The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06/13/2005 B A K E R S F I E L D Zack Scrivner, Chair Sue Benham David Couch Staff: Alan Christensen MEETING NOTICE LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE of the City Council - City of Bakersfield Monday, June 13, 2005 1:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room Second Floor - City Hall, Suite 201 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT MARCH 14, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Report and Committee recommendation regarding Illegal Dumping--Forfeiture of Vehicles - Gennaro B. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding RV Parking on City Streets - Gennaro/Taylor 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation on the 2005 Legislative Platform - Christensen B. Review and Committee recommendation on City Annexation Policy - Christensen/McCarthy 6. COMMI'I-I'EE COMMENTS 7. ADJOURNMENT S:~,C\05 Legislative&Litigation\Il 05junl3agenda.doc B A K E R S F I E L D DRAFT ~la~n ~ Zack Scrivner, Chair Staff: ' Sue Benham For: Alan Tandy, City Manager David Couch AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE Monday, March 14, 2005 1:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room, Suite 201 Second Floor - City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 1. ROLL CALL Called to Order at 1:05 p.m. Present: Councilmembers Zack Scrivner, Chair; Sue Benham; David Couch 2. ADOPTION OF FEBRUARY 16, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. NEW BUSINESS A. Report and Committee recommendation regarding Penalties for Littering, Graffiti and Illegal Dumping City Attorney Ginny Gennaro explained, in general, City Council may enact laws not in conflict with State law; however, where a state law has criminalized certain conduct, such regulation preempts lower level jurisdiction, including the penalty. Under State law, the fine for applying graffiti is dependent on the cost of the damage. For example: · If the amount of the defacement is $400 or above, the penalty is one year in jail or fine up to $10,000, or both. If the defendant is a minor, the court can order the fine paid by the parent. · If the damage is less that $400, the penalty is up to one year in jail or a fine of $1,000, or both. LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE DRAFT AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Monday, March 14, 2005 Page 2 For purposes of graffiti, in addition to criminal prosecution, State law allows a city to adopt an ordinance to enact civil remedies. The City has a 'strong graffiti ordinance in place, which accomplishes two very important items: 1) It declares the Council finds graffiti to be a nuisance. This allows the City to take advantage of the abatement process; and 2) It allows the City Attorney's Office to seek civil restitution from the parents or legal guardians of minors who are convicted or confess to applying graffiti. While this procedure has been dormant, the City Attorney's Office is now actively working with the Police Department and has re-activated the program. The-City Attorney's Office will be reporting later in the year as to how the program is doing and how much has been 'collected from restitution money. The other part of the. referral was stronger penalties for littering and illegal dumping. There are several areas in the Code.prohibiting littering and illegal dumping. Again, with regarding to crimes of littering and illegal dumping, State law sets the fines and punishments. The City treats littering and illegal dumping civilly more as an abatement process. The City is very limited by State law when it comes to establishing higher fines for misdemeanors or infractions,-but the City has a broad array of tools to use when concentrating on civil remedies. This is where the concept of a community prosecution team comes in. A community prosecution team could work on other areas, such as, can the City confiscate vehicles involved in illegal, dumping. There could be challenges to these types of prosecutions. The City of Oakland has an ordinance if you use a vehicle in furtherance of committing a crime of prostitution, the vehicle can be impounded. The City of Oakland had several legal challenges that were fought in court and were ultimately successful. Committee Member Benham requested