The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTC Digest 2007-07-27 ~~ TOWN COUNCIL WEEKLY DIGEST Week of July 23 - 27,2007 Tiburon 1. Town Calendar - August 2007 2. Correspondence from Al Petrie - re: 2nd PG&E Conversion Day - 8/1/07 3. Invitation from Romberg Tiburon Center - Completion of Center Passages * 4. Passages - Angel Island Immigration Station Foundation - Summer 2007 * Agendas & Minutes 5. Agenda - Design Review Board - August 2, 2007 Regional a) ABAG Report - Release of Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation b) Correspondence from LCC - re: League Annual Meeting - Sept 5-8, 2007 c) Report from LCC - re: The League Grassroots Network Program * d) Correspondence from Q-Star Vandalism Deterrent System * e) Conference - Immigration & the Public Sector - Phoenix - Sept. 26-28, 2007 * f) Newsletter - TAM - Hiway 101/Greenbrae Corridor Project - Summer 2007 * Agendas & Minutes g) None * Council Only ats (I) be C .- ..... G.I G.I ~ .-..., o o M (I) G.I .- ..... .- > .- ..... U C ~ ~~ ~I ~ I- (f) UJ ~ -- C c o I.- ::s .a .- I- ~ o c ~ o I- ~ = Q Il:ll::: ::;) ~ ~ ,., = Q ;: 1.1. N = Q '" Il:ll::: ::;) ::z:: I- <:> <:> .;0 g,.o .~ E ""E "' o CO a.I ..c ~ E ~ ni = Q '" w ::;) I- = Q Z o :E = Q Z ::;) ~ ~ ~ ..... ~ .!::: ~ ~ .~ ~~ .tl ~.... ~.~ ~ \,;j ~~ ~ ~ ~~ <:> <:> ~ c co::: c:c o CO ~ ~ co::: :z: ~~ ca..: "=::s ~ ~ ~ --' ;::; :z: = o ~ :z: 3= o I- = 5! ~ ~ ~] ~ G.I S ~ _co::: ~~ .... ~ ~8 0. co I"'- -0 = E Q.. o ~ C ~ ~ .s 'E ~ E o 0 c~ Ln 'S: ~ :!::: ~~ -l::l !;:: ~~<::) ~ .~ ~.~ ~~ E ni :Q -= OJ = ~ --' a.I ..c E ~ ~ :s: ~ :z: o ~ i: :E o ~ ~ ::!!: :z: :s~ Q...a..: ~ !:: ~ ~ ~ !:! - = E ~ ~ o i ~ .s 'E ~ E o 0 o~ ~ - = a.I ..c H a.I :z: ~ .s a.I OJ "' ;;-~ c 050- ].:; - ~ ~ ......a..: ~<:> e:;~ ~ Q...:Z: oS! ol:S::::: .."i: ~:E c:c 0 Q... ~ Ln N ~ ~ ::t! ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ N .!::: ~ ~ .tl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,., N <:> <:> ~ c co::: c:c o co ~ ~ co::: :z: ~ t3~ ca..: N N ~ a..: :s: ~ --' ;::; :z: = o ~ :z: 3= o I- M o N - = E Q.. o a:; ~ c ~ ! .s 'E ~ E o 0 c~ ~ E c:i.. :s: ~ a.I >< ::E: ~ a.I ..c E ~ ~ :s: ~ :z: ~ i: :E o ~ ~ :z: Z :s~ Q...a..: ,., .!::: ~ ~ .tl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ,., 0. N co N l"'- N - = E Q.. o a:; ~ o ~ ~ .s 'E ~ E ~8 -0 N ~ ~ ~ ....... ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ I. .s:: ~ ~ -l::l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a..: <:> .." <:> ~~ c:c ol:S~ ~e:; ~i: ffi:E =8 July 23, 2007 . 1 .~ 0 frIll ~. ~ . 0", o~ :~"~~~i:-o v'~:::::- ~,.''O <",. -::::-""" ~ ...0, ,too~ .'/:. ~NI'A \~c.' ~. T . ~. Town ofTIburon. 15051iburon Boulevard .1iburon, CA 94920 · P. 415.435.7373 F. 415.435.2438 · www.ci.tiburon.ca.us Property Owners: Paradise Drive 2200,2205,2240/2242,2245,2250/2252,2265,2270,2277,2280,2131/2133, 2145,2150,2155,2165,2315,2345,2343, Tom.Gram Mayor Vista Del Mar 2300,2321/2323,2324,2360,2370/2372 DIGEST RECEIVED JUL 2 7 2007 \ Jeff Slavitz Vice Mayor Spanish Trail 2310 Miles Berger Councilmember lS3~la TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE TOWN OF TIBURON Alice Fredericks Councilmember Solano Street 110,120 Paul Smith Councilmember Re: 2ND PG&E CONVERSION DAY - WEDNESDAY AUGUST 1ST, 2007 I understand that you have received notice from PG&E that your PG&E power (not necessarily cable & telephone) will be shut off from 8 AM to 4:30 PM this Ma~~~~\~~n;;:ran coming Wednesday, to facilitate the transfer from overhead to underground service. PG&E will shut down the transformers that serve your property around 8 AM. I have contacted your electrical contractor concerning this Wednesday's electrical conversion so that your contractor can make the switch at your service panel during the period when PG&E power is down. Your electrical contractor will be switching your electrical power feed from overhead feed at the panel to underground feed at the panel. Comcast and AT&T personnel will follow and make the overhead to underground switch of their facilities shortly thereafter. Those properties that already had the PG&E service underground prior to this project and are currently getting "live" power from their underground service do not need to have their electrical contractor available (2265 Paradise, 2150 Paradise, 2315 Paradise, 2345 Paradise, 2310 Spanish Trail). PG&E, as well as Comcast and AT&T, will switch from overhead to underground feed at the street utility poles. Please, as a safety measure, unplug all appliances (especially toasters) and electronic equipment at or before 8 AM Wednesday. Please call the Town at 435- 7359 if you need further assistance. Thanks. Sincerely, &~ Al Petrie, P .E. Consultant - Utility Underground Projects Cc: /Peggy Curran, Town Manager Nick Nguyen, Director of Public Works/Town Engineer 5. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA DIGEST TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD TIBURON, CA 94920 DATE: 8/2/07 MEETING TIME 7:00 P.M. AGENDA NO.: #13 PLEASE NOTE: In order to give all interested persons an opportunity to be heard, and to ensure the presentation of all points of view, members of the audience should: (1) Always address the Chair; (2) State namefor the record; (3) State views/concerns succinctly; (4) Limit presentation to three minutes; (5) Speak directly into microphone and (6) All documents submiUed at the meeting must first be submiUed at the Staff table, to be entered into the record and retained by the Town. If an item is continued, it is the responsibility of interested parties to note the new meeting date. Notices will not be sent out for items continued to a specific date. A. ROLL CALL: Chair Doyle, Boardmembers Corcoran, Frymier, Glassner and T eiser B. PUBLIC COMMENTS (FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA) C. STAFF BRIEFING D. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. 430 Ridge Road Hannahs/Garay Appeal Resolution E. OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD 2. 9 Burrell Court Hariri AdditionsN arianceIFloor Area Exception F. NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD 3. 4. 5. 6. 42 Claire Way 4935 Paradise Drive 1910 Straits View Drive 280 Round Hill Road Clawson Hanson Kavitsky Anolik New Dwelling CONTINUED TO 8/16/07 AdditionsN ariances Guest House/Spa CONTINUED TO 8/16/07 Minor AlterationsN ariance G. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #12 OF THE 7/19/07 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING H. ADJOURNMENT **PLEASE NOTE THAT AGENDA ITEMS MAY BE TAKEN OUT.oF ORDER** , ' . tfJ -J).I'\ ftSSOCIA nON OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS '/" ;epresenting City and County Governments of the San FrancIsco Bay Area o It. ABAG DIGEST July 24, 2007 San Francisco Bay Area Mayors, City Managers, County Executives/Administrators & Board of Supervisor Chairs Re: Release of Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation & Start of Public Comment Period On July 19,2007, ABAG's Executive Board adopted the draft RHNA allocations for all the jurisdictions in the San Francisco Bay Area (excluding the San Mateo County Subregion), by income category, for the 2007 - 2014 period. The release of this draft RHNA allocation begins a 60 day public comment period. Jurisdictions will have until September 18, 2007 to request revisions to their allocations. ABAG will have 60-days to respond to requests for revisions. After any revisions, local governments will have an additional 60 days to appeal the Revised RHNA numbers. In early 2008, ABAG will hold a public hearing on appeals. Final RHNA allocations will be made prior to April 2008. Prior to June 2008, the final RHNA will need to be adopted by ABAG's Executive Board and released by ABAG. Total Regional Need The State Department of Housing and Community Development, HCD, has determined that the Bay Area needs to plan for 214,500 - 227,500 housing units during the 2007 - 2014 planning period. HCD has also determined how many of these units are needed across four income categories, very low, low, moderate and above moderate. With this assignment of the regional need by the state, ABAG is responsible for allocating the total regional need to all jurisdictions in the Bay Area. The regional housing need is divided into two parts-the existing need and the projected need. In determining the total regional need for the 2007 - 2014 period. Existing need is based on state estimates of total households in 2005, plus growth during 2006. Projected need is determined by household growth in the region. Household growth is determined by the components of population growth: 