Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/16/2007 B A K E R S F I E L D Staff: Rhonda Smiley City Council Members: Public Information Officer Sue Benham, Chair David Couch Jacquie Sullivan Special Meeting of the LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE of the City Council -City of Bakersfield Monday, July 16, 2007 1:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue -Suite 201, Bakersfield, CA A G E N D A 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT JUNE 5, 2007 MINUTES 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Update on Plastic Shopping Bags -Kirkwood 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Streamline Standards for Code Violations - Gennaro B. Explore Ordinance to Create Special Downtown District to Address Infrastructure Issues Similar to San Diego Gas Lamp Area, to Include Property Owners' Responsibilities regarding Windows in Unoccupied Commercial Buildings -Kunz C. Proposed Revision to the Historic Preservation Commission Ordinance -Kunz D. Review, Discussion and Recommendation Relating to League of California Cities Annual Conference -Smiley • City Voting Delegate and Alternate(s) • Conference Resolutions 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 7. ADJOURNMENT • DRAFT B A K E R S F I E L D Sue Benham, Chair Rh a Smiley, Pu Information Officer David Couch For: Alan Tandy, City Manager Jacquie Sullivan AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE MEETING Tuesday, June 5, 2007 -1:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room -Suite 201 City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA The meeting was called to order at 1:08 PM. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmember Sue Benham; Chair Councilmember Jacquie Sullivan Absent: Councilmember David Couch Staff present: Alan Tandy, City Manager John W. Stinson, Assistant City Manager Rick Kirkwood, Management Assistant Ginny Gennaro, City Attorney Janice Scanlan, Assistant City Attorney Joseph Ahuna, City Attorney Intern Rhonda Smiley, Public Information Officer Raul Rojas, Public Works Director Kevin Barnes, Solid Waste Director Glen Grundeis, Bakersfield Police Department Bryan Lynn, Bakersfield Police Department Others present: Kevin Gerrity, Bakersfield Californian Peter Samore, KUZZ News 2. ADOPT MAY 8, 2007 MINUTES Adopted as submitted. 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS None AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE MEETING Tuesday, June 5, 2007 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Update regarding plastic bag issue. This item was deferred to the meeting of July 10, 2007. 5. NEW BUSINESS Page 2 A. Discussion and recommendation on a proposed ordinance regarding statewide cable franchising -City Attorney Assistant City Attorney Janice Scanlan gave an overview of Assembly Bill 2987, which was adopted by the California Legislature in September 2006. This law takes cable franchising authority away from local government and gives it to the state. In March 2007, AT&T applied to the Public Utilities Commission for astate-wide video franchise, and was granted this request on April 5, 2007. The City currently has franchise agreements with Bright House Networks and Cox/Cebridge/Sudden Link. Bright House Networks' purchase of the Cebridge facility was approved by the FCC and the Federal Trade Commission and should close within 30 to 60 days. This will result in Bright House Networks being the only City franchise. AT&T is now approved to provide video service state-wide which includes Bakersfield; therefore, the consumer will be able to choose between AT&T and Bright House Networks. Currently AT&T does not contain the necessary infrastructure to provide video services locally (boxes, lines, etc). The City is required to enforce customer service and other issues that would normally be handled by the Public Utilities Commission. The Legislature has informed the local entities of the related fines. The City will collect these fines and then remit half of the money to the state. State franchise holders will also pay to the City the current franchise fee of 5% of gross revenues. The definition of gross revenues varies between this legislation and the current Bright House Networks agreement. The franchise holder is required to follow City standards in order to obtain an encroachment permit. Bakersfield currently does not have an appeal process, but there must be one in place in case of denial. Committee Chair Benham and Committee member Sullivan voted to send to City Council for approval, with Committee member Couch absent. S:\Council Committees\2007\07 Legislative&LitigationlJun 5\Jun 5 Agenda Summary Report.doc AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE MEETING Tuesday, June 5, 2007 Page 3 B. Discussion and recommendation on an amendment to the cabaret permit ordinance -City Attorney City Attorney Gennaro stated that the City's current cabaret permit ordinance indicates that any violation of the ordinance results in the revocation of the permit. It was suggested that suspending the permit should be another alternative. It should be noted that the suspension should not exceed a certain amount of time. Committee Chair Benham asked how the cabaret permit ordinance works with the Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) license. Sergeant Grundeis stated that an event with live music, dancing, and selling alcohol will require a cabaret permit and an ABC license. The cabaret permit and ABC license do not affect one another. If a business is in violation of the ABC law, which is a state law, the Police department can take action. Due to different measures of violations, it is suggested that the language in the ordinance read "may be immediately suspended" instead of "shall". Committee Chair Benham agrees with the suggested wording for the ordinance, and also for the suspension period not to exceed 180 days. The actual suspension time will be determined by the Police Department. If the business does not agree with the suspension time, they may appeal this decision to the City Manager. Committee Chair Benham and Committee member Sullivan voted to send to City Council for approval, with Committee member Couch absent. 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS None 7. ADJOURNMENT 1:35:49 PM cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council S:\Council Committees\2007\07 Legislative&LitigationUun 5\Jun 5 Agenda Summary Report.doc ~ s B A K E R S F I E L D CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE. MEMORANDUM. July 11, 2007 TO: Alan. Tandy, City Manager FROM: Rick Kirkwood,. Management Assistant ,~~ SUBJECT: Plastic .Bag Ban. Update Councilmember Couch requested .staff research what types. of bags other cities are allowing and the impact a ban of plastic bags would have on .local retailers for the Legislative and Litigation Committee's review. Please note the following information corrects data presented in .the April 24, 2007 memo to the Legislative and., Litigation Committee pertaining to the ban of plastic bags in San Francisco. Data from the City of San Francisco's .Department of the Environment shows nearly -480 milNon plastic bags are used annually in San Francisco. Jared. Blumenfeld, City of San Francisco's. Director of the Department of the Environment, stated it takes 430,000 gallons. of oil to manufacture. 1 d0 million bags. Ross Mirkarimi, District 5 Supervisor, stated the ban would save 450,000 gallons of oil a year and remove the need to send 1,404 tons of debris now sent to the landfill annually. The. Plastic .Bag Reduction Ordinance amended the San Francisco Environment :Code to mandate stores :and pharmacies defined in the ordinance to provide recyclable paper bags, compostable plastic bags, and/or reusable bags as checkout bags to customers. The ordinance shall become operative to supermarkets six (6) months after its effective date and to pharmacies one (1) year after its effective date. In September 2006, Assembly .Bill 2449 (Levine) was passed. The provisions of this bill became operative July 1, 2007 for stores with more than 10,000 sq. ft. of retail space and a pharmacy to implement an on-site plastic bag take-back and recycling program. Plastic bags must be collected, transported, .and: recycled in a manner that does not conflict with the local jurisdiction's source reduction and recycling .element. The program is designed to create a uniform, state-wide recycling program and a place where consumers may return plastic bags to the store. Alan Tandy -Plastic Bag :Ben Update July 11, 2007 Page 2 A number of other agencies are watching the issue of plastic bag bans. City of Santa Cruz: The City of Santa Cruz is also considering a ban of plastic bags, but is currently seeking buy-in from other municipalities. In order to increase a ban's effectiveness, the City plans to initiate discussions, with Scotts Valley, Capitola, Watsonville, and the county to gain support. According to Chris Moran, City of Santa Cruz. Waste Reduction Manager, the City is encouraging the .public to use. cloth bags and to say no to plastic bags altogether through public outreach and education. City of Santa Barbara: Santa Barbara's City Council is considering a proposal from a four-member group from Santa Barbara City College to ban. plastic bags and styrofoam containers. .Staff. was not able to review this report, : but a news article states .the proposal does not directly address the ramifications for local businesses but it hopes the use of cloth bags and biodegradable products will fill the void left. by plastic: Los Angeles County: Los. Angeles County is considering several options: an outright ban of plastic bags, encouraging customers td buy reusable :bags, and/or encouraging customers to return plastic bags to: stores. The Board of Supervisors has directed the Department of Public Works to study the issue and to report. back by August. Boston, MA: A measure sponsored by :Councilor Robert Consalvo to ban plastic bags has gained the support. of nine of the twelve councilors of the City of Boston. The measure has been advanced to the Council's Committee on Gity and Neighborhood Services. At the state level in Massachusetts, Senator Brian A. Joyce plans to file a bill proposing a statewide law that .would charge customers a two-cent :($0.02) per bag fee in 2008, gradually increasing. to fifteen cents ($0.15) per bag in 2015. The revenue generated by this program is proposed to go toward the ..state's recycling programs and toward improving consumer awareness of environmental problems caused by plastic bags. IKEA: As ofi March 15, 2007, alf IKEA stores in the U.S. are charging five cents ($0.05) per plastic bag used at the checkout counter and are encouraging customers to purchase a 'Big Blue Bag' for fifty-nine cents ($0:59) each. The blue bags are made of amore durable and stronger plastic that can potentially replace hundreds of single-use .plastic bags if customers bring it along with them when they shop at IKEA. All proceeds from this program will go to American Forests, anon-profit organisation that plants trees to restore forests and offset C02 emissions. This program was launched in IKEA stores in the UK in late Spring 2006 and has resulted in a ninety=five percent (95%) reduction in the use of plastic bags. Whole Foods: Whole Foods offers customers five cents ($0..05) as an incentive each time they bag their groceries in a reusable bag. Alan Tandy -Plastic Bag Ban Update July 11, 207 Page 3 Staff. conducted a survey of several stores. located in Bakersfield to determine the impact of a ban of plastic. bags in the city. Below is a list of stores-,that were contacted and the responses from their respective store managers. Chris Middleton, Albertsons Dis#rict Manager: Mr. Middleton provided information to staff on seven stores located in Bakersfield. The average Albertsons has about 50,000 square -feet of retail and storage space. Four of the even stores have-a .pharmacy: Based on thirteen weeks of plastic bags orders, Mr. Middleton estimated that the seven Albertsons stores in Bakersfield distribute nearly 11 mitlion plastic bags per year. Each store may be able to comply with a ban of plastic bags within three to six months. Each store offers the following .free. options at the checkout counter:- plastic, paper, qt. liquor bag, and header bag (for frozen items). The stores sell a recyclable canvas bag for $1.00. Promotions run throughout the year to encourage consumers to purchase the recyclable canvas bags. The most recent promotion donated five cents ($0.05) to California State Parks from each canvas bag :purchased by a customer: Mr. Middleton added that Albertsons' plastic bags are the smallest in the industry and are collected and recycled at the store level, in recycling bins made from recycled plastic bags. Recycled plastic bags are also .used to produce the. benches around the stores and the ones donated to parks. Albertsons is considering new technology to produce alternative bags from corn husks, potato peels, and switchblade grass. This technology may raise the cost to produce one bag from one cent ($0.01 } for a plastic bag to four cents ($0.04) for an alternative bag. Food 4 Less - Store 365 - 1801. White Lane: This store has 74,000 square feet of retail space and does not have.:a pharmacy. It offers paper or plasticbags to customers for free, and would not comment on how many, are distributed. This store accepts and recycles plastic bags returned by customers. Green Frog Market - 3711 Colombus St: This .store has .60,000 square .feet of retail space and .does not. have a pharmacy. It offers paper or plastic bags for free or a canvas bag for $6.99 to customers. A bin is .available on-site for customers to return plastic bags to be recycled. This store orders a new shipment of bags every two weeks to one month depending on demand and claims it could comply with a ban of plastic bags within six months. Sav-A-Lot - 1505 White Lane: This store has 17,000 square feet of retail space. Instead of offering paper`-bags to customers,. it offers asingle-use plastic bag for three cen#s ($0.03) each, a reusable bag (made of a thicker material) for ten cents ($0.10) each, or a thermal bag for ninety-nine cents. ($Q.99) each. Since the. customers pay for each plastic bag used, the cost is not built in t© the. price of grocery items. This store orders new shipments of .bags weekly and could comply with a ban of plastic bags within six months. However, the store would need time to find .alternative .bags, will incur costs of changing over to new bags, and if the current program is continued, the higher cost for alternative bags will be borne by consumers.. Alan Tandy -Plastic Bag Ban Update July 11, 2007 Page 4 FoodMaxx - 4428 Chester Ave: This store has :49,000 square feet of retail space and does not have a pharmacy. Itoffers paper or plastic bags for free, or a canvas bag for ninety-eight cents ($0.98) Bach to customers. A bin located on-site accepts plastic bags returned by customers to be recycled. The store would not comment an the number of bags distributed last year or how long i# would take to comply with a ban of plastic bags. Trader Joes: Trader Joes outlets do not offer plastic bags unless specifically requested by a customer.. Reusable bags made of canvas for $2.99 cacti and .two versions of a microfiber bag ($0.99 and $1.99 each) are available far customers to ;purchase. Thermal bags for $1.99 each may be purchased to carry frozen items. Each outlet posts a sign stating "Reduce, Recycle, Reuse" and offers a ticket for a monthly drawing fora $25 gift card to customers that: bring their own reusable bags (paper, .canvas, or microfiber). Approximately 600 tickets are given out to customers every two weeks for this drawing. This store could comply. immediately with a ban of plastic bags. BA E Q~a~,pRFOR~ ti U MEMORANDUM cyL~'", CITY ATTORNEY July 6, 2007 TO: LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITT E FROM: VIRGINIA GENNARO, CITY ATTORNEY ~~ SUBJECT: EXPEDITING PUBLIC NUISANCE ABATEMENTS At the June 4,.2007, Legislative and Litigation meeting, Council Member Couch inquired whether the City can reduce the notice period to abate public nuisances for property owners that have a policy of not responding to correction notices. Attached to this memorandum is an in-depth legal research memo which outlines the differences between a formal and informal administrative remedy under the Bakersfield Municipal Code and legal due process requirements. In summary, if a .property poses an immediate serious threat to the general health, safety, or welfare of the citizens of Bakersfield, our Code Enforcement officers have the tools in our Municipal Code to abate the .nuisance in an expeditious fashion. However, short of an immediate serious threat, California law requires that cities provide property owners a minimum of 30 days to respond to correction notices. Therefore, anything short of what our current notice/enforcement process is may subject the City to legal challenge. VG:vI cc: Stan Grady, Development Services Director Phil Burns, Building Director Michael Richards, Associate City Attorney S; \ATTORNEY\MEMOS\07-08\Nuisanceabatements.doc. o~ BAS E~,, • ~ ~ ~ U ~t* c9LIF0 MEMORANDUM. CITYATTORNEY'S OFFICE June 27, 2007 TO: VIRGINIA GENNARO, CITY ATTORNEY FROM: JOSEPH AHUNA, SUMMER INTERN ~- SUBJECT: Expediting public nuisance abatements ISSUE In the Legislative and Litigation meeting of June 4, 2007, Council Member Couch inquired whether the city could reduce the notice period of public nuisance abatements for properties that have a policy of not responding to correction notices. This memo concludes that we should continue to follow the notice procedure outlined in our Bakersfield Municipal Code. BACKGROUND Chapter 8.80 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code provides the city with remedial authority and direction regarding public nuisances. City officials have. recently raised a concern however, regarding the length of time that is expended in abating public nuisances, particularly public nuisances that exist on vacated premises. The following paragraphs-will address the question of whether or not the municipal code allows for the city to expedite the abatement process. Enforcement Authorify: Chapter 8.80.020 authorizes code enforcement officers to "issue notices of violations, correction orders, field citations and to inspect public or private property and to use whatever judicial and administrative remedies provided under the Bakersfield Municipal Code or applicable state law" to ensure "compliance with the provisions of the Bakersfield Municipal Code"(Ord. 3666 § 2 (part), 1995~i.e. abate public nuisances. Furthermore, the municipal code provides an informal administrative remedy and a formal administrative remedy whereby the city may order the property owner to abate the nuisance himself/herself or whereby the city may itself abate the nuisance (when the property owner fails to do so within a "reasonable" amount of time). Informal Administrative Remedv-8.80.060: Chapter 8.80.060 (A) of the municipal code grants code enforcement officers discretion in determining whether or not the informal resolution remedy is appropriate for a violation or purported violation; also, the informal administrative remedy allows officers to determine a "reasonable" deadline by when a violation must be corrected. Abatement Memo June 27, 2007 Page 2 of 5 The code requires that the officer give notice to the property owner of an alleged violation. The officer must allow the property owner to respond within seven (7) days. If after the notice is given the property owner fails to respond within seven (7) days, then the officer must notify the. owner that an inspection will occur to verify the violation and that if a violation is confirmed, then the owner is to bear the cost of the inspection. The code, however, does not specify when the actual inspection can begin (but may. begin at anytime after the initial seven (7) day notice period); also, the code does-not specify a deadline by when the inspection must be completed. Following an inspection confirming the violation, the officer then must issue a correction order notifying the owner that the owner has a deadline (to be "reasonably" determined by the officer) by when the violation must be abated. The officer also must notify the owner that if upon reinspection the violation still exists, then the owner will be responsible for reinspection costs as well as costs for the city to abate the violation. This particular section (8.80.060-Informal administrative remedy) of the municipal code provides the officer with discretion (other than the initial seven day respond period) to determine the "reasonable" speed of abatement. Formal Administrative Remedv-8.80.070 and 8.80.080: If the violation poses an immediate serious threat to the general health, safety, or welfare of the citizens of the city, then the officer may give notice to abate the nuisance through the formal administrative remedy. Under the formal remedy, the officer must mail a copy of the notice to abate and order to show cause to the owner of the. property. The notice must include the date and time of the hearing regarding the nuisance. If the ofhcer is unable to reach the owner via mail, then the officer must post the notice on the property affected. The code requires that the mailing and posting of the notices must be done in at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing. Even if the owner does not receive the notice of the violation (via mail or post) the city still has jurisdiction to proceed and abate the nuisance if the property ownerfails to do so (8.80.080-F). The ordinance does not indicate time restrictions or deadlines that the officer must abide by other than the ten (10) day period supra. Therefore, as it stands, the quickest remedy. available for the city to abate a public nuisance (albeit a remedy reserved for nuisances that pose an immediate and serious threat to public health and safety) is the formal remedy. Abatement Memo June 27, 2007 Page 3 of 6 However, the language of the ordinance suggests that the informal administrative remedy be considered before deferring to the formal administrative remedy. Chapter 8.80.070 states, "...where violation(s) of the Bakersfield Municipal Code cannot be resolved through the informal remedies provided for in this chapter, or when a code enforcement officer determines that a violation of the Bakersfield Municipal Code poses a serious threat to the general health, safety or welfare of the citizens of the City, or is otherwise. not subject to resolution through the informal remedies set forth in this Chapter, the Code Enforcement Official shall provide notice of the violation requiring its abatement as provided in this section [formal administrative remedy]." EXPEDITING THE PROCESS City Council raised the question as to whether it is possible to expedite abatement of a nuisance on abandoned property or on property upon which the land owner knowingly and willingly fails to abate himself/herself. If, for example, there was a bank that routinely foreclosed houses and knowingly failed to upkeep those houses thereby resulting in public nuisances, can the city legally create an ordinance bypassing the current informal and formal remedies and abate the nuisance in less than ten (10) days? Due Process: Califomia state statute, case law, and the United States Constitution all require the city to afford each property owner due process. In D & M Financial Corp. v. City of Long Beach, the city recorded a property as substandard. Months later, D&M Financial (D&M) purchased the building; however, the city failed to give the corporation notice before the demolition day that the building was less than substandard. The Califomia Court of Appeals, in reversing the lower court and ruling in favor of D&M, stated that constitutional due process and the California Health and Safety code §17980(b) require the city "to provide the owner and other interested parties with notice, an opportunity to be heard, and an opportunity to make repairs" D&M Financial Corp., 136 Cal. App. 4th 165 (2006). Furthermore, the court pointed out that the city was liable to the financial corporation because the city did not follow their "customary practice." I.d. In Hawthorne Sav. & Loan Assn v. City of Signal Hi11, a bank acquired property through foreclosure. The prior owner had allowed the building to fall into a state of disrepair. The savings and loan association acquired title to the property and subsequently received notice that they had 120 days to demolish the building. The city denied the association's appeal to repair the nuisance and ordered the building destroyed. The Califomia appeals court, however, in ruling in favor of the association, stated that the city must afford the association the choice to make repairs, a reasonable time in which to make that choice, and, if the association chose to repair the buildings, a reasonable opportunity to do so. Hawthome Sav. & Loan Assn v. City of Signal Hill, 19 Cal. App. 4th 148 (1993). Abatement Memo June 27, 2007 Page 4 of 5 The California Health and Safety Code §17980 (b) in speaking to the process of abating a public. nuisance stated, "The owner [of the property] shall have the choice of repairing or demolishing [the nuisance]. However, if the owner chooses to repair, the enforcement agency shall require that the building. be brought into compliance according to a reasonable and feasible schedule for expeditious repair," Reasonableness: Clearly, case law, state statute, and federal law require the city to afford property owners "reasonable" due process. Each owner must be given reasonable opportunity to repair, or abate the nuisance that exists on their property. Although California courts have not specified or defined Neasonableness" in terms of outlining a minimum amount of time a city must allow an owner to correct a nuisance, the California Health and Safety code statute states that enforcement agencies must allow thirty (30) days for a property owner to abate a nuisance (after which the agency may proceed with appropriate action to abate the nuisance, if the owner fails to do so within the 30 day period) unless the enforcement agency finds that the nuisance poses "...an immediate threat to the health and safety of the public or occupants of the structure...(italics added for emphasis)." If there is an immediate danger to the health/safety of the public or occupants of the property, then the agency may shorten the required thirty (30) day period. Baring this exception, however, the agency and city must abide by the thirty (30) day notice period. California Health and Safety Code §17980 (a). Furthermore, as mentioned earlier in D & M Financial Corp. v. City of Long Beach, where the court ruled in favor or the property owner, the court pointed out that the city was liable to the ,~ „ owner because the city did not follow their customary practice of giving adequate and reasonable notice to the owners. The court implied that the city did not have the luxury of discriminating against financial corporations. D&M Financial Corp., 136 Cal. App. 4th 165 (2006). CONCLUSIONS Both the informal and formal administrative remedies of the Bakersfield municipal code provide an enforcement officer with instructions on how to deal with public nuisances. The language of the municipal code provides an enforcement officer the discretion in determining notice periods. While the municipal code provides the officer with some limited discretion, California statutes provide that a property owner is entitled to a minimum of thirty (30) days notice. Furthermore, California courts and the U.S. constitution require that all property owners be given reasonable due process. The only exception to a shortened 30 day period is when the nuisance poses an immediate health risk to the public or occupants of the property. Abatement Merno June 27, 2007 Page 5 of 5 Possible remedy: It should be noted that §17985 and §17992 of the California Health & Safety code states that if a substandard property changes ownership (e.g. bank gains title through foreclosure) and the previous owner had received notice to abate the nuisance and had failed to do so, and the city or agency had recorded the notice of action in the county recorder's office, then the entity who obtains ownership (e.g. the bank) is subject to the order and original time limitations/deadlines. See Hawthorne Sav. & Loan Assn v. Citv of Signal Hill, 19 Cal. App. 4th 148 (1993). Therefore, the City Attorney does not recommend that the Bakersfield Municipal Code be modified to shorten the due process notice for abatement. JA:ja:vl S: WTTORNEYIMEMOS\06-07\abatementmemo.doc B A K E R S F I E L D Economic. and Community evelopment Department MEMORANDUM ~~~~luly 11, 2007 TO: City Council Legislative and Litigation Committee FROM: Donna L. Kunz, Economic. Development Direct SUBJECT: Response to the City Council referral concerning development of a Downtown Specific Plan (tike the San Diego Gas Lamp District) to address windows in vacant buildings and downtown infrastructure needs. In 1982, the San Diego City. Council found the Gaslarnp Quarter Redevelopment Area to be blighted. To better effectuate their redevelopment plan #or the area, the San Diego City Council approved a Gaslamp Quarter Planned District, a specific plan for the area. Councilmember Benham has requested staff to examine the feasibility of adopting certain specific .plan elements from the San Diego plan for Downtown Bakersfield. The elements to be addressed include the feasibilityof requiring owners of vacant buildings in the Downtown to "dress up" the ground floor windows rather than board them up and examine the existing condition. and needs for downtown public infrastructure improvements; including streets, alleys, parking lots and parking facilities and develop a long term capital improvement plan with .identified funding sources. Staff met with the City Attorney and Development Services Director to review the San Diego Specific Plan. Several questions were raised by staff of these respective departments dealing with enforcement of a window maintenance standard and the extent and cost of any abatement activities for vacant building citations. Questions were also raised about the number ofi actual buildings that might be impacted by an ordinance adopting: such a specific plan. EDCD staff conducted a survey of buildings in high profile business areas from 24~' street to Truxtun and from F Street to Q Street to .identify vacant boarded `up buildings and other vacant buildings with exposed or broken windows, windows painted white, papered or tarp covered. Staff also prepared a general description of the overall condition of these buildings. The number of buildings. meeting #hese criteria is a relatively small amount (24) of the total buildings in the downtown. To enact a specificplan for the entire central business district does not seem to be the appropriate action given the few buildings of serious concern. Staff has met with the I(em Arts Foundation director to brainstorm a possible "Window Dressing" ,pilot :program to spruce up the appearance of the ground floor windows of vacant buildings. The program would require the voluntary cooperation ofi the building owners and focus on buildings located on Chester Avenue. Five buildings on Chester Avenue-have been identified as potential window dressing opportunities. The Kem Arts Council will seek a $10,000 grant from PG&E from. their competitive special economic development grant program. and request $10,000 in :matching funds from the Bakersfield RDA to engage artists,. both adults and children to create artistic window displays. The displays will be placed. in storefront windows of selected vacant buildings located on Chester Avenue for public viewing. The.Kem Arts Council wN contact the selected building owners, obtain written entry and window display permission and maintainthe display in good condition.. The artwork will be purchased from the artists :for the displays. and a liability release will be provided to he building .owners. The display may change according to seasons. Displays would be removed 'by the Arts Council upon private lease up of the building. An example of the idea can already be viewed at the vacant JC Penny. building. Both. EDCD and the Kern Arts Council have :been successful in ob#aining grants from PG&E for economic development purposes and believe this program would be competitive. With regards to infrastructure conditions and needs for downtown, staff will. conduct an in depth needs analysis and determine potential .grant funds and other resources that might be eligible funding sources. Several years ago,. a parking analysis was conducted that indicated adequate parking existed in Downtown to serve the current retail and commercial markets.. The City parking structure still has .considerable vacancy. In addition o parking,.: alley deteriorated conditions, drainage problems and sidewalk cracking and :raising, aging and abandoned light fixtures, the downtown is also in need of a good "power wash" cleaning: of sidewalks and alleys along Chester Avenue.. A Downtown PBID is still under-consideration and if formed would provide many of these additional maintenance services. Staff will. report back in 90 days with the results of the infrastructure analysis and recommendations. i'~ B A K E R~ F I E L D :Economic and Community. Development Department MEMORANDUM July 11, .2007 TO: City Council Legislative. and Litigation Committee ~~ J FROM: Donna :Kunz, Economic Development Directo SUBJECT: Proposed Amendment to Bakersfield Municipal Code Chapter 15.72 Historical Preservation -Inclusion of language to add "Areas of Historic Interest". The Historic Preservation Commission has developed new anguage to add "Areas of Historic Interest" into existing BMC Chapter 15.72.. Staff'has provided a copy of the entire chapter and highlighted the proposed language additions below. The purpose of the new language is to encourage the recognition. of "areas of historic interest" without the regulations associated with a designated cultural resource ora designated historic district. The Areas of Historic interest would be formed to bring attention to the many locations in Bakersfield that have historic qualities and value. Areas of Historic Interest would permi# citizens to recognize their historic neighbofioods or structures.. Requests would be submitted to the Historic Preservation Commission for review and designation. City Council approval is not :proposed as part of this designation. The'Economic and Community Development Department will also implement a recognition program utilizing signage and: by updating walking tours brochures that depict these Areas of Historic lnterest. Staff is also developing an architectural design manual to provide property owners, builder/developers, and persons interested in ..historical preservation based on good design plans to assist .them in their historic preservation efforts. CHAPTER 15.72 HISTORICAL PRESERVATION 15.72.