HomeMy Public PortalAbout19830427 - Agenda Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 83-11 Meeting 83-11
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415) 965-4717
Regular Meeting
Wednesday Board of Directors 375 Distel Circle, D-1
April 27 , 1983 Los Altos, California
A G E N D A
(7 : 30) ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES (April 13 , 1983)
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
(7 : 45) 1. Adoption of the Interim Use and Management Plan for an Addition
to the El Sombroso Area of Manzanita Ridge Open Space Preserve
(Shields Property) -- D. Hansen
NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
(7 : 50) 2. Monte Bello Open Space Preserve Use and Management Plan for the
Page Mill Road Area -- D. Hansen
(8: 15) 3. 1983-84 Legislative Program Update -- H. Grench
(8: 30) 4 . Federal Disaster Assistance Program for Storm Damage Repair D. Hansen
Resolution Authorizing General Manager to Obtain Federal
Financial Assistance Under Public Law 93-288
(8:35) INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
CLAIMS
CLOSED SESSION (Land Negotiation and Litigation Matters)
ADJOURNMENT
TO .ADDRESS THE BOARD: When an item you're concerned
with appears on the agenda, please address the Board
at that time; otherwise, you may address the Board
under Oral Communications. When recognized, please
begin by stating your name and address. Conciseness
is appreciated. We request that you complete the
forms provided so your name and address can be
accurately included in the minutes.
Herbert A.Grench,General Manager
Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Barbara Green,Nonette G.Hanko,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin
Meeting 83-7
�d
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DFSTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
.(415)965-4717
REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
APRIL 13, 1983
MINUTES
I. ROLL CALL
President Barbara Green called the meeting to order at 7:06 P.M.
Members Present: Katherine Duffy, Barbara Green, Edward Shelley, Harry
Turner, and Richard Bishop.
Members Absent: Daniel Wendin and Nonette Hanko.
Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Craig Britton, David Hansen, Charlotte
MacDoanld, James Boland, Stanley Norton, and Jean Fiddes.
II. CLOSED SESSION
The Board recessed to a Closed Session on land negotiation and litigation
matters at 7 :07 P.M. and reconvened for the public meeting at 8 :13 P.M.
' III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
March 23, 1983
B. Green noted the fourth paragraph of Test Program to Allow Dogs on
Select Preserves on Page Four should re er to her review of the educational
rochure, rather than the questionnaire.
Motion: E. Shelley moved the approval of the minutes of March 23, 1983.
K. Duffy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
IV. WRITTEN COI-21UNICATIONS
J. Fiddes stated the Board had received the following written communications :
1) a letter, dated March 27, 1983, from Michael Lambert of Cupertino, ex-
pressing the reason he felt dogs should not be allowed on District
preserves; and
2) a letter, dated April 1, 1983, from Harry H. Haeussler of Los Altos,
requesting the Board provide a significant increase in funds for
parking areas and trails in the 1983-1984 budget.
V. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
B. Green added an agenda item for the appointment of a Secretary Pro Tempore.
H. Grench requested the Board consider item five, Rancho San Anto
nio Open
Space Preserve Upper House Proposal Criteria, after item nine in order
to allow for sufficient time for the Closed Session on personnel matters.
B. Green stated the Board' s consensus that the agenda was adopted as
amended.
VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
-Robert Fisse, representing the South Skyline Association, stated he had
flyers on the Association's May 15 Kite Day for distribution to the
members of the Board and public.
Herbert A.Grench,General Manager
Boardo/Directors:Katherine Duffy,Barbara Green,Nonette G.Hanko.Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner.Daniel G.Wendin
Meeting 83-7 Page Two
VII. NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
A) Appointment of Secretary Pro Tempore
Motion: E. Shelley moved the appointment of K. Duffy as Secretary Pro
Tempore. H. Turner seconded the motion. The motion passed
unanimously.
VIII. OLD BUSINESS WITH NO ACTION REQUESTED
A) Tenth Anniversary Progress Report (memorandum M-83-40 of April 7, 1983)
Betsy Bechtel and Ellie Huggins, the coordinators for the District' s
Tenth Anniversary activities,briefed the Board on various activities,
including R. Bishop' s hike on the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve, the
Rancho San Antonio Fun Run on April. 17 , and the May 14 celebration atop
Black Mountain.
IX. OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
A) Follow-up Information on Test Program to Allow Dogs on Select Preserves
D. Hansen and J. Boland reviewed in detail memorandum M-83-42 of April 7,
1983 which clarified certain discussion points concerning the test .
program to allow dogs on select District preserves.
Discussion focused on bail schedules and fines and the proposed
wording of the ordinance and brochure. B. Green stated the Board' s
consensus that District Rangers should cite offenders under the appro-
priate County code until the District' s bail schedule was revised and
in better alignment with neighboring jurisdictions. H. Turner
requested the record state he was in favor of the lower of Santa Clara
County' s . and San Mateo County' s bail amounts for violations concerning
dogs as the appropriate bail amount for the District.
H. Turner and R. Bishop suggested the following title changes for regu-
lation 801. 1: dogs and cats permitted in certain areas; dogs and cats
are prohibited except in certain areas.
D. Hansen reviewed the wording of the brochure noting he intended to
add a statement stating that the success or failure of the experiment
will be taken into consideration in determining the permanency of dog use
, on select preserves and a statement that dog owners were responsible for
removing their dog' s scat from trail areas . B. Green suggested the brochure
text include a statement that fines would be imposed for violation of
the dog ordinance.
Motion: R. Bishop moved the Board approve the one year experiment to
allow dogs on leash on three select District preserves com-
mencing on July 1, 1983 as outlined in the staff memorandum
before the Board and the previous memorandum of March 16, 1983
and review the experiment after July 1, 1984 to ascertain if a
permanent policy to allow dogs on select preserves is desirable.
H. Turner seconded the motion. The motion passed on the following
vote;
Ayes : K. Duffy, B. Green, H. Turner, and R. Bishop.
No: E. Shelley.
Meeting 83-7 Page Three
B) The Next Decade Workshop Agenda
K. Duffy reviewed the proposed agenda for the workshop as contained in
memorandum M-83-36 of March 23, 1983. B. Green stated that during the
"Blue Sky" Session, she would solicit comments in the following order:
members of the Board, members of the staff, and members of the public.
Motion: E. Shelley moved the adoption of the agenda for "The Next Decade"
Workshop. H. Turner seconded the motion. The motion passed
unanimously.
C) Final Adoption of Use and Management Plan for San Mateo County
Baylands Reserve
D. Hansen reviewed memorandum M-83-38 of April 4, 1983.
Motion: E. Shelley moved the Board adopt the use and management plan
for the San Mateo County Baylands Reserve as contained in
report R-83-11 and dedicate the 188 acre reserve as public open
space. H. Turner seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
X. NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED, CONTINUED
B) Proposed Addition to the El Sombroso Area of Manzanita Ridge Open Space
Preserve (Shields Property)
C. Britton introduced report R-83-13, dated April 5, 1983, noting the
location of the property and stating the total purchase price for the
120 acre parcel was $78, 000 or $650 per acre, payable in cash at the close
of escrow. D. Hansen reviewed the use and management recommendations for
the property and showed slides of the proposed acquisition which is
outside but adjacent to the District's boundary, in an unincorporated
area of Santa Clara County south of Highway 17.
Motion: R. Bishop moved the Board adopt Resolution 83-16, a Resolution of
the Board of Directors of the- Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District Authorizing Acceptance of Purchase Agreement, Authorizing
Officer to Execute Certificate of Acceptance of Grant to District,
and Authorizing General Manager to Execute Any and All Other
Documents Necessary or Appropriate to Closing of the Transaction
(Manzanita Ridge Open Space Preserve - Lands of Shields) ; tentatively
adopt the interim use and management recommendations contained
in the report before the Board; state its intention to withhold
the property from dedication at this time; and adopt Manzanita
Ridge Open Space Preserve, El Sombroso Area, as the official
name of the site. H. Turner seconded the motion. The motion
passed unanimously.
C) Proposed Land and Water Conservation Fund Application - San Mateo
County Baylands Reserve Acquisition
C. Britton reviewed report R-83-12, dated April 7, 1983 , regarding the
proposed project to purchase about 98. 6 acres of marshland and submerged
land on the shoreline of San Francisco Bay which would become an addition
to the District 188 acre San Mateo County Baylands Reserve. He noted that
a separate gift from Peninsula Open Space Trust of a 14 acre building
site, as an addition to the Windy Hill Open Space Preserve, would be used
as the District' s matching contribution for the grant and said the amount
being requested from the government for the project was $100,000,
Motion: H. Turner moved the adoption of Resolution 83-17, a Resolution of
the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District Approving the Application for Land and Water Conservation
li
Funds - San Mateo County Bayfront Park Acquisition. . R. Bishop
seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Meeting 83-8 Page Four
C) Proposed Land_ and Water_Conservation Fund Application - Rancho
Raymundo Acquisition
C. Britton reviewed report R-83-14 , dated April 7, 1983, regarding the
proposed project involving the bargain purchase of Rancho Raymundo, a
204 acre property currently owned by the Peninsula Open Space Trust. He
noted POST is willing to sell the property on a bargain sale basis at a
maximum amount of $750, 000 and said the grant request was for $600 , 000
with the $150, 000 balance to be paid by the District.
Motion: H. Turner moved the adoption of Resolution 83-18, a Resolution
of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open
Space District Approving the Application for Land and Water
Conservation Funds - Rancho Raymundo Acquisition. R. Bishop
seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
D) Appointment to Legislative Committee
B. Green, referring to memorandum M-83-39 of April 6, 1983, stated she
had appointed Director Duffy to replace Director Turner on the Legislative
Committee. The Board concurred with B. Green' s appointment.
XI. OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED, CONTINUED
D) Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve Upper House Proposal Criteria
Motion: E. Shelley moved this agenda item be held over to the next Board
meeting. H. Turner seconded the motion. The motion passed
unanimously.
B. Green stated it would be necessary to hold a Special Meeting on Wednesday,
April 20, 1983, and H. Grench noted the upper house proposal criteria
item could be addressed at the Special Meeting.
Motion: H. Turner moved that the Board schedule a Special Meeting for
Wednesday, April 20, 1983 beginning at 7 :30 P.M. at the
District office. R. Bishop seconded the motion. The motion
passed unanimously.
H. Grench noted there would be an item on proposed summer use of the
structures on the Coal Creek Open Space Preserve on the April 20 agenda.
XII.INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
H. Grench informed the Board the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation
Commission had unanimously approved the District' s proposed Sphere of Influence
He stated Senator Cranston supports a $125 million State of California share
for Land and Water Conservation Funds this year and reported on the rate the
State' s bonds were recently sold compared to the District ' s December issue.
C. MacDonald stated she would be ordering more Celebrate Open Space t-shirts,
B. Green reported on the opening of Palo Alto' s Baylands Trail.
:III.CLAIMS
Motion: E. Shelley moved the approval of the revised claims 83-7 , dated
April 13, 1983. R. Bishop seconded the motion. The motion
passed unanimously.
H. Haeussler requested staff report on recent storm damage at the next Board
meeting. D. Hansen briefly described the storm damage suffered on District
land.
Meeting 83-8 Page Five
XIV.CLOSED SESSION
The Board recessed to a Closed Session on personnel matters at 9 : 29 P.M.
XV.ADJOU.RNMENT
The Board reconvened to adjourn at 11: 15 P.M.
Jean H. Fiddes
District Clerk
Claims 83-7 - revised
meeting 83-8
ril 13,1983
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
C L A I M S
Amount Name Description
4819 $ 3,015 . 87 Karl A. Bell Debt Service-Liebelt Property
4820 270. 83 Betsy Bechtel 10th Anniversary Coordinator' s
Fees -March
4821 270. 83 Eleanor Huggins 10th Anniversary Coordinator' s
Fees -March
4822 325.00 Louis Bordi Culvert and Road Repair
4823 815.00 California Advocates , Inc. Legislative Consultant' s Fee fo-:
March
4824 255. 60 Carolyn Caddes Photography
4825- 94.00 -Cardillo Travel Systems , Inc. Out-of-Town Conference-J. Bola_n<
4826 213.00 Communications Research, Inc. Radio Maintenance Repairs
4827 15.02 Clark' s Auto Parts District Vehicle Supplies
4828 79. 89 Crest Copies Blueprints
4829 300.00. Susan Cretekos Windmill Pasture -Patrol Servic�_-
4830 2. 30 H.S . Crocker., Inc. Office Supplies
4831 The Dark Room Photo Processing
4832 41.27 Katherine Duffy Reimbursement for Expenses-
Phone and Public Communication
Lunches (Invitations and Sta-,--ps)
4833 50.00 Emergency Vehicle Systems Radio Repairs
4834 59.95 John Escobar Reimbursement-Seminar and
Shop Supplies
4835 7. 86 Excel Pool and Patio Chlorine
4836 92.67 Ewert's Miscellaneous Photographic
Supplies
4837 214.06 Expedite Screen Printing Signs
4838 25. 60 Jean Fiddes Private Vehicle Expenses
4839 285.00 First American Title GuarantyCo.Preliminary Title Reports
4840 812.'50 First American Title Escrow Closing-Rancho Canada
Insurance Co. de Verde
4841 140.85 First Interstate Bank Note Paying Agent-Promissory
Note
4842 400. 00 Foss and Associates Personnel Consultant Fee-March
4843 45.86 Graphicstat , Inc. Artwork-Maps
4844 122.99 Harbinger Communications Computer Services for Openspac, �
Mailing List
Claims 83-7 Page 2
eting 83-8 Revised
cil 13,1983
Amount Name Description
4845 $ 21%.%% Harfst Associates , Inc. Computer Services-February
4846 999. 00. The Hub Schneider s, Inc. Uniform Alterations
I4847 18. 58 Image Technology, Inc. Topo for Sphere of Influence
4848 33. 64 Emma Johnson Private Vehicle Expense
4849 211. 25 Los Altos Garbage Co. Garbage Service
:4850 35.94 Los Altos Stationers Purchase Order Forms
4851 117.06 Charlotte MacDonald Private Vehicle Expense
'4852 100.00 Loren McQueen Refund of License Agreement Fee
4853 138.54 Mobil Oil Corp. Gas for District Vehicle :
4854 23.60 Norney's Miscellaneous Office Supplies
4855 14.10 Stanley Norton February Legal Expenses-Copies
and Telephone
4856 22.00 Park Maintenance Resource Documents
4857 183. 95 PG and E Utilities
4858 921. 11 Pacific Telephone Telephone Service
4859 4.00 Palo Alto Utilities Utilities
4860 17.49 Pete Ellis Dodge District Vehicle Repair
.4861 94.00 Pitney Bowes Postage -Meter Maintenance
4862 22.1A Rancho Hardware and Garden Shop Shop Supplies
4863 21,544. 80 Kurt Reitman and Associates Appraisal Services
4864 36.00 Research Institute of America Resource Documents
4865 101053.23 Rogers ,Vizzard & Tallett Legal Services-February
4866 90.86 San Jose Art Drafting and Photographic
Supplies
4867 22250.00 E.R. Sheehan Storm Damage Repairs-Wild Cat
Canyon
4868 914.83 Shell Oil Co. District Vehicle Repairs and Ga
4869 1,447.50 Rick Skierka Survey Work-Whittemore Gulch
4870 70.40 Pat Starrett Private Vehicle Expense
4871 384, 78 Techni-graphics, Inc. Stationery and Business Cards
4872 380.84 David Topley Private Vehicle Expense
4873 500. 00 U.S. Postmaster Postage for Meter
4874 109.91 Valley Stake and Supply Co. Storm Damage Repairs-Bridge
Materials for Rancho San Antonia
4875 118.60 West Coast Rebar Co. Fence Materials
4876 82.01 West Publishing Co. Book
4877 200. 74 Xerox Installment Payment-March
Claims 83-7 Page 3
" ---ting 83-8 Revise d-
:il 13,1983
Amount Name Description
'4878 $*1 ,498. 68 William P. Murphy,County Tax Property Taxes
Collector
4879 *239. 94 William P. Murphy,County Tax Property Taxes
Collector
4880 10400.0800 Jean Fiddes Postage Meter Advance
�14881 Quicksilver Instant Printing Brochures-May 14th
14882 36.05 Santa Clara Office Equipment Co.Office Supplies
i4883 1$638.00 John H. Tallett Personal Legal Services-William
T. Wilkins
14884 1,626.53 William T. Wilkins Interest on Trust Fund
14885 78,000.00 Valley Title Co. Land Acquisition-Shields
Property
14886 235.14 Petty Cash Meal Conferences,Private Vehicl, .,
Expense,Exhibit Materials,
Miscellaneous Office Supplies,
Aerial Photos,Slide Duplicates,
Registration Fee-Computer Fair, ,
and Subscriptions .
•
*Checks for Claims 4878 and 4879 issued on April 30, 83 under authorizatio'.
of Resolution 82-34.
WRITT"" COMMUNICATION
DON EDWARDS P ng 83-11 WASHINGTON OFFICE.
IOM DISTRICT.CALIFORNIA Ap, il 27, 1983 (202)225-3072
COMMITTEE ON DISTRICT OFFICES,
JUDICIARY Cona rea oftheEiteb &Late 1625 THE
ALAmmA
SAN JOSE,CALIFORNIA 9 3126
CHAIRMAN (408)
292-0143
SUBCOMMITTEE ON X)OU0 of Reprtlattatibt.0 38750 PAsEo PADRE PARKWAY
CIVIL AND FREMONT.CALIFORNIA 94536
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 15aAfn&n.A.C. 20515 (415)792-5320
COMMITTEE ON
VETERANS'AFFAIRS April 13 , 1983
Ms. Barbara Green, President
Board of Directors
Midpeninsula Regional open Space District
375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1
Los Altos, California 94022
Dear Ms. Green:
Thank you for writing to me on behalf of the citizens living
within the boundaries of the Midpeninsula Regional open Space
District in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties.
The first budget resolution, which was recently approved by
the House, calls for the Land and Water Conservation Fund to be
funded at its fiscal year 1983 level. Last year, the Appropriations
Committee directed that $75 million of this funding be allocated
for grants to the states and it appears likely that this same funding
level will be maintained.
I share your views on the importance of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund grants to the states. You can be sure of my
full support to help ensure that federal monies continue to flow
to the Fund grants directed to the states.
With kindest regards.
Sincerely,
'r-w-
Don Edwards
Member of Congress
DE:ch
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
Meeting 83-11
April 27, 1983
511 Blueberry Terrace
San Jose, CA 94129
April 14 , 1983
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
375 Distel Drive
Suite D-1
Los Altos, CA 94022
Good People,
I can 't begin this letter with anything more formal because
the Open Space is such a part of my life. I do, however, have a
request.
I don 't like to drive, and usually don' t have to . I have
two bikes--one with baskets for buying heavy groceries (the only
kind I seem to get! ) and a lighter one for taking me from here
to where I want to go. And one of my favorite places to go is
Rancho San Antonio .
Twice this week I 've seen other cyclists there and have asked
all of them if there were bike lockers availabile, would they use
such lockers. Their response? An enthusiastic "Yes! " And so would
I. De Anza College has such lockers and rents them out on a
quarterly basis. I 'd love to rent one for a year at a time .
And I know of at least four other SERIOUS cyclists who would
also use the bike lockers if they were available.
I 've written before, both to the bike locker company and to
you. The locker company sent me information; I got no response at
all from you good people. Is it possible to have lockers? I 'm
more than willing to find people to rent such lockers so you
won't have them sitting empty. If you don 't want to order the
six (I think it is) minimum order, I 'll go round the area and
see if I can' t find other places to split an order with you. I
know that' s possible from information from the bike locker company.
What happens next?
Sincerely,
Margie
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Meeting 83-11
April 27, 1983
511 blueberry Terrace
San Jose, CA 94129
April 14 , 1983
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
375 Distel Drive
Suite D-1
Los Altos, CA 94022
Good Morning,
Last Sunday, April 10, my;)family was enjoying Rancho San Antonio .
I was running some of the trails while my husband and son were out on
their bikes .
They were disappointed that the trails for bikes were as limited
as they are, but did not go where they were not welcome . The new
farm animals were enjoyed, hills were climbed, and enough was found
to do until I finished my run .
I 've been running there for years and years and, like scores
of my friends, would LOVE to know how far it is from here to there ,
from this point to that , this trail , that trail , etc . We runners
are full of numbers : how far, how fast , how many times . Have you
such information on the trails?
My husband David was told that bicycles were not allowed on the
trails because of space problems--too many people, not enough room.
Yes , I can see that , especially on weekends . I remember talking to
one ranger onoone of the first non-rainy Sundays we had a while back
when all the Santa Clara Valley was suffering from cabin fever. He
said more than a thousand hikers were counted on Wildcat alone! !
What I 'm getting to in my wordy letter is a request : would it
be possible to have a one time special dispensation to walk David' s
lightweight (not a heavy trail bike--a regular touring 10-speed)
bike over some of the trails to measure them? he has a very accurate
odometer . As I said, I know of many MANY people who ' d love the in-
formation and I would be delighted to share it . And such measure-
ments would not have to be done on a weekend. We could do them on
a Friday when the traffic would be much less.
Could we? Just once? The information would be treasured for years!
Sincerely,,,
Margie R. Stephens
M-83-47
(Meeting 83-11
April 27, 1983)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEINIORANDUM
April 18, 1983
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
RESPONSIBILITY AND PREPARATION: D. Hansen, Land Manager; M. Gundert,
Associate Open Space Planner
SUBJECT: Adoption of the Interim Use and Management Plan for an
Addition to the El Sombroso Area of Manzanita Ridge Open
Space Preserve (Shields Property)
At your meeting of April 13, 1983 you approved a proposed addition
to the El Sombroso Area of Manzanita Ridge Open Space Preserve (see
report R-83-13, dated April 5, 1983) . You also tentatively adopted
the use and management plan for the property and indicated your
intention to withhold the property from dedication. Final adoption
of the interim use and management plan, naming the property an
addition to the El Sombroso Area, and withholding the property from
dedication were deferred until your April 27 , 1983 meeting to allow
for public comment. To date, staff has received no public comment.
Recommendation: I recommend you approve the interim use and management
plan, including naming of the property, as contained in report R-83-13
for the addition to the El Sombroso Area of Manzanita Ridge Open
Space Preserve. I further recommend you withhold the property from
dedication at this time.
R-83-15
(Meeting 83-11
Nloe April 27 , 1983)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
REPORT
April 15, 1983
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. C,rench, General Manager
RESPONSIBILITY AND PREPARATION: D. Hansen, Land Manager; D. Woods ,
Open Space Planner; M. Gundert,
Associate Open Space Planner
SUBJECT: Monte Bello Open Space Preserve Use and Management Plan
for the Page Mill Road Area
Introduction: The use and management plan for the Monte Bello Open
Space Preserve - Page Mill Road Area, was last presented to you at
your July 28 , 1982 meeting (see report R-82-31 , dated July 21 , 1982) .
Final adoption of the plan was on August 11 , 1982 (see memorandum
M-82-78 , dated August 4 , 1982) .
According to the Relative Site Emphasis Plan and Policies, this site
is considered highly emphasized and as such, use and management plans
reflect an anticipated high level of use and development. The use
and management review schedule indicates that Monte Bello will most
likely be reviewed on an annual basis, as is the case with more
emphasized sites.
I. Site Description and Use
The 2600 acre Page Mill Road Area of the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve
is the largest of 3 areas of the 3000 acre Preserve. It encompasses
the major portion of the upper Stevens Creek watershed and can now
be explored on the Preserve 's 12 miles of trails .
Recreational use of the 2600 acre Preserve has increased a great
deal over the past year. The increase may be attributable to the
opening of the parking area and trail system and a higher visibility
along Page Mill Road. Even though the District has not aggressively
publicized the site, public awareness is evident as the parking area
is over 50% full on nice weekends.
The Stevens Creek Nature Trail, a self-guided interpretive trail
which opened this year, is receiving the majority of the use. Its
popularity is largely due to the docent program, which has been
conducting guided walks on this trail since its opening last Eovember.
Currently, the walks are scheduled the third Saturday of every
month and may be increased as there becomes more interest. Special
wildflower walks will be held on the Nature Trail and the Waterwheel
Creek area during the next two months .
Recent storms have caused extensive damage to many of the trails
R-83-15 Page two
and roads, resulting in periodic closures of two main routes: the
Page Mill to Saratoga Gap Trail and the Nature Trail . These closures
have not caused a significant inconvenience to visitors because
they have coincided with periods of bad weather and low usage.
Publicity of the Preserve has included articles in the Opens2ace
newsletter, various local newspapers, and the distribution of the
All Site Brochure. Use is anticipated to increase sharply in the
next two months as a result of this and additional publicity about
the "Day on the Hill" picnic, the distribution of the District's
Progress Report, and an article in the May Sunset Magazine.
II . Planning Considerations (refer to R-82-31 , dated July 21, 1982)
The initial development plans for the Preserve were approved by the
City of Palo Alto in 1982. District staff is currently in the process
of seeking approval from the Architectural Review Board to relocate
the restroom facility. In addition, permits are being obtained to
open the proposed backpack camp.
The District is now submitting a claim to the State of California
for reimbursement of the funds provided for by the Land and Water
Conservation Fund grant. A complete accounting of the project is
included in Attachment "B" . Since the development plan could not
be entirely completed with the available funding, the remaining
projects are being recommended for funding in FY 83/84 .
Funding has also been provided by Peninsula Open Space Trust and
the Frances Brenner Memorial Fund. Money available from the
Memorial Fund is being concentrated on develop.-Pent of the upper
reaches of the Stevens Creek Nature Trail and Vista Point. The
fund is being continued to generate revenues for ongoing maintenance
of a portion of the trail system.
III. Use and Management Recommendations
The following includes discussions focusing on current land use,
status of existing use and management recommendations, and proposed
recommendations for the year to come. The existing use and manage-
ment recommendations are contained in the Use and Management Plan
(report R-83-31) as adopted July 28, 1982 .
A. Access and Circulation
Development of the parking area and trail system has continued
through the past year. The site has remained open, and access
has been primarily from Page Mill Road, Montebello Road, and
Skyline Boulevard.
Existing Use and Management Recommendations
1 . The parking lot development project went to bid in March 1982,
construction was completed in early June, and the lot was
scheduled to be opened in August.
Status: The opening of the parking area was deferred several
months to allow the completion of the trail system and placement
of the perimeter fencing around the lot. The parking lot opened
in November, 1982 .
2. The Stevens Creek Nature Trail is currently under construction and
is expected to be completed in August. Following the winter rains,
sections of the trail surface will be improved with compacted
baserock to provide better wheelchair access.
