: LEGISLATIVE ISSUES
Statement of 'the Matter
AB 113, et al, HOUSING
Requires Coastal Com.mission to abide by local
housing element. SUPPORT
AB 445, FRAZEE
Defines agricultural land in coastal zone as land
producing $200 NET income per acre per year instead
of GROSS. SUPPORT
AB 54 0, FR.'\.ZEE
Appropriates $1 million for Oceanside littoral cell
beach erosion. SUPPORT
AB 251) BUDGET BILL
SB 111) OPPOSE
Proposals to shift property tax from city to school
would reduce Carlsbad tax base by 25% in addition
to loss of bail-out, $715,000, which also reduces
property tax base for city by 29%.
City should support League position to OPPOSE shift
of property tax base.
Exhibits
Coastal Issues
Gas Tax
Letter to Assemblyman Robert Frazee, 3-13-81
Council Action:
;rnitial:
Dept. Head
City Atty.
City Mgr. d'6==:
3-17-SJ. Council approved that Ron Beckman act as City representative in Sacramento
on 3-18-01 to express support of the Foran Bill.
Council approved SB13, but not the amendment proposed by the League of Women
Voters. Council suggested an amendment to the bill which would require a joint
subcommittee of Council Members from the Tri-Cities to mee.: and recommend to the
respective Councils any changes i~ local ordinances to solve siltation problems in
the,,,Buena Vista Lagoon in the future.
......
1 ■•• .....
; ..•. ••••• , .........
Cal,tomia c,11es
Wo1k Together
TO:
FF.OM:
League of California Cities
Sacramento, CA
February 20, 1981
MAYORS AND CITY MANAGERS OF COASTAL CITIES
Russ Selix, League Staff
1. DEVELOPMENT OF LEAGUE COASTAL POLICY
Attar.bed is a summary from the League's Coastal Subcom:nittee meeting in December.
Policies were recommended to respond to all of the issues raised in the questionnaire
completed by coastal cities in October. The unanimous approval of recommendations
from the Coastal Subcommittee by both tt Envi-ronmental Quality Committee and the
Board of Directors reflects a strong connnitment from the entire League organization
to work to resolve the conflicts confronting coastal cities~
2. IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICY
Many of the issues raised are not particularly rontroversial and are being worked
out wich the Coastal Cormnission. Some, however, obviously require legislative
changes. The League is sponsoring legislation dealing with housing, agricultural
lands, and public trust. Additionally, we are working with other groups to support
appropriate revisions to the Coastal Act's wetlands policies. ~e are finding a
growing consensu~ among state legislators in support of the League's positions.
The emerging view among legislators is that the basic thrust of the Coastal Act
should remain intact. However, some changes are clearly necessary in order to keep
the Act focused on its primary policies and to insure the prompt approval of local
coastal programs.
3, COASTAL HOUSING LEGISLATION
The major issue is housing. While most legislators now believe that. the Coastal
Commission should cease t.o regulate housing, there is concern that local agencies
would completely ignore the coast in trying to meet their low and moderate income
housing obligations. Accordingly, to assure broader legislative support and to
make it clear that the cities are willing to provide adequate low and moderate
income housing, the League will support legislation which indicates that the
housing elements of coastal cities and counties must make an effort to provide
low and moderate income housing in the coastal zone to the same extent that cities
and counties are obligated to provide such housing outside the coastal zone.
Representatives of coastal cities have thus far indicated that this is consistent.
with their current or proposed housing policies and would not create a major new
burden. At present, League staff is working closely with several legislators and
other interest groups to develop appropriate language for legislation.
CJNFEilEtiCE REGISTRATION OFFICE
HOTEL CLAREMONT, BERKE~EY 9470S
(415) 843-3083
HEADQUARTERS
1400 K STREET. SACAAMEN'TO 95$14
!916)444-5700
FEDERAL AFFAIRS OFFICE
1301 PENNSYLVANIA AVc NW , SUITE GvO WASHINGTON, 0 C ?0()0.1
(202) 6,:6 3100
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OFFICE
900 WILSHIHc 8LVO, SUITE 702. LOS ANGELES C,,017
(213) 62•-4934
4, LETTERS TO LEGISLATURE FROM COASTAL CITIES
By mid-M3rch, it is expected that there will have been about 40 bills introduced
affecting the Coastal Act. On the housing issue alone there are expected to be
10 bills. At this time, we are not asking cities to advocate specific support or
opposition to any of the bills, .Rather, because there are so many bills and
since many of tnem deal with the same issues, we believe it is much more important
at this time for coastal cities to write to legislators describing their specific
problems that need to be resolved. We understand that several legislators have
contacted coastal cities urging their support of their particular measure. Certainly
letters of support for any measures that you find consistent with your policy and
addressing specific problems affecting your city will be helpful in Sacramento.