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare by providing for the identification, protection, enhancement, perpetuation, and use of improvements, buildings, structures, signs, objects, features, sites, places, and areas within Bakersfield that reflect special elements of the city's architectural, artistic, cultural, engineering, aesthetic, historical, political, social and other heritage for the following reasons: A. To safeguard the city's heritage as embodied and reflected in such resources; B. To encourage public knowledge, understanding, and appreciation of the city's past; C. To foster civic and neighborhood pride and a sense of identity based on the recognition and use of cultural resources; D. To promote the enjoyment and use of cultural resources appropriate for the education and recreation of the people of the city; E. To preserve diverse and harmonious architectural styles and design preferences of periods of the city's history and to encourage complementary contemporary design and construction; F. To protect and enhance the city's attraction to tourists and visitors (thereby stimulating business and industry); G. To identify as early as possible conflicts between the preservation of cultural resources and alternative land uses; H. To integrate the preservation of cultural resources and the extraction of relevant data from such resources into public and private land management and development processes; I. To conserve valuable material and energy resources by ongoing use and maintenance of the existing built environment. (Ord. 3338 § 1 (part), 1991) 15.72.020 Definitions. When used in this chapter, the following words shall have the meanings specified in this section, unless a different meaning clearly appears from the context: A. "Alteration" means any change or modification, through public or private action, of any designated cultural resource or property within a designated historic district which requires a permit from the city. B. "Area of historic interest" means geographic areas, places, structures, buildings, improvements, sites or objects within the city which have distinctive character or special historic, aesthetic, architectural, cultural interest or value. Area of historic interest can also mean a single location such as a place, structure, building, improvement, site or object within the city, which has distinctive character or special historic, aesthetic, architectural, cultural interest or value. C. "Designated area of historic interest" is an area of historic interest as defined above that has been designated by the Commission. D. "Bakersfield Register of Historic Places" means the official city list of designated cultural resources, historic districts, and areas of historic interest. E. "Commission" means the Bakersfield Historic Preservation Commission. F. "Cultural resource" means on site improvements, buildings, structures, signs, features (including significant trees or other landscaping), places, place names, interior architecture features, landmark sites, historic sites, areas (including significant trees or other landscaping located thereon) or other objects of scientific, archaeological, aesthetic, educational, cultural, architectural, or historical significance to the citizens of the city. G. "Designated cultural resource" means a cultural resource that has been approved by the commission and designated by the city council. H. "Exterior architectural feature" means an architectural element embodying style, design, general arrangement and components of all of the outer surfaces of an improvement, building or structure, including but not limited to the kind, color and texture of the building materials and the type and style of all windows, doors, lights, signs and other fixtures appurtenant to such improvement, building or structure. I. "Historic district" means any geographically definable urban or rural, small or large area containing buildings, structures, sites and objects linked historically through location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, and/or association. The significance of a district is the product of the sense of time and place in history that individual components collectively convey. This significance may relate to developments during one period or through several periods in history. J. "Designated historic district" means a historic district, as defined above, that has been approved by the commission and designated by the city council. K. "Historic site" means any parcel or portion of real property which has special character or special historical, cultural, archaeological, architectural, community or aesthetic value. L. "Landmark site" means any site or improvement, manmade or natural, which has special historical, cultural, architectural, archaeological, community, or aesthetic character, interest, or value as part of the development, heritage or history of the city, the State of California, or the nation. M. "National Register of Historic Places" means a national list of districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects of local, state or national importance that are significant for their historical, architectural, archaeological or cultural values. Properties less than fifty years old ordinarily are not eligible for the Register unless they are of exceptional importance. The Register is administered by the Keeper of the National Register, U.S. Department of the Interior, and is the nation's official list of cultural resources worthy of preservation. N. "Object" means a material thing or functional, aesthetic, cultural, symbolic, or scientific value, usually by design or nature movable. O. "Preservation" means the act or process of applying measures to sustain the existing form, integrity, and material of a building or structure, and the existing form and/or vegetative cover of a site. It may include initial stabilization work, where necessary, as well as ongoing maintenance. P. "Preservation Plan" means a list of the proposed restrictions, height and area regulations, minimum dwelling size, floor area, sign regulations, parking regulations, and any other proposed modification to existing development standards appropriate to the proposed historic district. Version date 7/9/07 - 2 - Q. "Property owner" or "owner of property" or "owners of property" means the person or persons shown as the record owner(s), as determined by a title search, of the property proposed to be designated as a cultural resource. As to property to be included in a historic district and as to owners of property to be notified of any hearing as to property other than their own, "property owners" means owners as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll of the County of Kern. R. "Protection" means the act or process of applying measures designated to affect the physical condition of a property by protecting or guarding it from deterioration, loss or attack, or to cover or shield the property from danger or injury. In the case of buildings and structures, such treatment is generally of a temporary nature and anticipates future historic preservation treatment; in the case of archaeological and paleontological sites, the protective measure may be temporary or permanent. S. "Restoration" means the act or process of accurately returning the form and details of a property and its setting as it appeared at a particular period of time, or the removal of later work or the replacement of missing earlier work. T. "Stabilization" means the act or process of applying measures designed to reestablish a weather resistant enclosure and the structural stability of an unsafe or deteriorated property while maintaining the essential form as it exists at present. U. "State Office of Historic Preservation" means a division of the State Department of Parks and Recreation which serves as the staff for the State Historic Preservation Officer who is the official designated and appointed by the Governor to administer the historic preservation program in California. (Ord. 3338 § 1 (part), 1991) 15.72.030 Historic preservation commission-- Established--Membership. A. There is established in the city a historic preservation commission consisting of five unpaid members. B. All members shall be residents of the City of Bakersfield at appointment and may continue to be members only so long as they continue to be residents of the city. C. Not withstanding subsection A of this section, all terms shall commence on April 1St and shall expire on March 30th and shall be for three years. Members shall continue to serve until the City Council appoints his or her successor. D. The commission shall elect from among its members a chairperson and vice- chairperson to serve as such for a one year term. The chairperson shall preside at all meetings of the commission, and shall appoint each committee and perform the duties necessary or incidental to the office. The vice-chairperson of the commission, in the absence of the chairperson or in the case of inability of the chairperson to act, shall perform the duties of the chairperson. E. The city manager or his designee, shall serve as administrative staff to the commission. The economic development director shall assign a representative to serve as secretary to the commission. The secretary shall keep minutes of each meeting, record the official actions taken, record the vote on all official actions, certify each official act and resolution of the commission, maintain records of operations, and perform such other duties as the commission assigns. F. The commission shall review and adopt its own operating rules and bylaws, thereafter having the power and authority to perform all of the duties hereinafter enumerated and provided. Version date 7/9/07 - 3 - G. In the event of a vacancy occurring during the term of a member of the commission, the council shall appoint a new member to fill the unexpired term in accordance with the provisions of subsection A. of this section. (Ord. 4246 § 1, 2005: Ord. 3338 § 1 (part), 1991) 15.72.040 Historic preservation commission-- Powers and duties. The commission shall have the following powers and duties: A. Establish criteria and conduct or cause to be conducted a comprehensive survey of properties within the boundaries of the city, and publicize and periodically update survey results. B. Adopt specific guidelines for the designation of cultural resources, including landmarks, landmark sites, and historic districts. C. Maintain a local register of designated cultural resources, designated historic districts and designated areas of historic interest. D. Review and correspond with the city council and city departments as to matters as they relate to the cultural resources of the community. E. Assist in recommending prescriptive standards to be used by the council in reviewing applications for permits to alter, remove, preserve, protect, reconstruct, rehabilitate, restore or stabilize any designated cultural resource or historic district. F. Recommend to the city council the purchase of fee or less-than-fee interests in property for purposes of cultural resource preservation and designation. G. Investigate and report to the city council on the use of various federal, state, local, or private funding sources and mechanisms available to promote cultural resource preservation in the city. H. Preserve, restore, maintain, and operate designated cultural resources and historic properties owned or controlled by the city. I. Recommend for approval or disapproval, in whole or in part, applications for cultural resource or historic district designation and designated areas of historic interest pursuant to procedures set forth in this chapter. J. Review and comment on applications for land use decisions as such applications may be referred to the commission by the planning commission, the board of zoning adjustment or the city council. Comments and recommendations shall be forwarded to the referring body. K. Cooperate with local, county, state and federal governments in the pursuit of the objectives of historic preservation. L. Provide information, upon the request of the property owner, on the restoration, alteration, decoration, landscaping or maintenance of any cultural resource or property within a historic district and an area of historic interest. M. Participate in, promote, and conduct public information, educational, and interpretive programs pertaining to cultural resources, historic districts and area of historic interest. N. Perform any other functions that may be designated by the city council. O. Meet at irregular intervals as determined by the city manager or his or her designee. All meetings shall be noticed and open to the public. P. Quorum. Three members of the commission shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. Version date 7/9/07 - 4 - Q. Identify as early as possible conflicts between the preservation of cultural resources and alternative land uses and make recommendations to the appropriate legislative body. R. Establish a procedure for the review of and comment on historic preservation certification applications for federal tax incentives for both designated cultural resources and designated historic districts. (Ord. 4246 § 1, 2005: Ord. 3338 § 1 (part), 1991) 15.72.050 Cultural resource, historic district, and area of historic interest designation--Criteria. Any improvement, building, structure, sign, feature, site, place, or object may be designated as a cultural resource and any grouping of such may be designated as a historic district or an area of historic interest if it meets one or more of the following criteria: A. It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the city's or a community's or neighborhood's historical, archaeological, cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, or architectural development; or B. It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history; or C. It embodies distinctive characteristics of style, type, period, or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; or D. It is representative of the notable work of a builder, designer, architect, engineer, landscape architect, interior designer, artist or craftsman; or E. Its unique location or singular physical characteristic(s) represents an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the city; or F. It is an archaeological or paleontological site which has the potential of yielding information of scientific value. (Ord. 3338 § 1 (part), 1991) 15.72.060 Cultural resource designation--Initiation. A. The city council or the property owner of the proposed cultural resource may initiate a request for the designation of a cultural resource. B. All applications for designation of a cultural resource shall include: 1. A legal description or address of the proposed cultural resource, and the name and address of the property owner. 2. Sketches, photographs, or drawings. 3. Statement of condition of the structure. 4. Explanation of any known threats to the cultural resource. 5. Other information requested by the city staff. 6. If the request is initiated by the city council, the city shall, in its application, declare its intention to purchase the cultural resource. C. At time of application, the applicant shall pay a fee not to exceed the cost of processing such application as required by Section 3.70.040 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code. No application shall be deemed complete until the prescribed fee has been received by the city. (Ord. 3338 § 1 (part), 1991) Version date 7/9/07 - 5 - 15.72.070 Historic district designation-- Initiation. A. The city council or the owners of property within a proposed historic district in the city of Bakersfield may initiate a request for the designation of that area as a historic district. B. All applications for designation of a historic district shall be accompanied by a petition, on forms provided by the city, setting forth the request for designation and the preservation plan, and signed by the owners of no fewer than two-thirds of the parcels within the proposed district. City staff shall verify the signatures. An application initiated by the city council shall require two-thirds approval of the council. C. All applications for designation of a historic district shall include: 1. A legal description of the boundaries of the proposed district, the names and addresses of all owners of property within the proposed district, and parcel assessor's numbers of properties within such proposed district. 