IN THIS ISSUE: July 20, 2007
Issue #28-2007
Page 3: AB 1338 Becomes a Two-Year Bill - Measure Would Affect Local Coastal Programs
California Supreme Court Places Limits on Liability Waivers
Page 4: Letters Needed in Support of a Temporary Extension of the Internet Tax Moratorium
Page 5: Public Employee Post-Employment Benefits Commission Meeting Set for July 27
U.S. Communities Launches ‘Go Green’ Initiative
Page 6: Find a Bill, Legislators, Leg Committee, or Ask League Leg Staff
STATE BUDGET UPDATE: BUDGET MAY BE PASSED THIS WEEKEND
Sacramento was abuzz this week with rumors circulating on a number of issues concerning the
state budget. Early this morning, the Assembly passed the budget, which is now headed to the
Senate for a hearing later today.
League staff will be monitoring budget advances and will issue a more detailed update next week.
Stay tuned to the League Web site and next week’s Priority Focus for details as they become
available.
•••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• ••
CALPERS ANNOUNCES ANNUAL INTEREST EARNINGS AT 18 PERCENT
Delayed Impact on Employer Contribution Rates Expected
At a recent meeting of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Post Employment Benefits Commission,
Ron Seeling, chief actuary for the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS),
announced that CalPERS expects to achieve in excess of 18 percent interest earnings on the
system’s investments for the fiscal year that ended on June 30. For more, see Page 2.
•••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• ••
SB 1020 UPDATE: SOLID WASTE DIVERSION BILL MOVES ON
SB 1020 (Padilla), a bill that would require the California Integrated Waste Management Board
(CIWMB) to adopt policies, programs, and incentives to ensure that the state achieves a 60
percent solid waste diversion rate by 2012 and a 75 percent diversion rate by 2020, passed the
Assembly Natural Resources Committee last week.
The measure was sent to the Assembly Appropriations Committee suspense calendar on
Wednesday, July 18 and is expected to be heard in late August. For more, see Page 2.
2
‘CalPERS’ Continued from Page 1…
This is great news for CalPERS and will significantly decrease the system’s current unfunded
liability that grew considerably during the downturn in the stock market earlier this decade. The
system appears to be on to a “fully funded” or perhaps even “super funded” status it enjoyed in
the mid- to late-1990s.
Despite the good news, however, employer members of CalPERS should note that these
investment earnings will have a delayed impact on local employer contribution rates.
Background on ‘Rate Smoothing’
One of the key changes made by CalPERS because of the unprecedented two years of negative
interest earnings of the system in the early 2000s was the institution of “rate smoothing.” The
actuarial rate smoothing techniques implemented by CalPERS were designed to “smooth” the
volatility of employer contribution rates during times of dramatic loss or gain in the system.
This actuarial discipline was demanded by most employers and employees after the sharp drop in
interest earnings in the early 2000s. The good news for employers in the rate smoothing
techniques is that the losses (contribution rate increases) will not be as dramatic as experienced
in the early 2000s. The bad news is that most employers will never see a rate holiday again
where little, if any, employer contributions are paid into the retirement system.
The “rate smoothing” techniques put into place by CalPERS are not set in concrete. CalPERS
indicated that at the time these techniques were implemented, that if/when employer accounts
reach the mark of 100 percent funding on market values, the CalPERS board of directors would
be given options to consider for making changes in the smoothing techniques.
It is likely that the state and many contracting employers will reach that funding mark as a result
of the healthy investment earnings CalPERS just announced. Among the options for the board
could be actions to ease employer contribution rates. The board deliberation on the actuarial
smoothing policies may take two to three months before it is complete.
One last issue to consider as a public agency contractor with CalPERS (all cities, counties, and
special districts) is that the crediting of interest earnings to the retirement accounts of Public
Agencies lags two years behind the timeframe for State of California as an employer.
As a result, the 18 percent reported interest earnings will not impact the rates of Public Agencies
until 2009-2010. That said, however, public agency contribution rates continue to be reduced as a
result of solid, but less dramatic, CalPERS interest earnings over the past few years.
As deliberations over possible changes to the CalPERS smoothing techniques take place, the
League will issue further updates in Priority Focus.
______________________________________________________________________
‘SB 1020’ Continued from Page 1…
SB 1020 is part of a much broader discussion about how California should (or should not)
proceed beyond the existing 50 percent solid waste diversion mandate that is a part of the
Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939 and SB 1322). Because the discussion is
ongoing, the current language of SB 1020 is still considered a “spot” for future language. The
League of California Cities is in discussions with Sen. Padilla and other solid waste interest
groups on the issue. The League currently has no position on SB 1020.