the City Attorney prepare a report to Council with more detailed information on how a community prosecution position would, help the City more effectively enforce graffiti, ordinances. Committee Member Couch requested information, included in the report on how a community prosecution position would help the City. enforce littering and illegal dumping ordinances. Committee Chair Scrivner requested'-information be provided on the estimated costs for prosecutions in comparison to how much' Would be collected, by restitution and fines. City Attorney Ginny Gennaro explained for these types of unique issues, it would not be just one prosecutor but would involve the concept of a community prosecution team. Many of these offences do not get prosecuted because the District Attorney's Office with their load of cases sets a higher priority for crimes against people than crimes against property. LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE DRAFT AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Monday, March 14, 2005 Page 3 As the City's graffiti ordinances are very strong, the City Attorney recommended starting with Councilmember Benham's request for a report to Council on the feasibility of a community prosecution team. Committee Members Benham and Couch requested a very strong report with a Committee recommendation for implementation of prosecutions for graffiti crimes in addition to the concept of a community prosecution team. City Attorney Ginny Gennaro explained criminal prosecutions for graffiti are already being handled-by the District Attorney's Office, but recommended both criminal prosecutions and civil prosecutions to collect restitution. Committee Member Couch made a motion the City Attorney prepare a report to Council that recommends both civil and criminal prosecutions for graffiti crimes and include the cost and feasibility of a community prosecution, team, which wOuld also include prosecutions and penalties for other crimes such as littering and illegal dumping. The Committee unanimously approved the motion. B. Review and Committee recommendation on Combining the Historic Preservation Commission with another Existing Committee Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen gave an overview of the memorandum in the packet outlining the challenges in trying to fill appointments to the Historic Preservation COmmission (HPC). Of the nine appointments, authorized by ordinance, five positions remain open. Meetings have often been cancelled due to the lack of a quorum or agenda items. Currently the Commission, according to the ordinance, consists of nine members appointed by Council from the community to serve four-year terms. Members must be residents of Bakersfield, but not a specific ward. Terms are .expiring on. March 30, 2005, which will leave four members serving. The referral-requested the possibility of the HPC duties being combined with another committee due to the difficulty in finding people to serve. Either-the Board of Zoning Adjustment or the Planning Commission could be used with staff from the Economic/Community Development Department continuing to provide the staff work. Scott Fieber, Chairman of the Historic Preservation Commission, expressed he thought the Commission could be successful with a few changes to the ordinance. He suggested the ordinance be 'changed to. hold meetings as needed. Normally, items are put on the agenda when requests are received from the community for historical designations. The Commission could be downsized to four or five members so a quorum could be achieved with three members. The members'currently on the Commission are very interest in historic preservation. The HPC does a great deal of outreach, to the community by providing tours and are now working on the inventory of historic structures to provide information to individuals in the community for research projects. LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE DRAFT 'AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Monday, March 14, 2005 Page 4 Staff expressed the goals and activities of the HPC are important and recommended the work be continued by some committee or commission. Committee Chair Scrivner spoke regarding the value of having citizens serve on the Historic Preservation Commission. After hearing the report on the tours and