Eacb coastal city should prepare a letter to key legislators, the members of , 1e
Senate and Assembly Natural Resources Committees outlining the present status of
your local coastal program. The letter should indicate the successful reeolution
of coastal issues on which the city's plan clearly complies with the Act and on
✓which the city has already received Commission approval or for whic~ approval is
expected without difficulty. The letter should focus upon all of the problems,
if any, which are preventing your local coastal plan from being approved. Try to
be as specific as possible in tdentifying all of the objections to your plan that
the Coastal Commissio1, has indicated. Where the city and the Commission disagree
over the resolution of a particular issue, try to state as clearly as possible the
city's position and the reasons for disagreeing with the Coastal Commission.
If your local land use plan h~s not yet been completed, please indicate the reasons
why it is being delayed.
It is critical that your side of the story be presented clearly to the State
Legislature. Your success stories may counteract some of the critics who claim
that local government cannot comply with the Coastal Act. Your description of the
problems is perhaps also important, as the Coastal Commission and its staff have
engaged in an intense lobbying effort defending its stance in disapproving LCPs
and blaming delays on local government.
Letters should be addressed tc the chairman of the Senate and Assembly Natural
Kesources c,mmittees with copies to all members of the committee, to your
legislators, and to the League office,
Members of the Assembly Committee are: Hannigan, Chairman; Baker, Bates, Bosco,
Farr, Frazee, Goggin. Herger, Kapiloff., Levine, Marguth, Rogers, and Sher.
Members of the Senate Committee are: R. Presley, Chairman; Richardson, Boatwright,
Doolittle, Garamendi, Johnson, Marks, Mello, Nielson, Sieroty, and Watson.
-2-
5. FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONNAIRE FOR COASTAL CITIES
Also attached is another questionnaire for coastal cities. The main purpos~ of
this qt~estionnaire is to find out what progress has been made since October in
completing your local coastal program and getting it approved by the Coastal
Commisl:iion. You may u,;e the questj,or..naire as a guideline in drafting a letter to
the Legislature. A copy of a comprehensive letter to the Legislature may be
provided to the League office in lieu of the questionnaire if it answers all of
the questions applicable to your city.
Cities should complete the questionnaire and return it to the League's Sacramento
office no later than March 16,
6. WORKING WITil THE COMMISSION
Through several meet;ings between city officials and members of the State Coastal
Commission, we have developed a good working relationship based on a strong
mutual desire to resolve issues precluding approval of local coastal programs.
Everyone agrees that an approved LCP is, in effect, a state-local partnership.
Members of the Commission are anxious to meet directly with city officials to
try to work out differences on LCPs, Mayors, Council Members, and City Managers
of cities which have completed their land use plans are encouraged to contact
members of the State Commission to set up meetings to discuss the LCP. In many
cases, these meetings are now working to narrow the issues that are still
unresolved, In some cities a few meetings with commissioners, their Chief Planner
Bob Brown, and their Executive Director Michael Fischer have resulted in cumplete
resolution of LCP issues.
Cities should not assume that the staff report represents a final inflexible
position of the Commission (even though the commission staff member who prepared
it may believe and intend that it is).
Please let us know if you are encountering an inflexible position and have
difficulty getting the Commission to meet with you to try to resolve your problems.
-3-
...• ., ••••• ...... ••••• ...... .......
c.,1,10111;,, c,,m~
Wt11k l<1tJOlhc>1
League of California Cities
Coi,nty t,upe,~iso,·s
.·ISHtJ<•iati,111 of Califo1•:1,ia
JOINT STATEMENT BY THE COUNTY SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA
AND THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES REGARDING THE TRANSPORTATION
FUNDING CRISIS AT THE CITY AND COUNTY LEVEL IN CALIFORNIA.
The County Supervisors Association of California (C:SAC} and the League of California
Cities (LCC} recognize the need to increase local road and street financing. The two
organizations join in a cooperative effort to ensure that this serious crisis is addressed by
the Legislature, The facts can no longer be ignored without serious fiscal and program
consequences.
