Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/17/2005 BAKE RS FIELD Zack Scrivner, Chair Sue Benham David Couch Staff: Alan Christensen MEETING NOTICE LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMI'n'EE of the City Council - City of Bakersfield Monday, October 17, 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 SEPTEMBER 7, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4, DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Review and Committee recommendation on City Annexation Policy 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Report and Committee recommendation on specific parade mutes B. Discussion and Committee recommendation on formation of a Fireworks Task Force 6. COMMrI'rEE COMMENTS 7. ADJOURNMENT S:~,C\05 Legislative&Litigation%L 05 oct 17 agenda,doc B A K ER SF IE L D - RAFT ,,..----- Zack Scrivner, Chair Staff: John W. Stinson Sue Benham For: Alan Tandy, City Manager David Couch AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SPECIAL LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE MEETING Wednesday, September 7, 2005 4:30 p.m. City ManageFs Conference Room, Suite 201 Second Floor - City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 1. ROLL CALL Called to Order at 4:35 p.m. Present: Councilmembers Zack Scrivner, Chair; Sue Benham; and David Couch 2. ADOPT AUGUST 29, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. NEW BUSINESS A. Committee reCommendation on City voting delegate and alternate to the League of California Cities Annual Conference Assistant City Manager Stinson explained the Committee usually makes a recommendation to the Council on the voting delegate and alternate voting delegate who will be attending the League Annual Conference. At the current time, the only Councilmember with reservations to attend the League Annual Conference is Councilmember Scrivner. The City Attorney and the City Clerk will both be attending; however, the City Clerk has other meeting commitments. Committee Member Benham made a motion the Committee recommend Councilmember Scrivner as the League voting delegate and City Attorney Gennaro as the alternate voting delegate. The Committee unanimously approved the motion. ;.. ,,~ .?,'~ LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE AGENDA SUMMARY REPOFIT Wednesday, September 7, 2005 Page 2 B. Review and Committee voting recommendation on the League of California Cities' annual resolutions 2005 ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS (1) RESOLUTION RELATING TO PUBLICATION OF HOME ADDRESSES AND TELEPHONE NUMBERS OF ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS The Public Safety Officials Home Protection Act of 2002 amended State law to prohibit the posting of the name, address or telephone number of any elected official, or the official's residing spouse or child, on the Internet knowing that the person is an elected official and intending to cause imminent bodily harm to that individual. This resolution would resolve that the League would support legislation to simply extend protection to elected officials that currently exists for the Internet to newspapers and other periodicals. Committee Member Benham made a motion the Committee recommend a position of support. The Committee unanimously approved the motion.. (2) RESOLUTION RELATING TO PUBLIC SECTOR MENTORING PROGRAM Assistant City Manager Stinson explained most of the mentoring programs are all already in place and this resolution basically is for the League to show support for the mentoring program. Committee Member Benham made a motion the Committee recommend a position of support. The Committee unanimously approved the motion. (3) RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE AHWAHNEE WATER PRINCIPLES FOR RESOURCE-EFFICIENT LAND USE Water Resources Manager Core was not able to attend today, but recommended the City not support this resolution or take a neutral position. Some of the princiPles are good; however, some would impact the local control the City has on its water resources; The City of Bakersfield had foresight many years ago to plan for water resources. The background information provided by the League states the principles "address the disconnect between local land use deciSions and water resources." This may pertain to some cities, but does not reflect and is not true for the City of Bakersfield. Committee Chair Scrivner stated the City's Legislative Platform has a position that the Council not support any legislation that erodes local control. LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE "-~';' ~ ~' AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Wednesday, September 7, 2005 Page 3 City Attorney Gennaro expressed these principles call for supporting policies and conditions on building the City does not currently require and would give the impression these are policies the City wants implemented at the local level and currently this is not true. Committee Member Benham made a motion the Committee recommend . opposition to this resolution. The Committee unanimously approved the motion. (4) RESOLUTION RELATING TO VOLUNTARY STATEWIDE RESIDENTIAL _GREEN BUILDING GUIDELINES This resolution would support the voluntary goals of the "green building" concept, design and strategies designed specifically for the residential building industry. City Attorney Gennaro' explained this is voluntary and would not change any functions in the City. Committee Member Benham made a motion the Committee recommend a position of