1) births or natural increase; 2) migration and 3) household formation rates. Using these factors, projected regional need of 212,500 housing units was determined. Adding in existing need, the total housing need for the region is 214,500 housing units. In addition to the total need, HCD's determination of housing need is given to the region by income category. The income categories are very low, low, moderate and above moderate. The percent of total units in each income category is based on the regional average distribution of households across the various income categories. Using the lowest end of the range, the regional need assignment, by income category is: ''''''I . ""'.. J 2007 - 2014 Regional Housing Need Allocation Page 2 Income Cate{!orv Very-Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total Percent 22.8% 16.4% 19.30/0 41.5% 1000/0 Units 48,840 35,102 41,316 89 .242 214,500 ABAG's Executive Board has adopted the minimum number of units, 214,500 housing units, by income category, for the 2007 - 2014 planning period. Regional Allocations to Jurisdictions The regional allocation of housing units was allocated to jurisdictions using the method adopted by ABAG's Board at their January 18, 2007 meeting. The allocation method is described in Attachment 1. The resulting draft allocation of housing units to jurisdictions is depicted in Attachment 2. Please contact myself or Paul Fassinger at 510-464-7928 with any questions regarding your jurisdiction's draft RHNA allocation. Sincerely, '-... /, 11 {/I .J f ! " IJ~~~tA .. / .',-~ enry L. I ardner ~xecuti' Director Attachment 1 Planning HOllsirlg in the San Ft.ancisco Bay Area RegionaJ I-Iousing Needs Allocation Methodology, 4th Revision Technical Documentation Novelnber 2007 .RelrisedJi.l./yT 23, 2007 o ABAG Introduction The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process is a state mandate on planning for housing in California. The state, regional and local governments each have a role to play. Local governments have autonomy in planning for exactly how and where housing will be developed in their individual communities. The amount of housing cities and counties must plan for, however, is determined by state housing policy. Periodically, the State of California requires that all jurisdictions in the state update the Housing Element of their General Plans. Within these Housing Elements, the state mandates that local governments plan for their share of the region's housing need, for people of all income categories. In the case of the San Francisco Bay Area, ABAG, as the region's Council of Governments, and the State Housing and Community Development Department (HCD), determines the region's need for housing. This determination of need is primarily based on estimated population growth. ABAG then allocates that need, for all income groups, amongst jurisdictions. The jurisdictions then plan for that need in their local housing elements, which are eventually state-certified by HCD. This technical document details the process for developing the draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, describes the Housing Methodology Committee's allocation methodology recommendations and rationale for each component, and offers information on ABAG's Projections. I. RHNA Schedule II. RHNA State Goals & Regional Policy III. Statutory Factors & Survey of Factors IV. The Housing Methodology Committee V. Draft Allocation Methodology VI. Regional Projections San Francisco Bay Area Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 4th Revision I. RHNA Schedule On September 29, 2006, ABAG received approval of a two-year extension for completing the RHNA process from the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The following milestones are consistent with that two-year extension: · November 16, 2006: Adoption of draft allocation methodology by ABAG Executive Board; start of a 60-day public comment period · January 18, 2007: ABAG Executive Board adopts final methodology · March 1,2007: Determination of regional housing need · July 31, 2007: Release of draft allocations · June 30, 2008: Release of final allocations · June 30, 2009: Housing element revisions due to HeD II. RHNA State Goals & Regional Policy There are four statutory objectives of RHNA. As shown below, these objectives include increasing housing supply, affordability, and housing types; encouraging efficient development and infill; promoting jobs-housing balance; and reducing concentrations of poverty. These objectives are consistent with the Bay Area's regional policies regarding growth. Following the Smart Growth Strategy/Regional Livability Footprint Project that was completed in 2002, ABAG' s Executive Board resolved to use these regional policies as the basis for Projections. Since that decision, Projections assumes that, over time, local land use policies will move the region closer toward regional policies. The shift to policy-based Projections has important implications for growth and development in the region. Projections now forecasts more growth in existing urbanized areas and near transit, and less in agricultural areas. This is consistent with the RHNA objectives that call for an increase in the supply of housing, jobs-housing balance, more infill development, protection of the environment, and efficient development patterns. Since the Projections forecast is the basis for the RHNA allocations, these same regional policies will influence how housing units are distributed within the region. RHNA Objectives Regional Policies (1) Increase the housing supply and the mix of . Support existing communities housing types, tenure, and affordability in all . Create compact, healthy communities with a cities and counties within the region in an diversity of housing, jobs, activities, and equitable ma1ll1er, which shall result in each jurisdiction receiving an allocation of units for services to meet the daily needs of residents low and very low income households. . Increase housing affordability, supply and (2) Promote infill development and socioeconomic choices equity, the protection of environmental and . Increase transportation efficiency and choices agricultural resources, and the encouragement . Protect and steward natural habitat, open space, of efficient development patterns. and agricultural land (3) Promote an improved intraregional relationship . Improve social and economic equity July 2007, Page 2 San Francisco Bay Area Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 4th Revision between jobs and housing. (4) Allocate a lower proportion of housing need to an income category when a jurisdiction already has a disproportionately high share of households in that income category, as compared to the countywide distribution of households in that category from the most recent decennial United States census. . Promote economic and fiscal health Conserve resources, promote sustainability, and improve environmental quality Protect public health and safety . . III. Statutory Factors & Survey of Factors 1. Statutory Factors The RHNA statutes delineate specific factors that the HMC had to consider for inclusion in the allocation methodology, including: . Water and sewer capacity . Land suitable for urban development or conversion to residential use . Protected open space - lands protected by state and federal government . County policies to protect prime agricultural land . Distribution of household growth . Market demand for housing . City-centered growth policies . Loss of affordable units contained in assisted housing . High housing cost burdens . Housing needs of farm workers . Impact of universities and colleges on housing needs in a community With the advice of the HMC, ABAG staff considered how to incorporate the statutory factors into the allocation methodology, how to allocate units by income, and how to address issues such as spheres of influence, the relationship to subregions, and voluntary transfers of housing units between jurisdictions. Their goal has been to develop an allocation methodology that is consistent with the RHNA objectives and statutory requirements while also reflecting local conditions and the regional goals for growth. See Section IV. 1. Weighted Factors for a detailed descr,iption of how the factors are included in the recommended methodology. 