As a pedestrian, cyclist, transit patron or driver, we are dependent upon a system of
city streets, county roads and state highways. As consumers, the cost we pay for the
delivery of goods and services is also directly related to this same system of roadways.
The lower the service level this system provides, the hi&:her the user costs. Directly
related user costs affected by this lower service include vehicle repairs, maintenance and
depreciati-ln, fuel consumption and insurance premiums. Ofter: overlooked related costs
include delays, exposure to hazat'ds and the cost for the delivery of goods and services.
The condition of the-roadway system in•the:state-of·California,is fo·serious,jeopardy due ✓
to a lack of funding. The Census Bureau has _reported that Calf.i.'ornia ,ranks.,tfie:lowest-:of:
all,states-in per-capita.expenditure·:for highways. Reduced governmental expenditures for
highways are neither cost effective nor economical if the result is higher total costs to
the consumer. Adequate road and street maintenance and timely safety improvements
need an adequate funding base. Such expenditures can substantially reduce other oser
costs.
California is experiencing a rapid decline in transportation capital investment, safety
improvements and just plain maintenance. There has been recent press coverage of the
state highway system revenue shortfall. The disastrous impact on county roads and city
streets has not yet received the same coverage as the state highway needs; yet, the bulk
of the transportation system is in local facilities, and the local needs are acceler«ting as
the revenues decrease. Not all cities and counties have identical problems due to
differences ranging from age of existing facilities, expansion and development potential,
shifting population patterns, terrain and seasonal differences, etc.; but, all local agencies
are experiencing the effects of inflation and rising costs with declining resources. Severe
erfects include reduced maintenance capability, increased tort liability exposure, inability
to respond to safety installations, and inability to maintain viable improvement programs.
As existing systems deteriorate the cost to cure the resulting problems drastically
increases. One measure often used is that one dollar of timely maintenance now will save
ten dollars of reconstruction five yPa.rs from now. Road and street maintenance and
pruaent capital improvements cost aollars. The cost of highway maintenance and
construction has increased at the average rate of 1896 per annum for the last five years,,
The value of the present 7¢ gas tax is approximately 1/3 of the purchasing power oJ the
original 7¢ rate authorized in 1963,, The purchasing power continues to et·ode each year
{Attachment).
Recent testimony by local agencies before the Transportation Committees of the
Legislature illustrate the dramatic impacts of the current revenue shortfall. In Yolo
County it has been necessary to scarify existing paved roads back to a gravel status
.:iecause the existing paving could not be maintained in a safe condition. The City of
Oakland's preventive maintenance resurfacing program is rapidly approaching a cycle
length of 200 years while it is recognized that a maximum of a 30-year cycle length is the
extreme range of a cost effective program. Many cities and counties have drastically
curtailed recognized maintenance programs involving minor street paving, tt•affic sign
maintenance and street cleaning, and are struggling to maintain a minimum hard
maintenance program. Caltrans, rivate and local overnment studies indicate that it
would take at least an a 1 1ona · m1 10n per year ts o continue these already
inadequate maintenance levels. The needed improvemen s and continuing maintenance
required to eflectively serve transportation needs including safe and serviceable
pavements for automobile traffic, transit vehicle use, goods delivery in an environment
that enhances air quality and provides for saving of energy, cannot be provided without a
reasonable revenue base. The same studies indicate that it would take an additional $500
million r ear to return maintenance rehabilitation and o erational ro rams to a
a ero ec e pu 1c s mves ment m ese oca s ree s
Other factors have also contributed to the deterioration of city and county highway
systems. These include the following:
1. Age
The local system of streets and roads is getting older. Timely maintenance can
still reduce the need for major repairs and reconstruction. Due to the age of the
existing-system, this can no longer be deferred without accelerated deterioration.
2. ·rruck Weights
The maximum truck weights were increased in 1974. Numerous studies clearly
indicate that heavier vehicles have a definite impact and accelerate deterioration
of roadways. At the local level these conditions have been exacerbated by the
already serious funding crisis as most small trips begin and end on local roads,
3. Increasing Mobility '!'rends and Improved Fuel EcC'nomy
While total fuel consumption has modestly decreased, vehicle fuel efficiency has
dramatically increased. The result is more use of the roadways which has
accelerated the deterioration and increased the need for safety and operational
improvements.