2. A description of the proposed historic district, including special aesthetic, cultural, architectural, or engineering interest or value of a historical nature. 3. Sketches, photographs or drawings of structures within the proposed district. 4. A statement of the condition of the structures and improvements within the district. 5. An explanation of any known threats to any cultural resource within the district. 6. Other information requested by city staff. 7. A proposal for financing of costs of improvements, if any, including, but not limited to, maintenance or assessment districts. D. At time of application, the applicant shall pay a fee not to exceed the cost of processing such application as required by Section 3.70.040 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code. No application shall be deemed complete until the prescribed fee has been received by the city. (Ord. 3338 § 1 (part), 1991) 15.72.80 Area of historic interest designation-- Initiation. A. The historic preservation commission, the city council or the owners of the property within the city of Bakersfield may initiate a request for the designation of an area of historic interest. B. All applications for designation of an area of historic interest shall include: 1. A petition, on forms provided by the city, setting forth the request or an area of historic interest designation signed by the owners of no fewer than two-thirds of the parcels within the proposed Area of Historic Interest. City staff shall verify the signatures. An application initiated by the commission shall require two-thirds approval of the commission. 2. A description of the boundaries of the proposed area of historic interest. 3. A description of the proposed area of historic interest, including special aesthetic, cultural, architectural, or engineering interest or value of a historical nature. 4. Sketches, photographs or drawings of structures within the proposed area. 5. A statement of the condition of the area. 6. Other information requested by city staff. Version date 7/9/07 - 6 - 15.72.090 Hearing procedure for designation of cultural resources, historic districts, and area of historic interest. A. Prior to recommendation of the designation of any cultural resource or historic district, the commission shall hold a public hearing. Notice of such hearing shall be given not less than ten days prior to the date of the hearing, and shall state the date, time, and place of the hearing, the location of the property to be designated, and the nature of the request, in the following manner: 1. By publishing once in a newspaper of general circulation in the city; 2. No action shall be taken by the commission to recommend designation of a proposed cultural resource or a historic district except following a noticed public hearing. 3. In the case of the designation of a historic district, the following shall also be required: mailing a notice to the applicant, to each owner of property proposed to be included within a historic district. B. Prior to recommendation of the designation of any area of historic interest, the commission shall hold a public hearing. Notice of such hearing shall be given not less than ten days prior to the date of the hearing, and shall state the date, time, and place of the hearing, the location of the area of historic interest, and the nature of the request, in the following manner: 1. By publishing once in a newspaper of general circulation in the city; 2. No action shall be taken by the commission to designate an area of historic interest except following a noticed public hearing. 3. In the case of the designation of an area of historic interest, the following shall also be required: mailing a notice to the applicant and to each owner of property proposed to be included within an area of historic interest. 15.72.100 Permit moratorium after notice to owner. A. Upon notification to the property owner that the commission has scheduled a hearing to determine if a property should be designated as a cultural resource or be included within a historic district, no person or entity shall undertake any alteration, construction, grading, demolition or removal of such building, structure, site, feature, object or district, and no permit to undertake such work shall be approved by any city official, while proceedings are pending on such designations; provided, however, that if, after a maximum of sixty days from the date of initial notice of such hearing, final action by the council on such designation has not been completed, any such permit application shall be approved provided such permit application complies with all other legal requirements for approval. The commission shall ensure that appropriate city officials are notified of the commission's intent to consider designation of a property and the moratorium. B. The provisions of this section shall not apply to the construction, grading, alteration, demolition or removal of any structure or other feature, where a permit for the performance of such work was issued prior to the date of notice of the public hearing to consider the designation of the cultural resource or historic district, and where such permit has not expired or been cancelled or revoked. Nor shall it apply to structures damaged in any flood, fire, earthquake or other disaster or otherwise in such condition Version date 7/9/07 - 7 - that the city's building director determines the structure or feature must be demolished in the interests of public safety. C. No moratorium shall be attached to an area of historic interest. (Ord. 3338 § 1 (part), 1991) 15.72.110 Commission action for a cultural resource, historic district, and area of historic interest desgination. A. The commission shall review the staff reports, and consider the designation matter at a regular, adjourned or special meeting and shall either approve and recommend the designation as proposed or as altered, or shall recommend disapproval of it. A property shall be recommended for designation as a cultural resource or for inclusion in a historic district only upon the affirmative roll call vote of a majority of the authorized membership of the commission and approval by the city council. The commission shall make findings in support of any decision to recommend designation of property as a cultural resource or for inclusion in a historic district. Such findings shall state that the property meets the designation criteria specified in Section 15.72.060 of this chapter. Recommendations for designation of historic districts may include those items in the proposed preservation plan. (Ord. 3338 § 1 (part), 1991) B. An area shall be recommended for designation as an area of historic interest only upon the affirmative roll call vote of a majority of the authorized membership of the commission. No approval by the city council is required. The commission shall make findings in support of any decision to recommend designation of an area of historic interest. Such findings shall state that the area meets the designation criteria specified in Section 15.72.050 of this chapter. 15.72.120 Council action. A. The council shall, not less than thirty days after the commission's recommendation, hold a noticed public hearing for the proposed designation of property as a historic district. Notice shall be published and mailed as required in Section 15.72.090. B. The council shall, not less than thirty days after the commission's recommendation, approve or disapprove, in accordance with subsection C of this section, the designation of property as a cultural resource. None of the notice provisions of subsection A of this section shall apply to council action with respect to approval or disapproval of property as a cultural resource. C. The council shall approve or disapprove by resolution, in accordance with its normal procedure, any designation of property as a cultural resource or historic district. The action of the council shall be final. Upon such designation, the property shall be added to the Bakersfield Register of Historic Places. (Ord. 3355 § 2, 1991: Ord. 3338 § 1 (part), 1991) D. Council shall take no action for an area of historic interest. 15.72.130 Notice of designation. Version date 7/9/07 - 8 - A. Within fifteen days after any action of the city council designating a cultural resource or a historic district, notice of such designation shall be recorded with the county recorder on each specific property. (Ord. 3338 § 1 (part), 1991) B. No notice of designation of an area of interest shall be recorded with the county recorder. 15.72.140 Amendment or rescission of designation. The city council may amend or rescind any designation of a cultural resource, historic district, in the same manner as is prescribed for the original designation. The historic preservation commission may amend or rescind any designation of an area of historic interest, in the same manner as is prescribed for the original designation. Such amendment or rescission shall be recorded with the county recorder on each specific property. (Ord. 3338 § 1 (part), 1991) 15.72.150 Nomination for State or National Register of Historic Places. The city council may nominate a site for inclusion on the State or National Register of Historic Places in the same manner as and following the procedure for the designation of cultural resources. (Ord. 3338 § 1 (part), 1991) 15.72.160 Alteration, demolition or relocation of a designated cultural resource or property within a historic district--Hearing required-- Appeal. A. Except as provided for in subsection B, no person shall carry out or cause to be carried out, nor shall any permit be issued for, any alteration, demolition, or relocation of a designated cultural resource or of property within a historic district without first obtaining the approval of the commission or, on appeal thereto, of the city council. Application for such approval shall be made to the commission on forms provided by the city. B. Nothing in this section shall be construed to require approval of the commission for alterations, even if a permit is required, which are listed below and which will not adversely affect the architectural features of the structure, where those features are specified in the designation and which will not affect the special character or special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or the relationship and congruity between the subject structure or feature and its neighboring structures and surroundings, where specified in the designation. Plumbing pipe line gas line sewer line waterline water heater septic tank septic abandon interceptor water softener Reroof/Patio Reroof patio Pool pool and spa pool spa perm spa port Electrical temp power Version date 7/9/07 - 9 - shower/tub perm power solar service site sewer outlet/switch site storm motors Mechanical site electrical air conditioner evap cooler wall heater fireplace insert kitchen hood C. Upon submittal of a complete application for commission approval of alteration, demolition or removal of a designated cultural resource or property within a historic district, the commission shall hold a public hearing and render a decision on the application within forty-five days. Failure to hold such a hearing and render a decision within such forty-five-day period shall be deemed approval of the application. Notice shall be sent not less than ten days prior to the hearing, giving the date, time and place of such hearing, the location of the property, and the nature of the request, by mailing the notice to the applicant, if such property is a cultural resource, and to all owners of property within the historic district, if such property is within such a district. Additionally, such notice shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the city at least ten days prior to the hearing. D. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the ordinary maintenance or repair of any exterior architectural feature in or on any property covered by this section that does not require a permit from the city. E. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the building director from issuing a building permit if he determines that demolition, removal or alteration of a designated cultural resource or of property within a historic district is immediately necessary in the interest of the public health, safety, or welfare. F. At the time of submittal of the application, the applicant shall provide whatever detailed information (plans, drawings, agreements, etc.) is required or necessary to describe the intended work and any additional information necessary for the commission to act on the matter, as determined by staff. Applications without such information shall be deemed incomplete for purposes of subsection C of this section. G. The commission shall have the authority to approve, deny, or approve subject to conditions, any application for the alteration, removal or demolition of a designated cultural resource or property within a historic district. If the commission determines that a permit should not be issued, the commission shall issue its findings in writing, documenting the specific reasons for denial. The decision of the commission and the findings supporting that decision shall be mailed to the applicant within five days of the decision. Anew application for the same work affecting the same property may be submitted after the disapproval only if a change in circumstances of the owner or the property has occurred. H. The decision of the commission to approve, deny, or approve with conditions any application as set forth in this chapter is appealable to the city council. Such appeal shall be made in writing and delivered to the office of the city clerk not later than ten Version date 7/9/07 - 10 - calendar days from the date of mailing of notice of the commission's decision. At the time of filing, the applicant shall pay a fee not to exceed the cost of processing such appeal as required by Section 3.70.040 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code. No application for appeal shall be deemed complete until the prescribed fee has been received by the city. Such appeal shall specify the reasons for the appeal from the decision of the commission. Upon the filing of the appeal, the clerk shall set the matter for public hearing within thirty days or as soon thereafter as is practicable and shall give written notice to the appellant of the time and date set for the hearing. Upon the hearing of such appeal, the city council may by resolution affirm or modify or reverse the determination of the commission. (4031 (part), 2001: Ord. 3872 § 2, 1998; Ord. 3338 § 1 (part), 1991) 15.72.170 Alteration of a designated cultural resource or of property within a historic district--Criteria for approval. An application for the alteration of a designated cultural resource or of property within a historic district shall not be approved unless the following conditions are found to exist: The proposed work will not adversely affect the architectural features of the structure, where specified in the designation; nor will the proposed work adversely affect the special character or special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or the relationship and congruity between the subject structure or feature and its neighboring structures and surroundings, where specified in the designation. The proposed work shall also conform to such further standards as may be embodied in the designation of the historic district by resolution. (Ord. 3338 § 1 (part), 1991) 15.72.180 Demolition or relocation of a designated cultural resource or property within a historic district-- Criteria for approval. A. An application for the demolition or relocation of a designated cultural resource or of property within a historic district shall not be approved unless one or more of the following conditions exist: 1. The structure/site is a hazard to public health or safety and repairs or stabilization are not financially prudent; or 2. The site is required for a public use which will be of more benefit to the public than its use as a cultural resource or property within the historic district and there is no practical alternative location for the public use; or 3. Denial of the proposed application will result in unreasonable economic hardship to the owner, as set forth in Section 15.72.190; it is not feasible to preserve or restore the designated cultural resource or property within the historic district; and the property owner will be denied the reasonable beneficial use of the property if the application is denied; or 4. With respect to an application for the relocation of a designated cultural resource or property within the historic district, if the commission finds that one or more of the above conditions exist and that the relocation will not destroy the historic, cultural or architectural values of the designated cultural resource or property within the historic district, and the relocation is part of a definitive series of Version date 7/9/07 - 11 - actions which will assure the preservation of the designated cultural resource or property within the historic district, such application shall be approved. B. A permit for demolition of a designated cultural resource or property within the historic district shall not be approved unless the building or structure cannot reasonably be moved or relocated. C. Applicants proposing the demolition or re-location of a designated cultural resource or property within the historic district shall have the burden of proving that the demolition or relocation is necessary, and that an economic hardship exists, if any is claimed, and shall present substantial evidence as to the need for such action. (Ord. 3338 § 1 (part), 1991) 15.72.185 Alteration, construction or relocation of a structure within an area of historic interest. A. Persons who shall carry out or cause to be carried out, any alteration, construction, or relocation of a structure within an area of historic interest are encouraged to do so with respect to the overall look and feel of the an area of historic interest. The Historic Preservation Commission is and can be a resource for people undertaking these types of projects. People wishing to utilize the knowledge and resources of the Historic Preservation Commission, should provide to the commission through city staff whatever detailed information (plans, drawings, agreements, etc.) are required or necessary to describe the intended work and any additional information necessary for the commission to assist in the project. B. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the maintenance or repair of any exterior architectural feature in or on any property located in an area of historic interest. However the goal of having the designation of an area of historic interest is to help preserve these areas for the future. The proposed work should not adversely affect the architectural features of the structure, where specified in the designation; nor should the proposed work adversely affect the special character or special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or the relationship and congruity between the subject structure or feature and its neighboring structures and surroundings. 15.72.190 Proof of unreasonable economic hardship. In cases in which an applicant makes a claim of unreasonable economic hardship, the applicant shall provide the following information which shall include but is not limited to, ownership or operation of the property, mortgage or financing information, market value, structural integrity, rehabilitation costs, assessed value, real estate taxes, debt service, and potential adaptive re-use, and: A. For income-producing property: 1. Annual gross income from the property for the previous two years; 2. Itemized operating and maintenance expenses for the previous two years; 3. Annual cash flow, if any, for the previous two years. B. For low-income owners: a statement of present household income and the number of persons in the household. Low-income households shall be defined as meeting the income level established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Version date 7/9/07 - 12 - C. The staff of the commission may require that an applicant furnish additional information which would assist the commission in making a determination as to whether or not the property does yield or may yield a reasonable return to the owner(s), e.g., pro-forma financial analysis. In the event that any of the required information is not reasonably available to the applicant and cannot be obtained by the applicant, the applicant shall file with his affidavit a statement of the information which cannot be obtained and shall describe the reasons why such information cannot be obtained. (Ord. 3338 § 1 (part), 1991) 15.72.200 Enforcement. Methods of Enforcement. In addition to the regulations of this chapter, other chapters of the code and other provisions of law which govern the approval or disapproval of applications for permits or licenses covered by this chapter, the building official shall have the authority to implement the enforcement thereof by any of the following means: A. Serving notice requiring the removal of any violations of this chapter upon the owner, agent, occupant or tenant of the improvement, building, structure or land; B. Calling upon the city attorney to institute any necessary legal proceedings to enforce the provisions of this chapter, and city attorney is authorized to institute any actions to that end; C. Calling upon the chief of police and authorized agents to assist in the enforcement of this chapter. In addition to any of the foregoing remedies, the city attorney may maintain an action for injunctive relief to restrain or enjoin or to cause the correction or removal of any violation of this chapter, or for an injunction in appropriate cases. (Ord. 3338 § 1 (part), 1991) Version date 7/9/07 - 13 - B A K E R S F I E L D CITY MANAGER'S. OFFICE MEMORANDUM July 12, 2007 TO: Legislative and Litigation Committee FROM: ~n a S y, Public Information Officer SUBJECT: League of California Cities - 2007 Annual Conference 1) Designation of Voting Delegate and Alternate 2) Annual Conference Resolutions 1) Designation of Voting Delegate and Alternate Each year the League of California Cities holds an annual conference for which cities are asked to select a Voting Delegate and up to two Alternates. (The .ability to appoint up to two alternates is the result of approval last year of a League by-laws amendment that increased the number of voting delegate alternates from one to two.) .Typically; the Voting Delegate and Alternate(s) are elected leaders or administrative staff appointed by the City Council after recommendation by the Legislative and Litigation Committee: This year the League Annual Conference is scheduled for September 5 - 8,~ 2007 in Sacramento. As resolutions setting League policy direction. for the upcoming. year are considered during the General Assembly at the Annual Business Meeting, it is important for the City to have. a Delegate and/or Alternate(s) present. The League's Concluding General Session/General Assembly and Annual Business Meeting will be on Saturday morning, September 8th. Staff recommends appointing a City Councilmember .attending the conference as the voting delegate and Rhonda Smiley as the. alternate, with Pamela McCarthy as the second alternate. If there are no councilmembers who- will be attending the conference, staff recommends appointing Rhonda Smiley as the voting delegate and Pamela McCarthy as the alternate. The recommendations from .the Legislative and Litigation Commit{ee will be placed on the City Council's August 15, 2007 agenda for approval and will be forwarded to the League for its records after Council determination: Legislative and Litigation Committee Re: League of California Cities Annual Conference July 12, 2007 Page 2 2) Annual Conference Resolutions Based on recent staff communication with League. oft'tcials, the proposed resolutions to be voted on at the 2007 Annual Conference wilt not be released until late July. Traditionally, the Legislative and Litigation Committee reviews, the resolutions during August, and their recommendations are placed on the next City Council agenda,. prior to the Conference. The Council then determines the City's positions and provides direction to the City's Voting Delegate to vote accordingly., As the City's representative,, the. Voting Delegate has the authority to forward the .Council's directives if proposed .resolutions change during the course of the Annual Conference. Staff has not received any specific details on the topics or content of the. proposed resolutions, but based on League publications and other communications during the past few months, we are not aware of any impending. issues that will be of a significant or controversial nature. Since the next meeting for the Legislative and Litigation Committee meeting is not scheduled until September 4, 2007, staff proposes that the City. Manager and .City Attorney review the proposed resolutions and take appropriate action, as'follows: a. If the resolutions are based on issues that will not have significant fiscal or negative impact to the City, staff proposes to. forward them..directly to the City Council, including s#afl's recommendation for each of the resolutions; without review by the Legislation and Litigation Committee. b. If any or all of the resolutions include substantive .issues. that the Legislation and Litigation Committee should address in orderto determine recommendations priorto forwarding to the Council for action, a meeting of the Committee will be called on a date to be selected by the Committee, prior to the City Council meeting scheduled for August 15, 2007. Staff requests that the Legislative and Litigation Committee approve this proposal as, .under either alternative, the City Council will ultimately be able to take:action on the resolutions and give appropriate direction to the Voting Delegate'prior to the Annuat Conference. cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council Alan Tandy, City Manager Virginia Gennaro, City Attorney Pamela McCarthy, City Clerk )40p K STREET Sactcnntr,:. ro, CA 95814 rs r (91 G) 658-8200 tx: (916) 658-8240 LEAGUE UE CAL1t~ORN1A "`~~~,.... CITI ES Please review this memo carefully. New procedures were adopted in 2006 regarding designation of voting delegates and aitemates and voting at the Mnusl Conference. June 8, 2007 TO: Mayors, City Managers and City Clerks RE: DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATES AND ALTERNATES League of California Cities Annual Conference -September 5-8, Sacramento The League's 2007 Annual Conference is scheduled for September 5-8 in Sacramento. An important part of the Annual Conference is the Annual Business Meeting, scheduled for Saturday morning, September 8, at the Hyatt Hotel in Sacramento. At this meeting, the League membership considers and takes action on resolutions that establish League policy. In order to vote at the Annual Business Meeting, your city council must designate a voting delegate. In the event that the designated voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity, your city may appoint up to two alternate voting delegates. The ability to appoint up to two alternates is the result of approval last year of a League bylaws amendment that increased the number of voting delegate alternates from one to two. Please complete the attached Voting Delegate form and return it to the League's office no later than August 13, so that voting delegate/alternates records may be established prior to the conference. At the conference, voting delegate forms may be returned to the Voting Delegate Desk located in the conference registration area. Please note the following procedures that are intended to ensure the integrity of the voting process at the Annual Business Meeting. Action by Council Required. Consistent with League bylaws, a city's voting delegate and up to two alternates must be designated by the city council. When completing the attached Voting Delegate form, please attach either a copy of the council resolution that reflects the council action taken, or have your city clerk or mayor sign the form affirming that the names provided are those selected by the city council. Please note that designating the voting delegate and alternates must be done by city council action and cannot be accomplished by individual action of the mayor or city manager alone. • Conference Registration Required. The voting delegate and alternates must be registered to attend the conference. At least one must be present at the Business Meeting and in possession of voting card in order to cast a vote. Voting delegates and alternates •over- are requested to pick up their conference badges before signing in and picking up the voting delegate card at the Voting Delegates Desk. This will enable them to receive the special stamps on their name badges that will admit them into the voting area during the Business Meeting. Transferring Voting Card to Non-Designated Individuals Not Allowed. The voting card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but only between the voting delegate and alternates. If the voting delegate and alternates find themselves unable to attend the Business Meeting, they may not transfer the voting card to another city official. • New Seating Protocol during General Assembly. At the Business Meeting, individuals with the voting card will sit in a separate area. Admission to this area will be limited to those individuals with a special stamp on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate or alternate. If the voting delegate and alternates wish to sit together, they should be sure to sign in at the Voting Delegate desk and obtain the special stamps on their badges. The Voting Delegate desk in the conference registration area will be open September 5, 6 and 7, and prior to the Business Meeting on September 8. The conference registration area will open at 12:00 p.m., on September 5, at the Sacramento Convention Center. The Voting Delegate desk will also be open at the Business Meeting, but not during a roll call vote, should one be undertaken. The voting procedures that will be used at the conference are attached to this memo. Please share it and this memo with your council and especially with the individuals your council designates as your city's voting delegate and alternates. Once again, thank you for completing the voting delegate and alternate form and returning it to the League office by August 13, 2007. If you have questions, please call Mary McCullough at (916) 658-8247. Attachments: • 2007 Annual Conference Voting Procedures • Voting Delegate/Alternate Form LEAGUE 1400 K Street, Suite 400 • Sacramento, California 95814 Phone: 916.658.8200 Fax: 916.658.8240 OE CALL FORN lA www.cacities.org CITIES Annual Conference Voting Procedures 2007 Annual Conference 1. One City One Vote. Each member city has a right to cast one vote on matters pertaining to League policy. 2. Designating a City Voting Representative. Prior to the Annual Conference, each city council may designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates; these individuals are identified on the Voting Delegate Form provided to the League Credentials Committee. 3. Registering with the Credentials Committee. The voting delegate, or alternates, may pick up the city's voting card at the Voting Delegate Desk in the conference registration area. We encourage voting delegates and alternates to sign in at the Voting Delegate Desk so that they may receive a special stamp on their name badge and thus be admitted to the voting area at the Business Meeting. 4. Signing Initiated Resolution Petitions. Only those individuals who are voting delegates (or alternates) and who have picked up their city's voting card by providing a signature to the Credentials Committee at the Voting Delegate Desk may sign petitions to initiate a resolution. 5. Voting. To cast the city's vote, a city official must have in his or her possession the city's voting card and be registered with the Credentials Committee. The voting card may be transfen ed freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but may not be transferred to another city official who is not either a voting delegate or alternate. Voting Area at Business Meeting. At the Business Meeting, individuals with the voting card will sit in a separate area. Admission will be limited to those individuals with a special stamp on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate ar alternate. If the city's voting delegate and alternates wish to sit together, all should sign in at the Vating Delegate desk and obtain the special stamps on their badges. 7. Resolving Disputes. Incase of dispute, the Credentials Committee will determine the validity of signatures on petitioned resolutions and the right of a city official to vote at the Business Meeting. ~ LFE AlG U E CITY: CITIES 2007 ANNUAL CONFERENCE VOTING DELEGATE/ALTERNATE FORM Please complete this form and return it to the League office by August 13, 2007. Forms not sent by this deadline may be returned to the Voting Delegate Desk located in the Annual Conference Registration Area. Your city council may designate one voting delegate and up to two alternates. In order to vote at the Annual Business Meeting, voting delegates and alternates must be designated by your city council. Please attach the council resolution as proof of designation. As an alternative, the Mayor or City Clerk may sign this form, affirming that the designation reflects the action taken by the council. Please note: Voting delegates and alternates will be seated in a separate area at the Annual Business Meeting. Admission to this special area will be limited to individuals (voting delegates and alternates) who are identified with a special stamp on their conference badge. If your city's voting delegate and alternates wish to sit together at the Business Meeting, they are all encouraged to sign in at the Voting Desk in order to obtain the identifying stamp that will admit them to the special voting azea. 1. VOTING DELEGATE Name: Title: 2. VOTING DELEGATE -ALTERNATE 3. VOTING DELEGATE -ALTERNATE Name• Name: Title: Title: ATTEST (I affirm that the information provided reflects action by the city council to designate the voting delegate and alternate.) Name: Phone: Title: Date: Please complete and return by August 13 to: League of California Cities ATTN: Mary McCullough FAX: (916) 658-8240 1400 K Street Sacramento, CA 95814 AC2007 V otingDelegateLetter.doc LEGISLATIVE & LITIGATION COMMITTEE ~ / Monday, July 16, 2007 ~~ - ~ ATTENDANCE LIST S~ ~~.:~. NAME ORGANIZATION ~ CONTACT: Phone/e-mail o~ a it ~~1D J ~~~ C.