2. Survey of Factors On September 15, 2006, ABAG sent a memorandum and survey form to each planning director of every local jurisdiction in the region. The memorandum explained the use of factors in the RHNA allocation methodology, described the status of the HMC's deliberations, set forth the criteria for using a factor in the methodology, and solicited local input on the statutory factors and suggestions for additional factors. ABAG received responses from 42 local jurisdictions (A detailed summary of survey responses is available at http://www.abag.ca.gov/planning/11ousingneeds or by contacting ABAG staff.) July 2007, Page 3 San Francisco Bay Area Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 4th Revision The Governor signed AB 2572 into law on September 29, 2006. The legislation adds a statutory factor: housing needs generated by the presence of a private university or a campus of the California State University or the University of California. The HMC concluded that student populations need not be added as an explicit factor in the allocation methodology. The reason is that the existence of universities and resulting student populations are included in ABAG's household population estimates. Therefore, ABAG will circulate its explanation of the effects of this factor and a survey form for this factor during the review period of the draft methodology. Responses will be due in time for ABAG staff to evaluate them and to make any necessary changes to the methodology. The 42 survey responses varied widely. Many commented on the HMC deliberations, supporting or opposing specific measures under consideration, and offering alternative methodological approaches. Others commented on the existing and near-term market conditions for housing in their jurisdictions. The comments that focused on how specific factors should be explicitly considered in the methodology can be summarized as follows: s s R ummary urvey esponses 1. Jobs/Housing Relationship (a) use employed residents to measure jobs/housing balance 3 (b) take into account home based businesses/employment 1 (c) use commute shed to assess jobs/housing balance 2 2. Constraints due to Sewer/Water/Land Capacity (a) respondents identified specific sewer/water constraints 2 3. Public TransitlTransportation Infrastructure (a) respondents confirmed they were planning for TOO 5 4. Market Demand for Housing 0 5. City-Centered Development (a) described local city-centered policies 6 (b) described specific policies, agreements, etc., on development in spheres of influence 7 (SOl) (c) stated there were no written agreements on SOls 1 6. Loss of Assisted Housing Units (a) identified at risk units at varying degrees of specificity 10 (b) do not use as a factor 1 7. High Housing Cost Burden (a) use CHAS data 1 8. Housing Needs of Farmworkers (a) identified local efforts for farmworker housing 4 9. Others (a) use congestion levels 1 (b) reward past performance in meeting RHNA goals 1 (c) RHNA allocation should at least equal planned growth 1 July 2007, Page 4 San Francisco Bay Area Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 4th Revision Several of the possible allocation factors proposed in the surveys were considered by the HMC, but not explicitly incorporated in the draft methodology. These factors include those related to: . Jobs-housing balance: lea) - (c) Sewer/water constraints: 2 City-centered development: Sea) - (c) Loss of assisted housing units: 6 High housing cost burdens: 7 Housing needs of farm workers: 8 Traffic congestion: 9(a) Rewards for past RHNA performance: 9(b) . . . . . . . The HMC has included the following suggested RHNA factors as explicit components of the draft methodology but may not have used them in precisely the way suggested by the respondents: · Public transit/transportation infrastructure: 3 The HMC did not consider 9(c). In each instance where a respondent described specific localized data in support of its response to a survey question, e.g., 2, 6(a) and 8(a), the respondent did not identify sources for comparable data for other jurisdictions. Therefore, staff could not conclude that the proffered factor met the statutory requirement for comparability and availability. Consequently, the proposed factor was not used. IV. Housing Methodology Committee As the region's Council of Governments, ABAG is responsible for allocating the state- determined regional housing need to all jurisdictions in the Bay Area. The HMC was established in May 2006 to assist staff in developing a recommended methodology for allocating the regional need for adoption by the ABAG Executive Board. The HMC was comprised of local elected officials, city and county staff, and stakeholder representatives from each county in the region. It includes members from each county so that it adequately represents the entire region. The members of the Housing Methodology Committee were: Barbara Kondylis, Supervisor, District 1 (Solano), ABAG Executive Board Scott Haggerty, Supervisor, District 1 (Alameda), ABAG Executive Board Jerffery Levine, Housing Department, City of Oakland, Alameda Jennifer Hosterman, Mayor, City of Pleasant on, Alameda Dan Marks, Director of Planning & Development, City of Berkeley, Alameda Julie Pierce, Council Member, City of Clayton, Contra Costa Phillip Woods, Principal Planner, City of Concord, Contra Costa Gwen Regalia, Council Member, City of Walnut Creek, Contra Costa Linda Jackson, Principal Planner, City of San Rafael, Marin Paul Kermoyan, Community Development Dir., City of Sausalito, Marin July 2007, Page 5 San Francisco Bay Area Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 4th Revision Stacy Lauman, Assistant Planner, County of Marin, Marin Jean Hasser, Senior Planner, City of Napa, Napa Diane Dillon, Supervisor, County of Napa, Napa Howard Siegel, Community Partnership Mgr., County of Napa, Napa Amit Ghosh, Assistant Planning Director, San Francisco, San Francisco Doug Shoemaker, Mayor's Office of Housing, City of San Francisco, San Francisco Amy Tharp, Director of Planning, City of San Francisco, San Francisco Duane Bay, Housing Director, San Mateo County, San Mateo Andrea Ouse, City Planner, Town of Colma, San Mateo Mark Duino, Planner, San Mateo County, San Mateo Laurel Prevetti Deputy Dir., Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, City of San Jose, Santa Clara Regina Brisco, Housing Planner, City of Gilroy, Santa Clara Steve Piasecki, Planning Director, City of Cupertino, Santa Clara Matt Walsh, Principal Planner, Solano County, Solano Chuck Dimmick, Councilmember (V acaville) Solano City/County Coord. Council, Solano Eve Somjen, Assistant Director, City of Fairfield, Solano Mike Moore, Community Development Dir., City of Petaluma, Sonoma Jake MacKenzie, Council Member, City of Robnert Park, Sonoma Jennifer Barrett, Deputy Director - Planning, County of Sonoma, Sonoma Geeta Rao, Policy Director, Nonprofit Housing of North em California, Stakeholder Kate 0 , Hara, Regional Issues Organizer, Greenbelt Alliance, Stakeholder Margaret Gordon, Community Liaison, West Oakland Indicators Project, Stakeholder Andrew Michael, Vice President, Bay Area Council, Stakeholder Paul B. Campos, VP, Govt. Affairs & Gen. Counsel, Home Builders Association, Stakeholder V. The Regional Needs Allocation Methodology The RHNA methodology assigns each jurisdiction in the Bay Area its share of the region's total housing need. The methodology includes an allocation tool that is a mathematical equation that consists of weighted factors. There are also "rules" regarding allocation of units by income, how to handle units in spheres of influence, voluntary transfers of units, and subregions. The draft methodology encompasses these distinct components of the methodology. In their recommendation, the HMC members considered local land use plans and policies, regional growth policies and the state's housing polices, as expressed in the state mandated RHNA objectives. 