R-83-15 Page three
Status: Construction of the Stevens Creek Nature Trail was com-
pleted in October 1982 . Storm damage from the past winter re-
sulted in several landslides across the trail . California
Conservation Corps efforts combined with District staff and Trail
Day volunteers have reopened the trail. High hazard water flow
through Stevens Creek closed the trail on various occasions during
the winter. As use increases, staff should explore the feasibility
of installing bridges across Stevens Creek. The trail section
from the parking lot to the vista point is scheduled to be im-
proved with compacted base rock to provide better wheelchair
access in the fall. Cost is estimated at $200, and funds for
the project are included in FY 83/84 budget preparation.
3 . The Page Mill Road to Saratoga Gap trail will be maintained and
a pylon creek crossing will be installed on Stevens Creek.
Status: Due to a significant slide across the lower section of
Canyon Trail limiting vehicle access to the area, the project
was deferred. Installation of the crossing is now scheduled for
late summer in conjunction with trail construction in the Grizzlev
Flat area. Cost of the project is estimated at $100, and funding
is included in FY 83/84 budget preparation.
4 . A provision will be made for a connecting trail from Canyon
Trail to the Waterwheel Creek Trail in the northeastern portion
of the site.
Status: Staff has been working with the docents in determining
the most feasible route for this trail. Construction would not
begin until planning is complete and the alignment approved.
5. An alternate trail route leading from the new parking area to
Stevens Creek will be investigated to provide equestrian access
to the rest of the trail system.
Status: A hiking and equestrian trail has been aligned from the
parking area to the old roadbed connecting Skyline Boulevard
with Stevens Creek. A portion of this trail is currently usable,
but further construction is necessary. Estimated cost is $3,375
and funding will be included in FY 83/34 budget preparation.
6 . Trail construction will be required to connect Grizzley Flat
Trail with Canyon Trail.
Status: Staff is seeking permission from Santa Clara County
Parks and Recreation Department for construction of this trail.
Estimated cost is $1 ,000 and funding will be included in FY 83/84
budget preparation.
7. The proposed Geology Trail is considered an integral part of the
trail system. The trail will provide access to an attractive
portion of the Preserve and offer visitors an opportunity to
view unique geologic features. It is anticipated that the trail
would be popular with many educational programs in the Bay Area.
Funding for trail construction through educational or scientific
fi groups will be explored.
Status: A funding source has not yet been located, but staff
wi l continue to contact educational and scientific groups.
8 . The area adjacent to and including the riding rink on the former
McNiel property will be designated as a permit parking area for
equestrians or other special uses . A permit system will be
administered by the District with the assistance of the Mid-
Peninsula Trails Council . Parking in the area will continue on
a year to year basis until an equestrian parking facility is
opened on the Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve or some other
nearby location.
R-83-15 Page four
Status: Construction of the lot with the help of CCC crews is
scheduled for early May. Cost is estimated at $750, and was
included in the FY 82/83 budget.
New Use and Management Recommendations
1 . Staff has received inquiry regarding the potential development
of public parking facilities at the northeastend of the Preserve
on Montebello Road. Due to the current limitations of this road
(road width and sharp curves) and physical impact on the ridgetop
landscape, public parking in this location is not being recom-
mended. Staff feels that the the condition of Montebello Road
does not lend itself to increased traffic flows which would likely
result from creating an open ridgetop parking area. In addition,
because of its remoteness, it would be a difficult area to manaue
on a regular basis. However, the docent parking area will con-
tinue to be maintained for group activities.
B. Signing
Signing has been installed in conjunction with the Monte Bello develop-
ment project. Additional signing will be installed on the former
!AcNiel property and other areas where access is being encouraged.
Existing Use and Management Recommendations
1 . Roadside signing will be installed on Page Mill Road to slow
vehicle traffic near the parking areas.
Status: The signs are currently on order, and installation is
anticipated for June. Cost is estimated at $160 and funding
is included in the current fiscal year's budget.
2 . The proposed permit parking area, trail, and access from Alpine
Road located on the former McNiel property will be signed with
regulations and trail directional signs.
Status: The access from Alpine Road onto the former McNiel
property is currently being signed. The permit parking area
and trail will be signed upon completion of the connecting
trail scheduled for this summer. Cost is estimated at $150,
and funding will be included in FY 83/84 budget preparation.
3. A wildland and trail directional sign will be installed at the
access point on Skyline Boulevard in the northwest portion of
the Preserve.
Status: The signs are currently being installed.
4 . Special regulatory, permit, and map signs will be required upon
completion of the backpack camp this fall. The estimated cost is
$250 and funds will be allocated in FY 833/84 budget preparation.
5. Staff will seek permission from the Santa Clara County Department
of Parks and Recreation to place trail directional signs on the
Charcoal Ridge Trail and Grizzley Flat Trail. The estimated
cost is $205 and funds will be allocated in FY 83/84 budget.
New Use and Management Recommendations
1 . Trail directional signs should be installed along Montebello Road.
The cost is estimated at $75 and funds will be allocated in FY
83/84 budget preparation.
2. A sign will be placed at the Frances Brenner Memorial Site which
will explain the memorial to visitors. The cost is estimated at
$155 and funding will be included in FY 83/84 budget preparation.
R-83-15 Page five
C. Brochure
Existin2 Use and Management Recommendations
1 . A site brochure will be available in the Page Mill Road parking
area and at the main office. It will include information about
the District and the Preserve and interpret the Stevens Creek
Nature Trail, including geologic features and natural history.
Status: The brochure was made available in November in conjunction
with the trail opening. It is currently being revised in prep-
aration for its second printing.
D. Structures and Improvements
Existing Use and Management Recommendations
1 . A rectangular shaped concrete pad located adjacent to Page Mill
Road should be demolished as it appears upon investigation that
it serves no purpose.
Status: The pad removal is scheduled in conjunction with other
structure removal projects in June 1984 . Estimated cost is $500
and funding is included in FY 83/84 budget preparation.
2 . A backpack camp facility will be developed at the Black Mountain
Ranch. It will include six campsites, a restroom, and potable
water. It will accommodate up to 12 visitors, and be operated
on a permit basis. Campstoves will be allowed. Staff will return
with a request to implement a reasonable fee structure to defray
operating costs before the backpack camp opens.
Status: The facility is scheduled to be developed in July.
Staff is currently applying to the City of Palo Alto for the
necessary permits required to operate the camp. A fee system is
being established to defray estimated operating cost. A nominal
fee of $2. 00/person/night is being recommended at this time and
may be adjusted later to reflect actual operating costs. In-
stallation of the restroorr. and improvements to the water system
are estimated at $750 and funds will be included in FY 83/84
budget preparation.
3. Fences, gates and stiles will be installed around the parking
area, along a portion of Page Mill Road and other appropriate
access points.
Status: The fencing, gate and hiking/equestrian stiles have
been installed around the parking area and at the intersection
of Canyon Trail and Page Mill Road. A hiking stile is currently
being installed on Page Mill Road to provide easy access to the
Los Trancos Preserve.
4. Staff is investigating the possibility of relocating the restrooms
adjacent to the parking area to a site which is less obtrusive.
Status: The restroom units should be located in the northwest
corner of the parking area. Staff has selected this site as the
least obtrusive area and is currently working with the City of
Palo Alto Architectural Review Board to obtain the necessary
approval for the construction in this location. Installation
is scheduled for spring at a cost of $2000 and funding is in-
cluded in the current budget.
5. The pole barn located on the former McNiel property should be dis-
mantled and the materials stored for future use.
Status: The pole barn and riding ring were removed from the site in
fall, 1982. Dismantling of the structure was completed by Ranger
staff, CCC, and the Deer Hollow Farm staff, and most of the
materials were salvaged from the structure.
R-83-15 Page six
6. The lower barn should be removed because of its hazardous
condition. The area surrounding the barn is to be cleaned up
as part of the sale agreement.
Status: The debris around the barn was removed, and a contractor
has been retained for the removal of the structure. The wet
winter made the road leading to the barn impassable, thus
delaying removal. Completion of the demolition is anticipated
by July. Costs of $4 ,000 are included in the current F.Y.
budget.
7. A pipe gate and equestrian stile will be installed across from
Alpine Road and on Skyline Boulevard on the northwestern boundary
of the Preserve.
Status: Installation of gates and stiles is currently underway.
8. Staff is in the process of trying to formalize a road maintenance
agreement on the portion of Montebello Road between Page Mill
Road and the entrance to the Preserve with other users of the road.
Status: A road maintenance agreement was formalized and work is
scheduled to be conducted in June. The estimated District share
of the roadwork is $9, 000 and funds will be included in 83/84
budget preparation.
9. The log barrier at the end of Stevens Canyon Road should be
removed and a pipe gate installed. A stile will not be provided
until such time as a trail is re-established across the slide
which is immediately beyond the barrier. Staff will investigate
the feasibility of reopening the trail with the help of the
County Transportation Department.
Status: Winter storm damage has compounded problems in this area.
The District boundary is currently inaccessible for installation
of the appropriate barriers. In addition, the slope angle of
the slide has increased,making the footpath extremely dangerous
and Trail Closed signs are being placed until such time as the
trail can be rerouted. Staff will work with the County Trans-
portation Department to remove hazardous material located below
the slide when they repair this year' s storm damage. A barrier
and stile will be installed at an estimated cost of $900 and
funding will be included in budget preparation of FY 83/84.
New Use and Management Recommendations
1 . Existing fencing along Montebello Road at the northeastern
boundary of the site is in need of repair. Estimated cost of
repair is $500 and funding will be included in FY 83/84 budget
preparation.
2. Two old cisterns are located on Black Mountain in the area of
Black Mountain Ranch. As potential hazards, the cisterns should
be buried at an estimated cost of $500 and funding will be in-
cluded in FY 83/84 budget preparation.
3. A bench and interpretive sign will be constructed at the
Frances Brenner Memorial Site at the vista point overlook. The
bench will consist of a rock ledge design set into the hill.
Cost is estimated at $200 and is not specifically included in
FY 82/83 budget.
R-83-15 Page seven
E. Natural Resource and Agricultural Management
Existing Use and Management Recommendations
1 . Staff will work with the California Division of Forestry and
the City of Palo Alto in developing a comprehensive fire
management plan for the entire foothill region. Staff should
also pursue qualifying for aid under the California Division
of Forestry Chapparal Management Program in completing the
second phase of the burn program.
Status: The comprehensive fire management plan was completed
in September 1982 . The District qualified for aid under the
California Division of Forestry Chaparral Management Program
for the second phase of the burn project. An especially wet
winter has halted the project until October 1983.
2 . The dynamics of the plant communities on the west-facing slopes
of Monte Bello Ridge will be studied.
Status: Student interns from various universities are assisting
staff in these studies. The information will be extremely
useful in the preparation of a grazing plan, which is also
progressing.
3. Staff will continue to work with the U.S . Soil Conservation
Service to study two areas of excessive erosion on the Preserve.
Staff has concluded that probably cause of the erosion below
the water tank is a result of the original grading and sub-
sequent drainage from that facility. It is recommended that a
letter be sent from the President of the Board to the City
Council with a specific request for the City to help restore
the eroded area.
Status: Director Hanko and staff have met with the Palo Alto
staff, who have expressed a desire to cooperate with the
District on resolving the erosion problem. Palo Alto is in-
vestigating the possibility of constructing a sediment basin
to ensure a slower and more consistent run-off from storms
or flushing of the tank. Cost estimates are being obtained to
determine the grading and recontouring work costs of the eroded
gully below the tank.
4 . Various areas of the Preserve have been identified as usable
agricultural lands, and proposals for such use will be investi-
gated.
Status: Staff is currently preparing a grazing plan for all
suitable District sites along Skyline Ridge. This would result
in a rotational grazing program, which would better utilize
all the sites, enhance the grasslands , and decrease the fire
hazard. Areas not suitable for agricultural use but which
had been so used in the past are also being identified.
5. Trash and debris which is unsightly and hazardous will be
removed from the site. Staff will attempt to recruit volunteers
for part of this clean-up.
Status: Clean-up of the site is currently being performed through
the aid of CCC crews.
6. A portion of the former McNiel property will remain closed to
public use for at least one growing season while intensive
grassland restoration is underway. A plan must be developed
before work can begin. A trail corridor will be established
to allow access for hiking.
R-83-15 Page eight
Status: The restoration plan will be combined with other grassland
studies being conducted in conjunction with the grazing plan. The
overgrazed area is returning to a natural state rapidly and will
entail less restoration work than previously anticipated. The
area will no longer be considered closed. The pavement from the
road system on the former McNiel property will be removed as a
part of the plan to restore the area to a natural state.
9. Repair work on the reservoir dam on the former McNiel property
is necessary. The overflow drain is inadequate and needs en-
larging or replacement.
Status: The work is scheduled in conjunction with the trail and
road work on the property this summer. Estimated cost is $500
and funding will be included in FY 83/84 budget preparation.
New Use and Management Recommendations
1 . Landscaping was required as a part of the parking lot plan approved
by the City of Palo Alto. A portion of the landscaping has been
completed by volunteers, and the remaining portion will be
planted next winter along with the area around the water tank.
Estimated cost is $1 ,000 and funding will be included in FY 83/84
budget preparation.
F. Visitor and Site Protection
District Ranger staff continues to patrol the site regularly, and
a resident Ranger is located on the Preserve near Skyline Boulevard.
The District ' s Docent Program also aids in providing a presence
which helps deter potential problems.
Existing Use and Management Recommendations
1 . Docents will be encouraged to assist District Rangers by providing
field reports on unusual occurrences .
Status: As use of the site increases and the docent program is
expanded, the docents will provide an even more valuable on-
site service to the Ranger staff.
2 . A Ranger residence will continue to be located on the Preserve
pending resolution of the Ranger Residence Policy.
Status: The Ranger Residence Policy was adopted and the Ranger
residence continues to be located on the Preserve at this time.
The residence in the area may be redesignated to be on the
Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve, depending on the outcome
of the planning study for that site.
3. Illegal activities continue to be a problem at the end of
Stevens Canyon Road. In an effort to resolve these, staff
will attempt to hold a planning workshop, inviting residents
of the canyon and representatives from the Santa Clara County
Department of Parks and Recreation, Sheriff ' s Department,
and Department of Transportation.
Status: A meeting will be scheduled for the fall.
G. Additional Projects
Existing Use and Management Recommendations
1 . Initial steps have been taken to investigate and encourage
County bus transportation to the foothills. Your Public
Transportation Committee and staff are working with the two
transportation agencies.
R-81-15 Page nine
Status: Presentations regarding bus service to the Skyline area
were presented to you at your April 14, 1982 and August 25,
1982 meetings by the Santa Clara County and San Mateo County
transportation agencies. Scheduling of the next Committee
meeting will be done at the initiative of Committee members
as their time allows.
New Use and Management Recommendations
1 . A visitor use survey is to be conducted on the Monte Bello and
Los Trancos Preserves in conjunction with the Stanford University
ARLO program. This survey will provide information relating
to usage patterns and attitudes to assist planning staff in
future use and management planning. The study will be concluded
in June.
Recommendation: I recommend that you tentatively adopt the use and
management recommendations for the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve
Page Mill Road Area as contained in this report.
Duveneck Windmill
Pasture Area
I Private
Page Mill Property
Los Trancos Road
Open Space Preserve
Gate ;
''�.. 4 Canyon %Monte Bello Black Mountain
\''• �`.Trail +� Road Trail
Stevens Creek`s O �s
Nature Trail �� /Woodland
;� Creek �$s=�glack�`
�`✓ _ �' �i Mountain
•�� •,;_•��`� -' Ranch �� ---- -- y
Indian Creek
Alpine Christmas \���� grail + + x
Road Tree Farm 4' Indian
Creek z
F-3
\�� 44*=Monte Bello
Skyline Ridge i
Gold Mine + Road
Open Space Preserve `.� Creek � Gate
Skyline ` • �
Boulevard Stevens'
Creek ��.• �� N
'C. Waterwheel a
Canyon• ��—� Y Creek Trail ro,Trail
Private
Property
■ Parking Area Skyline
Public Road County Park /
i •••••—•--•-••••-• Trail (Hiking Only) Table `•� �
\Mountain
-------- Trail (Hiking, Equestrian)
Scale in MilesAk
To Saratoga
p 112 Gap 1 North To Stevens
Canyon Road
Attachment B - Accounting of
Monte Bello Development Project
I . Expenditures
A. Planning and Administrative $ 2 ,261
B. Architectural and Engineering $ 9 ,585
C. Parking Area Construction $33 , 052
D. Fencing, Gating and Stiles $ 8 ,289
E. Parking Restroom Facilities $ 6 , 626
F. Landscaping $ 360
G. Trail Construction $10,064
H. Signing $ 3 ,334
I. Hazard Removal and Repair $ 6 ,724
J. Permits and Advertising $ 955
K. In-house Labor $18 , 489
TOTAL $99 ,739
Revenues
A. Land and Water Conservation Fund $35 ,000
B. P.O.S.T. Donation $10, 000
C. Frances Brenner Fund $ 2 ,000
TOTAL $47 ,000
Out-of-Pocket Expenditures
A. Total Expenditures $99 ,739
B. Less Total Revenues -$47,000
C. Less In-house Labor, Planning, Admin. .-$20 ,750
NET OUT-OF-POCKET $31 , 989
M-83-43
(Meeting 83-11
April 27, 1983)
icow
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
April 11 , 1983
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: 1983-84 Legislative Program Update
I
Discussion: Your Legislative Committee met recently (see attached agenda and
materials) to review progress on the District's initial Legislative Proqram
for the 1983-84 legislative session which you adopted on December 8, 1982
(see attached M-82-122 dated December 1 , 1982). The Committee also considered
other lenislation we have been following and recommends the positions and
priorities given herein for a few new bills. The East Bay Regional Park Dis-
trict has implemented its own program since my December 1 report by sponsoring
four bills. Bills were not introduced by EBRPD for items 3 and 4 in that
report.
A bill not considered by the Committee, AB 1848, is also attached. It would
give a city veto power over a LAFCO decision to allow formation of or annexa-
tion to a special district. Had this bill been law at the time of the District's
annexation of southern San Mateo County, some of the cities would surely have
exercised their veto and the boundaries of this regional agency could not have
been so rationally constructed.
A second bill not considered by the Committee, SB 575, is also attached. It
is similar to AB 1867 in that it would limit a public entity's liability to the
same percentage of damages as the percentage to which the entity contributed to
an accident.
M-82-122
y� (Meeting 82-27
Dec. 8, 1982)
"'le
♦aav►w�
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
December 1, 1982
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: E. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: Initial Legislative Program for 1983-84 Legislative Session
Introduction: The Legislative Committee met with staff on November 30,
1982 to formulate recommendations for the District' s initial Legislative
Program for the two year State Legislative Session beginning in December,
1982. The following items are being presented at this time for your
consideration. r
MROSD Program
The District's own initial Legislative Program is proposed as follows:
1) Protection of the District' s share .of the property tax -- "A" priorit
2) Continuation of State funding for Roberti--Z 'berg park and open space
program, and recovery of funds lost in fiscal year,, 1981-1982 (about
$90,000 to the District) by State's freeze of disbursements --
"A" priority.
3) Modification of code relating to tax increment financing for re-
development agencies in order to help prevent abuses of the intent
of redevelopment law and to provide for equitable treatment of
affected agencies -- "B" priority.
East Bay Regional Park District Draft Program
Specific decisions and priority assignments on the EBRPD items should
await specific language for the bi11s. Initial responses are indicated.
1) hazardous recreation liability limitation (Support actively) .
2) Increase force account limit (Support passively) .
3) Exemption from local building permit processes (No position) .
4) Mandated review by district of proposed development on zoning
changes within 1,000 feet of park boundaries (Support actively) .
5YPublic Resources Code amendment allowing EBRPD to lease lands for
up to 50 years for parks related purposes (No position) .
6) Split roll and/or other reasonable and appropriate tax increase
measure (Support actively) .
7) New State Urban Parks and Recreation funding program (Support
actively) .
Amendment of Contract With California Advocates, Inc.
On December 30, 1980 you approved an amended contract with California
Advocates, Inc. to provide legislative consultant services. for the 1981-
1982 two-year legislative session which ended in September (see M-80-103
dated 12/25/80) . The approved fee was $750 per month. The fiscal 1982-83
adopted budget allows for an approximate 8.9% increase in fees to $815
per month upon expiration of the contract. Considering the excellent
M-82-122 T page two
work the firm has done for the District (refer, for example, to Memoran-
dum M-82-99 dated 10/7/82 which discussed legislative program results foY-
1982, and to the report of the District's advocates at the November 10
Board meeting, and taking intoaccount inflation in the firm' s costs over the
last two years, it is quite reasonable to implement this budgeted increase.
Recommendation: I recommend the following actions:
1) Adopt the initial Legislative Program described herein, including
priority assignments, for the 1983-84 Legislative Session.
2) Adopt the initial responses contained herein to the EBRPD draft
legislative program.
3) Authorize the General Manager to provide for an increase in fees to
$815 per month to California Advocates, Inc. for the period beginning
October 1, 1982.
A further increase for the new fiscal year may well be merited, assuming
a continuation of the fine work California Advocates has been doing for
the District. The Legislative Committee considered this item and supported
the increase to $815 per month but withheld judgement on the advisability,
timing, and amount of any further increase.
-77-77
I
��
LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
April 5, 1983
7:30 P.M.
PROPOSED AGENDA
I. Status of Legislative Program
A. MROSD Initial Program
1. Protection of District' s share of property tax (A priority)
a. State budget ramifications
b. CSAC/LCC tax reform proposal status
c. SCA 13 (Boatwright) - ,Support?
d. SCA 26 (Seymour) - Oppose?
e. ACA 38 (Naylor) - Oppose?
2. Continuation of Robert-Z 'berg program and recovery of $90,000
lost in 1981-82 (A priority)
3. Modification of redevelopment agency law (B priority)
a. AB 1545 (Hannigan) - Support
b. SB 617 (McCorquodale) - Support
c. SB 431 (Marks) - Support
B. EBRPD Program
1. Hazardous recreation liability limitation
a. AB 555 (Campbell) - Support W)
2. Increase force account limit
a. AB 746 (Campbell) - Support (C?)
3. Exemption from local building permit processes - no bill introduces
4. Mandated review of development or zoning changes near district
lands - no bill introduced; referred AB 696 to EBRPD
5. P.R.C. amendment to allow EBRPD to lease lands for up to 50 years
for park purposes
a. SB 211 (Lockyer) - No position
6. Split roll and/or other reasonable and appropriate tax increase
no bill specifically introduced - Support actively
7. New State Urban Parks and Recreation funding program - no Roberti
Z 'berg legislation introduced yet - Support actively
8. AB 385 (Campbell) - Minor changes in Public Resources Code
not affecting MROSD - No position
II . MROSD Program Proposed Additions
A. Parklands Bond Acts
1. AB 2099 (Farr) - 1984 Bond Act - Provides adequate funds and
fair distribution formula for regional park and open space
districts - Support (A priority)
2. SB 203 (McCorquodale) 1980 Bond Act Clean-Up Legislation -
Support with C priority?
B. * Baylands Protection
1. AB 215 (Cortese) - Oppose ;B priority?
2. SB 834 (Nielsen) - Oppose B priority?
C. Public Liability Legislation
1. AB 1866 (Bradley) - Support C priority?
2. AB 1867 (Bradley) - Support C priority?
4/11 3
Up. yated Legislative Program: The recommended MROSD updated Legislative Program follows:
Support/
Item Oppose/
No. B i I 1 No. L.00d Anther• No Position Priority Summary
1 • - - S A Protection of the district's share of the property tax
Comment: At this point the District's share is intact
for Moth the current state budget and the proposed 1983-
84 budget. The Committee reviewed but agreed it was pre-
mature to take a stand on the various tax reform proposals
that have been introduced. Pursuance of the split roll
concept or other reasonable and appropriate tax increase
measures should be supported actively, but support of
specific legislation would be contingent upon review
the actual language of the measure(s).
2a - - S A Continuation of Roberti-Z'berg program
b - - S A Recovery of $90,000 in Roberti funds lost in 1981-82 due
to State's freeze of disbursement and reversion to
General Fund
3a AB 2099 Farr S A Proposed 1983 State park bond acts
b AB 2116 Costa S A Comment: Support bills strongly with adequate fundinq
for local agencies and fair allocation formula, such as
Roberti-Z'berg formula.
c SB 203 McCorquodale S C 1980 State Park Bond Act clean-up legislation
4a AB 1545 Hannigan S B Modification of code relating to tax increment financing
b SB 617 McCorquodale S B for redevelopment agencies in order to help prevent
c SB 431 Marks S B abuses of the intent of redevelopment law and to provide
for equitable treatment of affected agencies
5a AB 555 Campbell S B EBRPD sponsored bill to grant public entities limited;, 1
immunity to liability from hazardous recreational activi-
ties.
b AB 1866 Bradley S C Improvement of evidence rules for public agencies re-
lating to dangerous conditions of public property.
c AB 1867 Bradley S C Change in joint and several liability law to limit a
public entity's liability to those damages allocated to
that entity
d SB 575 Foran S C See AB 1867
I
6a AB 215 Cortese 0 C Relinquishment of Public Trust from Pete's Harbor
b SB 834 Nielsen 0 B Relinquishment of Public Trust from certain San Francisco
Baylands
7a AB 746 Campbell S C EBRPD sponsored bill amending Public Resources Code to
increase force account limits
b SB 211 Lockyer S C EBRPD sponsored bill amending PRC to allow leases by
EBRPD for up to 50 years for park and recreation purposes
c AB 385 Campbell NP - EBRPD sponsored bill amending portion of PRC relating to
vehicular recreation trails
d _ _ _ - Mandated review desired by EBRPD of development or zoning
changes near district lands.
Comment: Not currently needed by MROSD. Referred
AB 696 to EBRPD.
8 AB 1848 Clute 0 B Would allow a city to override LAFCO and veto annexa-
tion to or formation of a special district within
city's sphere of influence
I �,
.`AB 2099
+
-CALIFORNIA LECISLATURE-1983-84 RECULAR SESSION 2 +
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 2099 Band Act of 1974 to provide funds to acquire and establis 0'
to and local beaches, parks, recreational facilities, an
historical resources, and pursuant to the Nejedly-Hart Stat
Urban, and Coastal Park Bond Act of 1976 and the Californi
'' "z • Parklands A �
ntroduced by Assemblymen Farr, Filante, Wright, Coggin, Act of 1980 to provide funds to acquire, develop
Naylor, Agnos, Alatorre, Allen, Areias, Bader, Baker, Bane, and restore real property for state and local park, beat '
Bates, Bergeson, Bradley, Bronzan, Willie Brown, recreational, and historical resources preservation purpose `
This bill would make legislative findings regarding the nee .