Local agencies have historically supplemented highway user fees to provide required
transportation needs. Proposition 13 and Proposition 4 have severely curtailed the ability
of local government to continue to allocate general funds to transportation needs in the
struggle to allocate diminishing resources to needs. We feel proposals to increase the gas
tax and other user fees to provide increased support of transportation needs including
local agency needs should be strongly supported. The evidence of the needs is
overwhelming. Such new state revenue is the only way to ensure that a viable
transportation system can be maintained at all levels in California-state highways,
county roads and city streets.
,,
:
l
l
i
I
I
1
t
'
)
\
'
-
Attachment
Cost Id" 1ng ower from State Gas Tax n 1cest Revenues and Spend" P
Total Actual Spending Powtlr
Construction
Xill
Cost Index
County a_nd City of Revenues
(1967=100)
ra~ T~x Revenues millions)
mill 10ns) · 1967 dollal"s
1963 90.8 220 242
1964 91.7 229 250
1965 95.4 218 226
1966 106.9 232 217
1967 100.0 244 244
1968 103.6 259 250
1969 107.0 276 258
1970 121. 5 280 230
1971 136.0 297 218
1972 150.7 315 209
1973 150.6 328 218
1974 228.7 314 137
1975 225.7 323 143
1976 225.4 328 146
1977 277.8 354 127
1978 304.4 367 121
1979 406.9 379 93
1980 397.4 361 91
N~fe; C6.r /.:, /u,. ,;( <:. ~ r re 11f I '1 /".e. c q, l ve..,
.$ 3<90 oe>O ; .,, C,c:t..J %i.-J< ;=:"c,11,1 ,,,(;. -◄
, We. s;ae;iol ¥ Gtt>,~ .p,,,.-
Sf l"e.e. -t:-"14""• / wf e.vte ptG e ,,._ct._ 4 z.c<:Je -;:, ..-<P ,;,er loc-r w,,.,..., ~ _
/>/vs a,ddi /t811...R. # h.-~..R.. 2fl'I',
0~
i .
2. OPPOSE Binding Arbitration: Cities and Fire Protection Distri~ts • .filLlli.
(Diils): The League will be publishing a Special Bulletin on SB ~14
(sec 2/').7 /81 I,cgislativc Bulletin) and it should be distributed cady next week.
The bulletin will provide some background information on compulsory and binding
arbitration and the problems with this type of pr.ac<:dure in the collective bar-
gaining process. In summary, the following argument:s constitute the basis of
our opposition to ~:
a. Non-elected arbitrators would make major spending clccisions for cities.
b. Arbitrators arc not accountable to the taxpnyc.rs.
c. Binding arbitration mcails the end of good faith collective bargaining,
d. Binding arbitration docs not eliminate str,kcs,
~ will be difficult but not impossible to stop. Contact your Senator about
the bill immediately. We will notify you when SB 3111 is scheduled for hearing.
3, Gm,ernor' s Budget ancl Dail-out Red~ction. sn 11!, (Alquist) -~ <Y£sconccllos).
Senate and Assembly liearings Continue. On Monday, March 9, . the Senate Committee
on Finance uill address the question of the property tax shift frotn local g·overn--
ment to schools .($420 million in total). Because the Senate Col!llJii'ttee on Local
Governmen~ is ~cco!lllllending that ·1ocal govern~ent bail-out reductions:come·froi;1:.
redtt~Eid subventions and not the property tax and because the Senate Committee •✓on:
Education st1pports the property tax i:;hift in SB 111, the Finance Committee mui;t
re.:oncilc the conflicting recommendations. (It is important'to note that the
shift in SB 111 and AB 251 of $420 million f'rom local governt1ent to schools docs
net result in any new n:?ney to schools because the school revenue limits operate
Lo reduce stnte apportioru,1ents by a corresponding amount when local property te:<
revcnue.i grow.)
Aside from the question of how much ball-out local government will ultimately be
reqt1ir<1d to give up, we believe that there are at 'least three reasono why the
-property tax should not be transferred from cities and counties ·to schc_olb as
SB 111 a11d ~1. propose.
a. Cutting back the city-county property tax by 25% ,,;ed1,1ces (l) local govern--;
ment' s financial incentive to approve new develo1,ment and' (2) its ability
to p~ovide services to new developments.