Existing League policy does not address increasing the statewide diversion requirements above
50 percent. Based upon League policy committee review of similar past bills, however, the
League has indicated that although it does not support or oppose and increase in the waste 3
diversion rate, any such proposal must also include significant efforts to streamline the provisions
of AB 939 to assist in compliance.
In addition, existing League policy supports legislation to provide changes to AB 939 to place
more emphasis on implementation of waste diversion programs and less upon strict mathematical
accounting (i.e. bean counting); and expansion of market development activities, including the
development of non-burn transformation technologies and providing funding for research and
development of recyclable materials.
As SB 1020 is amended or negotiations on alternatives progress, the League will keep city
officials posted through updates in Priority Focus.
_____________________________________________________________________________
AB 1338 Becomes a Two-Year Bill
Measure Would Affect Local Coastal Programs
AB 1338 (Huffman) failed passage in the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee on
July 11. The bill would require a local coastal government to include a nonpoint source (NPS)
pollution prevention element in its Local Coastal Program (LCP) when adopting or amending an
LCP for approval by the California Coastal Commission.
The measure is now a two-year bill, meaning it is effectively dead in 2007 and may be
reconsidered some time in 2008. The League had initially supported AB 1338, as its language
directly addressed concerns that the League had over a similar piece of legislation in 2002 that
failed to pass.
Upon further review by the Coastal Cities Issue Group, however, the group raised concerns that
the bill would create unnecessary duplication and increased workload on the already understaffed
California Coastal Commission and recommended that AB 1338 become a two-year bill.
The League’s Coastal Cities Issue Group meeting was held on June 1 in Santa Barbara. The
meeting was attended by approximately 30 city officials and staff, including Judy Mitchell, chair of
the League’s Environmental Quality Policy Committee and council member of the city of Rolling
Hills Estates.
_____________________________________________________________________________
California Supreme Court Places Limits on Liability Waivers
Liability waivers have been a key asset in helping cities manage the risks associated with
recreation programs and activities. A recent decision of the California Supreme Court in City of
Santa Barbara v. Superior Court (Janeway) has now called into question whether those waivers
still provide the protection upon which cities have historically relied.
The California Supreme Court ruled that liability waivers cannot release a city from liability for its
gross negligence, which in turn will encourage plaintiff attorneys to plead facts showing that the
injury or death was the result of gross negligence.
The case may also impact cities by increasing the liability costs associated with recreation
programs. In the past, cities have relied on liability waivers to allow them to dispose of a personal
injury or wrongful death case at an early stage through the use of a motion for summary
judgment.
If a court finds that there is a factual dispute, the court will decline to grant a city’s motion for
summary judgment, and instead, set the case for jury trial. This will subject the city to additional
litigation costs as well as settlement costs or jury verdicts for cases that previously may have
been disposed of by a summary judgment motion.
4
Litigation Background
This case arose from the drowning death of Katie Janeway in a city swimming pool operated by
the city of Santa Barbara in 2002. Janeway was developmentally disabled and was participating
in the Adventure Camp program, which was specifically designed for developmentally disabled
children. Katie’s parent had signed a release that indemnified the city and held it harmless from
all liability.
After Katie’s death, the Janeways sued the city for wrongful death. The city sought to have the
case dismissed, arguing that the Janeways waived their legal rights against the city by signing the
release. The trial court declined to dismiss the lawsuit and Santa Barbara appealed to Court of
Appeal.
The Court of Appeal held that the release was effective as to the city’s “ordinary negligence,” but
was not effective as to the city’s “gross negligence.” The Court of Appeal found that a jury could
conclude from the facts that the city had been grossly negligent and that this led to Katie’s
drowning. The case was ordered to proceed to jury trial.
Santa Barbara then appealed to the California Supreme Court. The California Supreme Court
began by defining “ordinary negligence” as a “failure to exercise the degree of care in a given
situation that a reasonable person under similar circumstances would employ to protect others
from harm.”
In contrast, the court defined “gross negligence” as “a want of even scant care or an extreme
departure from the ordinary standard of conduct.” The court emphasized that not all waivers of
future liability for negligence were void. In this case, the court noted that the Court of Appeal held
the liability waiver was effective to the extent it waived liability for the city’s ordinary negligence.