Calderon, Campbell, Chacon' Clute, Condit, Connelly; ' for parks,beaches;recreation areas,recreational facilities,an
Cortese, Davis, Elder, Felandq, Frazee, Harris, Hauser, historical resources preservation projects, and would entitl
Hayden, Herger, Hughes, Isenberg, Johnson, Johnston, those, provisions -the, California Park, and Recreation
Jones, Katz, Kelley, Killea, Klehs, La'Follette, Lancaster, Facilities Act Of 1983.
Margolin, McAlister, Mojonnier, Molina, Moore, Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: ye
Moorhead, Mountjoy, O'Connell, Papan, Peace, Roos, State-mandated local program: no.
Sher, Statham, Stirling, Tanner, Tucker, Vieeneia, Norman ,
Waters, and Young The people of the State of California do enact as follows
(Coauthors:.Senators Alquist, Ayala, Beverly, Boatwright, x
Craven, Leroy Greene, Lockyer, Petris, and Rosenthal) 1 SECTION 1 . Chapter 1.691 (commencing wit
2 Section 5096.225) is added; to Division 5 of the Publi
3 Resources Code, to read:
March 7, 1983 ; 4•
5. CHAPTER 1.691. CALIFORNIA PARK AND
6" RECREATIONAL FACILITIES ACT OF 1983
7
8 Article 1. General Provisions ( `
kn act to add Chapter. 1.691. (commencing with Section g
5096.225) to Division 5 of the Public Resources Code,relating 10 5096.225. This chapter`shall. be known and'may b
to financing of a program of acquiring, developing, and . I . cited as the California Park and Recreational Facilitie
restoring real property for state and local park, beach, 12 Act of 1983. . • 1. , '
recreational, and historical resources preservation purposes .13 5096.226.' The Legislature hereby finds and declnre
through the issuance and sale of bonds of the State of 14: that:
'California and by providing for the handling and disposition 15 ' (a} 'It is'the'responsibility of this state to rovide',
r P
of those funds. 16 to encourage the provision-of recreational opportunitid
17 and facilities for citizens of California.
LECISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DICESr 18 (b) It is the policy of the state to preserve, protect
AB 2099, as introduced, Farr. Park and recreational land , . 19 • and, where possible, restore coastal resources which ar
acquisition•and development program: bond issue. r 20, of significant recreational or environmental importznc
Under existing law, state general obligation bonds have 21'} and, through proper planning and development, to mak
been issued pursuant to the Cameron-Unruh Beach, Park, ;' ' ' 22 them,available for the enjoyment'of present and futur
Recreatimial, and Historical Facilities BUtid Act of 1964 alld t 23., gener.ttiolls of persons of all lncolne levels, till ages, all
the State Beach, Park, Recreational, and Historical Facilities
3 AB 2099 " -
A.B�2099 ._4 '
. .,all social groups. . , • �'
2 (c) When there is proper planning and development, 1 facilities are particularly in need of expansion,
3 parks, beaches, recreation areas and' recreational 2 • rehabilitation, and restoration. `.
4 facilities, and historical resources preservation projects 3 (e) California's coast. provides a 'great .variety of
4 ,recreational opportunities not found at inland sites; it is
5 contribute not only to a healthy physical and moral 5 `heavily used because the state's major urban areas lie,and
6 environment, but ,also contribute to the economic ,
7 betterment of the state, and, therefore, it is in the public 6 ' 85 percent of the states population lives, within 30 miles'
,7 ' of the Pacific Ocean; a shortage of facilities for almost'
8 interest for the state to acquire, develop, and restore g every,popular coastal 'recreational activity exists; and
9: areas for recreation; conservation, and preservation and 9 there' will be 'a' continuing,high demand for�popular,
10 to aid local governments of the state in acquiring, 10 coastal activities such as fishing, swimming, sightseeing
11 developing, and restoring such areas as will contribute to
l°' the realization .of the policy declared.in this chapter. 11 general beach use,camping,and day use. Funding for the
12 development of a number of key coastal sites is critical at
5096.227. The Legislature further finds and declares
14 that: 13 this time, particularly in metropolitan areas where both
15 • • (a) The demand for parks, beaches, recreation areas
14 ; the demand for and' the deficiency of recreational
15 facilities'is greatest.
% 16 .and recreational facilities,' and historical resources x .r ,,
17 preservation projects in California is far greater than ;16 (f) Cities, counties, and districts must exercise
1 available with the number of people
+ 17':'.constant vigilance to _see that the parks, beaches,
18 what is presently , p P 18 recreation areas and recreational facilities, and historical 1
19 who cannot be accommodated at the area of their choice
20 or any comparable area increasing rapidly. Further,. the 19 resources they.now have are not lost to other uses; they ,�;�,
1 20 should acquire additional lands 'as tl}bse lands become
21 development of parks, beaches, recreation areas and -
22 'recreational facilities, and historical resources ."ill 21'• available; they should take steps to improve the facilities
23 ,preservation projects has not proceeded rapidly enough 22' ,they now have;'and they should adequately�operate and
24 to provide for their full utilization by the public. 23 maintain their existing and proposed systems for. the,.
25 The demand far arks, beaches, recreation areas 24 enjoyment of present and.future generations of persons
O p 25 of all income levels; all ages, and all social groups.-
26 and recreational facilities, and historical resources 1
preservation projects in the urban areas of our state is 26' , (g) Past and current funding programs have not and
27` cannot meet resent deficiencies., This condition has `
even greater since over 90 .percent of the present p �
29 population of California reside in ,urban areas; there 28 become more acute as: a result of This
on local
30 continues to be a serious deficiency in open space and 29 .governmental revenues. There is a need to give•priority,
31 , recreation areas in;the metropolitan areas of the state; 30 to further, recreation development that, can.. serve
32 less urban land is available, costs are escalating, and . 31�'' expanding recreation ; needs, produce operating
33 competition for land is increasing. 32 revenues, and in some case's stimulate private sector jobs.
33 es, and the
: In view of the resent revenue .shortages,
34 (c) There' is a high Concentration of urban` social p
35 � problems in California's major metropolitan areas which 34 . .increasing recreation demands, such a priority:is most ,
36 can be partially alleviated ,by increased recreational 35 important at this time.
37 opportunities. 36 ' . (h) . In view of the foregoing; the Legislature declares ,
3$ (d) There : is a , particularly high demand far 37, that an aggressive, coordinated, funded program forI
39 recreational use at reservoirs and lakes within the state 38 .meeting existing, and projected recreational demands '
.40 p.irk system and recreatia�i facilities at nonstate water '�' 39 `.must,be implemented without delay,
,
,
,
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE-IMI-M REGULAR SESSION
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 2116
Introduced by Assemblyman Costa
March 10, 1983
An act to add Chapter 1.695 (commencing with Section
5096.311) to Division 5 of the Public Resources Code, relating
to parklands.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
a California
AB 2116, s introduced,t oduced, Costa. C o a Parklands Act of
1983.
I
r Act f Under the California Parklands c o 1980 state general
bonds rauthorized b i
' g I
obli anon o ds are to e issued for parkland
g
purposes.
This bill would enact the California Parklands Act of 1983
without substantive provisions.
(" Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
``- State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows•
1 SECTION 1. Chapter 1.695 (commencing with
2 Section 5096.311) is added to Division 5 of the Public
3 Resources Code, to read:
5 CHAPTER 1.695. CALIFORNIA PARKLANDS ACT OF
6 1983
7
8 Article 1. General Provisions
9
10 5096.311. This chapter shall be known and may be
11 cited as the California Parklands Act of 1983.
O
50
}
' 3Tit
V ,. ..
SENATE BILL 7, No. 203
Introduced by Senators McCorquodale and Presley
January 26, 1983
An act to add Section 5096.159 to the Public Resources
Code, to amend and supplement the Budget Act of 1981 by
adding Section 8.35 thereto, and to amend and supplement
the Budget Act of 1982 by adding Section 8.41 thereto,relating
to parks and recreation,and declaring the urgency thereof, to
take effect immediately.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 203, as introduced, McCorquodale. Parks and
i recreation: local assistance grants.
(1) Under the California Parklands Act of 1980,grants may
be made to counties, cities, and districts for the acquisition,
development, rehabilitation, or restoration of real property
r` for park, beach, recreational, and historical resources
preservation purposes.
This bill would specify that funds appropriated for those
grants shall be encumbered by the recipient within 3 years of
the date the appropriation became effective,regardless of the
date when the project was approved.
(2) The Budget Acts of 1981 and 1982 appropriate moneys
from the State, Urban, and Coastal Park Fund and the
Parklands Fund of 1980 to the Department of Parks and
Recreation for local assistance grants for various park and
recreation capital ou
tlay projects.
r
J
o'ects.
` This bill would provide that those funds appropriated in the
Budget Act of 1981 are available for encumbrance until June
30, 1984, except as specified, and that those funds
appropriated in the Budget Act of 1982 are available for
encumbrance until June 30, 1985. The bill would also provide
( that this does not constitute a change in, but is declaratory of
` # existing law.
99 30
SB 203 —2— —3— SB 203
(3) The bill would take effect immediately as an urgency r� 1 cited in Sections 2 and 3 of this act. All these items of
statute. 2 appropriation shall be met solely from the available
Vote: %. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. 3 proceeds of bonds issued and sold prior to January 1, 1983.
State-mandated local program: no. 4 In the event that these proceeds prove to be insufficient
5 to provide funds for all local assistance grants authorized
The people of the State of California do enact as follows,• 6 in the items of appropriation cited in Sections 2 and 3 of
7 this act, local assistance grants shall be made in order of
1 SECTION 1. Section 5096.159 is added to the Public 8 the date on which the Director of Parks and Recreation
2 Resources Code, to read: 9 approved each.
3 5096.159. Funds appropriated for local assistance 10 SEC. 5. Sections 2 and 3 of this act do not constitute
4 grants pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 5096.151 11 a change in, but are declaratory of, the existing law.
5 shall he encumbered by the recipient within three years 12 SEC. 6. This act is an urgency statute necessary for
6 of the date the appropriation became effective, 13 the immediate preservation of the public peace, health,
7 regardless of the date when each project was approved 14 or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the
8 pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 5096.157. 15 Constitution and shall go into immediate effect.The facts
9 SEC.2. Section 8.35 is added to the Budget Act of 1981 16 constituting the necessity are:
10 (Chapter 99, Statutes of 1981), to read: 17 In order to clarify, at the earliest possible time, the
11 Sec. 8.35. (a) Funds appropriated in subdivision (c) 18 period of availability of encumbrance of appropriations
12 of Item 379-101-721 and in Item 379-101-742 for local 19 for various local assistance grants for local park and
13 assistance grants for park and recrpa'tion capital outlay 20 recreation capital outlay projects, it is necessary that this
14 projects were and are available for encumbrance by the 21 act take effect immediately.
15 recipient until June 30, 1984.
16 (b) Funds appropriated in subdivision (b) of Item
17 379-101-721 for local assistance grants pursuant to the
18 Roberti-Z'berg Urban Open-Space and Recreation
19 Program Act for capital outlay projects were and are
20 available for encumbrance by the recipient until June 30,
21 1984, or the date established pursuant to paragraph (1) of
22 subdivision (c) of Section 5626 of the Public Resources
23 Code, whichever occurs earlier,
24 SEC.3. Section 8.41 is added to the Budget Act of 1982 O
25 (Chapter 326, Statutes of 1982), to read:
26 Sec. 8.41. Funds appropriated in subdivision (b) of .
27 Item 3790-101-721 and in subdivision (b) of Item
28 3790-101-742, as amended by Chapter 1421 of the Statutes
29 of 1982, for local assistance grants for park and recreation
30 capital outlay projects are available for encumbrance by
31 the recipient until June 30, 1985.
32 SEC. 4. No bonds shall be issued and sold for the
33 purpose of providing funds for the items of appropriation
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-i,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94422
(415)965-4717
March 22, 1983 .
Honorable Thomas Hannigan
California State Assembly
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Assemblyman Hannigan:
On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space' District, I would like to register the District's
support of your bill AB 1545, relating to redevelopment agencies.
Redevelopment reform is sorely needed. Among others, the
following measures should be seriously considered:
(1) Tightening up of definition of "blight" and of the required
findings to return .to the original spirit of- redevelopment.
In all too .many instances cities are simply aiding and
speeding new development which would have occurred anyway
in undeveloped or underdeveloped areas.
(2) Allowing tax increment financing to be used only as a last
resort after benefit assessment district, revenue bonds, and
other mechanisms are shown to be infeasible. - Par too often
tax increment financing, done at the expense of other agen-
cies is used simply as a carrot to landowners.
(3) Eliminating or limiting the _ tax increment losses that highly
property-tax-dependent agencies suffer.
(4) Mandating that when a county is able to negotiate a better
deal with the city than loss of the full tax increment,
highly-tax-dependent special districts must receive at least
as good a deal. Since the county ordinarily receives the
largest share of the property taxes (aside from the city
and schools) , it should be very little extra burden on the
city to share some of the increment with such special districts.
Herbert X Grench,General Manager
Board of Directors:Katherine Duf y.Barbara Green.Nonette G.Hanko.Richard S.Bishop.Edward G.Shelley.Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin
Assemblyman Thomas Hannigan
March 22, 1983
Page 2
This District, which is essentially 100%. property tax dependent,
suffered substantial loss of tax revenues as a result of Propo-
sition 13, and the escalating use and, we believe, abuse of tax
increment redevelopment financing is hurting badly. We respect-
fully urge you to consider these suggestions. Ralph Heim of
California Advocates will be in contact with your office as a
follow-up to this letter.
Sincerely yours,
Herbert Grench
General Manager
HG:ej
cc: MROSD Board of Directors
R. Heim
G. Tate, Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District
R: Trudeau, East Bay Regional Park District
P. Joske, Marin County Open Space District
Assemblyman Naylor
Assemblyman, Sher
Assemblyman Cortese
Assemblyman Konnyu
Assemblyman Vasconcellos
Senator Alquist
Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation
f
5"
-.T-,4 3 ' -
n ZA E 11A 33ILE, 7L. 17
L. � al California Cities
Cahlornia Cities Work Together 1400 K Street•Sacramento 95814.(916)444-5790
#13-1983
March 18, 1983
To: Mayors, City Managers and City Clerks in Non-Manager Cities
(Internal Distribution Please: Council Members and All
Department Heads)
LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES
1. League/Community Redevelopment Agencies Association-Sponsored
Legislation. AB 1545 (Hannigan)
2. Special Bill For Single Land Developer. SB 259 (Mello) - Hearing:
Mon. , March 21, Senate Finance Committee.
3. County Referral of Land Use Proposals to Cities. AB 696 (Cortese) -
Hearing: Wed., April 13, Assembly Local Government Committee.
4. State and Local Bond Registration Act. AB 1629 (Bane/Seastrand)
5. Attorney's Fee in Public Interest Lawsuits. AB 647 (Bradley)
6. Expansion of Grand Jury "Investigations" to Cities. SB 924 (Maddy)
7. Airport Noise. Small Claims Court. AB 113 (Naylor) - AB 537 (Robinson) -
Hearing: Mon. , March 21, Assembly Judiciary Committee.
8. City Contracts With Counties. SB 747 (Ayala)
9. Sale of Pound Animals For Scientific Research. SB 883 (Roberti)
10. Inspection of Public Records. AB 1767 (Wyman)
11. Peace Officers Bill of Rights. Attorney's Fee. AB 1693 (Katz)
FEDERAL AFFAIRS
12. General Revenue Sharing. Congressional Action Begins. House Appro-
priations Committee Members Should be Lobbied Immediately to Support
"Double" GRS Payment in April.
13. House Subcommittee Schedules Field Hearing on GRS in Los Angeles, March 30.
14. Cable Television. S. 66 (Goldwater) - Compromise Reached Between NLC and NCTA.
LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES
1. SUPPORT Le o ommunity Redevelopment Agencies Association-S onsored Legislation.
AB 1545' (Hannigan) . In last week's Legislative Bulletin, we outlined a
major and cTve redevelopment "reform" bill sponsored by the County Supervisors
t'rw
Association, SB 617 •Corquodale) . Redevelopment been an area of dis
put
concern between reds. _lopment agencies and counties ad now the State De s
Finance) for several years. The League and the CRA Association have, in, fact,ehp �
discussions about possible legislative compromise for more than a year. For the
past two years, Annual Conference resolutions from CSAC have called for a morato-
rium on the establishment of redevelopment project areas, limits on size and term
of projects, redefinition of blight, etc. In recognition of redevelopment's im-
portance to the future economic health of most cities, the League and the CRA Asso-
ciation have developed compromise legislation which is designed to prevent future
allegations of "misuse" of redevelopment as well as improve the process for all in-
terested parties. Candidly, without a significant change in the law, we have been
assured by key legislative leaders and officials in the State Department of Finance
that a "reform bill" would be forced upon us. The Chairman of the Assembly Committee
on Revenue and Taxation, Assemblyman Torn Hannigan, has agreed to author the League/
CRAA bill, which has the following major purposes: .
a) To improve the existing plan adoption process so that taxing agencies
(counties, schools, special districts, cities) receive more specific
information, earlier, allowing them to better assess the fiscal impact
of proposed projects..
b) Protect taxing agencies by requiring redevelopment agencies to go
through the normal plan adoption process when an amendment to a re-
development plan is proposed.
c) Strengthen and reform the fiscal review process by giving more speci-
ficity and direction with regard to the role and purpose of the Fiscal
Review Committee.
d) Related to Point No. c, protect the state by reducing the ability of
redevelopment agencies and counties to enter into agreements which
result in the school districts (and therefore the state) paying for
an inappropriate share of redevelopment projects by:
1) Narrowly defining the term "financial burden or detriment;" and
2) Requiring all agreements between agencies to be based on findings
and evidence of the financial burden or detriment.
e) Enable all taxing agencies to obtain the 2% of the base year roll and
further protect the state by mandating receipt of this 2% by school
districts.
f) Define the term "maintenance" to respond to the concerns of some
counties that tax increment monies are lzsed for normal maintenance
of city improvements.
g) Reduce the inappropriately large redevelopment project areas pro-
posed by some agencies by prohibiting the inclusion of large amounts
of vacant land within project areas. This is accomplished by limiting
redevelopment to a "predominately urbanized area," which means that
not less than 80% of the privately owned property in the project area
has been or is developed for urban uses, is characterized by the condi-
tions described in subdivisions (a) , (b) or (c) of §33032 of the Health
and Safety Code, or is an integral part of an area developed for urban
uses.
h) A new method to finance infrastructure in previously undeveloped areas
is proposed. This method is designed to protect both other taxing
agencies and the state. Redevelopment agencies would be authorized
to establish "development districts" which could be established in non-
blighted areas with the agreement of taxing agencies representing 75% of
- 2 - 3/18/83
the affected property tax revenue. Tax increment produced within
the development district may be used to finance public infra-
structure. A development district may only be established in an
area which cannot be developed with a project which is both eco-
nomically feasible and consistent with the community's general plan
because of inadequate public improvements and facilities that can-
not be supplied either by the private sector or existing programs
or funds of the public sector including, but not limited to, the
establishment of a benefit assessment district or any available
local, state or federal assistance.
We anticipate that AB 1545 will be referred to the Assembly Committee on Revenue and
Taxation. City officials should mount an aggressive and positive lobbying effort
with the members of this committee immediately. AB 1545 will probably be heard the
second week of April. Members of the committee are: Hannigan (Chair) , Hayden (Vice
Chair) , D. Brown, Condit, Connelly, Cortese, Elder, Frazee, Jones, Klehs, McClintock,
Molina, Moore, Nolan and Seastrand.
2. OPPOSE Special Bill For Single Land Developer. SB 259 (Mello) - Hearing:
Mon. , March 21, Senate Finance Committee. The basic thrust of SB 259
was described in last week's Legislative Bulletin. This measure affects cities
which establish limits on the number of subdivisions which may be filed each year.
If an applicant is allowed to be registered for processing in one year and the
local agency reduces the number of applications or the size of subdivisions to be
processed, that subdivision must still be accepted for filing and processed during
that year. As prospective legislation, this does not seem an overly unreasonable
requirement and we have asked for cities' review and comment.
However, .SB 259 has now been amended to apply retroactively to the primary benefit
of a single condominium conversion project in San Francisco (see attached editorial
from the San Francisco Examiner) . This makes the bill an unwarranted intrusion into
local affairs which sets a terrible precedent for other cities, encouraging other
land developers dissatisfied with local decisions to run to Sacramento for a remedy.
Every city should be opposed to legislation which retroactively overturns a local
decision for the benefit of a single land developer.
SB 259 is scheduled for hearing on March U before the Senate Finance Committee. It
could be approved by that committee and sent to the full Senate for action as early
as Thursday, March 24. Letters of opposition should be sent to all members of the
State Senate.
3. SUPPORT County Referral of Land Use Proposals to Cities. AB 696 (Cortese) -
Hearing• Wed. , April 13, Assembly Local Government Committee. AB 696
is a League-sponsored bill designed to require better city-county coordination of
land use control in unincorporated areas of the county located near a city's boundary.
Under AB 696, a city would inform the county of the unincorporated areas the city has
included in the city's general plan. The county would then be required to notify
the city at least 45 days before adopting or amending general or specific plans or
zoning ordinances applicable to that area. The city could then comment, and the
county would be required to act consistent with the city's planning or prezoning for
the area, or to place in the record specific findings as to why the county has not
done so.
AB 696 is set for hearing before the Assembly Committee on Local Government on Wed-
nesday, April 13 . Interested cities should contact the committee members in support
of the bill. The members are: Cortese (Chair) , ' Clute (Vice Chair) , Bradley, Farr,
Filante, Frazee, Hauser, Killea and Sebastiani.
17 A+ 34
S NATE BILL * - No. 617
Introduced by Senator McCorquodale
February 28, 1983
An act to amend Sections 33030,33321,33333,33353,33354.6,
33367, 33445, and 33501 of, to add Sections 33000.5, 33333.3,
33344.5, 33353.3, 33616.3, and 33680 to, and to repeal Section
33000.5 of, the Health and Safety Code, relating to
redevelopment.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSELS DICEST
SB 617, as introduced, McCorquodale. Community
redevelopment.
(1) The existing Community Redevelopment Law
generally permits each city, county, and city and county to
adopt an ordinance activating the creation of a
i redevelopment agency in that city, county, or city and
county. Existing law authorizes redevelopment agencies to
select blighted areas of the community, known as project
areas, for redevelopment. Existing law permits
redevelopment projects to be financed through the issuance
of, among other things, tax allocation bonds.
This bill would impose,a moratorium upon the adoption by
any community of an ordinance declaring the need for a
redevelopment'agency to function in the community until
January 1, 1985, and would also prohibit, until that date, an
increase or decrease in the size of the area included within a
project area, and the issuance of tax allocation bonds.
(2) Existing law defines blighted areas as those which are
characterized by one or more of several specified conditions
which cause a reduction or lack off'proper utilization of an area
to such an extent that it constitutes a serious physical, social,
or economic burden on the community that .cannot
reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private
industry acting alone.
99 40
Ss 617 --2— --3— ss 617
This bill would also provide that a blighted area may also be f the project area.
characterized by a situation where a majority of the parcels This bill would impose a state-mandated local program by
of real property within the area have experienced either a requiring the redevelopment agency to prepare and send a
constant or declining assessed valuation for 3 or more preliminary report containing specified information to each
consecutive years immediately prior to the adoption of the affected taxing agency after receipt of the assessment report
redevelopment plan. from the county officials allocating the taxes.
(3) Existing law generally provides that a project area may (6) Existing law authorizes the county or any affected
include lands, buildings, or improvements which are not taxing entity to call for the creation of a fiscal review
detrimental to the public health,safety,or welfare,but whose committee to, assist in the preparation of the assessment
inclusion is found necessary for the effective redevelopment report.
of the area. I This bill would authorize the county or any affected taxing
This bill would prohibit the inclusion of lands that are entities to call for the creation of a fiscal review committee
devoted to commercial, agricultural production or lands after receipt of the redevelopment agency's preliminary
which have been devoted for that purpose within the 5 years report.The bill would impose a state-mandated local program
immediately prior to the adoption of the redevelopment plan. by also requiring the redevelopment agency and the fiscal
(4) Existing law requires every redevelopment plan to review committee so created to enter into consultations
contain diagrams and general descriptions of the amount of regarding the impact of the proposed redevelopment project
open space to be provided and the street layout, various upon the affected taxing entities.
;. P g
building restrictions the approximate number of dwelling 7 Under existing law, where the redevelopment agency
Y
units, and the property to be devoted to public purposes and proposes to amend the redevelopment plan which utilizes tax
the nature of those purposes. % ! increment financing to add a significant amount of new
This bill would impose a state-mandated local program by territory to the project area, it `must follow the same
requiring every redevelopment plan to include a description procedure as the adoption of a plan.
of the specific projects to be pursued by the redevelopment This bill would impose a state-mandated local program by
agency, a description of the relationship between the project requiring the same procedure as the adoption of a plan where
and each separate parcel of land included within the project the agency proposes to increase the limitation on the number ''
area, the estimated cost of redevelopment activity as it relates of dollars to be allocated to the redevelopment agency or the
to each separate parcel of land, and an economic feasibility time limit on the establishing of loans, advances, and
study. i indebtedness, to lengthen the period during which the
The bill would also impose a state-mandated local program redevelopment plan is effective, or to add additional capital r
by requiring the redevelopment agency to send a notice of improvement projects to be constructed.
preparation and a copy of a draft environmental impact (8) Existing law ,requires that an ordinance adopting a
report to each affected taking entity, as defined. redevelopment plan contain, among other things, the
(5) Existing law requires the county officials charged with „ findings and determinations 6f the legislative body with
the responsibility of allocating taxes pursuant to the tax respect to various specified matters, including a statement
increment provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law that the legislative body is convinced that the effect of tax
to prepare and deliver to the redevelopment agency and each increment financing will not cause a severe financial burden
taxing agency an assessment report that includes the assessed or detriment on any taxing agency deriving revenues from a
valuation of the project areas for the preceding 5 years and ; tax increment project area.
the total assessed valuation of certain taxable property outside 1 This bill would require those findings and determinations to
't _. —5.,... SB 617-
i
be based upon clear and convincing evidence and would,
additionally, impose astate-mandated local program by on loans, moneys advanced to, or indebtedness incurred by'
the agency.
requiring the legislative body to find and determine that the I (13) Article XIII B of the California Constitution and
effect of tax increment financing will not diminish the ability Sections 2231 and 2234 of the Revenue and Taxation Code
of affected taxing agencies to maintain the current level of require the state to reimburse local agencies and school
services provided by the agency. k districts for certain, costs mandated by the state. Other
(9) Under existing law,a redevelopment agency may,with ; provisions require the Department of Finance to review
the consent of the legislative body, pay for land or buildings statutes disclaiming these costs and provide, in certain cases,
that are publicly owned under certain circumstances. for making claims to the State Board of Control for
This bill would prohibit a redevelopment agency from "
{ reimbursement.
paying for normal maintenance of community facilities,
This bill would provide that no appropriation is made by
structures, or other improvements. 1 this act for the purpose of making reimbursement pursuant to
(10) Existing law provides that an action may be brought 1the constitutional mandate or Section 2231 or 2234,but would
to determine the validity of, among other things, the recognize that local agencies and school districts may pursue
redevelopment plan. their other available remedies to seek reimbursement for.