On the average, new developml'lnt ,~ill pay 25% less in property taxes
to the city which must provide police and fire protection, build and
maintain streets and other public works. The property tax shift will
:r~duce evc.ry new development I s economic: feasibility from the city I s
·i:ewenue. vs. cost-of-service perspe_c.tivc'.
b, Cutting back th<¼ city-county property tnx wJ.11 actually increase the over-.,>
all cost! of financing cnpital improvcmcnto for new home buyers.
Hith 25¾ fewer property tax dollars from new developments, cities will
be required to raise revenue to i'innnce capital improvements through
developer e:<actions. Such dcvelopl'lcnt foes are generally addecl on to
the cost of ench new home which is then finr.nced at r.uri;cnt mortgage
interest rates; These same new home buyers nr~ nlrnndy paying the high-
cot \>oosible property taxes, ·
If cities were to rct:nin their current pott:ion of t)roperty t:ux revcmuc,
cnp:1.tul :improvements would be financed to n grcntcr extent by chcapm:-
r,ovarumcnt borrowinr, or pny-ns-you-go financing.
Ir., citlun:-case, the ncces1m.cy cnpitnl improvements mu11t be ·const.cucted:
-2 -3/6/81°
c. Cities and counties need a stable, predictable revenue source to assist
local officials in long-range fiscal planning, The property tax provides
this,
There is mu=h ~axpayer acceptance of the relationship between city
property-related services and the property tax. Cities serve prop-
erty, Property owners should continue tc, pay taxes to cities at no
less than the current level.
We agree with the LcgislaLive Anclyst: 11 1£ the precedent of altering
the property tax provision of MJ}_ to help balance the state I s budget
is established, it will be more difficult for local governments to do
their fiscal planning for the future with any certainty."
'ln the Assembly side, AB 251 (the budget implementation bill) will be hear.d by
two policy connni.ttees ~onth: ·
Tuesday, March,17 --Assembly Commlttee on Local·Government
Wednesday, March 18 --Assembly Colll'llittee on Revenue and Taxation
Cities whose Assembly members are members of either of these two committees are
urged ti:, attend these bearings in Sacramento to lobby•· ,their· legislator:; ·personally,,
Each committee has been asked to make recommendations on AB .251 to ti1e Ways an<'.
Means Committee on those sections dealing with local governmeii'i: and schools,
Members of the Assembly Committee on Local Government are':: Frazee (Chair).;
Cortese (Vice Chair), Cramer, 'Uerger, Martinez, Thurman, Tucker, and Wright,
Members of the Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation are: .Dedd~h ~Chair).,
Lewis (VJce Chair), Cortese, D, Brown, Elder, Floyd, Hannigan, Kapiloff, Kelley,
Konnyu, La Folhtte, Lockyer, McCarthy, Moore, Naylor, and Sher,
SUPPORT
CITY
ATTORNEYS
Tort Claims Against Cities. League's Response to People v. Superior
Court ("Frost"), AB 601 (McAlister). The court in People_v. Superior
~ ("Frost"), 24 C, 3d 7/ili (1980) held that a defendant in a civil .
action seeking equitable indemnity from a city not previously named
in the l.tCtl.on need not file against the city until 100 days after
judgment was entered ag~inst the defendant, Most city attorneys con-
sider this deeislon contrary to the generclly-a~cepted interpretation of Govern-
ment Code §9Gl relative to when the defendant I s cause of action against the city
accrues,
League-sponsored AB 601 provides that the defendant's cause of action for ·equitable
indemnity or partial equitable indemnity accrues cm the date upon which the defen-
dant :1.s sei::ved with the complaint giving r:l.se to the defendant's claim. The defen-
dant then would hnve 100 days from that date to serve the city,
AB 601 has been referred ::o the Assembly Committee on Judiciary, Letters of sup-
port should be sent to: Harris (Chair), Imbrechl: (Vice Chair), Derman, Hart,
Ingalls, Johnoon, Le,;mard, HcAlister. Moorhead, Robinson, D, Stirling, Torres,
and M, Wat:ero,
5, SUPPORT Incrensed 1''un<lln~ for P.O,S.T, Sb 210 (Presley), llea.:ing: 'rues,,
Mnrch 10 in Senat Committee on J\iiIIclnry, Under existing law, POST
l\ow receives 28,96% of penalty assessments on finen, penalties and bail fodcitures,
nnd after Jnnunry 1, 1983, l'OST wiH receive 25¾ o'" all penalty assessments,•
-3 -3/6/81
1200 ELM AVENUE·
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Office of tho Mayor
March 13, 1981
QCit!' of QC:adsbab
Honorable Robert Frazee
76th District Assemblyman
State Capitol
Sa9ramento, California 95814
ST~TE BUDGET -BAIL-OUT FUNDS
Dear Bob:.