Instead, the California Supreme Court focused on whether the liability waiver was effective as to
the city’s gross negligence. The court concluded that an agreement purporting to release liability
for future gross negligence violates public policy and is unenforceable.
The League of California Cities encourages cities to consult with their city attorneys and risk
managers regarding this case. The League thanks Don Margolis of the San Francisco City
Attorney’s Office for writing the friend-of-the-court brief to the California Supreme Court on behalf
of the League.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Letters Needed in Support of a Temporary Extension of the Internet Tax
Moratorium
With the temporary extension of the Internet Moratorium on Internet access taxes and multiple
and discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce set to expire on Nov. 1, the U.S. House of
Representatives Judiciary Committee is set to re-examine the issue.
The House Judiciary Committee has scheduled a hearing to discuss the Internet Moratorium next
week. The committee also plans to mark-up legislation on this issue during the week of July 30.
Currently, no House version of the temporary extension of the Internet Moratorium legislation has
been introduced, although several permanent extension measures have.
Take Action!
The League of California Cities is in support of a temporary extension and is asking Utility Users
Tax (UUT) cities with Democratic members on the House Judiciary Committee to write their
Congress member, urging them to introduce or co-sponsor legislation that would extend the
Internet Moratorium for another three years. A sample letter is located at
www.cacities.org/federalresources.
5
Background
Earlier this year, in both the House and the Senate, bills were introduced -- H.R. 743 (Eshoo-
Calif.), H.R. 1077 (Campbell-Calif.) and S. 156 (Wyden-Ore.) -- that would make the moratorium
on Internet access taxes and multiple and discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce
permanent. In the Senate, however, another proposal has emerged, S.1453 (Carper-Del.), which
would extend the Internet Moratorium for four more years. California Sen. Dianne Feinstein has
signed on as a co-sponsor of S. 1453.
The hearing next week will be the first in the House to address the Internet Moratorium. The
League will continue to monitor the issue as it develops.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Public Employee Post-Employment Benefits Commission Meeting Set for July 27
The next meeting of the Public Employee Post-Employment Benefits Commission will take place
on Friday, July 27, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the University of California, San Diego. The focus of
this meeting will be on providing for the pension and health care needs of California’s school
employees. City officials interested in following the commission’s work on post-employment
benefits are encouraged to attend.
The commission was established by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s signing of Executive Order
S-25-06. Its goal is to propose ways to address unfunded post-employment benefits. By Jan. 1,
2008, the commission must send a report to the Governor and Legislature that will:
• Identify the full amount of post-employment health care and dental benefits for which
California governments are liable and which remain unfunded.
• Evaluate and compare various approaches for addressing governments' unfunded
retirement health care and pension obligations.
• Propose a plan to address governments' unfunded retirement health care and pension
obligations.
The commission includes 12 members. Six, including the chairperson, were appointed by the
Governor, three were appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly Fabian Núñez, and three were
appointed by the Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata. A full listing of the commissioners is
located at www.pebc.ca.gov/commissioners.html.
For more information on the meeting, contact Ashley Snee Giovannettone at (916) 869-9419.
_____________________________________________________________________________
U.S. Communities Launches ‘Go Green’ Initiative
U.S. Communities/Green is now offering public agencies and nonprofits direct access to “green”
products and services, making it the one-stop source for public agency access to a broad line of
environmentally-certified products and services.
U.S. Communities/Green has identified numerous items - from Energy Star to Green Seal - in its
contracts that meet third-party environmental certification standards to help public agencies meet
their responsible procurement needs. For more information, visit the Green program Web site at
www.uscommunities.org/gpa/green.
By aggregating the purchasing power of public agencies nationwide, U.S. Communities – the
national purchasing alliance co-sponsored by the League of California Cities – gives cities and
other public agencies access to publicly bid products and services as very deep discounts, saving
both time and money.
More than 270 cities in California use one or more of the master contracts available through U.S.
Communities. This new green feature on the Web site allows you to search and find thousands
of environmentally responsible products available through U.S. Communities contracts.
6
More information about U.S. Communities is available at www.uscommunities.org. Cities are
encouraged to share this information with purchasing agents, public works officers, finance
officers, or other appropriate city officials.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Find a Bill, Legislators, Leg Committee, or Ask League Leg Staff
Visit (and bookmark!) the League’s Legislative Resources Web page
(www.cacities.org/legresources). You’ll find a roster and contact information for the League’s
legislative staff; the online Bill Search program, background materials on lobbying your
legislators, and more.