1. Weighted Factors Factors in the allocation methodology are the mathematical variables that partly determine how the regional housing need (RHN) is allocated to local jurisdictions. The factors reflect: 1) state mandated RHNA objectives; 2) RHNA statutory requirements; 3) local policy and 4) regional policy. In the methodology, each factor is given priority relative to the others. Priority is established through "weighting" in the formula. For example, if one of the factors, e.g., household growth, is determined to be more important than another factor, e.g., transit, the methodology can give household growth a higher weight than transit in the formula. The methodology may also equally weight the factors, therefore ensuring that all the factors are of equal priority. ] uly 2007, Page 6 San Francisco Bay Area Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 4th Revision The factors and weights (expressed in parenthesis) recommend by the HMC are: . Household growth (400/0) Existing employment (200/0) Employment growth (20%) Household growth near existing and planned transit (10%) Employment growth near existing and planned transit (100/0) . . . . Household growth, existing employment, and employment growth are estimated in ABAG's regional household and employment forecasts, Projections. A. Household Growth, 40 percent Each local jurisdiction should plan for housing according to regionally projected household growth within its boundaries during the RHNA planning period (2007 - 2014). Household growth should be weighted 40 percent in the allocation. The use of housing as a RHNA factor represents consistency with local, regional, and state policies regarding where housing growth will and should occur in the region. Where and how much housing growth will occur in the region is estimated by ABAG's forecasting model, as documented in Projections. Specifically, household growth is based on: 1) local land use policies and plans; 2) demographic and economic trends, such as migration, birth and death rates, housing prices, and travel costs; and 3) regional growth policies. Household growth in ABAG' s Projections is most influenced by local land use plans and policies, including planned and protected agricultural lands, open space and parks, city- centered growth policies, urban growth boundaries, and any physical or geological constraints. Regional policies incorporated into Projections since 2002, are assumed to go into effect by 2010, and therefore have some effect on regional housing growth estimates in the 2007-2014 RHNA period. Regional policies assume that there will be increased housing growth in existing urbanized areas, near transit stations and along major public transportation corridors. These regional policies are consistent with state housing policies to promote infill development, environmental and agricultural protection and efficient development patterns. The impacts of regional policy assumptions in Projections are: a) potential environmental and agricultural resource protection by directing growth away from,existing open and agricultural lands; b) the encouragement of efficient development patterns through increased infill development and higher densities in existing communities; and c) the potential for increased transportation choices, e.g., walking and public transit, through more housing development near transit and jobs. The household estimates in Projections account for all people living in housing units, including students. Thus, the portion of the student population that occupies part of a local jurisdiction's housing stock is counted as such and as a source of future household formation. The portion of the student population that occupies "group quarters," such as college dormitories, are not included in household population counts. This is consistent with state policy regarding RHNA that excludes "group quarters" from being counted as housing units. July 2007, Page 7 San Francisco Bay Area Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 4th Revision Household growth is used as a factor, as opposed to existing units or total units, to ensure that additional housing is not planned where there are existing concentrations of homes in the region, but rather where growth is anticipated to occur. In this way household growth as a factor in the methodology ensures that the allocation is consistent with both local plans for growth and with regional growth policies, as those areas that are planning for household growth would receive a higher allocation than those areas not planning for growth. B. Employment, 40 percent (Existing Employment, 20 percent; Growth, 20 percent) Each local jurisdiction should plan for housing to accommodate existing employment (2007) and regionally projected employment growth (2007-2014) within its boundaries during the RHNA planning period. This would ensure that the need allocation gives jurisdictions with both eXIstmg concentrations of jobs and planned job growth a share of the regional housing need. This would direct housing to existing job centers and to areas with anticipated employment growth. These jobs allocation factors may be effective in addressing regional jobs-housing imbalance. These factors would also facilitate access by proximity, for housing would be directed to communities with jobs and planned jobs, which may reduce vehicle miles traveled due to reduced inter- and intra-regional commuting. As a factor, employment has the ability to assign regional housing needs to jurisdictions in a way that provides a better balance between housing and employment. In the Bay Area, as in many metropolitan areas, employment centers have historically not produced enough housing to match job growth. Limited housing production near existing jobs and in areas with continued employment growth has escalated Bay Area housing costs and has triggered increased housing production in outlying Bay Area communities and in surrounding counties, including San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and San Benito. This has led to longer commutes on increasingly congested freeways, inefficient use of public transportation infrastructure and land capacity, and negative impacts on health, equity, air quality, the environment and overall quality of life in the Bay Area. In the allocation methodology, employment can be used in varying degrees of aggressiveness to address regional jobs-housing imbalance. The HMC considered three options: 1) employment growth, 2) existing jobs (2007) and 3) total jobs in the RHNA period (existing jobs in 2007 and growth from 2007 to 2014). Employment growth as a factor would assure that jurisdictions that are planning for employment growth also plan for commensurate housing. However, this would be ineffective in addressing 4istoric regional jobs-housing imbalances, and therefore it is the least aggressive option. Existing jobs as an allocation factor would give relatively higher allocations to existing job centers and would therefore be the most aggressive toward historic jobs-housing imbalances; however it does not take into account future job growth. Total jobs as a factor would give relatively higher allocations to both jurisdictions that are currently job centers and those with planned job growth. Therefore, this is a moderately aggressive approach relative to the other two options. The HMC recommends a balance between the least and most aggressive options by separately weighting employment growth and existing employment. This would attempt to address historic jobs-housing imbalances and would seek to avert future imbalances. While an aggressive approach, it is relatively less aggressive than the use of total jobs as a factor. A total jobs factor would primarily direct growth to existing job centers, which would receive July 2007, Page 8 San Francisco Bay Area Draft Regional Housing Needs ,-\llocation, 4th Revision the entire 40 percent weight for employment, as opposed to the 20 percent recommended weight. Existing Employment, 20 Percent The location and amount of existing jobs in the region is estimated by ABAG's forecasting model, as documented in Projections. Specifically, existing employment is based on: 1) existing regional and local job data, and 2) regional and local economic trends, attractiveness of commerciallindustrial locations, including labor force costs, housing prices, travel costs, access to potential employees, markets, and similar businesses. The inclusion of existing employment as a RHNA factor ensures that regional housing need is allocated in a manner consistent with regional policies and state RHNA objectives. Planning for more housing in communities with existing jobs can address historic jobs- housing imbalances. More housing in existing job centers may also encourage infill and efficient development patterns through higher densities in existing communities. There is also the potential for reduced inter- and intra-regional vehicle miles traveled and shorter commutes, as more housing would be planned in proximity to existing jobs. More housing near jobs may also encourage alternative modes of travel, including walking and public transportation, as most existing jobs centers in the region are also transit rich. Planning for housing near existing jobs also places less development pressure on outlying areas, especially in rural areas with agricultural lands and protected open space. Employment Growth, 20 Percent The location and amount of employment growth in the region is projected by ABAG's forecasting