-
COVi
I want you to know the impact that the Governor's budget
proposal will have on the City of Carlsbad.
The City now receives $715,000 in state bail-out funds.
The loss of that money would have a significant effect
on the City budget.
The loss of $715,000 would be equivalent to: .
Eliminating the entire c.ity appropriation for
maintenance of the city street system which is
budgeted for $68~1 000 or;
Cutting the Fire Department in half. We now
spend $1.5 million for the ~ire Department, or;
Eliminating all of the following city depart-
ments:
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
City Treasurer
Finance Department
Purchasing Office
Personnel Office
TELEPHONE:
(714) 438-5501
Fortunately, Carlsbad is a growing city. We are receiving
other revenues (sales taxes and fees) which could be used
to soften the current impact of the loss of bail-out monies.
The point however, is thnt $715,000 is about 15% of our
general fund revenues. In the long run we would be forced
to curtail city scr,rices or raise other fees to m;;i,ke up f?r
the los::;.
March 13, 1981
Page 2 .
State Budget. Bail-out Funds
In a growing city like Carlsbad, the most significant long
run effect will be the loss of funds to support needed
capital improvement projects,
I hope you will consider these facts when you vote on the
ztate budget. We can ill afford to lose property tax
revenues which represe~t the most stable revenue source
for local government, We urge you to be sure that the
state·budget is also cut fairly with city, county, and
s~hool budgets when you strive to meet the mandate of
reducing government expenditures. Our concern is that
the Governor's budget unfairly penalizes local government
when compared to the state.
This is a ,most complex issue, I want you to know that the
City of Carlsbad stands ready to provide Y.OU with detailed
information at your request.
Sincerely,
RONALD C. PACKARD
-Mayor
RCP:ldg
cc: League of California
Cities
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATIJRE-1981-82 REGULAR SESSION
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 540
Introduced by Assemblyman Frazee
February 18, 1981
An act making an appropriation for beach erosion control
within the Oceanside literal cell.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DlCE:i'T
AB 540, as introduced> Frazee. Beach erosion control.
Under existing law, the Department of Boating and
Waterways is directed to prepare plans for and construct
works which its studies and investigations indicate to be
necessary for beach erosion control and stabilization of
beaches and shoreline areas, to the extent th~t funds are
available therefor.
This bill would appropriate $1,000,000 from the Resources
Account in the Energy and Resources Fund to the
department for purposes of beach erosion control within the
Oceanside literal cell.
Vote: ¾. Appropriation: yes. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact P.S follows:
1 SECTION 1. The sum of one million dollars
2 ($1,000,000) is hereby appropriated from the Resources
3 Account in the Energy and Resources Fund to the
4 Department of Boating and Waterways for purposes of
5 beach erosion control within the Oceanside literal cell.
0
99 40
-
I~ ASSEMBLY BILL
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE-1981-82 REGULAR SESSION
No. 445
/1(;~/Cdt.iV/ec
Introduced by A~semblyman Frazee .p~',tq:c:l_
February 9, 1981
An act to amend Sections 30113 and 30242 of the Public
Resources Code, relating to the California coastal zone.
LEGISLATIVE: COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 445, as inlTOduced, Frazee. Coastal zone: prime
agricultural· land.
The California Coastal Act of 1976 provides for the planning
of, and regulation of development, under -coastal
development permit process, within the coastal zone, as
defined, which shall be based on various coastal resources
planning and management policies set forth in the act. The
policies, among other things, prohibit lands suitable for
agricultural use from being converted to nonagricultural us~s
unles~ continued or renewed agricultural use is not feasible,
or such conversion.would preserve prime agricultural land or
concentrate development consistent with designated
provisions.
Tnis bill would, instead, prevent such lands from being
converted to nonagricultural uses unless continued or
renewed agricultural use is not economfoally viable, or such
conversion would preserve prime agricultural land or
concentrate development consistent with designated
provisions. !t would require that a prescribed analysis be
made in determining the economic viability of lands for
agricultural use. Also, the bill would redefine prime
agricultural land by deleting from its definition any land
which has returned from the production of unprocessed
agricultural plant products a prescribed annual gross value for
a designated period.