_____________________________________________________________________________
IN THIS ISSUE: July 27, 2007
Issue #29-2007
Page 3: Storm Water Fee Constitutional Amendment Goes to Senate Floor
Page 4: Local Program to Help Obtain Census Info Available
Public Safety First Responders to Receive Nearly $1 Billion in Communications Grants
Page 5: Applications Now Being Accepted for the Innovations in American Government Award
Find a Bill, Legislators, Leg Committee, or Ask League Leg Staff
STATE BUDGET STALEMATE CONTINUES
The California Senate is still in a holding pattern regarding the state budget. After meeting on
July 20, the Senate recessed until Wednesday July 25, only to delay until Thursday, July 26.
The sticking point is between the Democrats and Republicans in the Senate, with the
Republicans seeking a vote on proposed cuts to the Assembly’s version of the budget, while the
Democrats are inclined to pass the budget as-is. For more, see Page 2.
•••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• ••
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LEGISLATION: LEAGUE-OPPOSED BILLS (PT. 2)
While the state budget was the top priority of the California Legislature this week, the area of
workers’ compensation has been an important issue throughout the legislative session. The
League of California Cities opposes a number of bills this year, due to the potential extreme costs
to cities if the measures are passed.
Below is the second round in a series of brief summaries on some of the workers’ compensation
bills the League opposes (for the first set of bills, see “Workers’ Compensation Legislation:
League-Opposed Bills” at www.cacities.org/er, or the June 22 edition of Priority Focus).
Cities are encouraged to review the measures and send letters of opposition to the bills’ authors
and your respective senator/assembly member. For more, see Page 2.
•••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• ••
FOUR RESOLUTIONS SET FOR CONSIDERATION AT LEAGUE
ANNUAL CONFERENCE
The League of California Cities will consider four resolutions at the 2007 Annual Conference in
Sacramento. The resolutions address the renewal of the League grassroots network program, healthy
aging, residential care facilities and establishing a new Department of Emergency Services and
Homeland Security. For more, see Page 3.
2
‘State Budget’ Continued from Page 1…
In order to pass the budget, a two-thirds majority vote is needed. A solution to the impasse could
see Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger “blue pencil” (delete) the budget line items in disagreement.
Another option is to take a set of Assembly bills, amend them with a new budget proposal, and
then send them to the Assembly for a concurrence vote.
At press time, on Friday, July 27, the Senate is on-call, meaning Senate President Pro Tem Don
Perata can call the Senate to the floor at any time.
League staff will be monitoring budget advances and will issue a more detailed update on the
League Web site as information becomes available. Once a budget is passed, the next edition of
Priority Focus following the budget’s passage will contain a detailed rundown on the impacts it
has on cities.
_____________________________________________________________________________
‘Workers’ Compensation’ Continued from Page 1…
• AB 553 (Hernandez). AB 553 would exclusively authorize the Public Employees
Relations Board (PERB) to determine, under the Meyers Milias Brown Act (MMBA),
whether to seek from a court of competent jurisdiction injunctive relief involving employee
strikes, work stoppages, or lockouts.
This bill seeks to expand PERB authority into areas in which it has no existing authority
or expertise. In addition, AB 553 would directly pre-empt existing litigation; usurp city and
county authority over matters involving public health and safety and add unacceptable
delays to seeking injunctive relief to protect the public health and safety.
• AB 220 (Bass). AB 220 attempts to duplicate the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill
of Rights (POBAR). The bill would permit firefighters to engage in specified political
activities and provide procedures and conditions for the investigation and interrogation of
an employee that could lead to punitive action.
AB 220 is unnecessary and burdensome. Firefighters are not the subject of
investigations and interrogations to the same extent as peace officers. Firefighters
already have substantial procedural and due process rights and collective bargaining
rights. This bill would impose substantial unfunded mandated costs on local government.
• AB 419 (Lieber). Although AB 419 was included in the June 22 edition of Priority Focus,
it is being re-listed in this update due to its severe negative impacts on cities. The bill
deletes the restriction that limits disability compensation for injuries received on the job to
safety employees who are members of PERS.
In addition, the bill eliminates the provision that public safety employees be members of
one of the retirement systems in order to receive this benefit. This is a very bad carve-
out on behalf of public safety.