model, as documented in Projections. Specifically, employment growth is based on: 1) local land use policies and plans; 2) economic trends, such as national and regional industrial assumptions, attractiveness of commerciallindustrial locations, including labor force costs, housing prices, travel costs, access to potential employees, markets, and similar businesses; and 3) regional policy. Inclusion of local land use policies and plans and economic trends in ABAG's employment growth forecast ensures that the use of employment growth as a RHNA factor is consistent with local policies, plans, and local capacity for job growth. Employment growth in Projections considers all the land protection and growth policies, physical constraints, and the employment-related factors identified by the state and the HMC for inclusion in the allocation methodology, including existing jobs centers, home-based businesses, employed residents, housing prices, household income and employment at private universities, and campuses of the California State University and the University of California.. The inclusion of employment growth as a RHNA factor ensures that the regional housing need is allocated to areas where job growth is forecasted to occur during the RHNA period. These areas would have the responsibility of providing housing for the additional jobs that are added to the region. These areas are typically served by the region's transit infrastructure. Matching housing to jobs would still have the potential for reducing vehicle miles traveled and encouraging alternative modes of travel. This employment factor would place housing in existing communities, but would place less of the housing in the most urbanized cities in the regIon. As with household growth, inclusion of regional policies in ABAG's Projections ensures that the use of employment growth as a RHNA factor is consistent with both state and regional polices regarding growth, infill development, and efficient use of land. This is because July 2007, Page 9 San Francisco Bay Area Draft Regional Housing Needs .i-\llocation, 4th Revision regional policies in Projections assun1e that relatively more job growth will occur in existing urbanized communities and near transit, while less growth is projected in outlying communities with no transit infrastructure, including those with agricultural areas and open space. In addition, regional assumptions would promote greater use of public transportation through increased job development near transit. c. Household Growth near Transit, 10 Percent; Employment Growth near Transit, 10 Percent Each local jurisdiction with an eXIstmg or planned transit station should plan for more housing near such stations. As a factor, "household growth near transit" allocates 10 percent of the regional housing need to jurisdictions based on their forecasted household growth near existing or planned transit stations. As a factor, "employment growth near transit" allocates 10 percent of the regional housing need to jurisdictions based on their forecasted employment growth near existing or planned transit stations. Transit is defined as areas with fixed-alignment public transit, both existing and planned. The transit services included are: Altamont Commuter Express (ACE), Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), Caltrain, San Francisco MUNI light rail, and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VT A) light rail, and ferries. Planned transit stations include all fixed transit stations in the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's Regional Transportation Plan, Track One. Growth near transit is defined as household or employment growth within one-half mile of an existing or planned transit station, but eliminating any overlap between stations located within one mile of each other. Incorporating a transit factor directly into the methodology would, in effect, give extra weight to this state and regional objective. This is because a transit-based policy is already incorporated into ABAG's policy-based Projections. Current regional policy places incrementally more growth along major transportation corridors and at transit stations. Therefore, a housing need allocation that uses regional housing growth and employment as factors would indirectly include "transit" as a policy issue in the allocation methodology. Using transit as a direct factor in the methodology would give transit a greater degree of policy weight. Those jurisdictions with transit stations, existing and planned, would receive a relatively higher proportion of the housing needs allocation than those jurisdictions without existing or planned transit stations. Despite some objections, the HMC recommends that transit be used as a direct factor. This was due, in part, to the expectation that impacts of the policy assumptions in Projections will not begin to take effect until 2010. Directing growth to areas with public transit in the allocation methodology would ensure that this regional policy influences development patterns during the 2007-2014 RHNA period. Use of these factors would address the state RHNA objectives and regional goals of encouraging the use of public transit and the efficient use of transportation infrastructure. Directing housing need to areas near transit would also promote infill development, as existing transit stations are primarily in existing urbanized areas in the region. The effect of the addition of planned transit stations in the allocation methodology is that a relatively higher share of the regional allocation is given to jurisdictions that will receive July 2007, Page 10 San Francisco Bay Area Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 4th Revision investments for public transportation. Inclusion of planned stations gives communities that will have new transit stations an opportunity to ensure that they plan sufficient housing to support the extension of transit services. In addition, given the long time-frame for implementation of service extensions, it makes sense to begin the land use planning around proposed stations before the transit stations are put in place. This is in support of both state and regional policies to ensure efficient use of transportation infrastructure and to encourage increased transit use. There is a multitude of data supporting the theory that higher population densities have a net positive impact on transit ridership. The HMC was divided in its support for including a transit, and particularly planned transit, as part of the allocation methodology. Many of the committee members believed that the regional growth policies eT11bedded in Projections sufficiently addressed both state and regional policies promoting transit use and efficient use of transportation infrastructure. It was felt by some members that having transit as a direct factor would give too much weight to transit and would also unfairly burden communities with both existing and planned transit. Planned transit was also contentious because some of the planned transit stations included in MTC's Regional Transportation Plan may not be built, including many of the e-BART stations planned for eastern Contra Costa County. However, others on the HMC felt that if housing is built at appropriate densities before transit is put in place, the transit investment may become more financially feasible, for projected ridership would be higher. D. The Allocation Formula The household growth, employment and transit factors are weighted together to create an allocation formula. Each factor describes a jurisdiction's "share" of a regional total. For example, if the region expects to grow by 100 households, and one city in the region is to grow by 10 households in the same period, then that city's "share" of the region's growth is 10 percent. A jurisdiction's share of the Regional Housing need is assigned according to its percentage share of regional: (Household Growth x .40) + (Employment Growth x .20) + (Existing Employment x .20) + (Household Growth near Transit x .10) + (Employment Growth near Transit x .10) Growth is during the RHNA planning period (2007 - 2014). The transit factors refer to growth that occurs within Y2 mile of planned or existing fixed transit stations in the jurisdiction. Planned stations are those in the RTP 2005 - Track, 1. 