support. The Committee unanimously approved the motion. (5) RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ACCORDS ADOPTED AT UNITED NATIONS WORLD ENVIRONMENT DAY The Urban Environmental Accords were developed as part of United Nations World Environment Day 2005 and signed in San Francisco on June 5, 2005. This resolution would resolve that the League of California Cities at its Annual Conference in San Francisco call to action all California mayors to sign the Urban Environmental Accords and collaborate to implement the Accords. Committee Chair Scrivner expressed there are sections that call for reductions in power usage in the City within seven years and other issues, for which the Council does not have control. Committee Member Benham made a motion .the Committee recommend opposition to this resolution. The Committee unanimously approved the motion. (6) RESOLUTION RELATING TO SEXUAL PREDATORS SB 1051 would (1) prohibit a licensed community care facility receiving state funds and located within one mile of any school from accepting juveniles undergoing treatment, theraPy, or counseling for sexual disorders, deviancy, or sexual misbehavior of any kind; and (2) expand the 1,4 mile distance restriction to one mile. Committee Member Benham made a motion the Committee recommend a position of support, The Committee unanimously approved the motion. AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Wednesday, September 7, 2005 Page 4 (7) RESOLUTION RELATING TO PROPOSITION 172 Assistant City Manager Stinson explained this has to do with Proposition 172 funds, which primarily go to counties to backfill ERAF. Due to Legislation in 1996, the County of San Diego continues to draw 94.35% and the cities in San Diego County receive 5.65% of these funds even though San Diego County does not have a fire agency nor significantly assist other local fire agencies in the unincorporated portions of the county. City Manager Tandy stated the information received from the League is not clear on whether this would affect the City of Bakersfield's share of ERAF.- Staff recommended the Committee give Councilmember Scrivner discretionary power to check with other cities at the League Conference and vote accordingly. Committee Member Couch made a motion the Committee approve and forward the staff recommendation to the Council. The Committee unanimously approved the motion. (8) RESOLUTION RELATING TO BROADBAND INTERNET ACCESS This resolution would resolve the League support state and federal legislation to ensure the continued ability of local governments to offer broadband Internet service access to citizens. Committee Member Benham made a motion the Committee recommend a position of support. The Committee unanimously approved the motion. The Committee requested staff to prepare an administrative report for the September 28th City Council agenda. 5. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 6. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m. Staff present: City Manager Alan Tandy; Assistant City Manager John Stinson; and City Attorney Ginny Gennaro cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council S:~,C~05 Legislatlve&Utigation~ll 05 sept 07 summan/.doc BAKERSFIELD POLICE MEMORANDUM TO: Command Staff FROM: Lt. Jay C Borton DATE: September 8, 2005 SUBJECT: Parade Permit Applications/Routes/Times Recently I have been receiving applications for parade permits in which the parade routes have been in residential neighborhoods. Over the past few years, we have approved such routes only to receive an extensive number of complaints from residents who have been adversely affected by the street closures and limited ingress and egress to their homes. Over the past four weeks,. I have denied three applications for parades and. have requested the applicants consider alternate routes and time frames. Two of the three have done so and applications have been approved. I anticipate more requests for parades in residential areas and because of that, I would like to propose a permanent parade route for all parades held within our jurisdiction. The route I propose is that currently used for the Christmas Parade, Black History Parade, Veterans Parade, and every other parade held in Bakersfield: L Street, from 22nd Street to 17th Street. This route is established, easily staffed, has excellent spectator access, and disturbs virtually no residential areas. There are businesses that would be affected by the street closures; however parade scheduling could eliminate a great deal of any conflict in that area. There are also a few other roadways in the downtown area that could be considered for parade routes. F Street, from Montgomery World Plaza south to 25th Street; Truxtun Avenue, between Jastro Park and N Street, could also be utilized. By having alternate routes, no business entities would bear the burden of every parade. The Municipal Code that outlines requirements for parades and found various sections of the code that allow for the denial of permits for reasons ranging from disturbing residents to impeding traffic. I have highlighted sections of this code which are applicable to my concerns. 