• AB 1496 (Swanson). AB 1496 would impose harsh restrictions on the use of temporary
and contract employees. The bill eliminates what is permitted in current law and requires
inclusion of all employees within the civil service or merit system with two exceptions:
• Apprentices or technical experts on a temporary work basis or;
• Substitute or short term employees paid for less than 50 percent of work days in
a fiscal year
The bill competes with authority to limit temporary employment already granted local
agency pension systems (i.e. CalPERS). AB 1496 is costly and unnecessary as most of
the provisions are subject to local agency collective bargaining. Fortunately, the Senate
Local Government Committee saw this bill as troublesome and made it a two-year bill. 3
AB 1496 is not dead and will resurface in Jan. 2008. It is important to continue letting
Assembly Member Swanson and his colleagues know how detrimental AB 1496 is to
local governments.
Prior Update
The June 22 issue of Priority Focus featured the summaries of the following League-opposed
workers’ compensation bills:
• AB 419 (Lieber)
• AB 807 (Hancock)
• AB 1636 (Mendoza)
• AB 1073 (Nava)
Visit www.cacities.org/er for the original story covering these bills, and why the League is in
opposition.
For more information on all workers’ compensation legislation, look up the measures at
www.cacities.org/billsearch, www.assembly.ca.gov or www.senate.ca.gov. If you have questions,
please contact League Legislative Representative P. Anthony Thomas at (916) 658-8279.
_____________________________________________________________________________
‘Resolutions’ Continued from Page 1…
The four policy committees to which the resolutions have been assigned—Community Services,
Administrative Services, Public Safety, and Housing, Community and Economic Development—will
consider them on Wednesday, Sept. 5. Following this action, the resolutions will be considered by the
League’s General Resolutions Committee on Friday, Sept. 7. The League General Assembly is
scheduled to vote on the resolutions referred to it during its morning meeting on Saturday, Sept. 8.
The League encourages 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 resolutions packet was
distributed to all cities this week and is also posted on the League’s Web site at
www.cacities.org/resolutions.
Cities should also remember to designate voting delegates and two alternates so that their cities may
vote on the resolutions at the General Assembly. Information about voting delegates is also available
at www.cacities.org/resolutions.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Storm Water Fee Constitutional Amendment Goes to Senate Floor
Senate Constitutional Amendment (SCA) 12, introduced by Sen. Tom Torlakson, D-Antioch, on
May 21, has passed out of the Senate Local Government and Elections Reapportionment and
Constitutional Amendments Committees. The measure is now awaiting a vote on the Senate
Floor.
If signed into law, this League-supported measure would allow fees for storm water and urban
runoff management to work in the same way as fees for garbage collection, sewer treatment, and
water.
Some cities are faced with using scarce general fund money to support these important water
quality programs in light of the restrictions placed upon them by Proposition 218. Existing law
(established by Prop. 218) requires local voter approval of certain property related fees. Prop.
218 exempts certain types of fees, such as those for water, sewer and garbage, from the voter
approval requirement of Prop. 218.
The League supports SCA 12 (to view the League's letter of support, look up SCA 12 at
www.cacities.org/billsearch) and co-sponsored a similar measure to SCA 12 in 2002 (ACA 10
[Harman]). 4
_____________________________________________________________________________
Public Safety First Responders to Receive Nearly $1 Billion in Communications
Grants
U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez and U.S. Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary
Michael Chertoff announced on Wednesday, July 18, that $968 million in Public Safety
Interoperable Communications (PSIC) Grants are available to help state and local first
responders improve public safety communications and coordination during a natural or man-
made disaster.
The PSIC grant program will assist public safety agencies in the acquisition, deployment, and
training of interoperable communications systems to enhance interoperable communications of
voice, data, and/or video signals. Public safety agencies in California are encouraged to apply.
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) is working with public
safety agencies to improve emergency communications and to fill the gaps identified in Statewide
Communications Interoperability Plans (SCIPs). To address these goals, states and territories
must consider advanced technological solutions that enhance capabilities for responding to all
hazards when selecting projects for PSIC funding.
In particular, applicants should consider solutions that use the nation’s airwaves efficiently, are
cost-effective, and enhance communications in areas at high risk for natural disasters. These
options should continue to improve interoperable communication efforts in high-threat urban and
metropolitan areas. Grant-funded projects must be completed by the end of fiscal year 2010.