services being provided to the community, the Committee all agreed. Committee Member Couch made a motion to amend the ordinance to downsize the Historical Preservation Commission to five members, so three would constitute a .quorum; allow meetings to be held as needed; and change the wording regarding an annual report to "may" produce a report instead of "must." The Committee unanimously approved the motion and forwarding a report with amended ordinance to Council. The Committee requested the City Attorney to go through the ordinance with Economic Community Development staff to update any obsolete language; make the above requested changes; and include a process for Council appointments to the Historical Preservation Commission. 5. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 6. ADJOURNMENT The meeting, was adjourned at 1-:45 p.m. Staff present: City Manager Alan Tandy; Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen; City Attorney Ginny Gennaro; Assistant City Clerk Roberta Gafford; Community Development Coordinator George Gonzales; and Economic Development Associate Donna Barnes Others Present: Scott Fieber, Chairman, Historic Preservation Commission cc: Honorable'Mayor and City Council S:~,C\05 Legislative&Litigation\05mar14sumrnary.doc MEMORANDUM CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE May 16, 2005 TO: LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE ZACK SCRIVNER, CHAIR SUE BENHAM, MEMBER DAVID COUCH, MEMBER //~ , FROM: VIRGINIA GENNARO, CITY ATTORNE~ ,~~ SUBJECT: ILLEGAL DUMPING- FORFEITURE OF VEHICLES The County recently passed an ordinance that allowed deputy sheriffs to seize vehicles from persons who had used the vehicle as a platform from which to dump waste matter. The ordinance is modeled after a City of Oakland ordinance allowing for the forfeiture of vehicles of persons who bought illegal drugs from their vehicles or who solicited prostitutes from their vehicles. In summary, the ordinance provides that if a person is caught in the act of using a vehicle to dump waste matter from, such as tossing a used mattress from the back of a "pick-up truck" onto a vacant lot, title to the truck automatically transfers by law to the County, the County can immediately take possession of the truck, and after hearing, can sell it and retain some of the proceeds. The County pays innocent car lenders from the proceeds. The "dumper" receives none of the proceeds from the sale. This action is called a "forfeiture" and is an additional punishment to the Penal Code fines and imprisonments for illegal dumping. The ordinance accomplishes the forfeiture by declaring, among other things, that any vehicle from which waste matter is dumped is a "nuisance vehicle" and that title to the vehicle passes to the County on performance of the "dumping." From the moment the County "seizes" the vehicle (i.e., takes possession) until the time it sells the vehicle (i.e., "forfeits" the vehicle), the County permits, two opportunities for hearings on the two issues of whether in fact the vehicle was used for illegal dumping and for determination of the interests of lenders and community property spouses. The District Attorney's Office forfeiture staff performs the "paperwork" and legal work for completing the forfeitures in the Superior Court. An appellate court recently found a similar Stockton forfeiture ordinance invalid for denial of "due process" and pre-emption by State statutory punishment for illegal drug purchases and sex solicitation. The County ordinance (and a City ordinance, if one were enacted) could be challenged on the same grounds. Leg & Lit Committee May 16, 2005 Page 2 Because of this successful legal challenge, any Bakersfield ordinance should shorten the time periods for notice of "due process" hearings. Staff also recommends forfeiture only occur upon conviction of violation of Penal Code Section 3'74.3 (i.e., "illegal dumping") where the "tool" for the "dumping" was a vehicle. In the event of a "pre-emption" challenge, staff would argue the Penal Code does not pre-empt the field. The legal success of such an argument is unknown. Finally, it should be noted that while the City can enact such an ordinance, we should assess the additional staff time from BPD and other departments for a proper risk/benefit analysis. VG/AMS:Isc cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council Alan Tandy, City Manager William Rector, Chief of Police S:\COUNCIL\MEMOS\04-05 Memos\Leg&Lit.lllegalDumping.doc MEMORANDUM June 9, 2005 TO: W.R. Rector, Chief of Police FROM: T. Taylor, Captain, Operations Division - East SUBJECT: Council Inquiry / R.V. Parking on Sunland Avenue On Friday April 27, 2005 Councilmember Scrivner went on a ride-a-long with our department and during the course of the evening was contacted by Residents on Sunland Avenue The residents voiced their concern about vehicles speeding on Sunland Avenue and parked recreational vehicles obstructing the view of drivers trying to back out of their driveways. Councilmember Scrivner, thrOugh a subsequent e-mail, expressed a belief that the speeding problem combined with vision issues, were a dangerous combination. We will provide extra traffic enforcement and will place a radar trailer on Sunland Avenue to slow traffic. As for the recreational vehicles, we looked at the following California V. ehicle Code (CVC) section when we were about to change the 72 hour parking limit a year or so ago. CVC 22507 allows for a local ordinance to restrict vehicles of certain size within 100' feet of an intersection. No law exists that prohibits vehicles from parking "within" a certain number of feet of a driveway - you just can not block a driveway. The following CVC section, if made into an ordinance, may be useful: 22507'. (a) Local authorities may, by ordinance or resolution, prohibit or restrict the stopping, parking, or standing of vehicles, including, but not limited to, vehicles that are six feet or more in height (including any load thereon) within 100 feet of any intersection, on certain streets or highways, or portions thereof, during all or certain hours of the day, The ordinance or resolution may include a designation of certain streets upon which preferential parking privileges are given to residents and merchants adjacent to the streets for their use and the use of their guests, under which the residents and merchants may be issued a permit or permits that exempt them from the prohibition or restriction of the ordinance or resolution. With the exception of alleys, the ordinance or resolution shall not apply until signs or markings giving adequate notice thereof have been placed. A local ordinance or resolution adopted pursuant to this section may contain provisions that are reasonable and necessary to ensure the effectiveness of a preferential parking program. C:\DOCUME~l~achriste\LOCALS~l\Temp\Councilmember Scrivner & Sunland.doc As I recall from the meetings, the issue with the above CVC section was the signage requirement. The Legislative and Litigation Committee thought the required advisory signs would be an eyesore in the neighborhood. C:\DOCUME~l~achriste\LOCALS~l\Temp\Councilmember Scrivner & Sunland,doc CITY OF BAKERSFIELD 2005 LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PROVIDES GOVERNMENTAL DECISION MAKING AT THE LEVEL CLOSEST TO THE PEOPLE. THEREFORE, IT IS INCUMBENT UPON ITS ELECTED OFFICIALS TO PROVIDE LEGISLATIVE LEADERSHIP ON ISSUES WHICH POTENTIALLY COULD IMPACT THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD. THE FOLLOWING POLICY STATEMENTS REFLECT THE LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD FOR 2004. GENERAL POLICY STATEMENTS SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH ENHANCES THE CITY'~,'~FiSCAE AUTONOMY AND CHARTER CITY STATUS TO ALLOW DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY OVER~CAL S~,AND/OR FEDERALLY MANDATED PROGRAMS. ,, :~ SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH PROV DES~ FbR!GovERNi~IENTAL DECISI0~:~Ki~G AT THE LEVEL CLOSEST TO THE PEOPLE WHENEVER IT i'S¥,~OST LIKELY TO PRODUCE THE MOST SUPPORT LEGIS~TION WHICH '~iN~AINS AND/OR ENHANCES~ THE CI~'S ~ND USE DECISION-MAKING AUTHORI~. SUPPORT LEGIS~TION WHICH FOSTESS ;EPTABLE METHODS FOR CITIES AND COUNTIES AND OTHER:PUBLIC AGENCIES~Q:~ORK TO~HER TO SOLVE ISSUES OF LOCAL SUPPORT L~G'I~GTION WHICH MAINTAINS¥~E PROVISION OF ESSENTIAL PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICES (E.G., ELECTRICI~.NATORAEGAS, IN A COST-EFFECTIVE MANNER. WHICH ALLOWS STATE OR FEDERAL CONTROL oVER AND USE OF TRADItiONAL MUNICIPA~"';GOVERN~:~ REVENUE SOURCES. O~SE LEGIS~T~:N::' WHICH SHI~S TO THE STATE OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CONTROL OVER ~BADITIONAU MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS. OPPOSE L~i~T~O~ WHICH DETRIMENTALLY IMPACTS THE LOCAL ECONOMY. OPPOSE LEGIS'~TION THAT P~CES GOVERNMENT AGENCIES IN COMPETITION FOR LIMITED FISCAL RESOURCES OR ENCOURAGES SHINING OF SERVICE RESPONSIBILI~ WITHOUT PROVIDING ADEQUATE FUNDING. Page I of 3 QUALITY OF LIFE SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH PROMOTES SAFE, EFFICIENT, COST EFFECTIVE, AND RESPONSIBLE MANAGEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPONENTS OF ISSUES SUCH AS URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AIR QUALITY, WATER QUALITY, TRANSPORTATION, WASTEWATER TREATMENT, AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT. SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH INCREASES CITY PARTICIPATION AND REPRESENTATION IN COUNTY, STATE AND FEDERAL ISSUES OF REGIONAL CONCERN. SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH PROVIDES INCREASED;i!FUNDING OF CULTURAL, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE PROGRAMS. SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH PROVIDES OF BAKERSFIELD REPRESENTATION ON POLICY-MAKING BODIES WITH IN~ERJu~iSDICTI~ (E.G., THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION, THE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSii~AND THE KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY'S IMPROVEMENT DISTR!,O~'#4). SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH PROVIDES APPRbb~ilA~E'buNDiNG MECHAi~;SMS FOR THE PROVISION OF LOCAL PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES. OPPOSE LEGISLATION WHICH INCF{:~ASES THE COST OF:;OR ENDANGERS THE CLEAN, RELIABLE SOURCE OF WATER AVAILABLE T~:iTF~':~i~ FROM THE ~N' RIVER. SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH EXPANDS THE CITY'S ABILITY TO DEAL ON A STATE LEVEL WITH STATE-MANDATED ISSUES THE FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE CITY. ... ~."I'IO~:iW~!CH ENHA~s MUNICIPAL CONTROL OVER PROGRAM SCOPE, IMPLE~EN~TATION, ANb"F~0~DING ' ~ORT LEGIs~T:i~N',wHIcH;~RovIDES FOR EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF STATE FUNDS FOR CITY P~RAMS. ~,,~,,, ~ ....... ~ ..... A ................. AMeNDMeNT T', ................. .............. R2VEN~ES ............. CAPTU~2D o .... T', ........ A,.,,.,,,,.., ..............................,,, ,-,, ,,.,,,,,-,,- ,-,,v,,-,,,,.,,v,,_,,, TI IAT PROTECTS,_,.,,.,,-,,_ ..... REV.'-NUUS '-'-'""" STATE CAPTURE EXCEPT .............. ..... ,,., ....... ,.,T',_. IIRDS VOTE '""-,.,, T',',E,..,_.,..,,,..,,_,-,~ ..........., ,,.,, ,,- ,-,,,,,..., .... VCTEI.~ Page 2 of 3 SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH CONSOLIDATES SPECIAL DISTRICTS WITH OVERLAPPING JURISDICTIONS AND/OR RESPONSIBILITIES WHERE SUCH CONSOLIDATION IS CLEARLY OF BENEFIT TO THE CITY. OPPOSE LEGISLATION WHICH INTRUDES INTO THE CITY'S COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PROCESS AND RIGHTS. FINANCES SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH ADVOCATES RESPONSIBL~'~AND REASONABLE STATE- MANDATED PROGRAMS IF REVENUES RE PROVIDED AND SUCH~I';'E~I~!ON IS OF CLEAR BENEFIT TO THE CITY. ,,:: SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH PROMOTES conTINUED DIVERSIFICX~i~N OF THE LOCAL LCD N O MY. · -::i~',ii~ ~,',',~:~',, ~ ,, SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH REDUCES THE"NEGA~IVE FNANC AL AND?OpERATIONAL IMPACTS OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING ON AFFECTED AGENCIES. SUPPORT LEGIS~TION WHICH I'~ES, Cl~ GOV~ME~'S~, ~,~ ~:¢'~ ABILI~ TO FINANCE DISCRETIONARY PROGRAMS. SUPPORT LEGIS~IION,WHICH ENH~:~CES":'~HE bi~?~?ABIkl~ TO FUND ITS CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE N EEDS;~;~ "~'~' :, ;:,: ?':~ SUPPORT LE~i:~TION W~'~H PROMOTES;;~HE USE OF LOCAL BANKS WHERE POSSIBLE AND LOCAL BRANCHES 0F~ HAT'iDEAL. B~NKS ~::::~O FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FOR ~OP~POSE THE IMPOSITION '~?EEESAT THE MUNICIPAL LEVEL TO FUND STATE PROGRAMS NOT~RE~TED TO MUNIcIPAE~A~E~?,? Page 3 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AMENDING. AND RE-AFFIRMING CITY'S ANNEXATION MISSION STATEMENT AND ESTABLISHING A PRE-APPLICATION PROCESS FOR ANNEXATIONS. WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Bakersfield adopted an Annexation Mission Statement on