10.76.030 Application--Issuance. A. Applications for permits under this section shall be made on forms to be furnished by the city, shall be submitted no less than two working days prior to the event nor more than ninety days prior to the event, shall be signed under penalty of perjury by an authorized representative of the applicant organization and shall require the following information: 1. The name, mailing address, and telephone number of the organization applying for and conducting the parade and of the parade chairman; 2. The name of the parade, including names of each sponsoring or sanctioning organization; 3. The route; 4. The proposed date, starting time, and estimated completion time; 5. The location of the assembly area and of the disbanding area; 6. Proposed number and size of the units in the parade, including a description of any sound amplification equipment to be used; 7. Prior permits held by any named organization and whether such permits were ever revoked or suspended and the reasons therefore; and 8. The business tax certificate number of the applicant organization, or letter granting tax-exempt status to the applicant organization. B. The traffic authority or his/her designee shall issue a parade permit conditioned upon the applicant's agreement to comply with the terms of such permit and if he/she finds: 1. That the application is complete and truthful; 2. That the parade will be conducted in accordance with all laws of the city and the state; 3. That the conduct of such parade will not require police protection in excess of what the city can reasonably provide; 4. That operation of the parade at such location will not present any substantial hazard to vehicular or pedestrian traffic, nor impede the movement of emergency vehicles; 5. That the applicant has 'not had a permit, issued under this section, revoked, unless the city manager finds that the reasons for such revocation are unrelated to this application; 6. That the parade is not being held for the sole purpose of advertising any products, goods, wares, merchandise or event; 7. That the conduct of the parade will not constitute an unreasonable burden on city employees or resources, nor create an unreasonable disturbance to the neighboring areas; 8. That the parade will move from its starting point to its finish line expeditiously; 9. That such parade will not interfere with, or conflict with, another parade or special event for which a permit has been issued or for which no permit is required. D. All permits issued pursuant to this chapter shall be valid only as to those dates, times, and locations listed on the permit, unless earlier revoked. parade route.doc E. Permits may be issued with conditions to ensure that the event will be operated in a safe and legal manner. Such conditions may include, but shall not be limited to: 1. The date, starting time, and maximum length of time during which the parade may be conducted; 2. The minimum speed and maximum speed of the parade; 3. The maximum space to be maintained between the units of the parade; 4. The maximum number of units to be permitted in the parade and the maximum size of such units; 5. The route to be taken by the parade; and 6. The maximum length of the parade. (Ord. 3866 § 1 (part), 1998) The applications I have denied have involved routes ranging from 3 miles to 5 miles and have requested a four hour time frame. The length of these routes is more than the police department can provide adequate staffing for to ensure the safety of all involved parties. The time frames are too extensive for our personnel as well as the public to be expected to have their freedom of travel impinged upon. Emergency vehicle traffic would be adversely affected and, in general, public safety would suffer. Creating a permanent parade route of the aforementioned location(s) would eliminate the above concerns as well as maintain the appearance of equality in the issuance of parade permits. There is an additional issue of the amount of time that a parade permit application can be issued prior to the event (see below). This amount of time makes it virtually impossible to thoroughly review a permit application, check the route, and determine staffing for an event. 10. 76. 030 Application--lssuance. A. Applications for permits under this section shall be made on forms to be furnished by the city, shall be submitted no less than two working days prior to the event nor more than ninety days prior to the event, shall be signed under penalty of perjury by an authorized representative of the applicant organization and shall require the following information: I recommend the wording of the above to be changed to 10 business days in order to allow for proper consideration of any application for a permit. I have spoken with Ginny Gennaro about this and she has told me she would present this to the City Council if the police department Command Staff supports the issue. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Respectfully Submitted, Lt. Jay C Borton parade route.doc B A K E R S F I E L D CITY CLERK'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM October 14, 2005 TO: Legislative & Litigation Committee FROM: Pamela A. McCarthy, City Clerk~ SUBJECT: Annexation Pre-Application Policy The Legislative & Litigation Committee met on August 29, 2005 and reviewed the aformentioned policy. Based on comments received from Committee members and the public additional changes were made and are indicated in red. :pmc Attachment (1) S:\HEARINGS~NNEX\L&Lmemo. DOC 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 one of which shall be a Noticed Hearing before the Bakersfield City Council prior to adoption of the Resolution of Application. 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:LHEARINGSL~dqNEX~nnexReso.