An application kit is available at www.ntia.doc.gov/psic/. Applications are due by Aug. 22, and
grants will be awarded by Sept. 30.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Local Program to Help Obtain Census Info Available
Although the 2010 Census is still three years away, the U.S. Census Bureau has started mailing
informational booklets to all state, local and tribal governments about the Local Update of Census
Addresses (LUCA) program – a tool for governments to provide updated addresses for their
communities.
This joint and voluntary program between the Census Bureau and local governments is the
official start of the 2010 Census. The Census Bureau estimates that there will be over 310 million
people living in the 50 states, Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico by 2010.
In partnership with the Census Bureau, local governments will use their area knowledge to
improve the list of addresses for housing units and group quarters, including growth from new
construction or annexation.
After registering for LUCA between July 2007 and Jan. 2008, participating governments will
receive materials and will have 120 days to review and improve the address list.
The information contained in the address list is confidential by law, and those governments that
choose to participate in the LUCA program will be provided an option to review the Census
Bureau’s address list. Like all census employees, those who review and update a confidential
address list are subject to a jail term, a fine or both if they disclose any protected information.
After LUCA, but prior to the 2010 Census questionnaire delivery, address listers will perform a
field canvass across the country to make sure the latest address list is correct. Using global
positioning system (GPS) mapping on hand-held computers, workers will be able to update
information electronically while out in the field.
5
For more information, visit the 2010 Census LUCA Program at
www.census.gov/geo/www/luca2010/luca.html, or call the Census Bureau Geography Division at
(866) 511-5822.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Applications Now Being Accepted for the Innovations in American Government
Award
Applications for the Innovations in American Government Award, given annually to programs that
serve as examples of creative and effective government at its best, are now being accepted.
Administered by the Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard
University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, the award is open to federal, state, local,
tribal and territorial governments. Winners of the 2008 Innovations Award will receive a $100,000
grant to support replication and dissemination activities.
For more information and an application, visit www.innovationsaward.harvard.edu. Applications
are due by Oct. 15.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Find a Bill, Legislators, Leg Committee, or Ask League Leg Staff
Visit (and bookmark!) the League’s Legislative Resources Web page
(www.cacities.org/legresources). You’ll find a roster and contact information for the League’s
legislative staff; the online Bill Search program, background materials on lobbying your
legislators, and more.
_____________________________________________________________________________
IN THIS ISSUE: Aug. 3, 2007
Issue #30-2007
Page 4: Legal Decision Seizes Cities’ Right to Confiscate Vehicles
Page 5: Office of Emergency Services Seeks Comments on State Hazard Mitigation Plan
Page 6: Find a Bill, Legislators, Leg Committee, or Ask League Leg Staff
NO DEAL: STATE BUDGET STILL AT AN IMPASSE
After weeks of negotiations, the California Legislature is still at an impasse on the FY 2007-08
state budget, after failing to obtain the two-thirds vote needed to pass.
The Senate held a floor session on the evening of Wednesday, Aug. 1, and voted on SB 77 and
SB 78, the budget proposals passed by the Assembly. Even with a commitment from Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger to “blue pencil” (delete) certain line items to reduce the operating deficit
(a request made by the Republican Caucus), SB 77 and SB 78 still were not able to garner the
votes necessary to move forward. For more, see Page 2.
•••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• ••
CITIES URGED TO OPPOSE AB 414
Local Planning Measure Moves to the Senate Floor
The League urges cities to oppose AB 414 (Jones). If signed into law, this local planning
measure would have negative impacts for cities on both infill and mixed use zoning.
For more, see Page 2.
•••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• ••
LEAGUE BOARD MEETS IN MONTEREY
International Relations, Eminent Domain, Land Use Issues Discussed
The League of California Cities board of directors met on Friday, July 27 and Saturday, July 28, in
Monterey. The board addressed a variety of legislative and administrative issues and received an
update on the League’s strategic goals for 2007. For more, see Page 3.
2
‘State Budget’ Continued from Page 1…
The final vote on both measures was 26-14, with all Democrats and one Republican (Sen. Abel
Maldonado, R-Santa Maria) in support. All other Republicans were opposed. Only one more
Republican vote was needed to pass the proposals.
It is unclear as to when the Senate will reconvene. The Assembly, after passing the budget bills
and trailer bills on July 20, departed for a month-long legislative recess.
League staff will be monitoring budget advances and will issue a more detailed update on the
League Web site as information becomes available. Once a budget is passed, the next edition of
Priority Focus following the budget's passage will contain a detailed rundown on the impacts it
has on cities.