This bill would require a court hearing an action to these costs.
determine the validity of a redevelopment plan to use its
(14) This bill would provide that notwithstanding Section
independent judgment in making its decision and would 2231.5 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, this act does not
permit the court to receive evidence which had not been contain a repealer, as required by that section; therefore, the
presented to the legislative body that adopted the plan. provisions of the act4ould remain in effect unless and until
(11) Existing law requires.each redevelopment agency to they are amende&or repealed by a later enacted act.
file a report of its transactions with the legislative body, Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
including a statement of revenues and expenditures. State-mandated local program: yes.
This bill would impose a state-mandated local program by
requiring each agency to file an annual report of all of its
q g g Y P The people,of the State of California do enact as follows:
financial transactions with the State Department of Finance ,
and would require the Department of Finance to summarize 1 SECTION 1. Section 33000.5 is added to the Health
that information and make a report to the Legislature. 2 and Safety Code, to read:
(12) The existing Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and 3 33000.5. No community shall adopt an ordinance
Use Tax Law authorizes the redevelopment agency of any 4 pursuant to Section 33101 declaring the need for a
city to impose a sales and use tax on the sale or use of tangible 5 redevelopment agency to function in the community,
personal property in a redevelopment project area, as 6 increase or decrease the size of the area included within
specified, at a rate of 1% or less. 7 a project area, or issue tax allocation bonds pursuant to
This bill would permit any redevelopment plan to contain 8 Article 6 (commencing with Section 33670).
a provision dividing sales and use taxes collected in a project 9 This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,
area in such a way that the average amount of the sales and 10 1985, and as of such date is repealed, unless a later
use taxes collected within the project area during the 11 enacted statute, which is chaptered before January 1,
previous 3 fiscal years would be paid to the city or county and 12 1985, deletes or extends such date.
would require moneys in excess of that amount to be paid to 13 SEC. 2. Section 33030 of the Health and Safety Code
the redevelopment agency to pay the principal and interest 14 is amended to read:
ss 110 ss' lso
r
f
SB 617 --6- ^7— SB 617
t
1 33030. It is found and declared that there exist in 1 adoption of a redevelopment Plan-
2 many communities blighted areas which constitute 2 SEC. 4. Section 33333 of the Health and Safety Code
3 either physical, social, or economic liabilities, requiring 3 is amended to read:
4 redevelopment in the interest of the health, safety, and 4 33333. Every redevelopment plan shall show by
5 general welfare of the people of such communities and of 5 diagram and in general terms:
6 the state. 6, (a) The approximate amount of open space to be
7 A blighted area is one which is characterized by one or 7 provided and street layout.
8 more of those conditions set forth in Sections.33031 or . 8 (b) Limitations on type, size, height, number, and
9. 33032,causing a reduction of,or lacy of,proper utilization 9 proposed use of buildings.
10 of the area to such an extent that it constitutes a serious 10 (c) The approximate number of dwelling units.
11 physical, social, or economic burden.on the community 11 (d) The property to be devoted to public purposes and
12 which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or 12 the nature of stwh those purposes.
13 alleviated by private enterprise acting alone. In addition, 13 (e) A description of the specific project or projects to
14 a blighted area may also be characterized by a situation 14 be pursued by the redevelopment agency in the project
15 where a majority of the parcels of real property within. 15 area. That description shall contain sufficient detail and a
16 the area have experienced either a constant or declining 16 specificity to permit the fiscal review committee, if one
17 assessed valuation for three or more consecutive years 17 is created, to review all of the potential impacts of the
18 immediately prior to the adoption of a redevelopment 18 proposed project.
19 plan. 19 (1) A description of the relationship between the
20 project or projects to be pursued by the redevelopment
20 SEC. 3. Section 33321 of the Heaiti and Safety Code
21 is amended to read: 21 agency In the project area and each separate parcel of
22 33321. (a) A project area need not be restricted to 22 land included within the project area.
23 buildings, improvements, or lands which are detrimental 23 (g) A list of each separate parcel of real property
24 or inimical to the public health, safety, or welfare, but .24 included within the project area by assessor's parcel
25 may consist of an area in which sneh those conditions 25 number and the proposed redevelopment activity as it
26 predominate and injuriously affect the entire area. A 26 relates to each separate parcel and the estimated cost of
27 project area may include lands, buildings, or , 27 redevelopment activity as it relates to each separate
28 improvements which are not detrimental to the public ' 28 "parcel.
29 health, safety, or welfare, but whose inclusion is found . 29 (h) Each redevelopment plan shall in
an
30 necessary for the effective redevelopment of the area of 30 economic feasibility study, which study shall also be
31 which they are a part. Each such area included under this 31 submitted to the fiscal review committee, if one is
32 section shall be necessary for effective redevelopment'- , 32 , created.
33 and shall not be included for the purpose of obtaining the 33 'j SEC. 5.' Section 33333.3 is added to the Health and
34 allocation of tax increment revenue from 4ueh the area 34 Safety Code, to read:
$' 35 pursuant to Section 33670 without other substantial 35 33333.3. The redevelopment agency shall send a
36 justification for its inclusion. 36 notice of preparation and a copy of a draft environmental
37 (b) A project area shall not include lands that are 37, impact report to each affected taxing entity,as defined in
' 38 Section 33353
38 devoted to commercial agriculture production or lands 2, and the fiscal review committee, if one
39 which have been devoted to commercial agriculture. 39 is created, in accordance with the provisions of the
40 production within the fi ve years immediately prior to the 40 California Environmental Quality Act, Division 13
S13 617 --8-- —9— S13 617
l (commencing with Section 21000 of the Public 1 project upon the affected taxing entities. The purpose of
C 8 d p g p p >v�,«
2 Resources Code, and regulations adopted pursuant 2 the consultations shall be to identify the fiscal effects of
3 thereto. In the event a fiscal review committee is created, 113 the proposed redevelopment plan upon the affected
4 the draft environmental impact report shall be sent to the 4 taxing entities, specify additional information, if any,
5 fiscal review committee prior to the time, or at the same 5 needed to enable those fiscal impacts to be identified and
6 time, that the redevelopment plan is sent to the county 6 analyzed and to suggest possible provisions in the
7 representative pursuant to Section 33353.4. 7 redevelopment plan which would alleviate or eliminate
8 SEC. 6. Section 33344.5 is added to the Health and 8 detrimental fiscal effects.
9 Safety Code, to read: 9 SEC.9. Section 33354.6 of the Health and Safety Code f.
10 33344.5. After receiving the report prepared pursuant 0 is amended to read:
11 to Section 33328,or after the time period for preparation 11 33354.6. Where an agency proposes to amend a
12 of that report has passed,the redevelopment agency shall 12 redevelopment plan which utilizes tax increment
13 prepare and send to each affected taxing entity, as �3 financing to add a s4gftifieant smut e€new territory to
14 defined in Section 33353.2, a preliminary report which 14 the project area, to increase either the limitation on the
15 shall contain all of the following: 15 number of dollars to be allocated to the redevelopment
16 (a) The reasons for the selection of the project area. 6 agency or the time limit on the establishing of loans,
17 (b) A description of the physical, social, and economic 7 advances and indebtedness established pursuant to
18 conditions existing in the project area. 8 subdivisions (1) and (2) of Section 33333.2, to lengthen
19 (c) The proposed method of ' financing the 19 the period I during which the redevelopment plan is
20 redevelopment of the project area in sufficient detail so 20 effective, or toj add additional capital improvement
21 that the legislative body may determine the economic 01 projects to be "6nstructed, the agency must shall follow
22 feasibility of the plan. 22 the same procedure,and the legislative body is subject to
23 SEC. 7. Section 33353 of the Health and Safety Code 23 the same restrictions as provided for in this article for the
24 is amended to read: 24 adoption of a plan.
25 33353. In connection with the preparation of the? SEC. 10. Section 33367 of the Health and Safety Code
26 repert under Seetien a3328 fer a redevelopment plan 26 is amended to read:
27 utilizing tax increment financing, the county or any 27 33367. The ordinance shall contain:
28 affected taxing entity may call for the creation of a fiscal , 28 (a) The purposes and intent of the legislative body,
29 review committee, within 15 days after receipt of 9 with respect to the project area.
30 deeetments the preliminary report from the agency 30 (b) The plan incorporated by reference.
31 under pursuant to Section 33327, to assist iit the �1 (c) A designation of the approved plan as the official
32 pi°` ratiett e€the report 33344.5. ¢2 redevelopment plan of the project area.
33 SEC. 8. Section 33353.3 is added to the Health and 33 (d) The findings and determinations of the legislative
34 Safety Code, to read: 34 body, which shall be based upon clear and convincing
35 33353.3. Within 15 days after receiving notification 35 evidence, that:
36 that a fiscal review committee has been created, and 36, (1) The, project area is a 'blighted area, the
37 prior to the agency's sending a redevelopment plan to 37 redevelopment of which is necessary to effectuate the
38 the fiscal review committee, the agency and the fiscal 138 public purposes declared in this part.
39 review committee shall commence consultations 39 (2) The redevelopment plan would redevelop the
40 regarding the impact of the proposed redevelopment 40 area in conformity with this part and in the interests of
99 22Q 99 2741
.° SB 617 _ 10 —11— SB 617
1 the public peace, health, safety, and welfare. 1 obtaining the allocation of tax increment revenues from
2 (3) The adoption and carrying out of the 2 such area pursuant to Section 33670 without other
3 redevelopment plan is economically sound and feasible. 3 substantial justification for its inclusion.
4 (4) The redevelopment plan conforms to the general 4 (11) The elimination of blight and the redevelopment
5 plan of the community. 5 of the project area could not be reasonably expected to
6' (5) The carryingvout of the redevelopment plan would 6 be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone
7 promote the public peace, health,safety, and welfare of 7 without the aid and assistance.of the agency.
8 ` the community'and would effectuate the purposes and -8e (e) A statement that the legislative body is satisfied
9 policy of this part. 9 permanent housing facilities will be available within
10. (6) The condemnation of real property,if provided for 10 three years from the time occupants of the project area
11 in the redevelopment plan, is necessary,to the execution 11 are displaced and that pending the development of such
12 of the redevelopment plan and adequate provisions have 12 facilities there will be available to such displaced
13 been made for payment for property to be acquired as 13 occupants adequate temporary housing facilities at rents
14 provided by law, 14 comparable to those in the community at the time of
15 {7) The agency has a feasible method or plan for the ` 15 their displacement,
16 relocation of families and persons displaced from the 16 ( When the project is financed in part or in whole
17 project area,if the redevelopment plan may result in the 17 from revenues derived from the allocation of taxes
18 temporary or permanent displacement of any occupants 18 pursuant to Section 33670,a statement that the legislative
19 of housing facilities in the project area. 19 body is convinced that the effect of tax increment
20 (8) There are or are being provided in the project area 20 financing will not cause a severe Financial burden or
21 or in other areas not generally less desirable in regard to 21 detriment on any taxing agency deriving revenues from
22 public utilities and public and commercial facilities and 22 a tax increment project area or diminish the ability of an
23 at rents or prices within the financial means of the 23 affected taxing agency to maintain the current level of
r
24 families and persons displaced from the project area, 24 services provided by the agency.25 , SEC. 11. Section 33445 of the Health and Safety Code
25 decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings equal in number to
26 the number of and available to such displaced families 26 is amended to read: `
27 and persons and reasonably accessible to their places of 27 33445. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section
28 employment. 28' 33440, an agency may, with the consent of the legislative
29 (9) All noncontiguous areas of a project area are either 29 body, pay all or part of the value of the land for and the
30 blighted or necessary for effective redevelopment and 30 cost of the installation and construction of any building,
31 are not included far the purse of obtaining the
31. facility, structure, or other improvement which is
32 'allocation of taxes from such area pursuant to Section 32 publicly owned either within or without the project area,
` 33 33670 without other substantial justification for 'their ° .33 if the legislative,,,body determines: (1) that such
34 inclusion. 34 buildings, facilities' structures, or other improvements
35 (10) Inclusion of any lands, ` buildings, or 35 are of benefit to the project area or the immediate
36 improvements which are not detrimental to the public 36 neighborhood in.which the project is located, regardless
37 °health, safety, or welfare is necessary for the effective 37 of whether atteh the improvement is within another
38 `redevelopment of the area of which they area part; that project area, or in the case of a project area in which
39 any such area included is necessary for' effective 39 substantially all of the land is publicly awned that sue
40 , redevelopment and is not included for the purpose of 40 ,
the improvement is of benefit to an adjacent project area
-- 12-- a
1 structure, or other improvement which has been or will :.
1 of the agency,and (2) that no other reasonable means of 2 be leased to the community, such contract may be made
2 financing such buildings, facilities, structures, or other 3 with, and such reimbursement may be made payable to,
3 improvements,'are available to the community. Sark 4 the community.
4 Those determinations by the agency and the local 5 With respect to the financing, acquisition, or *°
5 legislative body shall be final and conclusive. For 6 construction of a transportation, collection, and
6 redevelopment plans, and amendments to stzeh those 7 distribution system and related
7 plans which add territoryto a y peripheral parking t
project, adopted after 8 facilities, in a county with a population of few milker
8 October 1, 1976, acquisition of property and installation 9 4,000,000persons or more,the agency shall,in
9 'or construction of each facility shall be provided for in the 10 order to exercise the powers granted by this section,
10 redevelopment plan. A redevelopment agency shall not 11 enter into an agreement with the rapid transit district
11 pay for the normal maintenance of Facilities, structures,
12 which includes such county, or a portion thereof, in
12 or other improvements which are owned by the 13 which agreement such rapid transit district shall be given
13 community. Normal maintenance does not include the 14 all of the following responsibilities:
14 expansion of, or the addition to or reconstruction of, 15 (a) To participate with the other parties to the
15 facilities, structures, or other improvements owned by 16 agreement to design, determine the location and extent
16 the community otherwise undertaken pursuant to this 17 of the necessary rights-of--way for, and construct, the
17 section.
18 18 When the value of such land or the cost of the 19 related transportation,peri herallparkin structures and faion cilities.stems and
19 installation and construction of such building, facility, 20 (b) To operate and maintain such transportation,
20 structure, or other improvement, or both, has been, or 21 collection, and distribution systems and related
21 will be, paid or provided for initially by the community22 peripheral parking structures and facilities in accordance
22 or other public corporation, the agency may enter into a 23 with the rapid transit district's outstanding agreements
23 contract with the community or other public corporation 24 and the agreement required by this paragraph.
24 under which it agrees to reimburse the community or 25 SEC. 12. Section 33501 of the Health and Safety'Code
25 other public corporation for all or part of the value of such 26 is amended to read:
26 land or all or part of the cost of such building, facility, 27 3350E An action may brought pursuantto Chapter
27 structure, or other improvement, or both, by periodic 28 9 (commencing with Section 860) of Title 10 of Part 2 of
2$ payments over a period of years. 29 the Code of Civil Procedure to determine the validity of
k 29- The obligation of the agency under such contract shall 30 bonds and the redevelopment plan to be financed or
30 constitute an indebtedness of the agency for the purpose 31 refinanced, in whole or in part, by the bonds, or to
! 31 of carrying out the' redevelopment project for such 32 determine the validity of a redevelopment plan not
32 project area, which indebtedness may be made payable 33 financed by bonds, including without limiting the
33 out of taxes levied in such project area and allocated to 34 generality of the foregoing, the legality and validity of all
34 the agency under subdivision (b) of Section 33670,or outY 35 proceedings theretofore taken for or in any way
35 of any other available funds. 36 connected with the establishment of the agency, its
36 In a case where such land has been or will be acquired 37 authority to transact business and exercise its powers, the
37 by, or the cost of the installation and construction of such 38 designation of the survey area,the selection of the project
38 building, facility, structure or other improvement has
39 been paid by, a parking authority, p 39 area, the formulation of the preliminary plan, and the
40 other public corporation to provide at building, faciowers lity,
or 40 adoption of the redevelopment or renewal plan, and also
99 M
99 3M
a. SB 617 —14— — 15— SB 617
j 1 includingthe legality and validity of all 1 allocated to, and when collected shall be paid into a
g ty y proceedings.
2 theretofore taken and (as provided in the bond
2 special fund of the redevelopment agency to pay the
3 pmci al and interest on loans, moneys advanced to, or
' 3 resolution) .proposed to be taken for the.authorization, principal
incurred by a redevelopment agency,
4 issuance, sale and delivery of the bonds and for the 4 mdeb
5 payment of the principal thereof and interest thereon. 5 whether funded, refunded, assumed, or otherwise, to
6 The court hearing an action brought to determine the 6 finance or refinance, in whole or in part, the
7 validity of the redevelopment plan shall use its 7 redevelopment project. When those loans,advances, and
8 independent judgment in making its determinations, 8 indebtedness, if any and interest thereon, have been
9 `rulings, and judgment, and may receive evidence which 9 paid, all moneys thereafter received from sales and use
10 has not been presented to the legislative body adopting 10 taxes levied within the project area shall be paid to the
11 the challenged redevelopment plan. All of the rules o 11 city or county.
12 discovery contained in Title 3 (commencing with Section 12 SEC. 15. Notwithstanding Section 6 of Article XIII B
13 1981) of Part 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall be 13 of the California Constitution and Section 2231 or 2234 of
' 14 applicable to judicial proceedings challenging the 14 the Revenue and Taxation Code, no appropriation is
15 validity of a redevelopment plan. 15 made by this act for the purpose of making
16 SEC. 13. Section 33616.3 is added to the Health and 16 reimbursement pursuant to these sections. It is
17 Safety Code, to read: 17 recognized, however, that a local agency or school
18 33616.3. Commencing July 1, 1984, and annually 18 district may pursue any remedies to obtain
19 thereafter, each agency shall, file with the State 19 reimbursement available to it under Chapter 3
20 Department of Finance a detailed report of all of itst 20 (commencing with Section 2201) of Part 4 of Division 1
21 financial transactions, in a format determined by the 21 of that code.
22 department, including, but not limited to, a statement of 22 SEC. 16. Notwithstanding Section 2231.5 of the
23 all revenues and expenditures. The State Department of ±. 23 Revenue and Taxation Code, this act does not contain a 4
24 Finance shall summarize the information received and 24 repealer, as required by that section; therefore, the
25 make a report to the Legislature on or before October 1 25 provisions of this act shall remain in effect unless and
26 of each year. 26 until they are amended or repealed by a later enactee 1
27 SEC. 14. Section 33680 is added to the Health and 27 act.
28 Safety Code, to read:
29 33680. Any redevelopment plan may contain a
30 provision that any sales and use taxes levied by a city or
31 county pursuant to the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local
32 Sales and Use Tic Law, Part 1.5 (commencing with
33 Section 7200) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation
34 Code, upon tangible personal property at retail within a s
35 redevelopment project area shall be divided as follows: O
36' (a) The average amount of the sales and use taxes
37 collected within the project area during the previous
38 three fiscal years shall be paid to the city or county.
39 (b) That portion of the sales and use taxes collected in
40 excess of the amount specified in subdivision (a) shall be
Aia- ndatory 20% Housing Set-Aside. AB 1084 (Hughes) .
Current law requires a 20 percent set-aside of tax increment to provide afford-
able housing for low and moderate income persons and families subject to find-
ings of certain community housing need. This currently applies to projects
formed after January 1, 1977. However, AB 1084 would extend this provision to
' projects formed prior to January 1, 1982 subject to prior indebtedness and speci-
fic findings of low and moderate housing 'needs.
�F( CSAC Redevelopment Reform Proposal-act
617 (McCorquodale) .
This measure makes a number of chan es w "ch are outlined below:
a) Imposes a moratorium upon the adoption by any community of an ordinance
declaring the need for a redevelopment agency to function in the community,
until January 1, 1985, and would also prohibit, until that date, an Increase
or decrease in the size of the area included within a project area, and the
issuance of tax allocation bonds.
b) Provides that a blighted area may also be characterized by a situation
where a majority of the parcels of real property within the area have ex-
perienced either a constant or declining assessed valuation for 3 or more
consecutive years immediately prior to the adoption of the redevelopment plan.
c) Prohibits the inclusion 'of lands that are devoted to commercial agri-
cultural production or lands which have been devoted for that purpose within
the 5 years immediately prior to the adoption of the redevelopment plan.
d) Requires every redevelopment plan to include a description of the speci-
fic projects to be pursued by the redevelopment agency, a description of the
relationship between the project and each separate parcel of land included
within the project area, the estimated cost of redevelopment activity as it
relates to each separate parcel of land, and an economic feasibility study.
It also requires the redevelopment agency to send a notice of preparation
and a copy of a draft environmental impact report to each affected taxing
entity.
e)' Requires the redevelopment agency to prepare and send a preliminary
report containing specified information to each affected taxing agency after
receipt of the assessment report from the county officials allocating the taxes.
f) Authorizes the county or any affected taxing entities to call for the
creation of a' fiscal review committee after receipt of the redevelopment agen-
cy's preliminary report. Also requires.,the redevelopment agency and the fis-
cal review committee so created to enter into consultations regarding the
impact of the proposed redevelopment project upon the affected taxing entities.
g) Requires the same procedure as the adoption of a plan whenever the agency
proposes to increase the limitation on the number of dollars to be allocated
to the redevelopment agency or the time limit on the establishing of loans,
advances, and indebtedness, to lengthen the period. during which the re-
development plan is effective, or to add additional capital improvement pro-
jects to be constructed.
h) - Existing law requires that an ordinance adopting a redevelopment plan
contain the findings and determinations of the legislative body, including
the statement that the legislative body is convinced that t'he effect--of tax
increment financing will not cause a severe financial burden or detriment on
any taxing agency deriving revenues from a tax increment project area.
SB 617 requires those findings and determinations to be based upon clear
and convincing evidence and would, additionally, require the legislative
body to find and determine that the effect of tax increment financing will
not diminish the ability of affected taxing agencies to maintain the cur-
rent level of services provided by the agency.
7 - 3111/83
i) Prohibits a evelopment agency from paying r normal maintenance
of community facilities, structures, or other improvements.
j) Requires any court which hears an action to determine the validity of
a redevelopment plan to use its independent judgment in making its deci-
sion and permits the court to receive evidence which had not been presentedm
to the legislative body that adopted the plan. '~
k) Requires each agency to file an annual report of all of its f inancial
transactions with the State Department of Finance and requires the Depart-
ment of Finance to summarize that information and make a report to the
Legislature.
1) Permits any redevelopment plan to contain a provision dividing sales
and use taxes collected in a project. area in such a way that the average
amount of the sales and use taxes collected within the project area' during
the previous 3 fiscal years"Would be paid to the city or county and would
require moneys in excess of that amount to be paid to the redevelopment
agency to pay the principal and interest on loans, moneys advanced to, or
indebtedness incurred by the agency.
We anticipate that SB 617 will be assigned to the Senate Committee on Local Govern-
ment. The League will oppose the measure. Redevelopment agency officials are
encouraged to communicate their opposition to committee members. The committee
members are: Marks (Chair) , McCorquodale (Vice Chair) , Ayala, Craven, Doolittle,
Garamendi, and Vuich.
A third measure, AB 1545 (Hannigan) , co-sponsored by the League and the .Community
Redevelopment Agency Association, will be described in next week's Legislative
Bulletin in detail.
10. OPPOSE Unemployment Insurance. Extended Benefits. AB 130 (Floyd) -- A New
Benefit -- No Reimbursement For Mandated Costs. Assemblyman Dick
Floyd is proposing to provide an additional, extended-benefit unem-
ployment insurance program in AB 130. The bill will provide the benefits for an
additional thirteen weeks when the unemployment rate is 8% or greater. This new
benefit is in addition to the 26-week maximum for regular unemployment insurance
benefits and the current extended benefit program of 13 weeks when the unemploy-
ment rate exceeds 6% (the current, extended-benefit program has, of course, been
triggered since the unemployment rate far exceeds 6%) . In short, the bill would
permit an individual under certain circumstances to draw 52 weeks of unemployment
insurance.
AB 130 enacts a new benefit program which would apply to all private and public
employers. This makes the bill an unmistakable mandated cost on local government
for which the state is responsible. Estimates place the local government cost at
approximately $5 to $6 million annually. The bill contains no appropriation for
the local government mandate and the author has no intent to place one in the bill.
AB 130 was initially passed by the Assembly Finance and Insurance Committee. How-
ever, the bill has now been re-referred to that committee for further consideration.
The author intends to amend the bill in some undisclosed fashion. A portion of the
amendment will undoubtedly remove the urgency clause now in the bill to make it a
majority vote bill instead of the two-thirds vote requirement needed to move an
urgency measure. There will also be a change to the benefit program which will
affect the timing of the benefits more than any other aspect. It is the author's
clear intent to move this bill with some type of extended benefit program in it.
It is likely the cost to local government will go up. We will inform you imme-
diately of any amendments to AB 130.
8 - 3/11/83
T'A- 3 ,
.t
SENATE BIL11IAR 2 1983 No. 431 SB 431 —2—
provisions of the act would remain in effect unless and until
Introduced by Senator Marks they are amended or repealed by a later enacted act.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
February 17, 1983 The people of the State of California do enact as follows.
1 SECTION 1. Section 33353.4 of the Health and Safety
Code An act to 2 Co is amended to read:
amend Section 33353.4 of the Health and Safety 3 de is a In the event a fiscal review committee is
Code, relating to redevelopment. 4 created pursuant to Section 33353, the redevelopmer'-
5 agency shall send the redevelopment plan ai
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DICEST 6 environmental impact report to the representative of the
SB 431, as introduced, Marks. Redevelopment plan. 7 county, designated by the county. If the county has not
(1) Under existing law, the county or any affected taxing 8 designated a representative, the agency shall send the
entity may call for the creation of a fiscal review committee 9 plan and environmental impact report to the chief
to assist in preparing the redevelopment plan. In such event 10 administrative,officer. The county representative or the
the redevelopment agency is required to send the 11 chief administrative officer shall convene the fiscal
redevelopment plan to the committee. . 12 review committee with all due dispatch,and set a hearing
This bill would impose a state-mandated local program by 13 date not less than 30 and not more thad54 days from the t`"
requiring the redevelopment agency to send the 14 transmission of the plan by the agency to the county
environmental impact report as well as the redevelopment 15 representative or county assessor.
plan to the committee. 16 SEC.2. Notwithstanding Section 6 of Article XIII B of
(2) Article XIII B of the California Constitution and i 17 the California Constitution and Section 2231 or 2234 of
Sections 2231 and 2234 of the Revenue and Taxation Code ! 18 the Revenue and Taxation Code, no appropriation is
require the state to reimburse local agencies and school 19 made by this act for the purpose of makir,
districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Other 20 reimbursement pursuant to these sections. It
provisions require the Department of Finance to review 21 recognized, however, that a local agency or school
statutes disclaiming these costs and provide, in certain cases, 22 district may pursue* any remedies to obtain
for making claims to the State Board of Control for 23 reimbursement available to it under Chapter 3
reimbursement. 24 (commencing with Section 2201) of Part 4 of Division 1
This bill would provide that no appropriation is made by 25 of that code,
this act for the purpose of making reimbursement pursuant to 26 SEC. 3. Notwithstanding Section 2231.5 of the
the constitutional mandate or Section 2231 or 2234,but would 27 Revenue and Taxation Code, this act does not contain a `
recognize that local agencies and school districts may pursue 28 repealer, as required by that section; therefore, the
their other available remedies to seek reimbursement for 29 provisions of this act shall remain in effect unless and
these costs. 30 until they are amended or repealed by a later enacted
(3) This bill would provide that notwithstanding Section 31 act,
(� 2231.5 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, this act does not
contain a repealer, as required by that section; therefore, the -
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATUR- -i9834k RECULAR SESSION
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 555
Introduced by Assemblyman Campbell
February 10, 1983
An act "to add Section 831.7 to the Government Code,
relating w public liability.