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: COUNClLMEMBER ABSTAIN: COUNClLMEMBER 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 :L.HEAR1NGS~,~rNEXLa~nnexRes o.wp d EXHIBIT "A" ANNEXATION MISSION STATEMENT The purpose of the City of Bakersfield's annexation efforts is to provide clear consolidated boundaries which result in the most effective delivery of urban services and in the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars. In fulfilling this mission, we, the city of Bakersfield elected officials and staff pledge the following: · To deliver services to citizens within newly annexed county areas more efficiently and with a greater transfer of benefits as a result of becoming a part of the City; and · To provide quality services to citizens in the most efficient, effective and courteous manner possible; and · To encourage current and future residents to participate in determining the direction and spirit of the City and its neighborhoods; and · To assure our contact with citizens will be in the most honorable, courteous, informative, timely and honest manner in our efforts to encourage adjacent residents to unite with the City of Bakersfield; and · To make continual efforts to improve the quality of life, the delivery of services and the community spirit within and around Bakersfield; and · To preserve the integrity of each property owner's vote, by not combining non- contiguous areas on the Resolution of Application, unless 100% owner approval is received in writing by the City. 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 electom: / ................. ........................... '1' co.,.,e.t [p~]: No,e bo~d ~.d { under lined te. xt j · Identify Proposed Annexation Area Development Services Department - Planning Division will identify the proposed annexation area, based on request by City or Citizens to initiate annexation. · Notify City Council City Staff will notify the Council, in writing of the annexation proposal. This notification, by way of memorandum, will be distributed through City Manager's weekly General Information Memo, which is available in the City Clerk's Office. Send out "Frequently Asked Questions" Frequently asked questions and responses regarding the proposed annexation will be prepared by the Staff, made available on the City's website at www.bakersfieldcit¥.us and provided at informational meetings. Additionally, a copy will be included with the Notice of Proposed Annexation and mailed to all property owners/occupants within the proposed ~area. Standard questions will appear on all letters. Some additional questions/answers with regard to taxes or other issues specific to the area may be included. · Informational Meetings At least one mandatory noticed informational meeting at a public facility will be conducted within the proposed annexation area. The Kern County Supervisor representing the area will be invited to these meetings. City Councilmembers may also wish to schedule additional informal meetings in the area in order to share 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. · Notification Written notice will be mailed to all property owners/occupants within the proposed area. There will be a prepaid post card included requesting the owner/occupant express their opinion regarding the annexation, by mail or personal delivery. This is an informal request for information and ~o1~ a forr~aO vofincj procedure. The notice will be prepared and mailed by City Clerk Staff no later than 20 days prior to the Resolution of Application being placed on the City Council Agenda. See attached Exhibit "1" and "2" · Resolution of Application A Resolution of Application for Annexation of a proposed area will be brought to the Council for consideration. The public can address the Council at this time. Final approval of the proposed annexation will be determined by Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). Contact LAFCO at (661) 716-1076 for additional information on their proceedings. EXHIBIT "1" B A K E R $ F I E L D NOTICE OF PROPOSED ANNEXATION BY THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Bakersfield City Council is proposing annexation of inhabited territory to the City of Bakersfield identified as City of Bakersfield ANNEXATION NO. 398, GENERALLY KNOWN AS PANAMA #12. A Resolution of Application will be heard before the City Council of the City of Bakersfield at 6:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard on WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2001, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, 93301. The purpose of this action is to initiate proceedings with the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). 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 City (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. Final approval of the proposed annexation will be determined by Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). Contact LAFCO at (661) 716-1076 for additional information on their proceedings. 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 B A K E R $ FI City Clerk's Office 1501 Truxtun Ave. Bakersfield, CA 93301 CITY CLERK CITY OF BAKERSFIELD 1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD CA 93301 NOTICE OF 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. This is for information purposes only and not an official vote. 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 ___ I request additional information regarding:. For Annexation Information Contact: City Planning @ (661) 326-3733 LAFCO @ (661)716-1076 Councilmember @ (661) xxx-xxxx