2. Regional Allocations of Housing Units based on Affordability There are two primary goals of the RHNA process: 1) increase the supply of housing and 2) ensure that local governments consider the housing needs of persons at all income levels. The HMC recommends that each local jurisdiction should plan for income-based housing in the same ratio as the regional average income distribution (as described by the 2000 Census). A methodology that allocates each jurisdiction's regional housing need based on the regional average income distribution would be an "equal share" approach because it applies the same income distribution to each jurisdiction. Although considered an equitable approach, it does not consider existing concentrations of poverty. July 2007, Page 11 San Francisco Bay Area Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 4th Revision The following income allocation of regional housing needs to jurisdictions is recommended: . Very Low, 23 Percent Households with income up to 50 percent of the county's area median income (AMI) Low, 16 Percent Households with income between 50 and 80 percent of the county's AMI Moderate, 19 Percent Households with income between 80 and 120 percent of the county's AMI Above-Moderate, 42 Percent Households with income above 120 percent of the county's AMI . . . This recommendation is based on the recognition that the need for affordable housing is a problem shared by the region as a whole, and is not localized to specific jurisdictions. By assigning every community an equal share of the regional need for affordable units, the methodology promotes the idea that every jurisdiction should do its "fair share" to provide housing. During the discussion of the income-based allocation, some HMC members expressed concern that a potential drawback of the proposed "equal share" strategy is that it might allocate affordable housing to jurisdictions that are less likely to build the units. If this were the case, the income allocation would therefore hinder the region's ability to provide enough housing affordable to meet the region's housing needs. However, there was general agreement that the benefits of this approach outweighed the potential negative. impact. In addition, the HMC members felt that this issue could be worked out through the provisions in the methodology that allow for voluntary transfer agreements between individual jurisdictions. The HMC discussed the possibility of using the proportion of households with a high housing cost burden in a jurisdiction to adjust the income allocation for each jurisdiction. As a result, areas with higher numbers of households with a cost burden would receive a larger share of affordable units. This factor is based on the premise that directing more affordable housing units to these jurisdictions would provide more housing options to residents in those areas. However, the HMC was opposed to adjusting allocations based on high housing cost burdens because there was concern that, as noted above, including a factor based on existing conditions in a jurisdiction would ultimately lead to the over-concentration of low-income households in an area. In addition, committee members were committed to the idea that the need for affordable housing is a regional problem that each local government should have an equal share in addressing. 3. Spheres of Influence Every city in the Bay Area has a "sphere of influence (SOl)". A city's SOl can be either contiguous with or beyond the city's boundaries. It is the areas that the city is responsible for planning, as it is the probable future boundary of the city, including areas that may eventually be annexed by the city. The SOl is designated by the county Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO). The LAFCO influences how government responsibilities are divided among jurisdictions and service districts within a county. If there is planned household or employment growth within the unincorporated portion of an SOl during the RHNA period, the allocation methodology must include a rule for allocating housing needs to the affected city or county. July 2007, Page 12 San Francisco Bay .l\rea Draft Regional Housing Needs .\llocation, 4th Revision Therefore, the HMC recommends that each local jurisdiction with the land-use pern1itting authority in a SOl should plan for the housing needed to accommodate housing growth, existing employment and employment growth in such areas. A 100 percent allocation of the housing need to the jurisdiction that has land use control over the area would ensure that the jurisdiction that plans for accommodating the housing units also receives credit for any built units during the RHNA period. There are differences in whether a city or county has jurisdiction over land use and development within unincorporated SOls. In response to these variations, the HMC recommends the following SOl rules: 1. In Napa, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties, the allocation of housing need generated by the unincorporated SOl will be assigned to the cities. 2. In Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, the allocation of housing need generated by the unincorporated SOl will be assigned to the county. 1 3. In Marin County, 75 percent of the allocation of housing need generated by the unincorporated SOl will be assigned to the city; the remaining 25 percent will be assigned to the county. The HMC recognizes that, although these guidelines reflect the general approaches to SOls in each county, adjustments may be needed to better reflect local conditions. Requests for SOl allocation adjustments may arise during the RHNA comment or revision period. Therefore, the HMC recommends that the methodology include the following criteria for handling such requests: 1. Adjustments to SOl allocations shall be consistent with any pre-existing written agreement between the city and county that allocates such units, or 2. In the absence of a written agreement, the requested adjustment would allocate the units to the jurisdiction that has permitting authority over future development in the SOL 4. Transfer of Units After the initial allocation, each local jurisdiction may request that it be allowed to transfer units with willing partner(s), in a way that maintains total need allocation amongst all transfer parties, maintains income distribution of both retained and transferred units, and includes a package of incentives to facilitate production of housing units. This transfer rule would allow the transfer of allocated housing need between willing jurisdictions in conjunction with financial and non-financial resources, while maintaining the integrity of the state's RHNA objectives by preventing any jurisdiction from abdicating its responsibility to plan for housing across all income categories. Transfers done in this manner may facilitate increased housing production in the region. The HMC recommends the following criteria for responding to requests for revisions that transfer units among local jurisdictions: 1 The County of San Mateo (formed a RHNA subregion) and the City and County of San Francisco (irrelevant) have been omitted. July 2007, Page 13 San Francisco Bay Area Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 4th Revision 1. Transfer requests must have at least two willing partners and the total number of units within the group requesting the transfer cannot be reduced. 2. Transfers must include units at all income levels in the same proportion as initially allocated. 3. All members of the transfer group must retain some allocation of very low and low income units. 4. The proposed transfer must include a specifically defined package of incentives and/or resources that will enable the jurisdiction(s) receiving an increased allocation to provide more housing choices than would otherwise occur absent the transfer and the accompanying incentives or resources. 5. If the transfer results in a greater concentration of very low or low income units in the receiving jurisdiction, the effect must be offset by findings by the members of the transfer group that address the RHNA objectives. For example, the findings might include (a) there is such an urgent need for more housing choices in those income categories that the opportunity to effect more housing choices in these categories offsets the impacts of over-concentration, or (b) the package of incentives and/or resources are for mixed income projects, or (c) the package of incentives and/or resources are for "transitional" housing for very low or low income households being relocated for rehabilitation of existing very low or low income units, or (d) the package of incentives and/or resources are for additional units that avoid displacement or "gentrification" of existing communities. 6. For the transfer of very low and low income units, there are restrictions that ensure the long-term affordability of the transferred units. 