LECISLATTVE COUNSEL'S DICEST
AB 555, as introduced, Campbell. Public liability.
Under existing law, a public entity or public employee may
be liable for an injury caused by a dangerous condition of
public property in certain-circumstances. However, existing
(" law provides that a public entity or a public employee is not
liable for an injury caused by a natural condition of
unimproved property,or by an injury caused by the condition
of a reservoir, or, in some circumstances, by an injury caused
by the condition of canals, conduits, or drains.
This bill would provide that a public entity or public
employee is not liable for any damage or injury to property
or persons arising out of a hazardous recreational activity, as
defined. However, that immunity would not apply for a
failure to warn of a known dangerous condition not inherently
a part of the activity, where a specific fee was charged to
participate, or to the extent that injury was caused by the
negligent failure to construct or maintain any structure or
work of improvement, as specified.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal commit tee: no.
i h'
State-mandated local program: no.
The peopleCalffomi:2 don a of the State of act as follows:
1 SECTION 1. Section 831.7 is added to the
2 Government Code, to read:
99 40
I
AB 555 —2— ' ' —3— AB 555
1 831.7. (a) Neither a public entity nor a public 1 (3) Injury suffered to the extent proximately caused
2 employee is liable for any damage or injury to property 2 by the negligent failure of the public entity or public
3 or persons arising out of a hazardous recreational activity. 3 employee to properly construct or maintain in good
4 "hazardous recreational activity" means any of the 4 repair any structure or other substantial work of
5 following:° ng: 5 improvement utilized in the hazardous recreational
6 (1) Water contact activities, except diving, in places 6 activity out of which the damage or injury arose.
7 where or at a time when lifeguards are not provided and 7 Nothing in this section creates a duty of care or basis of
8 reasonable warning thereof has been given. - 8 liability for personal injury or for damage to personal
9 (2) Any form of diving into water from other than a 9 property.
10 diving board or diving platform, or at any place or from
11 any structure where diving is prohibited and reasonable
12 warning thereof has been given.
13 (3) Animal riding, including equestrian competition,
14 archery, bicycle racing or jumping, boating,
15 cross-country and downhill skiing, hang gliding,
16 kayaking, motorized vehicle racing, off-road
17 motorcycling or four-wheel driving of any kind,
18 orienteering, pistol and rifle shooting, rock climbing,
19 rocketeering, rodeo, spelunking, sky diving, sport
20 parachuting, sports in which it is reasonably foreseeable '
21 that there will be body contact, surfing,Mtrampolining, --
22 tree climbing, tree rape swinging, water skiing, white
23 water rafting, and wind surfing.
24 (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision (a),
25 this section does not limit liability which would otherwise
26 exist for any of the following: O
27 (1) Failure of the public entity or employee to guard.
28 or warn of a known dangerous condition that is not
29 inherently a part of the hazardous recreational activity
30 out of which the damage or injury arose.
31 (2) Damage or injury suffered in any case where
32 permission to participate in the hazardous recreational
33 activity was granted for a specific fee. For the purpose of
34 this paragraph, a "specific fee" does not include a fee or
3.5 consideration charged for a general purpose such as a
3fi general park admission charge,a vehicle entry or parking
37 fee, or an administrative or group use application or
38 permit fee, as distinguished from a specific fee charged
39 for participation in the specific hazardous recreational
10 ,activity out of which the damage or injury arose.
CALIFORNIA LECISIII41fIE=1 4 RECULAR SESSION'
ASSEMBLY BILL No,
kl
A
Introduced by Assemblyman Bradley
March 4 1983
An act to amend Section 835.2 of, and to add Section 830.7
to, the Government Code, relating to public liability.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 1866, as introduced, Bradley. Public Liability.
Under existing law, a public entity or public employee may
be liable for an injury caused by a dangerous condition of
public property -in certain circumstances. Among other
things, a public entity may,be liable if it had actual or
constructive notice of the dangerous condition for a sufficient
time prior to the injury to have taken protective measures. On
the issue of whether the public entity should have discovered
the dangerous condition in the exercise of due care, existing
r' law provides that admissible evidence includes whether the
}' condition would have been discovered by a reasonably
adequate inspection system, and whether the public entity
maintained andoperated an inspection system with due care.
This bill,would delete the provision relating to admissible
evidence and instead would provide that in the absence of a
prior accident or"occurrence, there would be a rebuttable
presumption that tie condition and its character would not
have been discovered by a reasonably adequate inspection
system. �-
This bill would also provide that there would be no liability
for a dangerous condition where legislative
g a body of the
public entity or some other body or employee approved an
inspection system or standards if the court finds that there is
substantial evidence that the system could have been
reasonably' adopted, that the system was enforced . and
99 50
AB 1866 —3— AB 1866
G
operated with due care, and that the existence of the i 1 to eyidettee
as tee
condition was not discovered by the public entity. 2 +1+ Whether the ,mistenee of the eenditierta*d its
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. 3 dangeretts eharaeter wettld have been diseovered by aft
State-mandated local program: no. 4 inspeetisn. systefft that wits reasonably adegttate
5 (ee�tsider the and east of imspeel4ett
The people of the State of California do enact as follows 6 weighed against the hkeliheed atfl rraatttitude e€ the
7 petentia daftgiff to which &i1ttre to inspeet weeld gee
1 SECTION 1. Section ,` 830.7 _ is added to the 8 tee} to 4&r-fn the publie entity whether the property
2 Government Code, to read: 9 was safe €er the ttse er ttses fer whieh the publie entity
3 803.7. Neither a public entity nor a public employee 10 used er intended ethers to w e.the p4h a property and fer
'4 shall be liable for the maintenance of public property in 11, ttses that the publie entity aetually knew ethers were
5 a dangerous condition where the, legislative body of the 12 tnakin e€the publie property er adjaeent preper-ty.
6 public entity or some other body or employee exercising E 13 +2} Whether the peblie entity tftaintained aftd
7 discretionary authority to give the approval has approved . 14 epe�rated stteh a iteetien s? with dtte earn at3d did
8 in advance of maintenance, an inspection system or the 15 t3et diseeYer the eenditien..
9 standards therefor, designed to give. notice of the 16 (c) In the absence of any evidence of prior.accident
10 condition of public property to the public entity, if the. 17 or other specific occurrence demonstrating the
11 , trial or appellate court determines that there is p 18 dangerous character of the condition, there shall be a
12 substantial evidence upon the basis of which a reasonable 119 rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof
13 ' legislative body or other body or.ethployee could have 20 that the existence of the condition and its dangerous
14 adopted or approved the inspection system or the 21 character would not .have been discovered by a
15 standards therefor, that the inspection system was 22 reasonably adequate inspection system.
16 enforced and operated with due care, and that the
17 existence of the condition was not discovered by the
18, public entity.
19 SEC. 2. Section 835.2 of the Government Code, is
20 amended to read:
21, , 835.2. , (a) A public entity had actual notice of a
M dangerous condition within the meaning of subdivision
° 23 , (b) of Section 835 if it had actual knowledge of the
24 existence of, the condition ,and knew or ,should have
25 known,of its dangerous character. O
26 :,, (b) A public entity had *constructive, notice of a
27 dangerous condition within the meaning of subdivision
28 . (b) of Section 835 only if the plaintiff establishes that the
'm 29 condition,had existed for such a period of time and was
30 of such an obvious nature that the public entity, in., the
31 exercise 'of, due care,, should , have discovered the ;
32 condition;and its dangerous character. 44ft the issue e€,
33 dtte Bare;admissible eN,idettee ittelades bet is two linnited
�ICALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE-1983-&1 REGULAR SESSION
ASSEMBLY BILL - No. 1867
I
Introduced by Assemblyman Bradley
March 4, 1983
4
i
An act to amend Sections 1431 and 1432 of, and to add
n 1431.1 to the Civil Code relating
S echo � to liability.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
dl Liabili public entities.
used Bradley.AB 1867 as introduced, y tY�
Under existing law, negligencein an action
n based upon or
t similar wrongful cond
uct against multi
le tortfeasors,
asors for an
i
indivisible injury, each of the tortfeasors is jointly and
IF severallyliable for all com ensable damages except that they
P
are not liable for damages attributable to the negligence of
the plantifE However, tortfeasors may seek equitable
indemnity from other tortfeasors.
This bill would provide that in an action for personal injury,
property damage, or wrongful death, where an indivisible
injury was caused by 2 or more persons,at least one of which
is a public entity, the total damages would be equitably
apportioned, and the public entity tortfeasor would be liable
allocated to it. The bill would provide
onlyfor the damages P
g*
m to ee would be treated the same as a public
public e that a p P Y,
'fled. The allocation would not apply. to
s eci Y entity, as PP e i
� h' P
intentional injuries. -
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
• The people'of the State of California do enact as Follows•
1 SECTION 1. Section 1431 of the Civil Code is
2 amended to read:
3 •1431. A ii Except as provided in Section 1431.1, and
99 50
�t r
7 1
AB 1867
—3— AB 1867
1 ' except in the special cases mentioned in this title, al `. 1 shall be binding only upon persons who are parties to the
2 obligation imposed upon several persons, or a right 2 action.
3 created in favor of several persons, is presumed to be 3 (f) The allocation provided for by this section does not
4 joint, and not several; exeept iii ,the speeial uses 4 apply to any person who intentionally injures another. A
5 ffientiened ` in' the T4de eft the inter-pretat-ieR e€ 5 person who intentionally injures another shall be liable
6 Gentreets.This presumption,in the case of a right,can be 6 for all damages inflicted and compensable under the
7 overcome only by express words to the contrary. 7 laws. However, an apportionment shall be made under
8 SEC. 2. Section 1431.1 is added to the Civil Code, to ! 8 this section with respect to any other persons liable and
9 read: 9 not guilty of intentional conduct, including for that
10 1431.1. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (i), in { 10 purpose, an allocation to the intentional actor.'Any oche-
11 an' action for personal injury, property damage, or 1 11 person so liable shall have a right of indemnificatic
12 wrongful death, where an indivisible injury has been I 12 against the intentional actor.
13 sustained by, the plaintiff,as a proximate result of the 13 (g) When one person is vicariously liable for the
14 wrongful conduct of two or more persons, at least one of 14 conduct of another person, they shall be treated as one
15 which is a public entity not immune from tort liability, 15 person for the purposes of this section and the same
16 the total damages sustained by the plaintiff and to which , 16 percentage allocated to each, and this section does not
17 the conduct of all of those persons has contributed shall , 17 affect whatever right of indemnification or contribution
18 be equitably apportioned among them by the trier of fact, 18 may exist between them.
19 based upon f p n h degree the eg ee o fault, if any, of those persons 19 (h) If two or more persons actin concert with respect
20 and upon the ,degree to which the conduct of each 20 to conduct proximatelyresulting in an indivisible injury
21 contributed to causing the compensable damages. The 21 to the plaintiff, they shall be treated as one person for the
22, amount so apportioned shall be stated as a percentage 22 purposes of this section and the same percentage
23 ' which shall aggregate 100 percent with respect to all such I 23 allocated to each, but each shall have a right of
24 persons. 24 contribution against the others under Section 1432 and
25 (b) The liability of each public entity tortfeasor shall 25 Title II (commencing with Section 875) of Part 2 of th �I
26 be several only and shall not be joint. For the purposes of 26 Code of Civil Procedure.
27 this section, a public employee shall be treated the same 27 (i) This section shall not apply when all public entity
28 as the public entity which is vicariously liable for the 28 tortfeasors have .settled with the plaintiff or plaintiffs
29 ' public employee's conduct. 29 prior to trial.
30,. (c) Each public entity tortfeasdr shall be liable only for 1 30 SEC. 3. Section 1432 of the Civil Code is amended to
31 the percentage of the total compensable damages 31 read:
32 allocated to it,and a separate judgment shall be rendered,[ 32 1432. A Except as provided in Section 1431.1, a party
33 , against the public entity for that.,amount. z 33 to a joint, or joint and several obligation, who satisfies
34 (d) The liability of each nonpublic entity tortfeasor 34 more than his or her share of the claim against all, may
35 shall be joint and several with regard to that portion of 35 require a proportionate contribution from all the parties
36 damages not attributable to the public entity. f 36 joined with him or her.
37 (e) The allocation provided for in subdivision (a) shall
38 be made after deducting the portion of the damages
39 found by the trier of fact to be attributable to the
40 wrongful conduct, if any, of the plaintiff. The allocation,
t
e
173t§t'. �iyi�f 7
SENATE BILL No. 575
I Introduced by Senator Foran
(Principal coauthor: Senator Beverly)
February 24 19 83
act to amend Sections 1431 and 1432 of and to add
An {
Section 1431.1 to, the Civil Code, and to amend Section 625 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, relating to joint and several
liability.
t
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 575, as introduced, Foran. Joint and several liability.
Under existing law, in an action based upon negligence or
product liability against multiple tortfeasors for an indivisible
injury, the tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable for all
compensable damages attributable to that injury except that
they are not liable for damages attributable to the negligence
of the plaintiff. However, tortfeasors may seek equitable
f ) indemnity from other tortfeasors.
This bill would provide that in an action for personal injury,
property damage, or death, where an indivisible injury was
caused by 2 or more persons, the damages shall be equitably
apportioned among them by the trier of fact. Each tortfeasor,
as to economic damages, would remain jointly and severally
liable for such damages. However,. each tortfeasor, as to
noneconomic damages, would be liable for the percentage of
such damages allocated to that person, and liability would be
several and not joint. The apportionment of damages would
be made without regard to any immunity, but the
apportionment would not affect any immunity.The allocation
of damages would not apply to intentional injuries, as
specified.
The bill would enact related provisions.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.
i
SB 575 —2— —3— SB 575
i
The people of the State of California do enact as follows. 1 verifiable pecuniary losses including, but not limited to,
2 burial costs,medical expenses, loss of earnings, loss of use
1 SECTION 1. Section 1431 of the Civil Code is 3 of property, costs of repair or replacement, costs of
2 amended to read: 4 obtaining substitute domestic services, loss of
3 1431. Aft Except as provided in Section 1431.1, and 5 employment, and loss of business or employment
4 except in the special cases mentioned in this title, an 6 opportunities. For the purposes of this section, the term
5 obligation imposed upon several persons, or a right 7 "noneconomic damages" means subjective,
6 created in favor of several persons, is presumed to be 8 nonpecuniary losses including, but not limited to, pain,
7 joint, and not several; emeept in the speeial eases 9 suffering, inconvenience, mental suffering, emotional
8 ffiezr ntivnet ift the Title eft the inter-pretat of 10 distress, loss of society and companionship, loss of
9 tenets.This presumption,in the case of a right,can be 11 consortium, injury to reputation, and humiliation.
10 overcome only by express words to the contrary. 12 (c) (1) The liability of the multiple tortfeasors fr
11 SEC. 2. Section 1431.1 is added to the Civil Code, to 13 economic damages shall be joint and several.
12 read: 14 (2) The liability of each tortfeasor for noneconomic
13 1431.1. (a) In an action for personal injury, property 15 damages shall be several only and shall not be joint.
14 damages,or wrongful.death,where an indivisible jury has 16 (3) Each tortfeasor shall be liable only for the
15 been sustained by the plaintiff as a proximate result of the 17 percentage of damages determined pursuant to
16 wrongful conduct of two or more persons, the total 18 subdivision (a) and allocated to that person from the total
17 damages sustained by the plaintiff and to which the 19 compensable noneconomic damages, and a separate
18 conduct of all of those persons has contributed shall be 20 judgment shall be rendered against the person for that
19 equitably apportioned among them by the trier of fact, 21 amount.
20 based upon the degree of fault, if any, of the persons and 22 (4) The allocation provided for in paragraph (3) shall
21 upon the degree to which the conduct of each 23 be made after deducting the portion of the noneconomic
22 contributed to causing the compensable damages. The 24 damages equal to the percentage found by the trier of
23 amount so apportioned shall be stated as a percentage 25 fact to be attributable to the wrongful conduct, if any, of
24 which shall aggregate 100 percent with respect to all of 26 the plaintiff.
25 those persons. The apportionment shall be made without 27 (d) The allocation provided for by this section sh-"
26 regard to any immunity from liability of any one or more 28 not apply to any person who intentionally inju,
27 of the persons for conduct normally imposing liability, 29 another. That person shall be liable for all damages
28 such as the immunityof an employer from liabilityto an and compensable under the law. However, an
30 inflicted
P
29 employee covered b workers' c m made under this section with
compensation or the n shall be
YP 31 apportionment
30 immunity from liability of a governmental entity. 32 respect to any other persons liable and not guilty of
31 Nothing in this section shall affect that immunity. 33 intentional conduct, .including for that purpose an
32 (b) The trier of fact shall determine the total amount 34 allocation to the intentional actor. Any person so liable
33 of damages, if an sustained b the plaintiff and shall right of indemnification against the
g � shall have a g
Y Y P 35
g
34 divide the total amount of damages into economic and 36 intentional actor.
35 noneconomic catagories. The division of damages shall 37 (e) If one person is vicariously liable for the conduct
36 be stated as dollar amounts which shall aggregate 100 38 of another, they shall be treated as one person for the
37 percent of the plaintiff's damages. For purposes of this 39 purposes of this section and the same percentage
38 section, the term"economic damages"means objectively ''� 40 allocated to each for which they shall be jointly liable,and
i
k
SB 575 —4— _..5— SB 575
1 this section shall not affect whatever ,of right 1 a g O (b), and (e) of Section 1431.1 of the Civil Code.
2 indemnification or contribution may exist between them.
3 (f) .Except as provided in subdivisions (d) and (e), no
4 right of contribution as to the liability for noneconomic
5 damages shall exist in favor of one person liable against
6 another person who is liable in any action specified in
7 subdivison (a).
8 (g) In any action for personal injury, property
9 damage, or wrongful death, a claim by the plaintiff and
10 a counterclaim by any defenadant shall be set off, and a
11 judgment shall be entered only for the net amount in
12 favor of the person awarded the higher recovery.
13 (h) Nothing in this section shall invalidate rights to
14 indemnification or contribution which are provided for
15 by contract.
16 SEC. 3. . Section 1432 of the Civil Code is amended to
17 read:
18 1432. A Except as provided in Section 1431.1, a party
19 to a joint, or joint and several obligation, who satisfies *,,
20 more than his or her share of the claim against all, may
21 require a proportionate contribution from all the parties O
22 joined with him or her.
23 SEC. 4. Section 625 of the Code of Civil Procedure is
24 amended to read:
25 625. (a) In all cases the court may direct the jury to
26 find a special verdict in writing, upon all, or any of the
27 issues, and in all cases may instruct them, if they render
28 a general verdict, to find upon particular questions of
29 fact, to be stated in writing, and may direct a written
30 finding thereon. The special verdict or finding must shall
31 be filed with the clerk and entered upon the minutes.
32 Where Ifa special finding of facts is inconsistent with the
33 general verdict, the former controls the latter, and the
34 court must shall give judgment accordingly.
35 (b) In an action for personal injury,property damage,
36 or wrongful death, where an indivisible injury has been
37 sustained by the plaintiff as a proximate result of the
38 wrongful conduct of two or more persons, the court shall
39 direct the jury to return a special verdict in writing ,.-,�
40 incorporating the allocations required by subdivisions
r
t ` CALMRNIA LEGISLATURE-19$3-N REGULAR SESSION
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 215
Introduced by Assemblyman Cortese
(Principal coauthor: Assemblyman Naylor)
r January 6, 1983
' An act relating to swamp and overflowed land within the
City of Redwood, and declaring the urgency thereof,to take
effect immediately,
~. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST'
AB 215, as introduced,, Cortese. Redwood City: swamp
and overflowed lands.
Under existing law, certain lands which were aide or
submerged lands are held subject to a public trust,commonly
described as the public trust for commerce, navigation, and
fishing.
' This bill would terminate all right, title,and interest,if any.,
the state may have in all former submerged lands, tidelands,
and salt marsh that may have been situated with certain
described boundaries within the City of Redwood, and would
terminate all of the state's sovereign tideland public trust
right, title, or interest,'to the extent any such right, title, or
interest� exists within that area. The bill would make
legislative findings and declarations in this connection.
•
The bill would take effect immediately as an urgency
statute:
Vote: a/s. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of,California do enact as follows.
i 3 I SECTION 1. The Legislature hereby finds and
2 declares the following:
AB 215 —2— � � --3— AB 215
ti
1 (a) By act of Congress on September 28, 1850 (9 Stat. 1 Section 3.of this act, acquired the lands prior to April 12,
2 519), as subsequently amended and modified, all swamp 2 , 1956, without knowledge, actual or constructive, of any
3 and overflowed lands in this state;: subject to later 3 , interest in the lands held or claimed to beheld by the
4 identification, were granted to the state, State of California or the people.
5 (b) This act of Congress operated to convey such lands 5 (h) In 1956, the present owner of the lands described
6 to the state upon its admission to statehood on September 6 in Section 3 of this act, commenced to improve the lands
7 9, 1850, upon the condition that the swamp and 7 by the construction of a marina and a boat launching
8 overflowed lands be then subsequently sold into private 8; ramp and the dredging of portions of lands for the
9 ownership, be reclaimed, and put into a productive use. ' purpose of making a navigable waterway within the
10 (c) Throughout the state the sale of approximately 2.1 1Q lands, ,
11 million acres of land, classified as swamp and overflowed,' (i) On April 13,1956, the present owner was informed
12 has been accomplished,pursuant to the provisions of the 1 ' writing by the Executive Officer of the State Lands
13 Act of Congress of September 28, 1850, and various 13 Commission . that the proposed improvement would
14 enabling state statutes.These lands are held in fee simple 14 `occupy; tide and : submerged lands of the State of
15 absolute by the purchasers thereof, and their successors 15:';California.' This communication constituted the first
16 in interest, free of any tideland or public trust for 16 {�instance in which`a claim of ownership of or an interest
17 commerce, navigation, or fishery, 17 =in the# lands was made, by the State of California.
18 (d) In 1891,by virtue of Chapter 157 of the Statutes of 18 However, by written communication of September 24,
19 1891,page 221,the Legislature provided that lands within r 19 1956, the Executive Officer of the State Lands
20 the state which are returned by the United States as 20 , Commission formally withdrew the state's objection to
21 swamp and overflowed .lands, f or shown as such ;on 21 , the proposed improvement for the stated reason that the
22 approved township plats, shall, as soon as patents are 22, berths and launching ramp proposed to be constructed in
, 23 issued therefor by the State of California;be held to be of 23 , Smith Slough,,a portion of which is located within the
k 24 the character so returned,that is,swamp and overflowed 24 lands described in Section 3 of this act, would be on
25 lands. 25 privately owned lands.
` 26 (e) The lands described in Section 3 of this act were 26 U) Based upon the State Lands Commission's finding
27 ,lawfully conveyed into private ownership by the State of 1 27 ,that the proposed marina was to be located on privately
28 California by means of swamp and overflow land patents 28 owned lands and following the written formal approval of
` 29 issued in 1868 and 1930, which patents operated to grant 29 the improvement by the Board of Supervisors of San
P p
30 ,all right,title,and interest of the State of California in the 30 Mateo County and the United States Army Corps of
31' described lands to the named patentee and his or her ' 31 s Engineers, the present owner did undertake to construct
32 successors in interest. 32 and did in fact construct the marina on a,portion of the
33 (f) The lands described in Section 3'of this act were at ' 33 lands described in Section 3of this act.This improvement
34 all times during the period of 1868 through April 12, 1956, 34 was accomplished at the sole expense of the present '
.> 35 deemed to be held in private ownership free of any 35 owner and in reliance upon the statement by the State
36 interest of the State of California,and further that during 36 Lands Commission that the improvement was on private
37 , the period of 1868 through April 12, 1956, the state made 37 ' lands and not lands which the state claimed to own or
38 no claim of ownership of nor interest in the lands either 38 have an interest in.
39 on behalf of the state or the people. _ ` , 39 (k) For a period of approximately 10 years following
,'40 (g) The present owner of the 'lands described, in 40--completion of the improvement in Smith Slough no
AB 215 4 t 5 AB 215
1 further claim of ownership of or interest in the lands was 1 'the area to be improved, and the written approval of the
2 made by the state. However, on March 10, 1966, in 2 United States Army Corps of Engineers, the present
:3 , connection with a proposed dredging operation on the 3 owner expended substantial sums of money in the
4 lands, the State Lands Commision informed the present 4°, completion of the authorized improvements to the land
5' owner that the state was the owner of a portion of the > 5 described in Section 3 of this act.
6 lands to be dredged,specifically.Smith Slough.No further 6 (m) The present owner, his or her predecessors in
7 action was taken by the state until July 28, 1971,when,in 7 interest,have at all times paid any and all ad valorem real
w' 8 response to an inquiry by the Bay Area Conservation and 8 property taxes levied against the land described in
' 9 ',Development Commission (BCDC), the .State Lands 9, Section 3 of this act from 1868 to the present.
10 Commission again asserted state ownership 'of Smith10 ;s' (n) The uses made on the real property described in
11 Slough.The present owner had commenced the approval i 11 Section 3 of this act have, since 1868 to the present, been
12 process for a proposed expansion of his marina facility, 12, uses authorized under applicable local zoning and
13 including the construction of a restaurant to be supported 13, general plan requirements, if any, and have been
14 , by pilings which were to be located in Smith Slough, On 14 specifically authorized and permitted by the appropriate
15 October 20,1971,BCDC issued permit No.22071 granting 15 local agency.
16 the present owner permission to improve the land by the 4 16 (o) The lands described in Section 3 of this act have
$ ' facility, p p .public is:'addition of a restaurant facili a onion of which was # 17 been made accessible to the public and the
18 supported by pilings to be located in the bed of Smith 18 expressly permitted to be upon the lands by the present
' 19 Slough, The permit expressly stated that the State Lands 19 owner and absent the actions of the present owner and t
20 ''Commission had withdrawn its objection to,issuance of ' 20 his or her predecessors in interest, in reclaiming,
2l a the permit for the reason that. the pilings would not 21 . dredging,and otherwise improving the lands,they would
22*"encroach` upon Smith Slough,in ,areas claimed by,the 22 not be suitable for public use.