~D 32.1 - 3 ~~-1 ~~~ ~~~~ s r~P~ 3Z~r ~~~~ ~a~25 ~re~,~sv ~~t~ ~-v/'v~ic~n N~~~~\ R;~~l~~~ CA© ~~~~~~2~ 4~let~v~nr~ ~~^~L-s f3~~ 3210 - 36 Sri /~ ~ ~ V 1~ GG~3 -So~ ' G(/~s >~ 302-6 - 3 l `y a ~ , a~'-~,~~~a .3 ~ s - 7 ~ ~ ~ o D - ,t, =~ -, ,; ti~ 1400 K STREET ~, ~,. L E AG U E SACRAMENTO~CA 95814 ~' -~~-- OF CALIFORNIA r rx: (916> X58-8200 _~= C I T I E S Fx: (916) 658-8240 ~~,:_. W W W.CACLTI ES.O RU A SPECIAL REPORT TO THE CITIES OF CALIFORNIA ~~ ~] From the League Board of Directors ~ i`r'`,~'~ "Celebrating Five Years of Success With The League Grassroots Network Program " Dear Colleagues: The passage of Proposition 1 A in 2004 with an 84 percent approval rating represented a milestone for city governments because it stopped the continuing raids by the state on city revenues. This was one of the highest rates of voter approval of any ballot measure in the history of California-a fact many observers attribute to the premium voters place on local public services and the fevered grassroots support that backed the ballot measure. The overwhelming level of grassroots support in passing Proposition 1 A marked a return on a very important investment made by California cities in 2001 to develop a strong and professionally staffed Grassroots Network Program. After five years, this program boasts an impressive track record and is unmatched by few organizations in the nation. The Grassroots Network Program was originally approved overwhelmingly in 2001. The resolution approved stipulated that the League membership would vote on its continuation following an initial five year pilot period. The League board of directors has scheduled that election for September 8, 2007 at the Annual Conference Business Meeting in Sacramento. This packet of information is designed to assist your city in making its decision on this question. Please feel free to contact the League staff, any board member or me if you have any questions. We look forward to discussing this issue with you and, if the membership agrees, continuing the excellence in protecting the cities of California that the Grassroots Network Program has helped us achieve. Sincerely, Maria Alegria, President Mayor, Pinole Heather Fargo, 2"d Vice President Mayor, Sacramento ~~ ~~~ Christopher McKenzie Executive Director ~~...~, Jim Madaffer, 1st Vice President Council Member, San Diego Ron Loveridge, Immediate Past President Mayor, Riverside 1400 K STREET SACRAMENTO. CA 95814 rx: (916) 658-8200 rx: (916) 658-8240 LEAIGUE _~ `~ CITIES W VY\W. CACITIES.ORG Grassroots Network Reauthorization Background In the summer of 2001, the membership of the League held an historic vote to consider amending the League bylaws to approve the establishment of a new program known as the "Grassroots Network," financed in total by a 50% increase in the dues of League member cities. The vote was held by mail ballot, and the support for the proposition was overwhelming: (94%) among the 326 (or 68%) of eligible cities that cast votes by mail ballot. The proposition approved also contained a sunset date, discussed below. 2007 Membership Survey The League engaged APCO Insight, an independent research firm, to conduct a confidential opinion survey to help the League understand members' expectations and attitudes towards the League's legislative and ballot measure advocacy, especially grassroots activities. This is the third in a series of surveys conducted to evaluate the Grassroots Network. A baseline was established in 2001. A survey to measure progress was conducted in 2004. The most recent 2007 survey assesses how members view the contributions of the Grassroots Network before a decision is made about the future of the program at the upcoming Annual Conference. The survey also identifies areas where improvement can propel the program to greater effectiveness. Randomly selected mayors, council members and city managers were asked to complete the 2007 survey. Each participant had the option of completing the questionnaire in hard copy or online. The findings will allow for statistical comparison among various functional, city size and regional categories. City officials not selected for the sample but who wished to participate were given an opportunity to provide input. Responses were received from 467 city officials, a strong 31 % response rate. The consultant received 257 mailed questionnaires and 210 responses were completed online. Some key findings: • City officials are more involved with the League than they were in 2004. • Nine in ten members rate the job the League is doing as excellent or good. • E-mail is the preferred communication vehicle for receiving information on grassroots action. • Seven in ten respondents are familiar with the Grassroots Network. • About three-quarters of respondents say they are familiar with their regional representative. • Compared to five years ago (prior to the Grassroots Network), 84% of respondents feel that their efforts on pending legislation and state budget issues have become more effective. Grassroots Network Program Accomplishments Since its inception the League's Grassroots Network of 15 field staff have provided critical support on legislative issues as well as ballot measures. The following is a partial list of accomplishments of the Grassroots program during this period. • Increased Participation and Effectiveness. Participation by city officials at League events and activities has increased substantially as a result of grassroots activities and staff. This involvement has led to the League membership having increased effectiveness on city priorities at the state and federal levels. League Conferences and regional Division meetings have increased attendance significantly. • Stronger Partnerships. The League's Grassroots Network Program has strengthened partnerships with many other organizations including organized labor, chambers of commerce and the business community, environmental organizations and other community based organizations, increasing the League's credibility and clout on statewide issues. • Credible Threat to Go to Ballot. Greater participation and improved partnerships have supported fundraising activities for the League's political action committee, CITIPAC. This .fundraising effort has strengthened the League's bargaining position and helped establish the organization and its members as "players" on statewide policy issues and ballot measures. • Prevented Cuts in City Funding. The program played a central role in the League's legislative efforts to prevent a state takeaway of local government revenues in the 2002 state budget process. Similar efforts in subsequent years have been successful as well. • Retained Local Land Use Authority. In 2002, 2005, 2006 and 2007 the Grassroots staff organized opposition to help defeat a number of legislative proposals designed to curb local authority on affordable housing development and place into state law severe punitive penalties on local government • Protected the Local Sales Taxes. The program was a key factor in defeating legislation in 2002 to redistribute local sales tax revenues. • Promoted Funding for Affordable Housing. The Grassroots Network staff helped support city efforts to pass Proposition 46 in 2002. This was a statewide bond measure for affordable housing. • Protected Transportation Funds. In 2002, the League Grassroots Network staff also served as a powerful part of the on-the-ground, organizing team for the passage of Proposition 42 on the statewide ballot. This proposition. was the first step taken to protect and dedicate sales tax on motor fuels for transportation programs at both the state and local levels. -3- Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ's) Q: What is the League's Grassroots Network Program? A: It is a program that was approved in 2001 to better focus the League's lobbying efforts on behalf of cities through a statewide, professional field staff. In concert with city officials, grassroots staff utilizes strategic contacts with key legislators on priority city issues, delivers League messages to appropriate media outlets and organize community-based organizations in support of city priorities. Q: Why Did the League Start a Grassroots Program? A: A strong grassroots program is one of three essential elements needed to achieve success in an organization's lobbying effort. This is especially true in California. The grassroots program was started to strengthen the League's lobbying effort, primarily aimed at stopping the state from taking local government revenues to meet state general fund shortfalls. Q: Is the League Grassroots Program Permanent? A: No. When the League first adopted the grassroots program, the conditions of approval required a review of the program after five years and a subsequent vote of the League membership to approve the program permanently. A membership vote on the program is scheduled for the 2007 League Annual Conference in Sacramento. Each year the board of directors reviews the program to determine if it remains successful. Q: Do Other Statewide Associations Have Grassroots Programs? A: While other associations use grassroots strategies in their organization's lobbying efforts, the investment in the League's grassroots program is unique in its scope and effectiveness in California as well as across the nation. Many other associations contact the League to request information on the Grassroots Network. Q: Has the League Grassroots Network Program Been Successful? A: Three surveys of the League's membership have confirmed a very high rate of satisfaction among the membership for the program. Beyond this, the .program was instrumental in the successful passage of Proposition lA in 2004. This measure prevents the state from taking local government revenues; the program has been successful in other ballot measures including one to protect local government transportation revenues (Prop 42), another to pass a housing bond for affordable housing projects (Prop 46) and the program was a key factor in the defeat of a recent ballot measure (Prop 90) that was a serious threat to local government land use authority. In addition, the program has been successful in numerous battles over legislation in the California state legislature. Q: Will A Dues Increase Be Necessary to Extend the Grassroots Network Program? A: No. The program is funded through dues approved in 2001 to pay for the addition of 15 new professional field staff members. No dues increase will be necessary if the program is extended since its funding is now absorbed by the base League dues. -5- RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE RENEWAL OF THE LEAGUE GRASSROOTS NETWORK PROGRAM Source: League Board of Directors Referred to: WHEREAS, until 2004 the cities of California were faced with continual actions by the legislature and the administration to take city revenues and use those revenues to counter deficits in the state general fund; and WHEREAS, this repeated action by the legislature and the administration seriously threatened the ability of local government to deliver essential public services to local communities; and WHEREAS, in 2001 the Board of Directors and membership of the League of California Cities took actions to strengthen the effectiveness of the League and to prevent the year-after-year erosion of local public services; and WHEREAS, he membership of the League overwhelmingly supported the establishment of the League's Grassroots network. program and the accompanying dues increase to hire and support 15 new, professional grassroots staff positions in the organization; and WHEREAS, the Grassroots network program in the League has been a key factor in the League's efforts to secure passage of Proposition 1 A in 2004 that placed an effective constitutional restraint against the state continuing to take local government revenues to help meet state fiscal problems; and WHEREAS, the League grassroots network program has been effective in other statewide ballot measures battles including Proposition 42 in 2002, protecting transportation money for transportation purposes; and Proposition 46 in 2002, enacting astatewide -bond measure for affordable housing; and the most recent defeat in 2006 of Proposition 90 that threatened to squander taxpayer money and negate local land use decision-making authority; and WHEREAS, the League grassroots network program has proven to be an effective tool in support of the League's legislative program; and WHEREAS, the League's grassroots network program is known as one of the preeminent grassroots programs in the country; and WHEREAS, Article XVII, Section 3 (c) of the League bylaws provides. that the membership of the League shall be asked to vote before December 31, 2007 on the continuation of the Grassroots program beyond December 31, 2008; and -7- Third and Final Member Satisfaction Survey Results Show High Ratings for the League and the Grassroots Network Background: In just five yeazs, the Grassroots Network has become an integral part of the League's effort to restore and protect local control for California cities. This innovative program put 15 Regional Representatives on the ground across the state in 2002 to bring the presence and impact of cities to bear on the legislative process and statewide ballot measures. The Regional Network is designed to serve as a liaison strengthening the connection between city officials and the League to accomplish common objectives. The League has a collaborative relationship with city officials working to help them focus their message and ensuring an effective role for city officials in the shaping of public policy affecting cities at the state and national level. Some of the many accomplishments made possible by the Network include the passage of Proposition 1 f1 in 2004 to protect local revenues and the defeat of Proposition 90, a ballot measure that would have seriously eroded land use powers, in 2006. From the outset, city leaders understood the sizable impact the Network would have in executing the League's mission. However, the League also committed to an independent assessment every few years to measure how well the new program served the organization's members. APCO Insight has just conducted the third and final survey of membership satisfaction with the League and the. Network. We had a phenomenal response to the survey and found the results very positive. Results Provide Key Insights into League's Effectiveness: APCO's research method included a mixed mode survey with mailings to 1500 randomly selected League members with a sizable response rate. The results show over the course of the three surveys a steady progress in terms of level of awareness of the Grassroots Regional Network and its impact. This is significant because it reflects the thorough approach the League took to develop and implement the Network. The survey results provide a number of very important and interesting findings. Responders say that the League is accomplishing its mission of advocating on behalf of California cities and protecting city revenues. The percentage of members rating the League's job as excellent has more than doubled since the first survey in 2001. The three surveys also show that our members have become more involved with the League over the yeazs. Two of the most important functions of Regional Representatives serve is forming coalitions and organizing rapid response teams to address legislation. A majority of responders reported the Network plays a critical role in defeating challenges to local control and imposing unfunded mandates on local government. Almost 70% were familiar with the Network and of those responders 95% had a favorable impression of the program. And on a scale of one-to-10, the -9- ~ ~ x 4xis fy~ ~ ` ki k$~ kC '~s ~.: yt ~~n.. x ~r~a ,. 3 15% 19% 12% ~ Very Involved 53% 44% 47% _ Q3. In general, how involved are you, personeNY, wHh the League of Cadlamia Cities? ,. ;~, ~° ~; ^~ Ver Farril 46°~ 015. Fbw familiar are you with your Regional f2epresenlative7 Somewhat Familiar 27% 6% 5% 1% :-.~ rb 7-' ----~-- -- -~'-t Somewhat Not Very Involved Not At All involved Involved a~y~~~ ~ zo~~ ~ aooa Very 1 somewhat 2001 - 56% 2004 - 62% 2007 - 72%Q 39% 33% 27% ve Farr 50 hk Farrvliar 14% ramnar 14% Somewhat Familiar 23% Not asked in 2001 -11- No Familiar Familiar 13% 14% 2004 73% familiar 2007 73% familiar +' a ~ }e. Very Familiar Not At All a Familiar 10% Very Fawrable Somewhat Familiar ZRo/ Not Very Familiar 21% Somewhat Fawrable Somewhat l.Jnfawrable Very Unfawrable No Opirron 37% 38% t]13. Fbw familiar are you with the Grassroots NeM~alc? Q14 Fran what you kraw, what is your impression of Itra Grassroots Nelwak? ~:o '. ~~ "t: ~.,~ ''^! ` .'ter r'~~ z.