_____________________________________________________________________________
‘AB 414’ Continued from Page 1…
AB 414 makes technical changes to how local agencies can accommodate their fair share of
housing on non-residentially zoned parcels. The bill would also impose the same conditions for
all local agencies regardless of size, circumstance, or performance, on how to count sites for
housing designated on non-residential land.
Earlier versions of AB 414 had only applied to vacant parcels zoned for non-residential uses. The
amendments taken in the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee on July 9, however,
expanded the scope of the bill to all non-residentially zoned parcels.
This bill would lead to the following three problems:
• Makes Infill Zoning More Difficult. AB 414 would make zoning more difficult for built-out
communities that do not know which parcels may actually become available for housing
during the planning period. Rather than encourage infill housing, AB 414 will constrict cities’
ability to designate commercial sites as housing sites, and remove cities’ incentives for
allowing housing in commercial areas. This bill would require cities to pre-zone non-vacant
lands or commercial areas before they become available.
• Chills Development in Mixed Use Neighborhoods. The measure creates an exception for
mixed use buildings, but not mixed use zoning. A vibrant mixed use neighborhood consists
of more than just buildings that have restaurants on the ground floor and apartments above;
they include a mix of housing-only buildings, commercial-only buildings, and shared-use
buildings.
The challenge in creating these areas is giving the market flexibility to determine where each
type of use will fit in. AB 414’s parcel-by-parcel approach would chill development in mixed
use developments.
• Creates Disincentives for Mixed Use Zoning. If AB 414 is passed, local agencies would
only receive credit for one housing unit for every two that they zone in mixed and multi-use
zones. With this kind of disincentive, local agencies will be less likely to create mixed use
zones in direct opposition what infill development and smart growth is trying to achieve.
Take Action
The League recommends that cities send letters to their state senators requesting a “no” vote on
the Senate floor to AB 414. For a sample letter, look up AB 414 using the League’s bill search
tool at www.cacities.org/billsearch. The bill will be on the Senate floor when the Legislature
reconvenes after the legislative recess.
3
The following cities have already sent in floor letters:
• Brea
• Buena Park
• Colma
• Corona
• Costa Mesa
• Fairfield
• Fowler
• Larkspur
• La Quinta
• Lemoore
• Lincoln
• Milbrae
• Mill Valley
• Napa
• Placerville
• Rancho Mirage
• Redwood City
• Roseville
• San Mateo
• Santa Rosa
• Sebastopol
• Taft
_____________________________________________________________________________
‘League Board’ Continued from Page 1…
The board was briefed on the status of the major infrastructure bond implementation legislation in
connection with the state budget deliberations. A large focus of this discussion centered on the
likely approval of a budget trailer bill that would make $950 million available to local governments
for local street and road funding.
Board members were then updated on the status of ACA 8 and AB 887, the legislative package
proposed by Californians for Eminent Domain Reform. The League is part of this coalition.
Following the briefing, the board voted unanimously to continue the League’s support for pursuing
eminent domain reform through both the legislative and initiative process.
Included in an update to the board was information on the successful efforts by cities, the League
and environmental groups to secure a two-year legislative process for SB 303 (Ducheny). A
presentation on the League’s partnership with Housing California and other groups to secure
future legislative support for funding of affordable housing programs in California followed the SB
303 discussion.
SB 375: Bill Sponsor Addresses League Board
SB 375 (Steinberg) was a major legislative topic of discussion for the board. The bill has
significant land use implications for local government and the League’s position has been
“oppose unless amended.”
Tom Adams, president of the board of directors of the California League of Conservation Voters,
and an SB 375 sponsor, met with the League’s board to provide an explanation of why he
believes the legislation is important.
Adams discussed how with the passage of AB 32 last year and the increasing concern about
global warming, it is essential to link land use and transportation. He said SB 375’s intent is to
reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled, which is a key component of AB 32’s mandate to
reduce green house gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020.
4
Adams said he believes SB 375 would not be passed without the League’s support. The League
has had some considerable concerns with the legislation as it is currently written and offered
Adams a list of potential alternatives to address some of the issues for local government.
There is a clear realization by the board that SB 375 presents a historic opportunity to the cities of
California to help address the pressing issue of greenhouse gas emission reduction. In addition,
cities recognize that this discussion also affects some of the more pressing growth and
development challenges of California.
The League is willing to work on this task. The board believes however, that it will take months to
do it well, and rushing to enact such sweeping legislation will most likely lead to serious
omissions and errors that will cause a significant backlash and undermine its successful
implementation.