23 `'� The lands described in Section 3 of this act, were P 23 ,' state, The engineering data submitted in the permit (P)
24 process`clearly show that a number of pilings were to be 24 not in their natural state capable or susceptible for use for !
25 placed in the bed of Smith Slough waterward of the mean 25 purposes of commerce,navigation or fishery.A portion of
26 ; lower law water mark; 26 the lands are presently capable of sustaining navigation ', E
27 (l) BCDC permit No, 22-71 . contained ' specific 27 as the direct and sole result of the efforts of the present p
28 findings to the effect that the permitted improvements ; 28 owner, his or her predecessors in interest, by virtue of
29 would provide, ...., on privately-owned property for new ' 29 theirlprivate efforts in reclaiming the lands and in the
30 . and improved public access to : the Bay .and for 30 'reclamation effort dredging a portion of the lands to a
31 , improvement; of shoreline, appearance; and,the filling 31 depth that permitted safe navigation of the waters.
32 would be for Bay-oriented commercial recreation and > 32 SEC.2.', The Legislature does hereby Find and declare,
33 with res ect to the lands described in Section 3 of this act
33' Bay-oriented public assembly�purposes .,. since ,the { p
g 34 that such lands are hereb ` found and determined to be
34 facilities would be restaurants and. specialty shops Y
35 free and clear of any,interest of the State of California,
� ' 35 specifically designed to attract large numbers of people i
36 to enjoy, "A further Funding 36 � whether express or implied, and the present record title
the Bay and its shoreline. .,,
"The proposed private project would not conflict €. 37 owner of the lands holds such title free of any such state
37 stated, 38 ,`,claim of ownership`or interest therein. "f
#F, 38 with the plans of any governmental agency.",
3� ' ' It is further found and determined that with res ect to
E 39 Based upon the issuance;af, the BCDC permit,;the 40 ,.an onion,.of such lands which may' have been pde or
i 40. 'withdrawal of the claim of alledged,state' ownership of Y p
A {
n
AB 2156_ --7-- AB 215
1 submerged-lands, sold as swamp acid overflowed lands; 1, two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) to improve the
2 they were, in their natural condition valueless for the 2 , lands.
3 purpose of the public,trust for commerce, navigation, or 3° (g) The-,lands constitute less than 100 acres of the
4 fishery and are hereby freed from the trust to the,extent ,. 4. approximately 2.1 million acres of swamp and overflowed
5 it ever existed with respect to the lands, : 5 lands in this state and to the extent a portion of the lands '
6 1 The Legislature does hereby find that'the following 6 were tide or submerged lands in their natural state they
7 acts serve to compel .the recognition of the private, 7, were neither capable of supporting nor susceptible of
8 ownership status of such lands and the termination of the . 8 supporting commerce, navigation, or fishery; and
9 tidelands public trust over a'portion of the lands to the 9, further, to the extent any,portion of such lands were in r
10 extent that the trust ever existed with respect to such, 10 4 fact tide or submerged lands in their natural state, they
11 lands: 11 ' constitute an extremely small and insignificant portion of
12 (a) The issuance by the State of California of Swamp 12,1 the hundreds of thousands of acre of such lands located
13 and Overflowed Land Patents for the lands described in 13 ;in the adjacent San Francisco Bay.
14 Section 3 of this act. - 14 (h) The levy and collection of real property taxes on
15 (b) The acceptance by the State of California;of the 15, the lands.
16 full purchase price for the lands. 16 (i) The regulation of permitted uses on the lands by
17 (c) The absolute words of conveyance, free of�any 17E adoption and enforcement of zoning and general plan
18 retained right,title,or interest in the state utilized by the 18 ordinances applicable to the lands by virtue of their being
19 . state in the patents, which by their terms, conveyed all 19 held in private rather than public ownership.
20 right, title, and interest of the state to the patentee, his 20 0) The repeated removal of claims of an alleged state
21 or her successors and assigns, and conversely, the failure 21 ownership of or Fan interest in the. lands by state
22 . of the state to expressly reserve any right,title,or interest 22 representatives where it was known to their
23 in the lands in the patents, thereby precluding the 23 representatives that proposed improvements would be
24 patentees, their successors in interest and assigns from ! 24, placed " in Smith Slough" or waterward of the "mean
25 being informed,by means of review of the public records 25 lower low water mark" of Smith Slough, sites which are g
26 which impart constructive notice, of any reserved right, 26 located in the bed of Smith Slough.
27 title, or interest in the state. 27 (k) The. provision of public access to the lands r
28 (d) The consistent failure on the 'part of state 28 permitted by the present owner of the lands.
29 representatives for initial period of 88 years,folioing the. 29 (l) The uses to which the lands are put,uses which are
30 issuance of the first patent to a portion of these lands,and i 30 highly beneficial public uses and which are consistent
31 for a period of 26 years following the issuance of the 31 tideland public trust uses, notwithstanding the
32 patent conveying the"remainder of these lands, to assert ; 32 nonapplicability of the tideland public trust to the lands.
�. 33 any claim of state ownership of or an interest in these 33 SEC. I The Legislature hereby terminates all right,
1134 lands: 34 title, and interest, if any,'it may have in all former
35 (e) The withdrawal by' state representatives of any 35 submerged lands,tidelands,and salt marsh that may have
36 alleged state interest in these lands in 1956 which action 36 been, on or after September 9, 1850,.situated within the
37 operated to'permit improvement of lands: I, 37 boundaries described below,and further terminates all of
38 (f) The substantial and justifiable:reliance on the part 38 the state's sovereign tideland public trust right, title, or
i 39, of the owners of the land following the disclaimer of any 39 : interest, to the extent any such right, title, or interest
5 40 state interest in the property, in expending in excess of 40 exists, in all former submerged lands, tidelands, and salt
AB 215 8- —9— AB 215
1 marsh that may have been, an and after September 9,
1 described as follows:
2 1850,situated within the following described boundaries: 2 Beginning at the most southerly corner of the lands
3 Parcel One: 3 described in the deed from Earl P. Wilsey and wife to
4 A portion of the fractional west 1/2 of the northwest x/4 4 Eric Watkin, dated October 24, 1955, and recorded
5 of Section 17 and portion of the east y� of the northeast 5 December 8, 1955, in Book 2930 of official records of San
6 . 1/4 of Section 18, Township 5, south, range 3 west, Mount 6 Mateo County at4 page 733 (10941-N); thence from that
7 Diablo base and meridian,more particularly described as 7 point of beginning along the southeasterly boundary line
8 follows: = j 8 of such lands north 63° 45' east 1000.71' feet to the west
9 Commencing at the corner common to Sections 7,8, 17 19 bank of Redwood Creek; thence along such west bank
10 and 18 in Township 5,south, range 3 west Mount Diablo 10 Redwood Creek south 46 24' east 144.80 feet to an angle
' 11 base and meridian; such point of commencement being ! 11 point therein; thence continuing along such west bank
12 also the northeast corner of swamp and overflowed land 12 south 28° 41' east 203.51 feet; thence leaving such west
t 13 survey No. 61 and the southwest corner of swamp and 1113 bank of Redwood Creek south 810 30'35 a west 1112.27 feet
14 overflowed land survey No. 74, in such township and 14 to the point of beginning.
y 15 range; thence from that point of commencement east 15 SEC. 4. This act is an urgency statute necessary for
16 :104.83 feet along the north line of Section 17 to the true 16 the immediate preservation of the public peace, health,
4 17 point of beginning of this description; thence from that 17 or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the
18 point of beginning south 17° 27' 28' west 1132.76 feet; 18 Constitution and shall go into immediate effect.The facts
19 thence south 401.28 feet; thence south 17° 47' 3g' east 19 constituting the necessity are:
20 717.76 feet; thence north 63° 45' east 1000.71 feet, to the 20. In order, to clarify and protect the public interest in
I�I 21` west bank of Redwood Creek; thence following along 21 certain lands which have been developed for marina
i;f a 22 that west bank and the meanderings thereof, the �22 purposes within the City of Redwood at the earliest
R ' 23 following courses and distances: north 46 24' west 232.74 possible time, it is necessary that this act take effect
24 feet; north 54° 06' west 398.72 feet to the southerly bank '24, immediately.
' 25 -of a slough, north 41°52' west 520.60 feet to the northerly
26 bank of a slough,north 8°47' east 380.44 feet,north 21°35'
'27 east 292.84 feet,north 36'39' east 213.30 feet,north 48'40'
28 east 183.46 feet to the north line of such Section 17;thence
29 leaving such west bank of Redwood Creek and along such
30 north line of Section 17 which is also the southerly line of
31 the above mentioned survey No.74 west 368.99 feet to the
32 true point of beginning. The bearings used in'the above
33 described refers to the meridian employed in the O
34 above-described swamp and overflowed land survey No. r
35 1.
36 , Parcel Two:
37 A portion of the fractional west 1/z of the northwest 1/4
38 of Sction 17, and portion of the east 1/2,of the northeast
39 1/4 of Section 18, all in Township 5 south, range 3 west,
40 Mount Diablo base and meridian% more particularly '
433
save San tyrancisco 4BCFy association
P.O.Box 925 Berkeley,California 94701 (415]349-3053 849-3044
March 10, 1983.
ALERT TO PENINSULA MEMBERS
AB 215 (Cortese/Naylor) has been introduced in the Legislature. This
bill would remove the time honored Public Trust from the area of Redwood
City known as Pete's Harbor.
It is an effort by a private owner to get a portion of the Bay legislatively
declared as not navigable. This area could then be filled or closed to the
public as private property. The public trust protects navigable water by
requiring water dependent uses such as fishing, commerce and navigation.
Public Trust Needs Protection
Throughout the state, many early land titles were either fraudulently or
mistakenly recorded as land above mean high tide. Most of these titles
are more than a hundred years old. For more than a decade there have
been negotiated agreements between the land owners and the State Lands
Commission when maps or obvious waterways have shown title errors.
The California Land Title Association has been trying for years to remove
the public trust for certain owners, claiming that the old titles, regardless
of authenticity, should have priority over historic public rights. They have
not won in the courts — nor has Pete. •
Pete has been gaining support for his cause by distributing some misleading
information. Contrary to his claims, the state does not wish to closedown
the popular marina and restaurant, as these uses are consistent with the
public trust, if AB 215 is passed, a serious precedent would be set.
A No Vote is Needed
This bill will be heard in the near future. Letters can most effectively be
sent SOON to the following:
Assemblyman Terry Goggin, Chairman
Natural Resources Committee
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
SIERRA LOMA PINETA CHAPTER
San Mateo,Santa Clara, San Benito Counties
CLUB
., y Located at the Peninsula Conservation Center
2253 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306
(415) 327-811 1 (1:00-5:00 p.m., Mon, - Fri.)
February 8 , 1983
To: Sierra Club Bayl ctivists
From: David Fogart pter Conservation Coordinator
SUBJECT: BAYLANDS GIVEAWAY BILL INTRODUCED
Would you believe that someone could claim he owns the Golden
Gate, the bed of Lake Tahoe, or the Santa Barbara Channel?
Of course not. :.These are public waterways belonging to all the
people of California. But that is exactly what a bill (AB215) by
Assemblyman Dom Cortese would do to Smith Slough in Redwood City.
Smith Slough has been a public waterway for years. It is part of
San Francisco Bay and subject to tidal action.
Contrary to highly emotional ( and .inaccuha.te) claims of harrassment'.
by state agencies, AB 215 would give away a portion of the publicly
owned Smith Slough to the private owner of a popular marina and
restaurant known as Pete's Harbor. If the bill passes the owner could
charge the public to fish from the shore or pass by in a boat.
The worst news about Ab 215, however, is that the bill could
seta precedent for the giveaway of thousands of acres of other
tidelands throughout the st
ate.
CAN YOU TAKE FIVE MINUTES TO STOP
THI5 BAYLANDS GIVEAWAY? If
so, please sit down and write a note to your Assemblyman Byron
Sher. Ask him to oppose AB 215. better yet, call him up, and
tell him what you think about. thli baylands giveaway.
Assemblyman Byron Sher
State Capitol
Sacramento, California 95814
Mountain View Phone: 961-6031
SEE ATTACHED FACTSHEET FOR MORE INFORMATION
♦T s
FACT SHEET ON AB 215 February 7, 1983
BACKGROUND:
Since statehood all tidelands and submerged lands in navigable,waters like
the bay and delta, and inland navigable rivers and lakes have been protected
by a public trust, and are actually considered public property. Tidelands
are those lands lying betty-teen the high and low tidelands which are periodically
subject to tidal action. Submerged lands lie underwater all of the time, and
include rivers, bays, estuaries, and sloughs.
The public trust works like an access easement over dry land. For example, a
homeo,emer may own the property in front of his house all the way to the middle
of the street. However, an easement is attached to the sidewalk and the street
to permit unrestricted use of these Public thoroughfares.
This same principle applies to tidelands and submersed lands: The public is
permitted to use the state's tidelands and submersed lands for public trust
Purnoses. The courts have defined these purposes as navigation, commerce,
fishing, hunting, wildlife, habitat preservation, and open space. Many
shoreline parks , marinas, and fishing piers have been provided on Public
trust lands.
Ourinq the Gold Rush period when natural resources were considered limitless, -
many land frauds occurred which resulted -in illegal transfer of public -lands
into private ownership. One kind of these land frauds involved swamp and
overflowed lands. These are referred to as S and 0 lands. S &0 lands are
lands above the line of hinhest tidal action where extraordinary tides or floods
have rendered the land swampv and unfit for cultivation. However, due to
incompetence and Plain corruption in some cases, riany lands that are actually
underwater or are tidelands were surveyed as ,S 8. 0 lands.' The California
Legislature documented these land frauds in an 1874 report which stated in
part: "that through the connivance of narties , surveyors were appointed
who sepregated these lands as swamp And overflowed lands which were not so
in fact. The corruption existing in the land denartment of the General
government has aided this system of fraud." These investigations also resulted
in the incorporation of net- public trust protections in the California Constitution
aonroved in 1879-
For several years now corporate landowners, foreign investors, and the California
Land Title Association have introduced legislation making findings that all
S & n lands are free of the public trust or dither Public ownershin whether
or not they are in fact wetlands or waterways. , These bills have been widely
opposed which include SB 664 (Nielsen) , SB 1214 (Nielsen) , and AS 1879 (Bosco) .
AS 215, and its predecessor, AB 2286:
In January, 1983, Assemblyman Dom Cortese (San dose) with Assemblyman Robert
Naylor as principal co-author, introduced AB 215. This bill is identical to
AB 2286 which was authored by Assemblyman Robert Naylor in Aucrust, 1981 .
AS 2286 was amended in the Assembly Natural Resources Committee to work out
a compromise which would have established the boundary between Pete's harbor
upland property in Redwood City and the public ownership of Smith Slouch at
the mean high water line. Later the bill was amended in a Senate Committee
to give Pete Uccelli (Pete's Harbor) thirty feet of the slouch. The bill
died in the Senate because Democratic Senators were upset by U ccelli 's support
of Carol Hallett for Lieutenant Governor.
AB 215 (continued)
AS 215 is identical to the original form of AS 2286. The bill would confer
private ownership upon all lanas c aimed by Pete Uccelli , including the
tidelands and submerged land of Smith Slough at Pete's Harbor in Redwood
City. The bill would also remove the public trust rights of connerce,
navigation and fisheries upon these lands. The tidelands and submerged
lands at Pete's Harbor were erroneously patented as S & 0 in 1930 even
though they were and are actually underwater, navigable, and part of San
Francisco swee Bay. p. The bill has ino adverse statewide implications since
it contains legislativeg i1 i f S b 0
findin s at stet all 2.1 million on acres o that e
lands are free of the public trust whether or not they are in fact underwater.
RECOMMENDATION
AB 215 should be opposed for several reasons. The most fundamental are
listed below:
I . The bill will remove from public ownership portions of a navigable slough
(Smith Slough) in Redwood City in violation of statutory and constitutional
law.
2. The bill amounts to a gift of public land to the owner of Pete's Harbor
In violation of Article XVI , Section 6 of the State Constitution prohibiting
pifts of public property.
3. AB 215 conflicts with Article X, Sections 3 and 4 of the State Constitution
which +guarantee public access to the navigable waters of. the state.
4. AS 215 has sweeping adverse implications for thousands of acres of wetlands
throughout the state that, have beeq.,inc rrectly patented as swamp and
overflowed lands and which are criti al�X important for the marine food
chain; wildlife habitat, recreation, onen space, swimming, and fishing. .
5. The legislature is canstitutiovally'`proh4bited from conveysne to private
parties any tidelands located within two miles of an incorporated city,
which is the case with Pete's Harbor.
6, ' The existing State Lands Commission nrocedure. for settling state public
trust claims on a case by case basis is the most eouitable method for
resolvina. title disputes in these very complicated matters.
i
r
FACT SHEET ON AB 215 March 1 , 1983
BACKGROUND:
The courts of California have made it clear that all tidelands and
submerged lands. in navigable waters like San Francisco Bay and the
Delta as well as navigable rivers and lakes are subject to the
public trust regardless of whether private parties have received
t
PP
patents from the State proporting to convey fee title . Tidelands
are those lands lying between the mean high tideline and the mean
low tideline and are lands which are periodically subject to tidal
action. Submerged lands lie underwater all of the time . In rivers
and lakes the public trust extends to the ordinary high water mark.
The public trust works like an access easement over dry land. For
example, a homeowner may own the property in front of his house all
the way to the middle of the street . However, an easement is
attached to the sidewalk and the street to permit unrestricted use
of these public thoroughfares .
This same principle applies to tidelands and submerged lands. The
public is permitted to use the state ' s tidelands and submerged lands
for public trust purposes. The courts have defined these purposes
to include navigation, commerce, fishing, hunting, recreation, wild-
life , habitat preservation, and open space. Many shoreline parks,
marinas, and fishing piers have been provided on public trust lands.
During the Gold Rush period when natural resources were considered
limitless , many land frauds occurred which resulted in illegal trans-
fer of public lands into private ownership . One kind of these land
frauds involved swamp and overflowed lands . These are referred to as
S and 0 lands . S & 0 lands are lands above the mean high tide line
where extraordinary tides or floodwaters occasionally inundate the
property. However, due to incompetence and plain corruption in some
cases , many lands that were actually underwater or tidelands were
surveyed as S & 0 lands . The California Legislature documented these
land frauds in an 1874 report which stated in part : "that through
the connivance of parties , surveyors were appointed who segregated
these lands as swamp and overflowed lands which were not so in fact.
The corruption existing in the land department of the General Govern-
ment has aided this system of fraud.,' These investigations also
resulted in the incorporation of new public trust protections in the
California Constitution approved in 1879 .
For several years now corporate landowners, foreign investors and the
California Land Title Association have caused legislation to be intro-
duced which would state by legislative fiat that land sold as S & 0
lands are free and clear of any public trust interest or any other
public ownership claim regardless of whether they were historically
(or even now) part of the navigable waters of the State . Examples
of these bills include in 1981 SB 664 (Nielsen) and in 1982 SB
1214 (Nielsen) and AB 1879 (Bosco) .
AB 215, and its predecessor, AB 2286 :
.t
1.
FACT SHEET ON AB 215
Page Two
In January, 1983 , Assemblyman Dom Cortese (San Jose) with Assemblyman
Robert Naylor as principal co-author, introduced AB 215. This bill
is identical to AB 2286 which was authored by Assemblyman Robert
Naylor in August , 1981 . AB 2286 was amended in the Assembly Natural
Resources Committee to work out a compromise which would have
established the boundary between Pete ' s Harbor upland property in
Redwood City and the public ownership of Smith Slough at the mean
high water line . Later the bill, was amended in a Senate Committee
to give Pete Uccelli (Pete ' s Harbor) thirty feet of the slough.
The bill died in the Senate because Democratic Senators were upset
by Uccelli ' s support of Carol Hallet for Lieutenant Governor .
SENATE BILL No. 834
Introduced by Senator Nielsen
(Principal coauthor. Assemblyman Johnston)
(Coauthors:.Senators Boatwright, Doolittle, Johnson, and
{ Speraw)
(Coauthors: Assemblymen Allen, Baker, Dennis Brown,
Isenberg, McAlister, Rogers, and Norman Waters)
March 2,.1983
An act to r add Sections 835, and 836 to the Civil Code,
relating to swamp and overflowed lands.
LEGISLASB 834, as introduced,Nielen SE DIGEST
S _ ..
wamp ,and tidelands.
Under existing law, certairi'swamp, overflowed, tide, and
submerged lands were sold by the state pursuant to various
acts of the Legislature. v
f
.This,bill would provide that in all cases where (1) swamp
and overflowed lands, as defined, were sold by the state, (2) ,
an application was made to purchase the lands under
specified authority and a certificate of purchase or patent
issued, (3) the lands have been reclaimed prior to Ja.nuary.l, .
>_ 1983, as specified, (4) the lands have been or,are presently *`
used for specified purposes, and. (5) the lands are located
within the Sacramento-San Joaquin .Delta as defined by .
statute or within the geographic area comprising specified
counties, the certificate of purchase or patent shall operate to `
have conveyed to the purchaser the fee simple title free of the
public trust for commerce, navigation, or fishing. The`bill
• would specify that,.with respect to berms and borrow pits,the
lands shall be deemed reclaimed if they,have been used or set
aside in connection with a.`reclamation- effort, and'would
specify `.related matters. The bill 'would make related
legislative'findings and declarations.
a
99 4A
SB 834 _2 -3 SB 834
Vote:`majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. 1 . difficulty in physically-identifying and segregating those
State-mandated local program: no. 2 lands from tidelands which passed to the state by'reason
3 of its sovereignty, Congress enacted the Act of July 23,
The peopl, of the State of Q]Yornia do enact as follows.
4 1866 (14 Stat. 219), which established four methods by
5 which swamp and overflowed lands could be identified
1` SECTION 1: Section 835 is added to the Civil Code, 6 and segregated in the State of California. Identification
2 -to read: ! 7 by any one of these methods has been relied upon by the
3 835. The Legislature finds and declares the following i • 8 state and individual purchasers of swamp and overflowed
4 with respect to lands subject to the provisions of Section 9. lands for in excess of 100 years as establishing the swamp
5 836: 10 and overflowed character of the lands.
6 (a) By Act of Congress of September 28, 1850 (9 Stat. , 11 (e) In their natural condition, swamp and overflowed
7 519), as subsequently amended and modified, all swamp 12 lands were lands subject to periodic inundation and were
8 and overflowed lands. in .this state, subject to later 13 ' not useful for productive purposes. These lands in some
9 identification, were granted to the state to enable the 14 instances contained channels, sloughs, or other areas
10 state "to construct the necessary levees and drains to , .'15 which were tidelands, which tidelands were of no use for
11 . reclaim" those lands to make them fit for cultivation. 16 commerce, navigation, or .fishing. The natural position of
12 . (b) As used in this section and Section 836, "swamp 17 the dividing line between swamp and overflowed lands
13 and overflowed lands means any lands designated as 18 and tidelands was often difficult to determine because of
' 14 "swamp and overflowed," "salt. marsh," or any 19 the level nature of the terrain, the absence of readily 3
15 combination thereof, by any of the following: 20 identifiable boundaries, and the fact that no precise
'16 (1) ,A patent or other certificate {ssued by the United 21 method existed for locating the line of ordinary high
States to the State of California confirming that the lands 22 water.
18' passed to the state b reason of the Act of Se tember 28 be nin with the act
P Y P 23 (f} By acts of the Legislature, gin g
` 19 " 1850 (9 Stat: 519).', 24 of April 28, 1855, Chapter 151 of the Statutes of 1855,
��4' 20 (2) Any .of the procedures described in the Act of :s 25 swamp and overflowed lands were authorized to be sold
21 Congress'of July 23, 1866 (I4 Stat. 219) 26 for the purpose of reclamation, in some instances upon
22 r: (3) Any'approved township plat. 27 penalty of forfeiture if not so reclaimed within a specified
(4)` ,Any patent, field notes, or survey pertaining to a 28 period of time, the moneys received from the sales to be
24 `patent issued by the 'state. 29 used for further reclamation.
` r a° 25 (5) An segregation re prepared b a count In granting swam and overflowed lands,the state
Y. survey' P P Y, Y 30, (g) g g P
ti r ..26 surveyor pursuant to the act of May 13, 1861 (Ch. 352, 31 often used, interchangeably, patents referring to the
27, Stat. 1861), or any similar act. 4, 32F,'lands as "swamp and overflowed," "salt marsh," or11
28 (c), As used in this section and Section 836,"tidelands" 33 ° "tidelands" without intending to find'and declare the `
29 ''means` lands which in their natural condition were 34 lands to be tidelands subject to the public trust for
30 subjectto the ebb and flow of the tide below the line of 35 commerce, navigation, and fishing.