February 21, 1996 which outlines several reasons why the City pursues annexations and the manner and outcomes which are expected to result from said annexations; and WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Bakersfield adopted Resolution 029-02 regarding the City's Pre-Application Process for Annexations; and WHEREAS, State law requires the annexation procedure to be under the auspices of the Local Formation Agency Commission (herein "LAFCO"); and WHEREAS, annexation remains an identifiable goal of the City Council, a recommended positive step in the Vision 2020 Plan, and a supported finding from the 1999-2000 Kern County Grand Jury; and WHEREAS, the City Council intends to disseminate annexation information prior to the involvement of LAFCO and desires to assure citizens that to the extent annexation information is provided by the City, that it occurs in an honorable, courteous, informative and honest manner; and WHEREAS, the City desires to re-affirm the goals and pledge of said Mission Statement by establishing a Pre-Application Process which will govern how City Council and City staff handle annexations, prior to the involvement of LAFCO; 'and WHEREAS, the Pre-Application Process will include a number of steps, to notify the property owners/occupants within the proposed area ^"^ zf '::h!zh zh~!! ~ ~ .".'~t!~ ~-":!.-.~, 5cfc.": thc 9-"~."c~!~ C!t~,' Cc'.:'r. zil prior to adoption of the Resolution of Appl!cation. NOW THEREFORE, incorporating the above recitals herein, the City Council for the City of Bakersfield hereby: 1. Amends and re-affirms the Annexation Mission Statement adopted by the Bakersfield City Council on February 21, 1996, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein. 2. Adopts the Annexation Pre-Application Process attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated by reference herein. 3. This Resolution supersedes ResolUtion 029-02. -oo0oo- S :~HEAR INGSL~NEXL~mnexReso.wpd I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on , by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBER CARSON, BENHAM, MAGGARD, COUCH, HANSON, SULLIVAN, SCRIVNER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: COUNClLMEMBER PAMELA A. McCARTHY, CMC CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED: By: HARVEY L. HALL Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: VIRGINIA GENNARO City Attorney By: VIRGINIA GENNARO City Attorney :pmc S:LHEAR1NGS~dqNEXL~tnnexReso.wpd EXHIBIT "B" ANNEXATION PRE-APPLICATION PROCESS The following steps are proposed for the City of Bakersfield prior to application for. annexation to LAFCO of territory inhabited by 12 or more' resident electors: Comment [p2]: ~letion of ~is step is ~mmend~ as this is done in the no~al s~pe ~ Busings o~mtions by the Planning Depa~ment. · Notify City [Councii' ' ' I comment [p2]: Often annexation is ............................................ ~ in conjunction with development which requires confidentiality. Thc ~__.:'c!__.7...~.c.-.~. SC.":!C--.c -rD!.'cc~.3r City Staff will notify the / Revised language will enable staff to ..... 'rk ~ ~. # ~' k,, [ maintain the confidentiality yet not~ Council, ~n wnbng of the annexabon proposal ............. cc.'.c."., _· Council. Comment This step creates ....... and added expense to the City (staff time, printing, mailing). The to the · Informational Meetings At least one mandatory noticed informational meeting at a public facility will be conducted within the proposed annexation area. ~ _ - ~' Comme,t [p4].' Language not ) City Councilmembers may wish to also schedule additional informal meetings in the area in order to shars information and this should not be precluded. In all cases, the Councilmember will be invited to any informational meeting. Efforts will be made to use public facilities for informational meetings. However, this does not preclude the use of resident homes. · It is the intent of this section to assure that information is readily available and shared with citizens. With this in mind, staff will attempt to use the internet to disseminate annexation information when financially feasible. It is imperative that staff be available to respond to questions by citizens and share information in either a group or individual setting. - O~kA.4, ,IA ~l~:~.~ iUA~.~,-J '[ Comment [pS]: See Below · {Notificatior{ . - ~' Comment [I)6]: Minimal changes. 