7. Transfers must comply with all other statutory constraints and be consistent with the RHNA objectives. In addition to guaranteeing that transfers meet the RHNA statutory objectives, these criteria promote regional policies to increase housing supply and provide more housing choices. The criteria state that the transfer must include the resources necessary to improve housing choices and, specifically, in a way that would not otherwise be possible without the transfer. The long-term affordability restrictions on very low and low income transferred units ensure that these units will contribute to a fundamental increase in affordable housing choices. The criteria also emphasize development of affordable units and are therefore consistent with the state RHNA objective that every jurisdiction does its "fair share" to provide affordable housing. The requirement that jurisdictions must retain some very low and low income units and the stipulation that transfers must maintain the same income distribution as is initially allocated ensure that a jurisdiction cannot abdicate its responsibility to provide affordable units. The criteria also ensure that the benefits created by the transfer outweigh any possible negative effects of an over-concentration of lower income households. 5. Subregions The County of San Mateo, in partnership with all twenty cities in the county, has formed a subregion, as allowed by state statute. The subregion has designated the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) as the entity responsible for coordinating and implementing the subregional RHNA process. July 2007, Page 14 San Francisco Bay Area Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 4th Revision As required by statute, ABAG will assign a share of the regional need to the San Mateo subregion "in a proportion consistent with the distribution of households" in Projections 2007. The subregion is responsible for completing its own RHNA process that is parallel to, but separate from, the regional RHNA process. The subregion will create its own methodology, issue draft allocations, handle the revision and appeal processes, and then issue final allocations to members of the subregion. Although the subregion is working independently of the regional RHNA process, ABAG is ultimately responsible for ensuring that all of the region's housing need is allocated. Thus, if the subregion fails at any point in its attempt to develop a final RHNA allocation for the subregion, ABAG must complete the allocation process for the members of the subregion. In the event that the San Mateo subregion fails to complete the RHNA process, the HMC recommends the methodology include the following guidelines for handling the allocation of units to jurisdictions within the subregion: 1. If the members of the subregion adopts a "default allocation," ABAG will allocate using the default allocation. A "default allocation" is the allocation which a member of the San Mateo RHNA subregion receives if it "opts out" of the subregion. 2. If the subregion fails before ABAG has made any allocation, ABAG combines the subregional share with the rest of the regional need and allocates the total regional need to the entire region using ABAG's RHNA methodology. 3. If the subregion fails after ABAG has made its initial allocation, ABAG separately allocates the subregional share among only the members of the subregion. ABAG uses its RHNA methodology to do so. This approach is recommended by the HMC because it mInImIzes the extent of any reallocations that could occur as a result of subregional failure and preserves the integrity of the respective efforts of ABAG and C/CAG. Keeping San Mateo separated once ABAG has completed its initial allocation also provides the most certainty to all jurisdictions about what their allocation will be. VI. Regional Projections Every two years, ABAG produces a long-run regional forecast called Projections. The Projections forecast provides specific information for population, households, employment and other related variables. In Projections 2007, values are reported fQr year 2000, and then for each five year increment to 2035. Several related models are used to perform the forecast. The economic model balances demand for the production of goods and services with the supply of productive capacity. The demographic model uses birth rates, death rates and migration data to forecast future population using a cohort-survival model. A great deal of data is required by the models, including information on economic relationships and trends, population-related information like births, deaths and migration, as well as land use and land use policy data. Since Projections 2003, ABAG has assumed the "Network of Neighborhoods" land use pattern, as developed through the Smart Growth Strategy/Regional Livability Footprint Project. This pattern expects higher levels of housing production. It also assumes that an increasing proportion of regional growth occurs near transit and in existing urban areas. In the Projections 2007 July 2007, Page 15 San Francisco Bay "\rea Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 4th Revision forecast, additional housing production and a shift in the pattern of development primarily occurs in the later part of the forecast. Earlier in the forecast, population growth is generally consistent with the California Department of Finance (DOF) forecast. The distribution of growth is generally consistent with local general plans. ABAG has continually collected information on local land use as part of its modeling efforts. The forecast is produced for nearly 1400 census tracts in the region and shows the existing land use and the capacity of each tract to support additional population or economic activities. Because the forecast is based on local land use information, forecasted growth occurs in locations that are consistent with local plans. However, even with 1400 census tracts, only so much detailed information can be included. We may know that moderate growth can occur in an area without specifically understanding that a portion of that area is a nature preserve. We may know that growth should not occur in an area, but it may not be clear whether it is due to a physical limitation, or a general plan policy. co July 2007, Page 16 \.>\' , I\. Attachment 2. Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation July 2007 Very Low Mod Above <50% Low <80% <120% Mod Total ALAMEDA 482 329 392 843 2,046 ALBANY 64 43 52 117 276 BERKELEY 328 424 549 1,130 2,431 DUBLIN 1,092 661 653 924 3,330 EMERYVILLE 186 174 219 558 1,137 FREMONT 1,348 887 876 1,269 4,380 HA YW ARD 768 483 569 1,573 3,393 LIVERMORE 1,038 660 683 1,013 3,394 NEWARK 257 160 155 291 863 OAKLAND 1,900 2,098 3,142 7,489 14,629 PIEDMONT 13 10 11 6 40 PLEASANTON 1,076 728 720 753 3,277 SAN LEANDRO 368 228 277 757 1,630 UNION CITY 561 391 380 612 1,944 UNINCORPORATED 536 340 400 891 2,167 ALAMEDA COUNTY 10,017 7,616 9,078 18,226 44,937 ANTIOCH 516 339 381 1,046 2,282 BRENTWOOD 717 435 480 1,073 2,705 CLAYTON 49 35 33 34 151 CONCORD 639 426 498 1 ,480 3,043 DANVILLE 196 130 146 111 583 EL CERRITO 93 59 80 199 431 HERCULES 143 74 73 163 453 LAFAYETTE 113 77 80 91 361 MARTINEZ 261 166 179 454 1,060 MORAGA 73 47 52 62 234 OAKLEY 219 120 88 348 775 ORINDA 70 48 55 45 218 PINOLE 83 49 48 143 323 PITTSBURG 322 223 296 931 1,772 PLEASANT HILL 160 105 106 257 628 RICHMOND 391 339 540 1,556 2,826 SAN PABLO 22 38 60 178 ,298 SAN RAMON 1,174 715 740 834 3,463 WALNUT CREEK 456 302 374 826 1,958 UNINCORPORATED 815 598 687 1 ,408 3,508 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 6,512 4,325 4,996 11,239 27,072 BELVEDERE 7 6 6 6 25 CORTE MADERA 68 38 46 92 244 FAIRFAX 23 12 19 54 108 LARKSPUR 90 55 75 162 382 MILL VALLEY 74 54 68 96 292 NOVATO 275 171 221 574 1,241 ROSS 8 6 5 8 27 SAN ANSELMO 26 19 21 47 113 SAN RAFAEL 262 207 288 646 1 ,403 SAUSALlTO 45 30 34 56 165 TIBURON 36 21 27 33 117 unincorporated 183 137 169 284 773 MARIN COUNTY 1,097 756 979 2,058 4,890 AMERICAN CANYON 169 116 143 300 728 CALlSTOGA 17 11 18 48 94 NAPA 466 295 381 882 2,024 ST HELENA 30 21 25 45 121 YOUNTVILLE 16 15 16 40 87 unincorporated 181 116 130 224 651 NAPA COUNTY 879 574 713 1,539 3,705 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY 6,588 5,534 6,753 12,314 31,189 SAN MATEO COUNTY 3,588 2,581 3,038 6,531 15,738 CAMPBELL 199 122 158 413 892 CUPERTINO 341 229 243 357 1,170 GILROY 319 217 271 808 1,615 LOS AL TOS 98 66 79 74 317 LOS ALTOS HILLS 27 19 22 13 81 LOS GA TOS 154 100 122 186 562 MILPITAS 689 421 441 936 2,487 MONTE SERENO 13 9 11 8 41 MORGAN HILL 317 249 246 500 1,312 MOUNTAIN VIEW 633 430 541 1,275 2,879 PALO ALTO 846 666 786 1,207 3,505 SAN JOSE 7,750 5,321 6,197 15,449 34,717 SANTA CLARA 1,293 914 1,002 2,664 5,873 SARATOGA 90 68 77 57 292 SUNNYVALE 1,073 708 776 1,869 4,426 unincorporated 35 27 34 69 165 SANTA CLARA COUNTY 13,877 9,566 11 ,006 25,885 60,334 BENICIA 147 99 108 178 532 DIXON 197 98 123 310 728 FAIRFIELD 873 562 675 1,686 3,796 RIO VISTA 213 176 207 623 1,219 SUISUN CITY 173 109 94 234 610 VACAVILLE 754 468 515 1,164 2,901 VALLEJO 655 468 568 1 ,409 3,100 unincorporated 26 16 18 39 99 SOLANO COUNTY 3,038 1,996 2,308 5,643 12,985 CLOVERDALE 71 61 81 204 417 COTATI 67 36 45 109 257 HEALDSBURG 71 48 55 157 331 PET ALUMA 522 352 370 701 1,945 ROHNERT PARK 371 231 273 679 1,554 SANTA ROSA 1,520 996 1,122 2,896 6,534 SEBASTOPOL 32 28 29 87 176 SONOMA 73 55 69 156 353 WINDSOR 198 130 137 254 719 unincorporated 319 217 264 564 1,364 SONOMA COUNTY 3,244 2,154 2,445 5,807 13,650 REGION 48,840 35,102 41,316 89,242 214,500 vj~ /Y'Vl\ ]~OO K STREET r, '/ SACR..AMENTO' CA 9')814 PH: (9] 6) 658-8200 FX: (916) 658-8240 ~.