31°. ordinary high water. 36 (h) Beginning with the act of May 13, 1861, Chapter
32 (d) Because of confusion that existed within the State '4°37 352 of the Statutes of 1861, the Legislature created
33 of California as to the method of identifying lands which ' 38 ,authority for segregation,sale,and reclamation of swamp
34" passed to the state by reason of the Act of Con ess of
39 and overflowed, salt marsh, and tidelands, including the
35 ,'September 28
40,11850 .(9 Stat. 519) and because of the ' ;' .formation of reclamation, drainage, levee, water storage,
V'W SB 834 �.6_ _7 SB 834
6
} 1 ° (2) Fostering and encouraging the reclamation of 1 was made to purchase those lands from the state under
{ 2 those lands. 2 any act or acts which authorized the sale of swamp and
` 3 ,> (3) The regulation of permitted uses of the lands by 3 overflowed, marsh, salt marsh, or tidelands, or any or all
4 the adoption and enforcement of. zoning and general 4 of them, and a certificate of purchase for swamp and
5 plan'ordinances applicable to the lands by virtue of their 5 overflowed land or a swamp and overflowed land patent
6 being held,in private ownership. 6 was issued to the applicant, or to assignees, grantees, or
T (4) The enforcement of criminal trespass statutes T successors in interest of the applicant who have made full
8 applicable, to'privately held lands'a amst ersons who 8 payment therefor; and,PP p y g ' p (3) with the exception of berms
9 occupy the lands in violation of those statutes. 9 and borrow pits created in connection with a reclamation
10 (5) Governmental authorization, ;for the `division 10 effort, those lands have been reclaimed prior to January
11 development,-and improvement of the lands by the so that they are no longer subject to the ebb and
12 enforcement of laws and ordinances governing the 12 flow of the tides below the ordinary high water line; and, ,
13 division;"°development,` and improvement ,of privately 13 (4) the lands have been or are presently used for
14 owned land: ,. 3 14 agricultural, industrial, residential, commercial,
15 (6) The absolute words of:conveyance, free of.any 15 recreational, or other beneficial purposes; and, (5) the
16 ` retained right,title,'or interest in the state utilized by the f 16 lands are located within the geographic area described in
17 'state in patents,which by their terms,conveyed all right, j 17 Section 12220 of the Water Code, or are located within
18 title, and interest of the state to the named grantee, his 18 , the geographic area comprising the Counties of Amador,
19 successors and assigns, Fresno,
and, conversely; the failure of the. 19 Butte, Calaveras, Colusa�, El Dorado, Glenn,
20 state to expressly reserve any rig t*title,-'or interest in,'' 20 Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced,Nevada, Placer,
21 , these lands in.the patents, thereb} precluding members; ' 21. Sacramento, San ,Joaquin, Shasta, Solana, Stanislaus,
22 of the public from being informed, by means of a review` 22 Sutter, Tehama,Tulare, Tuolumne, and Yolo; then, with
23 of the public records which impart constructive notice,of 23 respect to those lands, the certificate of purchase or
24 ;any reserved right, title,, or interest,in the state to the 24 patent shall operate to have conveyed to the purchaser,
* .k 25 lands. 25 as of the date of purchase, the fee simple title of the state
26 (7) The consistent failure on the part of federal or: 26` to the land therein described free of the public trust for .'
27 state officials,fora period of well in excess of.100 years to, 27� `commerce, navigation, and fishing.
}$ 28 assert any claim of state ownership of or an interest in 28 , (b) With respect to berms and borrow pits,these lands
' 29 these lands 29 shall be deemed reclaimed if they have been used or set
30 : . (o) Any lands'subject to the provisions of Section 836,,' 30 aside in connection with a reclamation effort, provided
314,which may have been tidelands or submer ed lands sold
y g 31 that those berms or borrow pits are located within the
32 °as swamp>, and;`,overflowed lands }which have . been u` 32 perimeter description contained in the swamp and
`.33; reclaimed are hereby found and determined by = the' 33 overflowed land patent or certificate of purchase for the
' ` . 34 Legislature to have been valueless for the purposes of the.,,* 34 lands. .
35 public trust for commerce, navigation, and fishing and 35 , In those instances where the reclamation effort
-.36 k are hereby`declared to be free of that trust. !. 36 resulted in the creation of berms and borrow pits and the
SEC.2., "Section 836 is added to the Civil Code,'to read:; 37 't expansion or creation thereby of areas over which the
.38 836. (a) In all ,, cases ,, where: ,.(1) swamp •and,.'. 38 , navigable waters of this state were permitted to flow,
A,,.r:{;;¢.'39 ,overflowed' lands, ,as described in ,.subdivision (b) of., ' k 39 nothing in this section shall operate in any way to alter or
'40 Section 835;were sold by the state;and, (2) an application; 40 impair the rights of the public to navigate upon those'
SB 83
SB 834 _4— —5 4
1 state pursuant to the Act of Congress of September 28,
1 and other 'districts whose purposes included the f
2 construction of levees, building of drainage,'canals, 2 1850 (9 Stat. 519).
3 rerouting of streams,fillingof sloe hs and the creation 3: (k} Through these federal and state acts and other acts
'sloughs,
4 of other appropriate works, the cost initially borne by the 4, of the Legislature,more than two million acres of swamp
5 landowners within the district and the state but later , 5 and overflowed lands were segregated to and sold by the
6 financed ` through authorized plans of taxation and
6 state, the majority of which have been reclaimed and
7 devoted; to agricultural, industrial, residential,
bonding. 7
8 (i) In.l$91,by virtue of Chapter 157 of the Statutes of 8, commercial, recreational, and other beneficial uses.
9 1891,page 221,the Legislature provided that lands within 9 (1) It has been and continues to be either highly
�40 the state which are returned by the United States as 10 impractical or impossible to determine with certainty
11 swamp and overflowed lands, or shown as that on 11 whether lands which were segregated to and disposed of
12 approved township plats, shall, as soon as patents are 12 by the state and which were subsequently reclaimed
13 issued therefor by the State of California,be held to be of 13' were swamp and overflowed lands, salt marsh, tidelands,
14 the character so returned, that is,swamp and overflowed 14, uplands, or lands beneath nontidal navigable waters.
15 lands. As-a'result, the designation of lands as swamp and 15 (in) The reclamation of swamp and overflowed, salt
16` marsh, or tidelands conveyed by the state, was in
'16 overflowed on approved township. plats by the United '17 furtherance of and in , promotion of commerce,
17 ` States has been relied upon by the state and purchasers ,
18 of swamp and overflowed lands as determining the # 18, navigation, and fishing, and in the public interest,and, to
19 swamp and overflowed character of the lands. 19 the extent that reclamation eliminated various sloughs,
2Q a) In order to reclaim lands gra�ited to the state by the 20 channels, and other areas which may have been
A; 21 Act of Congress of September 28, 21. tidelands, that elimination was in furtherance of, and did
1850 (9 Stan.519),it was � -
22, and is necessary to eliminate various sloughs,'channels, 22 not interfere with commerce, navigation, and fishing.
23 'and other areas which may have been tidelands through ! 23 (n) It was the intent of the Legislature that a
24 purchaser of lands disposed of as swamp and overflowed
24 "the construction of dams,levees,filling,and other means. lands,regardless of how denominated in the certificate of
25} 25 It was impractical or impossible to eliminate all sloughs, ;26 channels, or other areas that may have been tidelands 26 purchase or patent,should acquire the absolute title to all
27 from grants of swamp and overflowed lands because of ' 27 of the lands described in the certificate of purchase or
28 patent of the lands, including tidelands or submerged
`28 the difficulty in determining,the boundaries between 29 lands, and that the lands when reclaimed would not be
29 those areas and swamp and overflowed lands.
30 The area of land which may have been tidelands ? 30 subject to the public trust for commerce,navigation, and
=*°.31 included within grants by the state of swamp and ' 31 fishing. That intention has been acknowledged and
32 implemented for many years by„ the consistent
° 32. `overflowed lands and which have been reclaimed 33 recognition by state and local governmental entities that
33 represents a small portion of the total acreage of land
34 ' conveyed by the state for the purpose of reclamation. . 34 the title held by those purchasers and their successors in
35 Because of the difficulty in eliminating lands which . 35 interest was absolute and not subject to the public trust
36 may have been tidelands from swamp and overflowd ! 36 for commerce,navigation,and fishing,commencing with
e
grants and because of the necessity for including those ! 37 the date of issuance of the certificate of purchase for the
141 38 lands within areas to be reclaimed, certain areas which ' 38 lands. Acts evidencing that recognition include, but are
39 not limited to, the following:
39 k were tidelands were conveyed into private ownership # 40 (1) The levy and collection of real property taxes.
.° .40 along with swamp and overflowed lands received by the 11
SB 834 —8— —9— SB 834
T newly created navigable waters. 1 certainty as to the location of those lands and to insure the
2c} Because of the uncertainty that originally existed 2 stability of titles to those lands held in private ownership,
3 with respect to the common boundary between swamp 3 and in particular to resolve certain well-settled public
4- and overflowed lands and tidelands and the impossibility 4 versus private ownership rights in the lands. This act is
5 of accurately locating that boundary at the present time 5 necessary in furtherance of those purposes and is
6 with respect to the lands, with the exception of berms 6 essential to the orderly economic and social use of the
7 and borrow pits created in connection with a reclamation 7 lands and will therefore enure to the benefit and
4 8 effort, the present ordinary high water line shall be 8 protection of public and private property rights and for
9 ,deemed to be the boundary between lands freed from 9 the public good generally.
10 the public trust for commerce, navigation, and fishing ,10 , The Legislature further finds and declares that, by
11 , pursuant to this section. ' "11 limiting the application of this act to swamp and
12 With respect to 'berms and 'borrow pits created .in. 112 , overflowed lands located within the geographic area set
13 connection with a reclamation effort, the lands lying 13 forth in Section 836 of the Civil Code, it is the intent of,
14 within the perimeter description contained in the swamp 14 the Legislature to effect a prompt resolution of questions 15 , and overflowed land patent or certificate of purchase for 15 that have been raised with respect to public versus
' 16 the, lands shall be deemed to be the boundary between 16 private rights in these lands.It is not,however,the intent
17 lands freed from the public ' trust for 'commerce 17 of the Legislature to,directly or by way of implication, in
18 navigation, and fishing pursuant to this section subject, , I18 any manner, alter or affect either of the following:
19, however, to the public's 'right to navigate upon any 119 (1) The right, title, or interest of owners of real
20 navigable waters which were permitted to flow over '20 property having as its source of title a swamp and
21 , those lands. . 121 overflowed land patent or certificate of purchase
22 (d) To the extent state moneys have been expended in 22 therefor.
23 the initial reclamation of lands subject to the provisions 23 (2) The rights of the public, if any, in these lands,
24 of this section and to the extent that those expenditures, 24 where the lands are located outside of the geographic
25 did not result in a public benefit,the private owner of the 125 area affected by this act. With respect to these lands, the
26• land in question, or his or her successors in interest, shall 12b' provisions of existing law shall apply, unaffected by this
27 be required to reimburse the state for any net benefit j 27 act.
' 28 they received arising from that expenditure.
29 SEC. 3. Nothing in this act shall be construed to alter j
30 ,or impair any existing or future right of access, whether
31 , by implied dedication to, a public use or otherwise, in .!
,¢ 32 , favor of the public, over lands subject to the provisions of
33 this act, where those rights have been acquired or
34 established under any provision of existing law. '
35 SEC.4. The State of California and the people thereof
36 ,are ,hereby: declared to have a primary and supreme
37 interest in securing to the State of California and the
? 38 inhabitants and holders of title to lands which are subject
39 to the provisions of this act, which were sold by the state
x f 40 as swamp and overflowed lands, the maximum possible
w
•J
SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION ANr DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
. 30 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco 94102 557 - 3686
March 25, 1983
TO: All Commissioners and Alternates
FROM: Michael B. Wilmar, Executive Director
SUBJECT: LEGISLATIVE STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ON SENATE BILL 834
(For Commission consideration on April 7, 1983)
I. Report
A. Summary. Attached is Senate Bill 834, introduced by Senator
Nielsen, which attempts to terminate public rights in certain tide and
submerged lands in the Delta. The rights that would be lost allow the public
to fish, boat and use lands covered by water. While the bill is limited to
the Delta, including a small portion of the Commission's jurisdiction in
Solano County, the findings would jeopardize tide and submerged lands in other
parts of the state. The public would receive no compensation for the lost
rights and private claimants would be able to exclude the public from the
affected lands. Existing landowners would gain rights in tidelands and
submerged lands beyond those originally authorized by the relevant sales laws.
B. Background
The bill is identical in all essential features to the provisions
of SB 1214, defeated last year, and SB 664, vetoed in 1980. To appreciate the
effect of the bill, it is necessary to understand (1 ) the differences between
submerged lands, tidelands, and swamp and overflowed lands, (2) the public
trust, and (3) the private and public equities.
1. Tide and Submerged Lands Distinguished From Swamp and
Overflowed Lands
The public trust only applies to tidelands and submerged
lands, not to swamp and overflowed lands. Submerged lands, such as those
under the main body of the Bay, are always covered by water. Tidelands, such
as the mudflat and some of the lower marsh areas around the fringe of the Bay,
are covered by water during high tide. Tidelands extend landward from
submerged lands to the high water line. Swamp and overflowed lands, often
called "S & 0 lands," are -supposed to be higher than the high tide line. S &
0 lands were sold in the 1850's pursuant to the Arkansas Swamp and Overflowed
Lands Act. That Act only authorized the sale of swamp and overflowed lands,
not tidelands and not submerged lands. To get a patent or certificate of
purchase, you had to have a map that designated the land as swamp and
overflowed, pay a fee and promise to reclaim the land by constructing levees.
Unfortunately, many of the maps showing S & 0 lands were
wrong. Some designated lands that were clearly submerged (for example,
sloughs and similar waterways), as swamp and overflowed lands. Some showed
tidelands as swamp and overflowed lands. The errors arose from a variety of
causes. Survey techniques were not well developed. Some surveyors did not
t
-2-
3
bother to look at the land they mapped. Some surveyors were in collusion with
prospective purchasers. Some surveyors and some governmental officers did not
understand the Arkansas Act. Attitudes were different at that time. Land Was
plentiful; marshes were considered a nuisance, better filled; resources seemed
unlimited.
2. Meaning and Value of the Public Trust
When California came into the Union, the federal government
granted all the tidelands and submerged lands to the State to hold in trust
for the �people. The doctrine of the trust interpreted in several California
and U. S. Supreme Court decisions, has changed over time to meet new
conditions, needs and attitudes. However, some aspects have remained in
effect since the concept first evolved in early English common law. The trust
doctrine has always supported the people's right to fish, swim, boat and
conduct commerce in and on navigable waters. The trust has often also meant
that people had a right to get to navigable waters. More recently the trust
has meant that fish and wildlife, aesthetic, climatic and other natural values
of tidal lands can be protected for future generations from fill, dredging or
other harmful activities. For the most part, the trust cannot be destroyed or
eliminated from property to which it properly applies. It is constitutionally
protected by of the California Constitution. Courts have limited the ability
of kovernment to terminate the trust because the State holds the interest on
behalf of existing and future generations. The trust is also a legal
authority. For example, it allows the Commission and similar agencies to
implement their policies more fully than the police power allows.
Until the mid-20th century when the amount of marshland and
tideland, and access to those resources became much more limited, few disputes
arose between private owners and the public over the trust. But recently,
conflicts between private claimants and the State have arisen, especially over
tidelands and submerged lands that were mischaracterized as swamp and
overflowed lands. As mentioned above, the trust does not apply to swamp and
overflowed lands. Therefore a private owner has greater rights to fill,
exclude the public from, and charge for recreational activities on land
classified as swamp and overflowed. Not unexpectedly, the conflicts came when
the values of tidal areas, marshlands and,the associated resources were much
better understood, when survey techniques had vastly improved and when money
and staff were available to research and accurately locate tidelands and
submerged lands.
3. Private and Public Equities
If a landowner wants to transfer a parcel to which the trust
may apply, it is difficult to obtain a clear title report. It can also be
difficult to obtain financing from a bank. Some of these areas have been
diked off and farmed for many years. But some are tidal today. The owners
feel such areas were and are free of the trust. Such areas can still present
title difficulties. It can take substantial time and legal fees to resolve a
title dispute. For these reasons and others, today's landowners want to rely
on the early patents and maps regardless of the errors in designations.
Today's title companies do not want the potential liability that may arise
from early insurance contracts that guaranteed title to mischaraeterized
tidelands and submerged lands.
f
t
-3-
On the other hand the public, through the State, now
recognizes the importance of tidelands and submerged lands that have been much
reduced by fill and reclamation done in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
The public wants to fish, boat and use existing submerged lands and
tidelands. Wildlife agencies and others want fish and wildlife protected from
loss of habitat due to filling and intensive land uses.
Public lawyers believe strongly that the early legislative
acts only authorized the sale of swamp and overflowed lands; other kinds of
land could not be sold because there was no legal authority to sell them. The .
trust applies to tidelands and submerged lands by definition and the State
cannot, for the most part, remove the trust. The State Lands Commission also
has a constitutional duty to assure that public lands are not given away to
private parties and corporations without a corresponding public benefit.
There are equities on both sides. In the Delta, farmers
should be able to use their lands as equity for financing farming operations.
But should they be able to exclude fishermen, boaters and hunters from the
tidally inundated portions of their lands which are mostly waterward of
existing levees? Some of the mid-19th century errors in characterization were
the result of ignorant or negligent governmental employees. In most cases,
landowners should be able to rely on governmental representations, even if the
representations were clearly wrong. But should landowners be allowed to
control exclusively large water-covered areas that an inspection would reveal
to be tidal and clearly lower than the high water line?
r
The facts and legal issues of each case are unique and
complex. Historically, competing equities have been resolved administratively
after a thorough investigation and a public hearing. This is what the State
Lands Commission is charged with doing. If a private landowner believes the
resolution is unfair, he may, of course, take the matter to court. The bill
removes, for the most part, this existing administrative mechanism. The
matters would not be individually investigated nor would the equities be
balanced after thorough investigation and careful analysis.
C. Reasons to Oppose SB 834
The staff believes SB 834 is not in the public's interest for the
following reasons:
1. The bill attemps to remove historic and
constitutionally protected public trust
rights from certain tide and submerged lands
in the Delta;
2. The bill unconstitutionally gives public
property to certain private landowners
without corresponding public benefit;
3. The findings supporting trust termination
arguably apply to any misebaracterized
tidelands and submerged lands thereby
jeopardizing public rights in several
thousand acres of tidal areas in the State;
4. The bill is unnecessarily vague in that the
affected lands are not identified
specifically, making it impossible to tell
how large an area would be transferred;
5. An effective administrative mechanism already
exists for settling title disputes that
balances private and public ecuities; and
6. The bill will not effectively confirm fee
title in private parties but instead will
lead to litigation at high cost both to the
public and private landowners.
II. Recommendation
For the reasons stated above, the staff recommends the Commission oppose
the bill and any similar measure that derogates the public interest in
tidelands and submerged lands.
o I
CAUFORNIA LEGISLATURE-1983-84 REGULAR SMION
I
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 746
Introduced by Assemblyman Campbell
February 18, 1983
An act to amend Sections 5549 and 5594- of the Public
Resources Code, relating to regional park or open-space
districts.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSELS DICEST
AB 746, as introduced, Campbell. Regional park,
open-space, and park and open-space districts: general
manager powers.
Under existing law, with the approval of the board of
directors of a regional park, regional open-space, or regional
park and open-space district, the general manager of the
district may bind the district,without advertising and without
s written contract,for the payment for supplies,labor,or other
valuable 'consideration in amounts not exceeding $5,000.
j Contracts for furnishing materials or supplies or for
constructing any building, structure, or improvement when
the expenditure will exceed $5,000 are required to be let to
the lowest responsible bidder under specified -bidding
procedures.
This bill would recast those provisions and would authorize
the general manager of the district, with the approval of the
board of directors,to bind the district without advertising and
without written contract for supplies, materials, labor, or
other valuable consideration or for maintenance projects
involving the Use of contractor services to preserve,maintain,
or repair any existing building,structure,or improvement not
in excess of $10,000 and for supplies, materials, or labor for
i new construction of any building, structure, or improvement
` not in excess of $25,000. All contracts in excess of those
99 40
l
ti A
AB 746 —2— —3— AB 74
amounts would be required to be let to the lowest responsible 1 without written contract, for the payment for supplies
bidder under specified bidding procedures. 2 materials, labor, or other valuable consideratioi
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. 3 furnishes: to the district, or for the payment fo
State-mandated local program: no. 4 maintenance projects involving the use of contracto
5 services to preserve, maintain, or repair any existin
The people of the State of California do enact as follows- 6 building, structure, or improvement, in amounts no
7 exceeding five ten thousand dollars ($5,000) ($10,000
1 SECTION 1. Section 5549 of the Public Resources 8 and for the payment for supplies, materials, or contract
2 Code is amended to read: 9 for labor for new construction of any building, structur
3 5549. (a) The general manager has the•following 10 or improvement in amounts not exceeding twenty-fiv
4 administrative and executive functions, powers, and 11 thousand dollars ($'25,000). All perehases exper ire
5 duties. He The general manager shall do all of the 12 shall be reported to the board of directors at .ex
6 following. 13 regular meeting.
7
14 SEC. 2. Section 5594 of the Public Resources Code i
8 (1) See that the provisions of this article and all 15 amended to read:
9 ordinances and regulations of the district are enforced. 16 5594. All contracts for furnishing materials er sue:
i0 17 supplies,materials,labor, or other valuable consideratio
11 (2) Appoint subordinates, clerks, and other 18 furnished the district,for maintenance projects involvin
12 employees, and exercise supervision and control over all 19 contractor services to preserve, maintain, or repair an
13 departments and offices of the district. Such ap
pointees
ppointees 20 existing building, structure, or improvement, or fo
14 shall hold employment at the pleasure of the general 21 constructing any new building, structure, o;
15 manager. 22 improvement, when the expenditures will exceed
16 -f 0 23 sum ef ftye theusand del} the applicabl
17 (3) Attend all meetings of the board unless excused by - 24 amount speciFied in Section 5549,shall be let to the lowes'
18 the board. 25 responsible bidder, after notice inviting bids, publishe
19 26 in a newspaper in the district at least one week bef- - th
20 (4) Submit to the board for adoption such measures, 27 time of receiving bids. The board of directors m,,, jec
21 ordinances, and regulations as he or she deems necessary 28 all bids and readvertise, or by a five-sevenths vote ma
22 or expedient. 29 elect to purchase the materials or supplies in the ope
j 23 Fe} 30 market, or to construct the building, structure, o
24 (5) See that all terms and conditions imposed in favor 31 improvement by farce account.
25 of the district or its inhabitants in any contract are
26 faithfully kept and performed, and call any violations to
27 the attention of the board and to the police department.
28 {f}
29 (6) Prepare and submit the annual budget to the
30 board, and perform such other duties as may be imposed O
31 by this article or by the board.
32 (b) With the approval of the board, the general
33 manager may bind the district, without advertising and
r
SENATE BILL - No. 211
Introduced by Senator Lockyer
27. January , 1983
An act to amend Section 5563.5 of, and to add Section
5003.01 to, the Public Resources Code, relating to parks and
recreation. '
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
211 as introduced Lock er. State arks: concessions:
SB , P
Y
P
regional ark districts: leases.
1�
(1) Under existing law, without specific authorization by
statute, the maximum term for which contracts may be
entered into for the construction, operation, and maintenace
i of a concession in a unit of the state park system is 20 years.
This bill would authorize the East Bay Regional Park
District,which operates the Robert W. Crown Memorial State
Beach under an operating agreement with the Department
of Parks and Recreation, to advertise for bid a concession
contract for the development and operation of a new marina
M at that state beach for a term not exceeding 50 years:
(2) Under existing law, generally, a regional park district,
regional park and open-space district, or regional open-space
district is prohibited from conveying any interest in real
property actually dedicated and used for park purposes
without the consent of a majority of the voters of the district;
except that, when district land or property is temporarily
( unnecessary for park or open-space purposes,it may be leased
for other purposes for a term not exceeding 25 years with an
express provision that, should the district board determine to
use the lands'for park, open-space, or other district purposes,
the lease shall be terminated. However, notwithstanding
those provisions, the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
( Regional Open-Space District is authorized to lease district
real property for a term not exceeding 50 years if the lease is
99 40
1
SB 211 —2— —3— SB 211
approved by a resolution adopted by the affirmative votes of 1 that the purpose of the lease is for park or open-space
at least % of the members of the district board, upon making 2 purposes, or for an historic preservation, recreation, or
an express finding that the purpose of the lease is for park or 3 agricultural purpose which is compatible with public use
open-space purposes or for an historic preservation, 4 and enjoyment of the real property.
recreation, or agricultural purpose which is compatible with
public use and enjoyment of the real property.
This bill would make that exception also applicable to the
Board of Directors of the East Bay Regional Park District.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows.•
1 SECTION 1. Section 5003.01 is added to the Public
2 Resources Code, to read:
3 5003.01. The Legislature hereby finds and declares
4, that the East Bay Regional Park District is contemplating ,
5 the development of extensive new marina facilities at the
6 Robert W. Crown Memorial State Beach and that the
7 20-year term authorized by law would be insufficient to
8 enable any concessionaire to amortize the*type and scale -
9 of improvements that the district would require the
10 concessionaire to make at the marina. O
11 Accordingly, notwithstanding subdivision (a) of
12 Section 5080.18, the East Bay Regional Park District may
13 advertise 'for bid a concession contract for the
14 development and operation of a new marina at the
15 Robert W. Crown Memorial State Beach for a term not
16 exceeding 50 years.
17 SEC. 2. Section 5563.5 of the Public Resources Code
18 is amended to read:
19 5563.5. Notwithstanding Sections 5540 and 5563, the
20 Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional
21 Open-Space District and the hoard of Directors of the
22 E'ast Bay Regional Park District may, without obtaining `
23 the consent of the voters, lease real property for a term
24 not exceeding 50 years. A lease entered intc pursuant to
25 this section shall be authorized by a resolution adopted by
26 the affirmative votes of at least two-thirds of the
27 members of the board, upon making an express finding
i
i
G 99 70 IN 70
CALIFORNIA LECISLAZVRE-Ma-& RECULAR SESSION ~
,SSEMBLY BILL No. 385 AB 385 —2-
1 within or without the district, to be used and
2 appropriated for sueh purposes those areas and trails The
Introduced by Assemblyman Campbell 3 East Bay Regional Park District may cause steh those
4 vehicular recreational areas and trails to he opened,
5 altered, widened, extended, graded or regraded, paved
6 or repaved, planted or replanted, repaired, and
January 31, I983 7 otherwise improved.
8 The Board of Directors of the East Bay Regional Park
9 District shall not interfere with the control of any
10 vehicular recreational area or trail that is existing,owned,
An act to amend Sections 5541.1 and 5558.1 of the Public 11 or controlled by a municipality or county in the district,
tesources Code, relating to regional park districts. 12 except with the consent of the governing body of the
13 municipality, or of the county if the same area or trail is
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DICEST . 14 in the unincorporated territory, and upon wdek terms as
AB 385, as introduced, Campbell. Regional park districts: 15 may be mutually agreed upon between the board of
?ast Bay: vehicular recreational facilities. 16 directors of the district and the governing body.
Existing law authorizes the East Bay Regional Park District 17 SEC. 2. Section 5558.1 of the Public 'Resources Code
o develop, improve, and maintain vehicular recreational 18 is amended to read:
:real and trails for the use and enjoyment of all the 19 5558.1. The Board of Directors of the East Bay
nhabitants of the district, and requires the district board of 20 Regional Park District shall superintend, control, and
lirectors to superintend, control, and make;these areas and 21 make available to all of the inhabitants Of the district,and
rails available to the district inhabitants. 22 may make available to other members of the public,
This bill would authorize the district to develop the areas 23 subject to its rules and regulations, all vehicular
►nd trails for the use and enjoyment of the public and would 24 recreational areas and trails belonging to the district or
also permit the board to make the areas and trails available to 25 under its control.