AB 445 -2-
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. •
State-mandated iocal program: no. . .
.: 'fhe people of the State of California do enact as follows: .......
1 SECTION 1. Section 30113 of the Public Resources •
2 Code is amended to read:
3 30113. "Prhne agricultural land" means those lands
4 defined in paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4) of subdivision
5 {c) of Section 51201 of the Government Code.
6 SEC. 2. · Section 30242 of the Public Resources Code is
7 amendl J to read:
8 30242. . {a) All other lands suitable for agricultural
9 use shall not be converted to nonagricultural uses unless
10 (1) continueqor renewed agricultural use is not feooible
11 economically viable, or (2) such conversion would
12 preserve prime · agricultural land or concentrate
13 9,,evel9pment c~nsistent with Section 30250. Any such
14 permitted conversiop. shall be compatible with continued
is agti~ul~ral use on ~llrrounding lands. ft
16 (b) f.n determining ti,e economic viability oflands for
17 agricultural use pur~w1nt to subdivision (a), the following
18 analysi~ shall' be made: ·
19 . (1) Annual gross revenue to be derived from the •
20 agricultural us.e of tlie land shall he computed on those
21 crop~ which are capaple of being produced, considering
22 thf!;! particular physiqal resources of the land. The gross
23 revenue so derived shall be discounted by a factor
~ comm_ensu_rate with the crop failure risk of the particular
25 crop in the geographic area of the land to determine the
26 adjusted annual gi:oss revenue of the land
21 (2) ,Qperation,a) expenses.for the crops shall include all
28 direct and indirect costs r~lating to the production, •
29 harvesting, distributiop,, and marketing of the crop,
30 ip.~fudfng, bqt not lin~ited to, Jarid preparation, plar1ting,
31 feitiliza.tion, irrigation,, pest and weed control,
32 puftivati_on, fumigation, thinning and pruning, picking,
33 packing, marketing, property taxes, equipment taxes,
34 overhead and administrah'on, and equipment investment .,_.
35 and depreciation. Indirect costs shall include a .,
99 70
•
•
•
•
•
•
~
-3-AB 445
1 calculation of financing charges on operating capital
2 normally incurred by a grower of the particular crop
3 which ii; subject to the analysis. The financing rate
4 relating thereto shall be calculated based upon the
5 average prime rate charged by banks in the geographic
6 area of the land during a six-month period immediately
7 pre-1Jeding the analysis.
8 (3) A land financing expense, or rental expense, shall
9 be calculated by multiplying the appraised land value of
10 the la11d by 10 percent In determining the appraised
11 land value, the appraised value set forth in the last
12 equalized county assessment roll of the cou11ty in which
13 tht.• land is located shall be conclusive.
14 (4) The revenue and expense calculations made
15 pursuant to paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of this
16 subdivision for the calendar year in which the analysis is
17 made shall be projected for the next succeeding four-year
18 period, utilizing the best avai1able projections of future
19 revenues and expenses in the geographic area in which
20 the land is located .
21 (5) From the adjusted annual gross revenue, the
22 annual gross expenses computed in accordance with
23 paragraphs (2) a11d (3) of this subdivision shall be
24 deducted to determine the annual net revenue derived
25 from the agricultural operation of the land
26 (6) If the annual net revenue, so computed, is less than
21 8 percent of the adjusted annual gross rrvenue iJ1 three
28 of the five years for which the analyses have been made,
29 the continued or renewed agricultural use of the land
30 shall be deemed not to be economically viable and the
31 land shall be designated for nonagricultural uses pursuant
32 to th!°s section.
33 (c) Upon determination that the continued or
34 renewed agricultural use of. the land shall not be
35 economically viable in accordance with subdivision (b),
36 the commission shall have no further Jurisdiction over the
37 land with respect to agricultural uses, and it shall be given
38 a nonagricultural land use designation pursuant to the
39 local coastal program governing the land .
0
99 90
, ......
CAUFORNIA LEGISLATURE-1981-82 REGULAR SESSION
{~ ASSEMBLY BILL
Introduced by Assemblyman Frazee
February 17, 1981
No. 524
LcP
da,a..s
An act to amend Section 30171 of the Public Resources
Code, relating to the California coastal zone, and declaring
the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 524, as introduced, Frazee. Local coastal program:
City of ~arlsbad.