` Legislative advocacy that benefits all California cities Protecting city revenues Protecting city land use authority Grassroots activity by League merr>bers Providing friend-of-the-court assistance to California cities 60% ~ 28% 55% 16% FaidPoor ^ E~aoellenUGood 02. How do you rate the jcb That CaNforrue Cities and the League are doing in working with Caliiomia cities? 73% 87% 87% -12- - t.' ~, rid ~ „_.r ~ ~~ ~~~; *~-~ Y~ i. t k ~''C~. h.l'.6 28% 32% 63% 61% 59% Excellent I goad 2001 - 75°l0 200 -- 89% 2007 - ~ 1 21% 11% 8% 4% 1 % 0% a ~,°~ Poor r~~"~ ~ 2Q04 ~ 20®7 Qt. Gerrerally s~ealcing, how do you tale the job the League of Calpania Cities is doing in waking with Caktomia afies? `,n ~w~ ,.. Excellent Good 32°,/° 59% Fair 8% Poor 0% No opinion 0% D1. G~erally speaking. how do you rate the job Uie Lague at CaNfomia Cities is dokg in working with Cakfamia aUes? -13- Excellent Good Fair ~~ I.,EA~UE w- OL CALI FOIZ.N IA `~~~ CITIES July 23, 2007 1400 K Street, Suite 400 • Sacramento, California 95814 Phone: 916.658.8200 Fax: 916.658.8240 www.cacities.org TO: Mayors, City Managers and City Clerks League Board of Directors General Resolutions Committee Members Members, League Policy Committees to Which Resolutions Are Referred RE: Annual Conference Resolutions Packet Notice of League Annual Meeting Enclosed please find the 2007 Annual Conference Resolutions packet. Annual Conference in Sacramento. This year's League Annual Conference will be held September 5-8 at the Sacramento Convention Center. The conference announcement has previously been sent to all cities and we hope that you and your colleagues will be able to join us. More information about the conference is available on the League's website at www.cacities.or ac. We look forward to welcoming city officials to the conference. Annual Business Meeting -Saturday, September 8, 8:30 a.m. The League's Annual Business Meeting will be held at the Hyatt Regency Hotel, located across from the Sacramento Convention Center. Resolutions Packet. At the Annual Conference, the League will consider the four resolutions introduced by the deadline, Friday, July 6, 5 p.m., for submittals by regular mail, or Saturday, July 7, midnight, for submittals by email or fax. These resolutions are included in this packet. We request that you distribute this packet to your city council. We encourage each city council to consider the resolutions and to determine a city position so that your voting delegate can represent your city's position on each. A copy of the resolutions packet is posted on the League's website for your convenience: www.cacities.orgJresolutions. This resolutions packet contains additional information related to consideration of the resolutions at the Annual Conference. This includes the date, time and location of the meetings at which resolutions will be considered. Voting Delegates. Each city council is encouraged to designate a voting delegate and two alternates to represent their city at the Annual Business Meeting. A letter asking city councils to designate their voting delegate and two alternates has already been sent to each city. Copies of the letter, voting delegate form, and additional information are also available at: www.cacities.org/resolutions. ~ Please Bring This Packet to the Annual Conference ~ ~ September 5-8 -Sacramento ---------------------------------------------------------- I. INFORMATION AND PROCEDURES RESOLUTIONS CONTAINED IN THIS PACKET: This year, four resolutions have been introduced for consideration by the Annual Conference and referred to the League policy committees. The League bylaws provide that resolutions shall be referred by the president to an appropriate policy committee for review and recommendation. Resolutions with committee recommendations shall then be referred to the General Resolutions Committee at the Annual Conference. POLICY COMMITTEES: Four policy committees will meet at the Annual Conference to consider and take action on resolutions referred to them. They are: Administrative Services; Community Services; Housing, Community and Economic Development; and Public Safety. The committees will meet on Wednesday, September 5, at the Hyatt Regency Hotel, Regency Ballroom, located across from the Sacramento Convention Center. Please see page iii for the meeting schedule. The sponsors of the resolutions were notified of the time and location of the meeting. In addition, Employee Relations, Environmental Quality, and Revenue and Taxation will meet at the Annual Conference, even though no resolutions were referred to them. (Transportation, Communication & Public Works will not meet at the Annual Conference.) GENERAL RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE will meet at 1:30 p.m., on Friday, September 7, at the Sacramento Convention Center (Rooms 317-318), to consider the reports of the four policy committees regarding the four resolutions. This committee includes one representative from each of the League's regional divisions, functional departments, standing policy committees, as well as other individuals. ANNUAL BUSINESS MEETING AND GENERAL ASSEMBLY will be held at 8:30 a.m. on Saturday, September 8, at the Hyatt Regency Hotel, Regency Ballroom, located across from the convention center. PETITIONED RESOLUTIONS: For those issues that develop after the norma160-day deadline, a resolution may be introduced with a petition signed by designated voting delegates of 10 percent of all member cities (48 valid signatures required) and presented to the Voting Delegates Desk no later than 24 hours prior to the time set for convening the Annual Business Session of the General Assembly. This year, the deadline is 8:30 a.m., Friday, September 7. If the petitioned resolution is substantially similar in substance to a resolution already under consideration, the petitioned resolution may be disqualified by the General Resolutions Committee. Resolutions can be viewed on the League's website: www.cacities.org/resolutions. Any questions concerning the resolutions procedure maybe directed to Linda Welch Hicks at the League office: lhicks~cacities.org or (916) 658-8224. II. GUIDELINES FOR ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS Policy development is a vital and ongoing process within the League. The principal means for deciding policy on the important issues facing cities and the League is through the League's eight standing policy committees and the board of directors. The process allows for timely consideration of issues in a changing environment and assures city officials the opportunity to both initiate and influence policy decisions. Annual conference resolutions constitute an additional way to develop League policy. Resolutions should adhere to the following criteria. Guidelines for Annual Conference Resolutions Only issues that have a direct bearing on municipal affairs should be considered or adopted at the Annual Conference. 2. The issue is not of a purely local or regional concern. 3. The recommended policy should not simply restate existing League policy. 4. The resolution should be directed at achieving one of the following objectives: (a) Focus public or media attention on an issue of major importance to cities. (b) Establish a new direction for League policy by establishing general principals around which more detailed policies maybe developed by policy committees and the Board of Directors. (c) Consider important issues not adequately addressed by the policy committees and Board of Directors. (d) Amend the League bylaws. n III. LOCATION OF MEETINGS Policy Committee Meetings Wednesday, September 5, 2007 Hyatt Regency Hotel (Regency Ballroom) (Located across from the Convention Center) 1209 L Street Sacramento, CA 95814 POLICY COMMITTEES MEETING TO CONSIDER RESOLUTIONS REFERRED TO THEM 10:00 a.m. -Noon 12:30 - 2:30 t~.m. Community Services Administrative Services Public Safety Housing, Community & Econ. Dev. OTHER POLICY COMMITTEES MEETING AT THE ANNUAL CONFERENCE Employee Relations, Environmental Quality, Revenue and Taxation Notification will be mailed to all policy committee members. Note: Transportation, Communication & Public Works will NOT meet at the Annual Conference. ~2 General Resolutions Committee Friday, September 7, 2007,1:30 p.m. Sacramento Convention Center (Rooms 317-318) 1400 J Street Sacramento, CA 95814 ~2 Annual Business Meeting and General Assembly Saturday, September 8, 2007, 8:30 a.m. Hyatt Regency Hotel (Regency Ballroom) (Located across from the Convention Center) 1209 L Street Sacramento, CA 95814 ui IV. KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN ON RESOLUTIONS Resolutions have been grouped by policy committees to which they have been assigned. Number Key Word Index Reviewing Body Action 1 -Policy Committee Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee 2 -General Resolutions Committee 3 -General Assembly ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES POLICY COMMITTEE 1 2 1 Renewal of League Grassroots Network Program COMMUNITY SERVICES POLICY COMMITTEE 2 2 Healthy Aging HOUSING, COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY COMMITTEE 1 2 3 3 Applying 300-Foot Distance Separation for All New Residential Care Facilities PUBLIC SAFETY POLICY COMMITTEE 1 2 3 4 Implementation of AB 38; Establishing a New "Department of Emergency Services and Homeland Security" NOTE: NO RESOLUTIONS WERE ASSIGNED TO THESE POLICY COMMITTEES: Employee Relations Environmental Quality Revenue and Taxation Transportation, Communication & Public Works Please note: Some Policy Committees without resolutions will still meet. Notification will be mailed to committee members. Information will also be posted on each committee's page on the League website: www.cacities.or~. RESOLUTIONS INITIATED BY PETITION General General Resolutions Assembly Committee Action Recommendation iv KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN ON RESOLUTIONS (Continued) KEY TO REVIEWING BODIES 1. Policy Committee 2. General Resolutions Committee 3. General Assembly Action Footnotes * Subject matter covered in another resolution ** Existing League policy * * * Local authority presently exists KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN A - Approve D - Disapprove N - No Action R - Refer to appropriate policy committee for study a - Amend Aa - Approve as amended Aaa - Approve with additional amendment(s) Ra - Amend and refer as amended to appropriate policy committee for study Raa - Additional amendments and refer Da - Amend (for clarity or brevity) and Disapprove Na - Amend (for clarity or brevity) and take No Action W - Withdrawn by Sponsor Procedural Note: Resolutions that are approved by the General Resolutions Committee, as well as all qualified petitioned resolutions, are reported to the floor of the General Assembly. In addition, League policy provides the following procedure for resolutions approved by League policy committees but not approved by the General Resolutions Committee: Resolutions initially recommended for approval and adoption by all the League policy committees to which the resolution is assigned, but subsequently recommended for disapproval, referral or no action by the General Resolutions Committee, shall then be placed on a consent agenda for consideration by the General Assembly. The consent agenda shall include a brief description of the bases for the recommendations by both the policy committee(s) and General Resolutions Committee, as well as the recommended action by each. Any voting delegate may make a motion to pull a resolution from the consent agenda in order to request the opportunity to fully debate the resolution. If, upon a majority vote of the General Assembly, the request for debate is approved, the General Assembly shall have the opportunity to debate and subsequently vote on the resolution. v V 2007 ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION REFERRED TO ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES POLICY COMMITTEE 1. RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE RENEWAL OF THE LEAGUE GRASSROOTS NETWORK PROGRAM Source: League Board of Directors Referred to: Administrative Services Policy Committee Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: WHEREAS, unti12004 the cities of California were faced with continual actions by the legislature and the administration to take city revenues and use those revenues to counter deficits in the state general fund; and WHEREAS, this repeated action by the legislature and the administration seriously threatened the ability of local government to deliver essential public services to local communities; and WHEREAS, in 2001 the Board of Directors and membership of the League of California Cities took actions to strengthen the effectiveness of the League and to prevent the year-after-year erosion of local public services; and WHEREAS, he membership of the League overwhelmingly supported the establishment of the League's Grassroots network program and the accompanying dues increase to hire and support 15 new, professional grassroots staff positions in the organization; and WHEREAS, the Grassroots network program in the League has been a key factor in the League's efforts to secure passage of Proposition lA in 2004 that placed an effective constitutional restraint against the state continuing to take local government revenues to help meet state fiscal problems; and WHEREAS, the League grassroots network program has been effective in other statewide ballot measures battles including Proposition 42 in 2002, protecting transportation money for transportation purposes; and Proposition 46 in 2002, enacting a statewide bond measure for affordable housing; and the most recent defeat in 2006 of Proposition 90 that threatened to squander taxpayer money and negate local land use decision-making authority; and WHEREAS, the League grassroots network program has proven to be an effective tool in support of the League's legislative program; and WHEREAS, the League's grassroots network program is known as one of the preeminent grassroots programs in the country; and WHEREAS, Article XVII, Section 3 (c) of the League bylaws provides that the membership of the League shall be asked to vote before December 31, 2007 on the continuation of the Grassroots program beyond December 31, 2008; and WHEREAS, the League Board of Directors desires to hold this election at the Annual Business Meeting of the League scheduled to be held in on September 8, 2007 in conjunction with the 2007 Annual Conference in Sacramento; and WHEREAS, the League Board of Directors respectfully urges each city to support continuation of the grassroots network program because of its proven effectiveness; and WHEREAS, the extension of the grassroots network program will not cause a dues increase for cities since support for the program is now part of the base budget of the League of California Cities; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities, assembled in Annual Conference in Sacramento, September 8, 2007, that the Grassroots Network Program, first established by the member cities of the League of California Cities in 2001, be continued and operated in accordance with the bylaws of the League of California Cities. ////////// Background Information for Resolution #1 Source: League Board of Directors Title: Resolution Relating to Renewal of League Grassroots Network Program Background: In 2001, the League membership voted to approve a new grassroots program for the League of California Cities. The program was designed to support the League's advocacy efforts by adding a new grassroots field staff. The membership dues increase approved in 2001 to support the grassroots program was used to hire 15 new professional positions around the state. This grassroots staff is directed to organize and strengthen the voice of city officials when advocating on behalf of city interests at the state capitol and in Washington DC. They are charged with media outreach in their regions, building coalitions with other organizations that have an interest in the public services provided by cities and ensuring that the messages delivered by city officials are on point and effective. When the program was approved in 2001, there was a sunset provision built into the program. This sunset provision requires that a vote of the League membership be taken in 2007 in order to continue the League grassroots program. That vote has been scheduled at the 2007 League Annual Conference in Sacramento and this resolution is the vehicle to take that vote. If the membership approves this resolution, the grassroots program will continue. If the membership disapproves the program, the program will be terminated no later than the end of December, 2008. Membership Surveys: The League has engaged an independent research firm to conduct confidential surveys to test the League membership support for the program, as well as the support for the League's legislative and ballot measure activities. The most recent survey was taken in 2007. Randomly selected mayors, council 2 members and city managers were asked to complete the survey. Responses were received from 467 city officials, a strong 31 % response rate. Some of the key findings were: • City Officials are more involved with the League than they were in 2004 • Nine in ten members rate the job the League is doing as excellent or good. • Email