)ther members of the public. 26 The Board of Directors of the East Bay Regional Park
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. 27 District shall regulate, restrain, and control the kind of
'tate•mandated local program: no. 28 vehicles,and the time and conditions of travel or parking
29 on sueh those vehicular recreational areas and trails.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows•
II
1 SECTION 1. Section 5541.1 of the Public Resources
2 Code is amended to read:
3 5541.1. The East Bay Regional Park District may plan,
4 adopt, lay out, plant, develop, and otherwise improve, O
5 extend, control, operate, and maintain vehicular
6 recreational areas and trails for the use and enjoyment of
7 A t1ie inhftb4ant9 of the di ttiet the public, and it may
8 select, designate, and acquire land, or rights in land,
I
Governor Dampen
Park Bond Kickoff
By Jim Dufur
Bey Capitol Bureau
t Gov.Deukmejian poured cold water Thursday
On a proposed bipartisan"kickoff"campaign for a
$400 million park bond issue.
Assemblyman Sam Farr, D-Carmel, had told
reporters the Republican governor's-newly ap- _ o o .
pointed A director of parks and here f A former $4UU million! lion sought
t:�,?P Assembly leader Carol Hallett of Atascade-
rp,would be on hand to support the bond issue.But Hallett was not there. Farr said that while !
4altett'personally'" supports the hood issue, 'roe
io u raa a state
ca ito� Blom -
p� parks *
SACRAMENTO UNION WffOt WRIAU tration has taken no position on the
administration told her to stay away from the ' bond plan even though Deukme-
Tess conference because the governor has not State legislators introduced a pro- jian s new parks director, Carol
p g
s million Hall h
et decided whether to support it.. �. i posed 5400 Il on parks bond plan Hallett, as indicated she. supports
pPo
y I Thu the a Thursday the sa is needed to measure.
Despite the lack of support from the governor, upgrade the state's park system and Hallett, a former assemblywoman
Farr said,that 70 of his 119 colleagues in the Leg- restore recreation facilities dam- from Atascadero on
Assembly and nine originally was
islature—61 members of the Asse Y � aged by recent winter storms: scheduled to appear at a press..
senators have joined him as co-authors of the - Under the proposed Parklands conference Thursdaybut stayed
biij that would place the measure Willie
the ballot.- Bond Act of 1984,about $70 million awn at the request of the over-
' Included are Assembly Speaker Willie Brown,D-- - Y eq g
San Francisco,and GOP Assembly leader Robert would be set aside for development nor's office.
It Naylor of Menlo Parka Twenty-two of the co-au- and restoration of coastal resources Farr told reporters Hallett person
-
thorn are Republicans.
and another $17 million would be ally supports the bill but added the
.Deukmejian, however, could keep-the hand earmarked for development of lakes administration"wants to take a look
is$tte off the ballot by vetoing the bill. and reservoirs not part of the state at it."
-Farr said all of the money from park bond is- water facilities system, such as the- AB2099 would provide about $40
sues approved by the voters in 1964, 1974, 1976. Folsom Reservoir. million for property acquisition at
aped 1980"either... (have been)spent orspoken_. The bond proposal, which is Chino Hills State Park and to ex-
for: There is no money for upgrading the (state planned for the 1984 June election pand other parks in the Santa Mon- ,
park) system" which he said had 65 million visi- ballot, is contained in AB2099 by Ica and Santa Cruz mountains and
tors last year. Assemblyman Sam Farr,D-Carmel. Big Sur area. 11,
-He said his bill would provide $17 million to -The bill already has the support of In addition, about $36 n ltfnn
develop additional'acreage at lakes and reser- 70 lawmakers, including Assembly would be made available to cities,
voiars, including Folsom Lake near Sacramento Speaker Willie Brown and Assembly eou;tea and c;>Priat diQ�me �„r
and Miilerton Lake near Fresno,and$90 million . Minority.Leader Robert Naylor. !neat araiects over a three-vear
to develop the land that would be purchased But Gov:Deukmejian's adminis- mod_
through the bond issue, plus state parkland that
has been bought in past years and not yet devel-
oped.
He.said other earmarked funds included $70
minion for development and improvement of
beach parks,-which, reportedly suffered at least
$5 million worth of damage in recent storms. -
r 1
Also on the list are$40 million to purchase and
near Big Sur and in Southern California,$36 mil-
lion for local government projects"that are reve-
nue-generating and jobs-creating'and$24 million
for state"open space and recreation projects." i
Farr said state Treasurer Jesse Unruh, who
carried.the 1964 park bond measure while serv-
Ing as Assembly speaker, expects California.to
have the potential.to sell$1 billion worth of bonds
by-1985,when the new park bonds would be avail-
able. ,
�Lr�il.�1J��/�UVOLr11 Lrt1���VLrvU ��9 O��o
Park Executive Bldg.,925 L Street,Suits 380,Sacramento,CA 95814 (916)441-5050
December 27, 1982
MEMO TO: CSDA Board of Directors and
Legislative Committee
FROM: Ralph A. Heim
SUBJECT: Local Government Financing
I have enclosed an article from the December Cal-Tax News
I trust you will find of interest.
The article relates to the constitutional amendment CSAC
and others propose to place on the June or November 1984
ballot. Although we have not been afforded the opportunity
to review the working draft, Art Korn has written the
sponsors advising them of CSDA' s concerns and requesting a
copy of the final draft when available.
RAH/el
Enc.
DECEMBER 1-31,1982 3
Budget stability sought
Counties endorse proposal for direct revenues share
The concept of a constitutional The, objective, noted CSAC Ex- President James Eddie of CSAC,a
amendment that would assure the ecutive Director Lary Naake,is to get Mendocino County supervisor, said
state's 58 counties a specific and direct the proposal on the ballot for June or sentiment is universal among his
rs'S8th u that counties need a predictable
share of state sales and income tax November 1984.The superviso group P
revenues has been endorsed by the annual conference was held amid con- source of revenue in order to effec-
sources in tivel govern.
over reduced revenuey
Association o f cern o
un Supervisors Co t3'
e states projected
and the ]
California. general P
revenue in particular. First Vice President Sunne Wright
The amendment would also expand Counties view the looming state McPeak of Contra Costa County said
local authority to raise or lower taxes, deficit as a threat to their budget counties weren't seeking acceptance of
with voter approval, and extend to stability, fearing that state govern- the proposal without first doing as
counties the right of home rule that ment could enact changes bearing on much as possible to solve the money
California cities have. local budgets already adopted. problem locally.
I
,
CALIFORNIA LECISLATURF-1983-84 REGULAR SESSION
ASSEMBLY BILL No, 1848
Introduced by Assemblyman Clute
March 4, 1983
q
..
An`act to amend Sections 54790 and 56250 of, and to ad,
Section 54790.4 to, the Government Code, relating to loco.
s. agencies.
° LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S.DIGEST
AB 1848, as introduced, Clute. Local agency formation
commissions: spheres of influence.'
Under existing law, a local agency formation commission
y¢ (LAFCO), is authorized to develop a plan ("spheres of
influence") for the probable ultimate physical boundaries and
service area of a local agency. A LAFCO is further authorized
to consider spheres of influence as a factor to be considered
in its approval, conditional approval, or disapproval of
proposals for , various actions for the organization -or
reorganization of local agencies,including the formation of,or
annexation of territory to, special districts.
This bill would establish a procedure authorizing a city, b,
the affirmative vote of 4 members of its legislative body, to
override a LAFCO's approval of the formation of a special
district or the annexation of territory to a special district,if the
territory is within the city's sphere of influence.
! The bill would impose a state-mandated local program by
requiring a'LAFCO, in connection with proposals affecting
districts with territory within or to be within a.city's'sphere,
h of influence, to provide specified information to the affected
city, and to, include the city's, comments,in specified staff
Y reports:
Article X1II B of the California Constitution and Sections
2231 and 2234 of the Revenue and Taxation Code require the
, _ � i
AB 1848 —2-- —3— AB 1848
state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for 1 surrounded by the city to which the annexation is
certain costs mandated by the state. Other provisions require 2 proposed or by such city and a county boundary or the
the Department of Finance to review statutes disclaiming 3 Pacific Ocean if the territory to be annexed is
these'costs and provide, in certa'm cases, for making claims to 4 substantially developed or developing, is not prime
" the State Board of Control for reimbursement, 5 agricultural land as defined in Section 35046, and is
This bill would provide that no appropriation is made by 46 designated for urban growth by the general plan of the
this act for the purpose of making reimbursement pursuant to 7 annexing city or, (2) located within an urban service area
the constitutional mandate or Section 2231 or 2234,but would 8 which has been delineated and adopted by a commission,
recognize that local agencies and school districts may pursue 9 ,which is not prime agricultural land,as defined in Section
their other available remedies to seek reimbursement for 10 35046 and is designated for urban growth by the general
these costs. 11 plan of the annexing city. A commission shall not impose
This bill would provide that notwithstanding Section 2231.5 12, any conditions which would directly regulate land use,
of the Revenue and Taxation Code, this act does not contain 13 property development, or subdivision requirements.
a repealer, as required by that section; therefore, the 14 , When the development purposes are not made known to'
,,. provisions of the act would remain in effect unless and until 15 the annexing agency, the annexation shall be reviewed
they are amended or repealed by a later enacted act. 116 , on I the basis of the adopted plans and policies of the
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. 17 , annexing agency. Nothing in this paragraph, however,
State-mandated local program: yes. 18 shall be construed as prohibiting a commission from
.19 requiring, as a ,condition to annexation, that a city
The people of the State of California do enact as follows.. ` 20 pre' zone the territory to be annexed provided that the
r 21 . commission shall not specify how,or in what manner, the
1 SECTIONF 1. Section 54790 of the'Government Code 22 territory shall be prezoned
2 is amended'to read: 23 (4) The exclusion of territory from a city.
3 54790. e Except as rovided in Sectr 24 (5) The disincorporation of a city.
on 547 Y
P P 9�4 the
4 commission shall have the following powers and duties, 25 (6) The consolidation of two or more cities.
5 subject to the limitations upon its jurisdiction herein set 26 (7) The development of new communities within the
6 forth: 27 jurisdiction of the commission pursuant to Sections 33021`
7 , . (a) To review and approve or disapprove with or 28 and 33298 of the Health and Safety Code.
8 ' without amendment, wholly, partially, or conditionally 29 (b) To adopt standards and procedures for the
9 proposals for: 30 evaluation of proposals, including standards for each of
10 (1) The incorporation of cities. e 31,, the factors enumerated in Section 54796.
11 " (2) The formation of special districts 32 .':, (c) To make and enforce rules and-regulations for the
cies, :`orderly and fair conduct of hearings by the commission.
12 (3) The annexation of territory to local `agen
13 (other than local agencies the annexation of territory to 34 (d) To incur usual and necessary expenses for the
14 ' which is required to be made pursuant to the provisions,.' 35 ,aecomplishment`of its functions.
15 of Division 1 (commencing with Section 5�00)`'of Title 36 (e) To appoint and assign 'staff personnel and to
16 ` 6) s ir'` ,, fi r; : :However,` a commission 37 employ or contract for professional or consulting services
' 17 'shall not have the power to disapprove'an annexation,',,, �,}`3$ to carry out and effect the functions of the commission.
18 initiated by resolution, of contiguous territory which the 39 (f) To review the boundaries of the territory involved
" 19 commission finds is either (1) surrounded or substantially 40 in 'any, proposal with respect to, the definiteness and
, -
f ,
I
a
w ,
0
AB 1848 —4— —5— AB 1848
1 certainty thereof, the nonconformance of proposed 1 comments to the executive officer regarding the
2 boundaries with lines of assessment or ownership, and 2 proposal. If such written comments are submitted by
3 other similar matters affecting the proposed boundaries. . 3 such date, the executive officer shall include such
4 (g) To waive the restrictions of Section 35010 if it finds 4 ' comments in any staff report prepared for the
5 that the application of the restrictions would be 5 1 commission's review in connection with the proposal.
6 detrimental to the orderly - development of the 6` If the commission approves the formation of a special
7 community and that the area that would be enclosed by 7 district or the annexation of territory to a special district
8 the annexation or incorporation is so located that it $ over the opposition of the affected city, the city may
9 cannot reasonably. be annexed 4' to- another ' city or 9,'=override such approval by the affirmative vote of four
10 incorporated as a new city. 10 members of the legislative body.
11 (h) To waive the application of Section 25210.90 if it 11 ' SEC. 3. Section 56250 of the Government Code is
12 finds the application would deprive an area of a service 12 amended to read:
13 needed to insure the health, safety, or' welfare of the 113 56250. The commission shall have the powers an(
14 area's residents and if it finds that such waiver would not ' 14 duties set forth in Chapter 6.6 (commencing with Section
15 affect the ability of a city to provide' any service; 15 54773) of Part 1, Division 2, Title 5, and the following
16 provided,however,that within 60 days of the inclusion of 16 additional powers and duties:
17 the territory,within the city, the governing body may 17 (a) Te In conformance with the provisions of Section
18 adopt a resolution nullifying the waiver. 18 54790.4, to review and approve or disapprove with or
19 This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 19 without amendment, wholly, partially or conditionally
20 1988, and as of such date is repealed, unless a later 20 the following:
enacted statute, which is chaptered before January 1, 21 (1) Proposals for changes of organization.
22 1988, deletes or extends such. date. 22 (2) Proposals for reorganizations not required to be
23 SEC. .2. Section 54790.4 is added to the Government 23 referred to a reorganization committee.
5 24 Code, to read: 24 (3) Reports and recommendations of a reorganization
25 54790.4. If a proposal includes either the formation of 25 committee and any plan of reorganization or alternative
26 a special district or the annexation of territory to an 26 plan of reorganization reported upon by such committee.
27 existing special district, and,the territory which is the 27 (b) To adopt standards and procedures for the
28 subject of the proposal lies partially or wholly within a 28 evaluation of proposals, plans of reorganization an.
29 city's sphere of influence, the executive officer shall, 29 reports and recommendations' of reorganization
30 within 10 days of receiving such a proposal: 30 committees.
31 (a) Notify the.city clerk ,of the affected city of the 31 In all instances the commission shall consider whether
32 proposal. 32 proposals,plans of organization,and recommendations of
33 (b) Transmit the city clerk of the�affected city a�copy � 33 reorganization committees are in. conformity with
34 of the proposal. 34 applicable city or county general and specific plans.
35 (c) Notify the city clerk of the affected city of the date 35 Except as otherwise provided in this division, such
36 , and time the proposal will be" considered by the 36 powers and duties shall be exercised in accordance with
37 commission and of the city's right to, be, heard at that g 37 the provisions of Chapter 6.6 (commencing with Section
p
38 time. 38 54773) of Part 1, Division 2, Title 5. To 'the extent of any
} 39 (d) Notify the city clerk of the affected city of the date `!' 39 , inconsistency between said Chapter 6.6 and this division,
40 by which the city is required to transmit written 40 the provisions of this division shall control.
i
AB 1848 6—
1 SEC. 4. Notwithstanding Section 6 of Article XIII B of
2 the California Constitution and Section 2231 or 2234 of
3 the Revenue. and Taxation Code, no appropriation is
4 made , by this act for the , purpose of making
5 reimbursement pursuant' to these,, sections, It Is
6 • recognized,, however, that a local agency or school
7� district may pursue any remedies to obtain
reimbursement' a available Jo,.' it under. Chapter. 3
9 (commencing with Section 2201) of Fart 4 of Division 1
10 of that code.
11 SEC. 5.: Notwithstanding,, Section 2231.5` of the
12 Revenue and Taxation Code, this act does not contain a
13 repealer, as required by that section;, therefore, the
14 provisions of this act shall remain in effect unless and
15 until they are amended or repealed by a later enacted
16 act.
d
• , t
i
3 `
,
o
M-83-48
(Meeting 83-11)
April 27, 1983)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
April 21 , 1983
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
RESPONSIBILITY AND PREPARATION: D. Hansen, Land Manager and J. Boland,
Operations Supervisor
SUBJECT: Federal Disaster Assistance Program for Storm Damage Repair
Background: Staff has begun to process an application for a
Small Project Grant through the Federal Disaster Assistance
Program (FEMA) under Public Law 93-288 . This grant is to be
used for emergency and permanent repair work due to storm damage
and totalling less than $25,000 . A list of the projects for
which we are applying is attached.
Recommendation: I recommend that you adopt the attached Resolution
Y P
of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Reaional Open Space
District Authorizing the General Manager of the District as the
Authorized Agent to Act For and On Behalf of the District in
Obtaining Federal Financial Assistance Under Public Law 93-288
in order to obtain aid for repair of the attached list of storm
damaged areas.
RESOLUTION NO.
i
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL MANAGER OF THE
DISTRICT AS THE AUTHORIZED AGENT TO ACT FOR
AND ON BEHALF OF THE DISTRICT IN OBTAINING
FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE UNDER PUBLIC
LAW 93-288
The Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District does resolve that the General Manager of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District or the General Manager 's designee
is hereby authorized to act for and on behalf of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District in obtaining Federal Disaster
assistance pursuant to Public Law 93-288 .
Applicant: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
County of:. San Mateo and Santa Clara
Sheet 1 of 2
Date: April 14, 1983
FEMA-667=DR
LIST OF DAMAGED FACILITIES
CATEGORY I - OTHER (PARK FACILITIES)
i
Line Damaged In A
Item Work Necessary For Prior Declared
No. Location Description of Damage Restoration Disaster
1. Manzanita Ridge OSP Approx. 65' of road slipped Rebuild roadbed, correct No
(Kennedy Trails Area) out to a depth of 125' drainage.
cutting patrol and fire road.
2. Rancho San Antonio OSP One-fourth mile of most Rebuild trail and bridges, No
popular District trail remove silt. and debris.
impassable; culverts, bridges Replace culverts and fill
and trail washed out. Silt in eroded areas.
and debris needing removal.
3. Saratoga Gap OSP One road wash-out 60' , water Rebuild road bed, correct No
system destroyed. Four drainage, rebuild spring.
slides along patrol road - box and pipelines. Remove
200' . slide material.
4. Monte Bello OSP Two slumps each 100' on Remove slides, rebuild trail No
hiking trail. 100' section sections, rebuild sections
of trail-slipped out. One- of patrol road using existing
10' section of canyon trail materials.
patrol road washed out.
Stevens Creek Nature Trail Rebuild crossings, access No
creek crossings washed out. ramps, retaining walls.
5. Whittemore Gulch OSP Four- 6' deep ruts in 100' Major grading, correct drain- No
section of patrol road on age, install two 36" x 20'
Harkins Ridge. Fire and culverts.
patrol road impassable.
_1_ ,.
CATEGORY I - OTHER (PARK FACILITIES) (Continued)
Line Damaged In A
Item Work Necessary For Prior Declared
No. Location Description of Damage Restoration Disaster
6. Windy Hill OSP 50' slide on patrol road. Remove slide material, No
add culverts.
7. Fremont Older OSP Two slides covering approx. Remove slides, blading, No
100' of patrol road; severe build up 40' section of
erosion to numerous sections. road shoulder, correct
drainage.
-2-
..........
Al-
4%
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
April 18, 1983
TO: Board and Staff
FROM: D— Hansen, Land Manager, and C. Britton, Land Acquisition
Manager
SUBJECT: Property Acquisition: Addition to Mt. Thayer Area of
Manzanita Ridge Open Space Preserve -62 ac .
The District his acquired Remensperger Property
(name of property)
as of April 13 , 1983 .
(date)
A map of the property is attached for your reference.
NOTE:
t - ' ]
EL SOMBROSQ
AREA
i Interest
i
I --�`:' � �' _ � � Jam,•,.. jj � -
..ram
- -
Exhibit A Site Map .�
Al
i
MANZANITA RIDGE
OPEN SPACE PRESERVE )
1" = 2000' North
6�
.-P �® dd- `�r,`tTranr° °c°c°b°[71 +na`�:• ,+' `1 r- ...
�►"`.�.0
MIDPENI41SUTA REGIONAL OPR'q SPACE DISTRICT
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: For Your Information
DATED: April 27 , 1983
SACRAMENTO ADDRESS COMMITTEES
ROOM 5100 FINANCE
STATE CAPITOL, 95814 CHAIRMAN
AREA CODE (916) 445-9740 STATE SENATOR ENERGY AND PUBLIC UTILITIES
GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION
DISTRICT ADDRESS
777 NORTH FIRST STREET ALFRED E. ALQUIST
$AN OSE, CALIFORNIA 95112
AREA CODE (408) 286-8318
ELEVENTH SENATORIAL DISTRICT
^M REPRESENTING
SAN BENITO, SANTA CLARA, AND ALAMEDA COUNTIES
' x IN THE
a t P
95�
April 20 , 1983
Mr. Herbert Grench
General Manager
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
375 Distel Circle , Suite D-1
Los Altos, CA 94022
Dear Mr. Grench:
Thank you for your letter of April lst expressing concern over
the possible elimination of the Urban Forestry Program.
I , too, support the Urban Forestry Program; however, due to the
fiscal plight in which the state now finds itself, a number of
programs will not receive adequate funding. I have in the past
year attempted twice , unsuccessfully, to increase state revenues
so that programs vital to the interests of all citizens could be
continued. Unfortunately, the minority members of both the
Senate and Assembly and the Governor, himself, are opposed to any
new tax increases in California. I would suggest that you
express your concern, if you have not already done so, to the
Governor and to the minority members of both Houses and,
hopefully, the Urban Forestry Program will not suffer adversely.
Sincerely, ,
ALFRED E. ALQU ST
AEA/jwl
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965.4717
April 22, 1983
Mr. Ralph Heim
California Advocates, Inc.
925 L Street, Suite 380
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Ralph:
This is a follow-up on our discussion the other day regarding
AB 1848 by Assemblyman Clute. Here are some suggestions in
order of our priority:
(1) Kill the bill.
(2) Exempt regional park, open-space, or park and open-space
districts: On page 5, line 10 add: "unless the for-
nation is of a regional park, open-space, or park and
open-space district or the annexation is to such a
district. "
(3) Exempt multi-county districts: On page 5, line 10 add:
"unless the formation will create a district having
territory in more than one,. county or the annexation is
to or will create a district having territory in more
than one county. "
(4) only include agencies that provide utilities for urban
development: On page 5, line 10 of March 4 , 1983
version add: "unless the commission determines that the
proposed formation or annexation will not promote ex-
pansion of urban services by the city or finds that
the proposed formation or annexation will improve
environmental quality. "
(5) Only allow a city council veto when an election is not
going to be held: On page 5, line 10 add: "unless the
commission orders an election to be held to approve the
formation of the special district or annexation of
territory to the special district. "
Additionally, on page 5, line 9 the required vote should be stated
in terms of a fraction more than a simple majority, for example,
four-fifths.
Herbert A.Grench,General Manager
Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy.Barbara Green,Nonette G.Hanko,Richard S.Bishop.Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin
Page two
Had AB 1848, as it now stands, been law when the San Mateo County
citizens group petitioned for annexation of southern San Mateo
County to the District, about three city councils would undoubtedly
have vetoed inclusion. This would have excluded a very significant
tax base area that includes a large segment of the public who
benefit greatly from the District' s program. It would also have
seriously compromised the logical topographical and geographical
boundaries that the citizens presented and LAFCO approved. The
annexation was approved by vote of the annexed area.
Sincerely,
X"
Herbert Grench
General Manager
HG:jc
cc: MROSD Board of Directors
Assemblyman Dominic Cortese
-' aims 83-8 Revised
eting 83-11
April 27,1983
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT -
CLAIMS
Amount Name Description
4887 $ 11.20 Amerigas Welding Supplies and Tank Rental
4888 336.00 Edward R. Bacon Co. Storm Damage Repair
4889 66.01 CA Water Service Co. Utilities-Rancho San Antonio
4890 34.67 The Frogpond Meal Conferences
4891 184.50 William Glass Trucking Base Rock
4892 39.35 Graphicstat, Inc. Trail Signs
4893 236. 80 Herbert Grench Out-of-Town Meeting Expense and
Local Meal Conference
4894 41. 32 Bay Microfilm, Inc. Developing Fluid for Microfilm
4895 1 #118.47 W.J. Chandler Associates Consulting Fee-Almaden Property
4896 7,592.43 Clevenger Realty Co. Appraisal Services
4897 100.00 First American Title Preliminary Title Report
Insurance Co.
I" 4$98 2I7:50 First American Title Title Insurance s and Ecrow Fee-
Guaranty Co. Remensperger Property
4899 5 , 845.25 Frahm, Edler and Cannis Engineering Services
4900 49. 71 Honda Peninsula - District Vehicle Repairs
4901 78. 32 Image Technology, Inc. Negative and Mylar for Sphere of
Influence Map
4902 240.DO Interior Technology Associates Office Space Consultation Fee
4903 368. 36 Minton' s Lumber and Supply Materials for Bridge Repair and
Barrier Gates-Rancho San Antonio
and Los Trancos
4904 50. 36 Joyce Nicholas Private Vehicle Expense
4905 967. 77 Orchard Supply Hardware Shop Supplies , Fence and Land-
scaping Materials-Montebello, .
Rancho San Antonio, Russian Ridge,
and Windy Hill Open Space Preserves
4907 388.27 PG and E Utilities
4908 110.25 Peninsula Office Supply Miscellaneous Office Supplies
4909 1,089. 38 Peninsula Oil Co. - Gas for District Vehicles
4910 723.28 Pete Ellis Dodge District Vehicle Repair
I
4911 15.52 Rancho Hardware and Garden ShopHandles for Tools
4912 18. 10 David Sanguinetti Reimbursement for Seminar
4913 219. 39 Scotts Valley Sprinkler and Trail Repair Materials-Montebello
Pipe Supply Open Space Preserve
• II
Claims 83-8 Revised
Meeting 83-11
April 27,1983
Amount Name Description
4914 $ 29.00 Sears , Roebuck and Co. Equipment Repair
4915 145. 00 Special District Management Seminar-S. Shipley
Seminars
4916 10,277. 64 Rogers , Vizzard and Tallett Legal Services-March
4917 25.00 Mary Lou Taylor Honorarium-Guest Lecturer for
Docent Training Class
4918 72. 64 Union Oil Gas for DistrictVehicle Expense
4919 53. 74 Alice Watt Private Vehicle Expense
4920 327.56 Xerox Corporation Maintenance-March
4921 58.58 ZZZ Sanitation Co. Portable Toilet Rental-Los Trancos
4922 405.00 Alfred H. Truesdell' Debt Service-Rongey Property
4923 *86.00 Sporty' s Tool Shop Shop Supplies
4924 *46. 14 U.S. Postmaster Postage-May 14 Flyer
4925 **15.00 Palo Altan Subscription
4926 181.00 Triangle Associates Floorplan-Multiple Use Facility
4927 234.57 Petty Cash Local Meal Conferences ,Private
Vehicle Expenses,Film, Seminar,
Postage,Subscription,Aer,ial
Photograph, .Mis-ce.11aneous Office
Supplies ,and Pictures for LWCF
Grants
*Emergency Checks-4-18-83
**Subscription Cancelled