The California Coastal Act of 1976, generally, provides for
the planning and regulation of development within
prescribed areas of the state's coastline, designated as the
coastal zone The act requires, generally, each local
government to prepare a local coastal program, based on
various resources planning and management policies set 1orth
in the act, for that portion of the coastal zone within its
jurisdiction, and provides for the approval and certification of
the program by the regional coastal commission and the
California Coastal Commission, respectively.
The act requires the commission, on or before July 1, 1981,
to adopt u local coastal program for a designated area within
the City of Carlsbad, specifically delineated on prescribed
maps filed with the Secretary of State, which shall, for all the
purposes of the act, constitute the certified local coastal
program for the area.
This bill would delete this provision and other related
provisions dealing wifo this area within the City of Carlsbad.
This bill would take effect immediately as an urgency
statute.
Vote: %. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
99 30
AB 524 -2-
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
1 ·. -SECTION 1. Section 30171 of the Public Resources
2. Coqe is amended to read:
3 30171. -W-On or before October 1, 1980, the
4 commission shall submit to the City of Carlsbad an initial
5 draft of the land use portion of the local coastal program
6 for the area specifically deHneated on maps 154 and 155
7 which have been placed on file with the Secretary of
8 State on April 22, 1980.
9 ~ Git et' eefefe fttlr .J,; -l98l; Hl:e eomntissioR shell;
10 tMtet' ~ ~ ttBe eonsuhatieR with ~ ~ et
11 Ce.rlsbe.cl, ~ ft Ioeal ~ flfogram. fet' Htat ftfeft
12 wiHtift the Qty et Gtrlsbaa whielt i9 ~
13 deliRee.tecl 6ft ~™&ad™ wftielt ftfl¥e beett ~
14 ett #le with th€ Seeretary et State OR~~ ~ =Rte
15 loettl eeastitl program fat Stteft aree shell; aft.er. aaoption
16 eythe eommissioR, ee cleemecl eertifiecl, &adsh≪fef all
17 purposes of this di·,isioft, eoftstitute lite eertiftea leeal
18 eeas¼e:l pregrom fer St:teh ftfflr. ~ loettl C88:5flM program
19 fef' Stieh ftfefl-ffitty ee ameReletl pursuant ta MtEJ pro•.'isioRs
20 ohhis diYisioR relatiRg to the am.eRdmeftt ofloeftlCOftStti
21 programs.
22 -W-If. the commissioR feils ¼6 ~ stteh ~ COft5tti
23 program witffift the ffffte flfflHS speeified to this
24 subdMsioa, St:teh are& shall he eMehtaed ffflm the COtl5tti
25 2efte eft& fflall fte leBget' Be ~ ffl the prOYisiOftS et
26 HHS di:r;isioa. It is the iRteftt et the Legislature, m efte.eting
27 HHS seetioft, Htat a proeeaure ta e.ttpeaite tho preparation
28 &ftd adoptioR of ft leeal eeastel J:'}rOgram to lftt5 sptleif:ee
29 are& he established so ~ the ~ &ad affeetea
30 property tJWRers lfflew as soea as possible whM the
31 permissible ttSCS et St:teh IMtds are:
32 ~ this sectioR is ~ iHtended ftft8: shall f\'fH ee
33 eoHstr~ed ~ autho~ ftftY' modifieation, _e~tensio,1, Of
34 alteration 1ft &ftY ----ne Of et-her-pro•,r151ons et ftftf
35 contra.et betweeR lite eommissioR ar ftft3/ regional ~
36 commission atttitlfty, persoR, husiRess;or eorl'}oration with
37 respeet to planning ser¥iees fef the ftfCft ecliReatea Oft
38 ~,H;"l&ttd~
09 60
•
•
•
•
•
e
•
•
•
•
I.
AB 524
1 SEC. 2. Local governments shall be reimbursed
2 pursuant to Sections 30340.5 and 30340.6 of the Public
3 Resources Code for any costs that may be incurred by
4 them in carrying out any program or performing any
5 service required to be carrbd on or performed by them
6 by this act.
7 SEC. 3. This act is P.O urgency statute necessary' for
8 the immediate prese~vation of the public peace, health,
9 or safety within foe meaning of Article IV of the
10 Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts
11 constituting the necessity are:
12 In order to ensure proper planning for, and
13 development of, the coastal zone area affected by this act,
14 it is necessary that the provisions of this act take effect
15 immediately .
0
99 70