~ LEAGUE . ,..''-., . OF CALIFORNIA 'CITIES j,.. 'V:iW~:r,CACITI ES.ORG July 23, 2007 D1GEsr 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.org/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.org/resolutions. 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. V oting 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. ---------------------------------------------------------- I I Please Bring This Packet to the Annual Conference : September 5-8 - Sacramento I 1______---------------------------------------------------I 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 normal 60-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 may be 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 1. 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 ofmajor importance to cities. (b) Establish a new direction for League policy by establishing general principals around which more detailed policies may be 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. 11 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 Community Services Public Safety 12:30 - 2:30 p.m. Administrative Services 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. ~ General Resolutions Committee Friday, September 7, 2007, 1:30 p.m. Sacramento Convention Center (Rooms 317-318) 1400 J Street Sacramento, CA 95814 ~ 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 111 IV. KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN ON RESOLUTIONS Resolutions have been grouped by policy committees to which they have been assigned. Number I I Key Word Index RevieWinJ Body Action I 1 _ 2 I 3 1 - Policy Committee Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee 2 - General Resolutions Committee 3 - General Assembly ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES POLICY COMMITTEE 1 2 3 1 Renewal of League Grassroots Network Program COMMUNITY SERVICES POLICY COMMITTEE 1 2 3 i 2 I 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.org. RESOLUTIONS INITIATED BY PETITION General Resolutions Committee Recommendation General Assembly Action IV KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN ON RESOLUTIONS (Continued) KEY TO REVIEWING BODIES KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN 1. Policy Committee A- Approve 2. General Resolutions Committee D- Disapprove 3. General Assembly N- No Action R - Refer to appropriate policy committee for study Action Footnotes a- Amend Aa - Approve as amended * Subject matter covered in another resolution Aaa - Approve with additional am endment( s) ** Existing League policy *** Local authority presently exists 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, 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 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 1 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. IIIIIIIIII Back2round Information for Resolution #1 Source: Title: League Board of Directors 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 me~bership 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 ~hat ultimately became Proposition 1A. . 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 1A-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. >>>>>>>>>> 3 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 IT 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 RESOL VED, 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 RESOL VED, 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. 1111111111 No Back2:Tound 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 Referred 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 recoveryltreatment 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. IIIIIIIIII 5 Back2:round Information on Resolution #3 Source: Title: City of Los Angeles, Councilmember Jose Huizar Resolution Relating to the 300-F oot 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 tIl Q) ~ tIl Q) ~ tIl Q) u 'E Q) u:l C; 'u o u:l 4-< o 'E ~ ~ Q) o Q) ~ U5 \0 \0 Irl - ::: .~ u Q) u:l .e- .... =e ~ - Q) I-< ~ U ~~ 'E 15 Q) Q) "1::l"1::l . en . Vi Q) Q) ~ ~ .;~ "1::l"1::l <~ o Z o Z tIl Q) u 'E Q) u:l C; 'u o u:l 4-< o 15 ~ ~ Q) o Q) ~ U5 tr) 00 O~ tr) tr) - - ::: I:: .52 .~ t) u Q) Q) u:lu:l I-< o tIl "1::l Q) Q) ::: C;_ .~ 8 0.. 0 tIl..c: :E S ~ ~ ~ U e ] I-< -El ~ B :-= 0 cg 0 E ~ '-' I-< tIl Q) ~ tIl Q) ~ tIl Q) u 'E Q) u:l C; 'u o u:l 4-< o 15 ~ ~ Q) o Q) ~ U5 ~ ~ o Irl - ::: .g u Q) u:l "2 Q) I-< :E :.E Q) U S I-< d5cB ~ 8 o 0 I-< :I: 0,-, o Z o Z tI) Q) (,) 'E Q) u:l c; 'u o u:l 4-< o E ~ ~ Q) o Q) ..... ~ U5 00 \0 Irl - ::: .52 t) Q) u:l - - - ~ C; (,) 'g ;;- ~s:: U I-< I-< 0 cBu:l Q) 0 ~ < U.:; ] o~ e ~ ~ ::s tI) "1::l ~~ o Z o Z tI) Q) (,) 'E Q) u:l C; 'u o u:l 4-< o E ~ ~ Q) o Q) ..... ~ ..... u:l tr) 0'10 \0 ~ Irl tr) - - ::: ::: og o~ (,) (,) Q) Q) u:lu:l - I-< Q) "1::l ~o I-< I-< Q) 0 :E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..... 0 cB~ Q) ~ ~ '8 U ~ 3 I-< 15cB ~ 8 tI) 0 ~~ tI) Q) ~ tI) Q) ~ tI) Q) (,) OE Q) u:l C; 'u o u:l 4-< o E ~ ~ Q) o Q) ~ ..... u:l r- ~ Irl - ::: .52 ..... (,) Q) u:l C; 'u Q) 0.. u:l .:; tI) . ... 8 ~ o ::: :I:~ ;;...:-= ~"5~ a I-< _:€ ~CB -Q):E I-< ~ C;s ~ tIl U .... u:l '-' 0 7 o Z o Z tI) Q) (,) OE Q) u:l c; 'u o u:l 4-< o E ~ ~ Q) o B .s u:l Irl \00 \0 N Irl Irl - - ::: ::: 052 .52 ..... ..... (,) (,) Q) Q) u:lu:l E 8 Q) (,) r- ~ - 6: ti bO ~ .5 ~ ~ ~ o Q) :I: ~ ] ~ :~ .:; tI) ::: ~ I-< ~ o Z o Z * * * e ~ I-< o I-< ~ 2 o "'C a ] o (,) :< 4-< o ~ ~ Q) o Q) ..... ~ ..... u:l Irl N ~ -.:f-.:f ~ ~ 00 00 - - - - ::: ::: .52 .52 ..... ..... (,) (,) Q) Q) u:lu:l ~ o tI) !>, "'C ::: ~ Q) tI) tI) ::: ..E 0 -< .~ bO Q) 2 tI) 0] "'C . 52 a ~ S g .~ ] o ..c: o (,) :< ~ :.E 8 ~ .9 Q) "'C '-' o Z o Z "'C Q) .!:l ::s Q) I-< Q) tI) ::: Q) ] o Z Q) :0 ~ ] -< o z 'B Q) ;> o u Q) I-< - tI) Q) tIl ::s o ..c: Q) Q) t.l:: bO 2 "'C bO"'C ::: I:: 'S: ~ ::30 I-< ..c: Q) 8 ..g:< u:l '-' ~ Q) ..c: o ::: ;> ~ 0 ~ ~ Q) ~ ~ 0"'C ~ i .~ "5 ~a 803 oE 8 Q) ::: tIl .~ Q) - ~ ~ ~8 .0 ~ e 'u ~ ~ bh Q) 0 ~~ -..... Q) ~ ::: "8 gpo~ ~:B B- ~o tI) ::s ~~o ~ ~ "'C ~ 8 a ::: ::: - ~ 0 .~ .:; '.;j E C;~~ ~ e '00 (,) Q) .~ ::: ~ E8e; cB~o ~~-< U 0 * * * * * * ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ RESOLUTION REFERRED TO PUBLIC SAFETY POLICY COMMITTEE 4. RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A.B. 38; ESTABLISIDNG 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 RESOL VED, 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 RESOL VED, 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. 111111/111 8 Source: Title: Back2Tound Information on Resolution #4 Public Safety Policy Committee Resolution Relating to the Implementation of A.B. 38; Establishing a New "Department of Emergency Services and Homeland Security" I~ SACRAMENTO STATE m LEAGUE OF CALI FORNIA CITIES 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: Weare 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 fmdings and take part in meaningful discussion of its recommendations. Please take the opportunity to review the paper and its fmdings. Our organizations hope to meet with you to discuss the possibility of next steps for the paper's recommendations and to strategize 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 JoAnne Speers Executive Director ~"~ enter for Collaborative Policy /\1\ c.---~ <c~J-,-_-~-'~ Institute for Local Government Steve Keil Interim Executive Director Chris McKenzie Executive Director s~~ /I. ~ As~ ( c .~ League of California Cities California State Association of Counties ### 9