1 ........................................................ ' ~ However, the mailed notice has been · * L revised. See Exhibit "1" ,-,.~A_..w '" .... .... h ...... :-~= .._v"~" _v~.."~- ::.h;d'.;'.od, written notice will be mailed to all property owners/occupants within the proposed area. Net4ee ...:, :~^,..,~ ,.~ ~; .... , ,~.,..~. ~ ~.A~.~ .~.ddlti~.-.=ll:.' There will be a prepaid post card included i: th; .-._-'ti:: ;i':ir.3 requesting the owner/occupant .... ...... ,.,. ........ '~"-:*", *^.~ express their opinion regarding the annexation, by mail or personal delivery. The notice will be prepared and mailed by City Clerk Staff no later than 20' days prior to the hear. k~ Resolution of AppliCation being placed on the City Council Agenda. See attached Exhibit "1" and "2" a,~,,,~N~ . - ~' Comment [pT]: This is an additional .................................................. ~ ~' I expense. All concemed with the / annexation will receive a mailed ,3r~ ,~ ...... :A. ~ ~k~ kA~.;~ OAA ~-~k:~.;~ ,,o,, Comment [pSI: With the changes to .... ~ - r' .................. = .............. / Stale Law, LAFC0 now conducts the / Protest Headng and makes the final decision regarding Annexation. ' ' Instead of conducting a hearing, copies of the response cards mailed ..... ~ .............. ~ ......................... · ................. Council at the time the Resolution of ~-~+: ..... ~: ...... ;,4~.~ ~ ........ ~. .... k .... :,4 .... ;+~.;~ ~-k ....... ,.,,.I . Application is placed on the Agenda. ........... · ..................... ~ ............................. r-. ~r' .... The City Council can, at that time, ........................................................... direct staff to withdraw or proceed with the Application. · Resolution of Application,t ......................................... _- ~ Comment [pg]: Minimal changes. A Resolution of Application for Annexation of a proposed area will. be brought to the Council for consideration. :;;.::;,:! =t thc .".=xt · :'_!r::tsd :th=."::!:: by EXHIBIT "1" B A K E R S F I E L D NOTICE OF HES. P2."."3 ~__C. FOP. E THE ~q, rq~l IILI~'~II fie 'TU~' ~q~l"l"~/ fl~ I~,AI~'~'I'~,EII--I I~ I'~f"'~'~Af'~l~lKl~'~ PROPOSED ANNEXATION BY THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN cf: ~ca;i=?, b__.foro the Bakersfield City Council re~,3r=d~ tt~ is propos~ing annexation of territory to' the City of Bakersfield ~ identified as City of Bakersfield ANNEXATION NO. 398, GENERALLY KNOWN AS PANAMA #12. · ''~ ''~ .....~ ....' .... ~'~ ~ .... "'~ ~''7 ..... ~.. v ........ 7 ~' ~ ....... ~'~ ~''~ ..... ~::~"' ........ ~ ..... ~C:~,~,,,C7 .... ~ I-,,~ ~v-- ~ .... ~ .......... .~ The area being considered is generally located north and south of Panama Lane, west of State Route 99 (Freeway 99). See the. attached map (Exhibit A) that shows the affected territory. These proceedings were initiated by the property owner(s) or CiW (choose one)The reason the has proposed this annexation is The City Council' is interested in your written comments regarding the proposed annexation. Comments may be filed by any owner/occupant within the proposed annexation area, by returning the enclosed,, postage paid postcard, or letter with the City Clerk at any time prior to adoption of. the Resolution of Application by the City Council. Dated: Pamela A. McCarthy, CMC City Clerk and Ex Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield NOTE: Notice to be mailed in City of Bakersfield Envelope ::'!th "~" ...... .~.,;~ u..c:..!.-._o ............ ~,~= ....;. ~.~__ ,_,. ...... City Clerk's Office 1501 Truxtun Ave. Bakersfield, CA 93301 CITY CLERK CITY OF BAKERSFIELD 1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD CA 93301 NOTICE OF NEAR44~=PROPOSED ~ ANNEXATION A Resolution of Application is being proposed for the following territory. The City Council would, like to receive your comments, prior to adopting the Resolution. Please complete this card and return to the City Clerk. I ~4-;~. 4~t'~4 '1'~,,..4.,,~ A..~ ~'~;4... U~II ?'~,,~A;I Regarding: Annexation No. 398, Generally Known as Panama #12 __ I support the proposed annexation __ I oppose the proposed annexation __ I have no preference regarding annexation For Information Regard Hearing Contact City Clerk @ 326-3767 For Annexation Information Contact Planning (~ 326-3733