is the preferred communication vehicle for receiving information on grassroots action. • Seven in 10 respondents are familiar with their regional representative. • Compared to five years ago, (prior to the grassroots program) 84% of respondents feel that their efforts on pending legislation and state budget issues have become more effective. Grassroots Activities: In its relatively short existence, the League grassroots program has been a key element in the League's advocacy on behalf of California's cities. Grassroots activities include: • State Budget Deliberations. The grassroots program played a significant role in preventing legislative efforts to prevent state takeaways of local government revenues during the 2002 state budget process. • Proposition lA (2004). The grassroots program was focused on building a strong coalition of supporting organization and community groups as well as media support for a measure to constitutionally protect city revenues from state takeaways. • Proposition 65 Signature Gathering. The League grassroots staff coordinated a highly successful, volunteer signature gathering effort that qualified Proposition 65 for the 2004 general election ballot. This measure was used to leverage the passage of the measure by the legislature that ultimately became Proposition lA. • Infrastructure Bonds. The League grassroots program was also directed at both the legislative passage of the largest infrastructure bond packages ever passed in the nation, as well as the campaign to secure voter approval of Proposition lA-E and Proposition 84. • No on Proposition 90 Campaign. The League's grassroots program led the field operations in the campaign to defeat Proposition 90 on the November ballot. This measure was a destructive proposal designed to cripple local government land use authority. Sponsorship: This resolution is sponsored by the Board of Directors of the League of California Cities. »»»»» RESOLUTION REFERRED TO COMMUNITY SERVICES POLICY COMMITTEE 2. RESOLUTION RELATING TO HEALTHY AGING Source: Community Services Policy Committee Referred to: Community Services Policy Committee Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: WHEREAS, according to the Brookings Institute, the aging U.S. population will begin to mushroom when the leading edge of the large baby-boom generation -- born between 1946 and 1965 -- reaches the age of 65 in the year 2011; and WHEREAS, any discussion of the changing senior population must also include the World War II generation, born between 1936 and 1945, whose members are currently entering the 65-and older category; and WHEREAS, according the Brookings Institute, California and Florida have large existing senior populations, and will experience gains of more than 500,000 seniors during the 2000 to 2010 period; and WHEREAS, the health of a community thrives when all of its residents, from youth to seniors are healthy and active; and WHEREAS, in order to preserve the quality of life and health of seniors, cities need to be actively involved and have the necessary information and tools to assist with the changing senior population which includes the baby boomers and the World War II generation; and WHEREAS, cities may address quality of life through existing programs that address issues such as "fall preventions" by implementing programs similar to the "Down with Falls Coalition of Orange County" and others which were created to conduct countywide fall prevention needs assessments and create 3-5 year strategic plans to address the issue; and WHEREAS, cities may plan for universal housing to emphasize the importance of independent living designs that may include reinforced towel bars, ADA compliance and short distance transportation; and WHEREAS, cities may be involved with programs to address active senior living including intergenerational programs such as mentoring that help to improve the quality of life for seniors and youth in a community; now, therefore be it RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities assembled in Annual Conference in Sacramento, September 8, 2007, that the League examine programs, infrastructure and funding for California cities addressing the aging population; and, be it further RESOLVED, that the issue of planning for an aging population will be supported by the League through education and conference programming to share ideas and develop a dialogue with elected officials throughout the state. ////////// No Background Information Submitted for Resolution #2 »»»»» 4 RESOLUTION REFERRED TO HOUSING COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY COMMITTEE 3. RESOLUTION RELATING TO APPLYING 300 FOOT DISTANCE SEPARATION FOR ALL NEW RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES Source: City of Los Angeles Refereed to: Housing, Community and Economic Development Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: WHEREAS, the intent of existing federal and state law is to offer housing and care facility options for the elderly, mentally and physically handicapped persons, and others in need of care in residential surroundings. The proposed legislative amendments are not intended to place undue restrictions on residential care facilities with six or fewer people. However, the placement of an unlimited number of facilities within close proximity of one another could lead to an over concentration of residential care facilities and thereby significantly alter the very residential character that these homes are seeking; and WHEREAS, in 2006 the League supported legislation such as Assembly Bills 3005, 3006, and 3007 (Emmerson) to provide more regulatory authority to cities regarding the location of alcohol and drug abuse recovery treatment facilities, and increase public awareness of the location of those public facilities, but these bills were not enacted, and it became apparent that State legislation would only be feasible in the area of the 300 foot distance separation for certain categories of residential care facilities; and WHEREAS, there is a growing problem of more senior residential care facilities for six or fewer people being concentrated in neighborhoods in excessive amounts; and WHEREAS, this problem has been aggravated by differing Health and Safety Code provisions (see chart attached, 1500, 1520.4, 1520.5, 1527, 1566, 1568, 1569 and 11834) for differing types of residential care facilities (alcohol or drug abuse recovery/treatment facilities; adult residential; group homes; and residential care facilities for the elderly) for six or fewer people, all of which are regulated by a number of State agencies, and all of which are preempted from local regulation per State and federal law; and WHEREAS, there is no intent to stop the creation of housing and care facilities for six or fewer people, there is a strong need to apply one state law to all such residential care facility arrangements fairly and equitably, and this state law is the one establishing the over-concentration formula of not siting one such facility within 300 feet of another; while this distance threshold exists for some residential care facilities, it does not for all of them, and therein lies a powerful aggravation of the over-concentration situation; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities, assembled in Annual Conference in Sacramento, September 8, 2007, that the League support state legislation to require a 300 foot distance separation for all new residential care facilities. ////////// Background Information on Resolution #3 Source: City of Los Angeles, Councilmember Jose Huizar Title: Resolution Relating to the 300-Foot Over-Concentration Criteria for Residential Care Facilities Serving Six or Fewer People Background: In the state of California, a residential care facility serving six or fewer people is considered a family use and is exempt from local land use jurisdiction. To prevent over-concentration, the State requires that certain types of residential care facilities serving six or fewer people be located at least 300 feet from another like facility. However, existing over-concentration criteria do not apply to all types of residential care facilities serving six or fewer people, and do not cross over from category to category of facility (see attached chart). Therefore there are no checks in place on the overall concentration of different types of six-person residential care facilities in one area. For example, currently, a senior care facility located at one end of a residential street could be joined by an adult residential care facility two doors down, with a group home next door to that, and so on, because over-concentration criteria do not currently apply to all types of residential care facilities, and what criteria do exist are not applied across the various residential care facility categories. This proposal focuses on the fact that currently the 300-foot rule applies only to some types of residential care facilities, and that it should apply to any and all types of new residential care facilities serving six or fewer people which may desire to locate in close proximity to another. As policy makers, we need to look at the big picture, considering not only the impact of one type of facility near another facility of the same type, but also the potential cumulative effect of a number of different types of 6-bed residential care facilities in one area. This is a statewide concern with which municipalities throughout the State of California are concerned and seek to address. Care facilities have a place in residential neighborhoods in order to offer quality care in family- style environments. Unless we apply uniform and consistent over-concentration criteria for all types of residential care facilities for six or fewer people, we risk denigrating the very residential character these facilities seek to offer to those they serve. By applying the existing 300-foot criteria uniformly and fairly across the board, we will preserve and protect the residential character that these facilities seek and which the State legislation encourages, while ensuring the intent of the law is matched by the implementation of it. 6 *. ,fi ;~ ~~ ~ z~ ~ ~~ z~ ~ z ~~ ~~ ~z~ ~~ ~z~ ~z~ ~~ z~ ~ z~ ~ z z~ ~ z~ ~ z . . ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A a i a i b n '~ '° '~ '° '° ~ '" ~ '" ~ c ~ ~ n ~ o 0 O O O O O O O U ~ ~> n ~ v a~i aoi aoi a~i a~i ~ c ' a o ~ n n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ y w,~ 0 Q A A A A A A A ~ ° 3 3 z 3~ ~~ ~, v W > F+ U ~ y Q ~ V') ~' ~ h ~ ~ y ~ ~ ' ~ ¢' ~ O O O N N O 00 ~O ~ O ~D N l N b O ~O N M M 00 00 ~ cO ,~ ~., ~ .~ ~ v, h r. ... .~ r. .~ `~' U c ~ ~ a ~ a ~ ~ ~ a a ~ ' ~' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q ~ $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~~i ~~ ~ w~ ~ v~ ~n rig v~ v~ v~ v~ v~ v~ v~ v~ Z o ~ ... a -, ~. ~, „ ~ ~ .~ ~ a ~~ ~" ~ o ~ `~ - ~ x W ~ ~~ . . d ~ a i~ ~ ~ , , °' ~ .~ .-, ~ o ~ >, o Y ~ a ~ on ~ ~ ou ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ 4 ~ a E 'm ~ ao ~ '~ a ~ . .. p ., A ;ts ;ti v 3 ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c~i ~ ~ «~ o a ~ .~ ~ c~ RESOLUTION REFERRED TO PUBLIC SAFETY POLICY COMMITTEE 4. RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A.B. 38; ESTABLISHING A NEW "DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AND HOMELAND SECURITY" Source: Public Safety Policy Committee Referred to: Public Safety Policy Committee Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: WHEREAS, California emergency management and public safety professionals have for the past several years, expressed concerns over the redundant and conflicting roles and responsibilities of the Governor's Office of Emergency Services, and the Office of Homeland Security; and WHEREAS, in May 2006 the League Board of Directors voted to support the Legislative Analyst Office's recommendation to establish the Office of Homeland Security (OHS) as a division within the Office of Emergency Services (OES); and WHEREAS, in December 2006, Assembly Member Nava introduced A.B.-38, which consolidates the Office of Emergency Services (OES) and the Office of Homeland Security (OHS) into a new cabinet-level Department of Emergency Services and Homeland Security, responsible for overseeing and coordinating emergency preparedness, response, recovery, and homeland security activities; and WHEREAS, the League of California Cities has joined with the California State Association of Counties, the Institute for Local Government, and the Center for Collaborative Policy-CSU Sacramento, in promulgating a Discussion Paper entitled "An Assessment of Collaborative Challenges and Possibilities for Emergency Services and Homeland Security at the Local Level," wherein cities and counties identify in detail the continuing confusion and conflicts created by the existence of OES and OHS in their current organizational configuration; and WHEREAS, the Discussion Paper recommends convening diverse statewide discussion groups to address emergency management and homeland security issues across all jurisdictions and levels of government; and WHEREAS, the Discussion Paper specifies the need for participation of elected officials, the Legislature, the Governor's staff, and key associations such as the League of California Cities, in these discussion groups; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities, assembled in Annual Conference in Sacramento, September 8, 2007; that the League provide appropriate representation in any and all blue ribbon committees, working groups, and other forums convened to ensure the effective implementation of A.B. 38; and, be it further RESOLVED, that the League of California Cities send a letter to the Governor addressing in detail, the need for local government policy participation in this important endeavor. ////////// Background Information on Resolution #4 Source: Public Safety Policy Committee Title: Resolution Relating to the Implementation of A.B. 38; Establishing a New "Department of Emergency Services and Homeland Security" ~ ~~i~ _ ~` QP C ~ALI! nialh ~~ ~'r.--~ ____-~_~--T~.-.~_~ SACRAMENTO STATE MAY 2nd, 2007 Subject: Discussion Paper: An Assessment of Collaborative Challenges and Possibilities for Emergency Services and Homeland Security at the Local Level Dear Mr. Henry Renteria, Director, Governor's Office of Emergency Services: We are pleased to submit to you an advance copy of our Discussion Paper: An Assessment of Collaborative Challenges and Possibilities for Emergency Services and Homeland Security at the Local Level. It was prepared by the Center for Collaborative Policy, California State University, Sacramento (CCP) in collaboration with the Institute for Local Government's Collaborative Governance Initiative (ILG). The California State Association of Counties (CSAC) and the League of California Cities (LCC) have recently joined in partnership with CCP and ILG to address the topics and findings outlined in the Discussion Paper. It reports the results of a focus group of expert participants involved with state and local emergency management and homeland security programs, with subsequent interviews completed in 2006. CCP and ILG facilitated this process. Drafts of the Discussion Paper were reviewed by all expert participants. The purpose of this Discussion Paper is to help state and local governments better address the complexities of emergency services and homeland security through the use of the emerging and relevant tools of collaborative planning, management and problem solving, multi-stakeholder consensus building, and strategies for public involvement. While this assessment does not evaluate a specific program, it presents expert participants' insights on where public participation and collaborative techniques have potential to support the challenges faced by state and local emergency managers. The CCP/ILG paper also presents the recommendations drawn from these insights. The goal is to provide a basis for interested organizations to discuss how to respond the identified challenges Because many of the items outlined in the Discussion Paper address intergovernmental coordination, we feel it is important that your agency be aware of its findings and take part in meaningful discussion of its recommendations. Please take the opportunity to review the paper and its findings. Our organizations hope to meet with you to discuss the possibility of next steps for the paper's recommendations and to strategiee how to move forward with its public release. A follow-up contact will be made in the near future to explore opportunities for a joint meeting. In the meantime, please feel free to contact Adam Sutkus, Senior Mediator & Project Manager at CCP: 916.323.8409. Thank you for taking time to review the Discussion Paper. Our organizations look forward to beginning a conversation with you on ways we can work together to improve emergency services and homeland security at the local level. Sincerely, Lisa Beutler Associate Director Director J~ ent Collaborative Policy JoAnne Speers Executive Director Steve Keil Interim Executive Director California State Association of Counties Chris McKenzie Executive Institute for Local Government ### ~'~' ~r League of California Cities