HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 - Opposition to AB 1355CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 11
March 27, 2007
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: City Manager's Office
Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager
9491644 -3002 ordkiff @city.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Opposition to AB 1355 (Houston) Relating to Harbor Patrol
ISSUE:
Should the City of Newport Beach oppose Assembly Bill 1355 (Houston) that would
specify that County Sheriffs are the "sole and exclusive" authorities to provide "safety
and security" for California's harbors?
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Mayor to issue the attached letter of opposition to AB 1355 (Houston)
relating to County Sheriffs and harbor safety and security.
DISCUSSION:
Background. Newport Bay is patrolled by the Orange County Sheriffs Department
(OCSD), but city officials and others believe that an OCSD - patrolled harbor may not be
the best law enforcement, fire suppression, or public safety model for Newport Bay and
other harbors up and down the state.
State Assembly Member Guy Houston (R- Livermore) recently introduced Assembly Bill
1355 (AB 1355) which would declare that the County Sheriff in each county "shall be the
sole and exclusive authority to provide security and safety for the county's coastlines,
harbors, and inland waterways..."
Because this bill could preclude governance models different from the one we have
today with Newport Bay (unless the County Sheriff consents via an agreement to
another governance model), it seems unwise to place a State hurdle in the way of such
models. Other criticisms of the bill include:
Applying a timeworn emphasis on "protecting against acts of terrorism" as a reason to place
harbor security in the hands of the County Sheriffs (places like Huntington Harbor and
Upper Newport Bay are unlikely to be target -rich areas for terrorists);
AB 1355 (Houston) Opposition
Match 27, 2007
Page 2
Directing that "inland waterways" be assigned to County Sheriffs for protection, without
defining what an inland waterway might be.
No clear definition of "safety and security" — does the fact that this bill could assign "safety"
obligations along California's coastline to sheriffs also assign sheriffs the obligation to
provide lifeguard services to the entire state? What about beach patrols, beach parking lots,
pier patrols, and monitoring of fire rings?
City staff recommends that the City Council authorize Mayor Rosansky to sign the
attached letter to Assembly Member Houston in opposition to AB 1355.
Environmental Review: The City Council's approval of this Agenda Item does not
require environmental review.
Public Notice: This agenda item may be noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours
in advance of the public meeting at which the City Council considers the item).
Submitted by
V
Dave Kiff
Assistant City Manager
Attachments: Draft Letter of Opposition to AB 1355
AB 1355 (Houston), as introduced
AB 1355 (Houston) Opposition
March 27, 2007
Page 3
March 28, 2007
The Honorable Guy Houston
California State Assembly, 15th Assembly District
State Capitol, Room 2130
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249
Via Facsimile: (916) 319-2115
RE: AB 1355 —OPPOSE
Dear Assembly Member Houston:
The City of Newport Beach respectfully informs you that it must oppose your AB 1355 relating
to county sheriffs' duties along California's coastline. We do so for these reasons:
L AB 1355 unwisely interjects the Legislature into local government discussions better left to local
elected officials such as city council members, county supervisors, and county sheriffs. A
conservative, "less government" approach would be to leave it to local officials to address.
2. AB 1355 could preclude harbor governance models different from. ones in place today, even if
today's governance models don't make the best sense for security, boaters, and taxpayers. In some
cases, using sworn law enforcement personnel to patrol quiet recreational waters can be expensive
overkill (noting the salary, benefit, and retirement expense of sworn personnel).
3. AB 1355 does not adequately define some of its terms, such as "inland waterways" and "safety and
security." If AB 1355 is chaptered, does that mean that all inland waterways (creeks, rivers, dry
streambeds) are subject to the authority of a county sheriff? Does the possibility that AB 1355 could
assign "safety" obligations along all California coastlines to sheriffs also assign sheriffs the obligation
to provide lifeguard services to the entire coastline?
We respectfully urge you to reconsider your authorship of this bill in this format.
Sincerely,
MAYOR STEVE ROSANSKY
Mayor of Newport Beach
cc: Members of the Newport Beach City Council
Members of the Orange County Board of Supervisors
The Honorable Mike Carona, Orange County Sheriff
The Honorable Tom Harman, State Senator
The Honorable Chuck Devote, State Assembly Member
AB 1355 (Houston) Opposition
March 27, 2007
Page 4
The Honorable Van Tran, State Assembly Member
David Jones, Emanuels Jones and Associates
League of California Cities
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE - 2007-0$ REGULAR SESSION
ASSEMBLY BILL
No. 1355
Introduced by Assembly Member Houston
February 23, 2007
An act to add Section 26603 to the Government Code, relating to
counties.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 1355, as introduced, Houston. Counties: sheriffs' duties: coastline,
harbors, and inland waterways.
Existing law requires each county in this state to have an elected
sheriff. The sheriff is required to, among other things, preserve peace,
as specified. Existing law also requires the sheriff of each county to
give all possible aid and assistance to vessels stranded on its coast, and
to the persons on board, as specified.
This bill would specify that the sheriff of each county is the sole and
exclusive authority to provide security and safety for the coastlines,
harbors, and inland waterways, if any, as specified, except in counties
that, prior to July 1, 2008, have vested the duties associated with the
security and safety of the county's coastlines, harbors, and inland
waterways to a law enforcement or public safety entity other than the
sheriff.
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. The Legislature hereby finds and declares all of
2 the following:
99
AB 1355
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
—2—
(a) Given the importance of protecting against acts of terrorism,
and providing cohesive and unambiguous protection to the citizens
of the state's counties, the security of county coastlines, harbors,
and inland waterways, and the corresponding safety of these
vulnerable state border areas, is of statewide and nationwide
concern.
(b) It is the intent of the Legislature that the sheriff of each
county in this state, as the chief law enforcement officer of the
county, shall have the sole and exclusive authority for the security
and safety of the county's coastlines, harbors, and inland
waterways.
SEC. 2. Section 26603 is added to the Government Code, to
read:
26603. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
sheriff shall be the sole and exclusive authority to provide security
and safety for the county's coastlines, harbors, and inland
waterways, if any, except in counties that, prior to July 1, 2008,
have vested the duties associated with the security and safety of
the county's coastlines, harbors, and inland waterways to a law
enforcement or public safety entity other than the sheriff.
(b) Nothing in this section shall preclude a sheriff from granting
authorization for another law enforcement or public safety entity
to provide contract security and safety services along coastlines
and inland waterways within the sheriff's area or areas of
jurisdiction. This section shall not be construed to cancel or
otherwise modify any agreement, contract, or service arrangement
already in place prior to January 1, 2008.
(c) It is the intent of the Legislature that this section apply to
all counties in this state, both general law and charter.
. (d) For purposes of this section, "coastline" means the boundary
of the state which is described as running in a northwesterly
direction and following the direction of the Pacific Coast to the
42nd degree of north latitude and including all the islands, harbors,
and bays along and adjacent to the coast, as defined in Section
170.
0
99