For this reason, the board respectfully and strongly requested that further legislative
consideration of SB 375 be delayed, and that the measure become a two-year bill.
Policy Committee Recommendations
The League board of directors reviewed recommendations from policy committee meetings held
in June on a variety of legislative issues.
Items included the aforementioned SB 375; AB 1033 (Caballero), a measure which helps law
enforcement deal with multi-generational gang issues; the Public Safety Interoperable
Communications Grant Program; the California Air Resources Board proposed legislation for in-
use off-road diesel vehicles; AB 1358 (Leno), a measure which would require local governments
to consider and accommodate all users in the planning and development of their local highways
and transportation systems; AB 793 (Strickland), a bill which assess affordable housing units at
the subsidized price instead of the higher value.
Additional policy committee recommendations were also presented. All items were approved
upon consent except AB 793, which was approved at the meeting.
Highlights from LCC/NLC China Trip
League First Vice President Jim Madaffer and League Second Vice President Heather Fargo
gave a slide show presentation on the joint League of California Cities (LCC)/National League of
Cities (NLC) international exchange trip to four cities in China this past June. Much of the trip
focused on China’s strong local governments and the sustainable development challenges facing
China as it experiences monumental expansion and change.
The trip was an opportunity for LCC and NLC leaders to engage in an international exchange with
national and municipal officials in China about common city issues and needs.
The board discussed creating a policy committee or special committee or task force to
institutionalize the League’s efforts to engage in similar international exchanges in the future.
There was great interest in this, especially in connection with Asia.
The League’s delegation included Madaffer, San Diego council member; Fargo, Sacramento
mayor; Ron Loveridge, immediate past president and mayor of Riverside; Chris McKenzie, LCC
executive director, and Manuela Albuquerque, city attorney of Berkeley.
Next Board Meeting
The board will next meet on Sept. 7 at the League’s Annual Conference in September.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Legal Decision Seizes Cities’ Right to Confiscate Vehicles
In a 4-3 decision handed down last week, the California Supreme Court concluded that cities lack
the power to enact local ordinances authorizing the seizure and forfeiture of vehicles used to
solicit illegal drugs and prostitution. 5
The decision, found in O’Connell v. City of Stockton (City of Stockton) overturns a prior appellate
court ruling, Horton v. City of Oakland (City of Oakland) which had upheld a city’s right to enact
such ordinances. In reliance on City of Oakland, many cities enacted similar seizure and
forfeiture ordinances. City of Stockton puts the validity of these ordinances in question.
Litigation Details
In City of Stockton, plaintiff Kendra O’Connell challenged the constitutionality of the Stockton’s
“Seizure and Forfeiture of Nuisance Vehicles” ordinance. The ordinance allowed the city to seize
any vehicle used to buy illegal drugs or solicit prostitution. The Supreme Court concluded the
ordinance was pre-empted by state law.
Specifically, with respect to the ordinance’s drug crimes provision, the Supreme Court held the
state’s Uniform Controlled Substances Act (USCA) was so thorough and detailed as to manifest
the Legislature’s intent to ‘occupy the field’ of penalizing crimes involving controlled substances.
With respect to the ordinance’s prostitution provision, the Supreme Court determined it was pre-
empted by the California Vehicle Code.
Justice Corrigan, joined by three other justices, authored a vigorous dissent to the majority’s
opinion. Echoing the city’s arguments, Justice Corrigan stated, “It should not be the case that
local governments require the permission of the state to protect their own citizens from nuisances
that profoundly affect their quality of life and the quiet enjoyment of their own property.”
What’s Next for Cities
Although the Supreme Court’s opinion limits locals’ ability to enact seizure and forfeiture laws, the
Legislature could choose to amend existing law to allow cities to take action in this area.
As the Supreme Court pointed out, “Because the determination to preclude or to allow local
regulation in a field addressed by state law resides exclusively with the state Legislature, that
body can, of course, expressly authorize local entities to enact ordinance such as the one in this
case that we conclude is pre-empted under existing law.”
The League of California Cities submitted a “friend of the court” brief in this case in support of
Stockton. The League thanks Claudia McGee Henry of the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office for
drafting the brief.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Office of Emergency Services Seeks Comments on State Hazard Mitigation Plan
A draft of California’s updated and enhanced State Hazard Mitigation Plan
(SHMP) is now available for public review and comment through the Governor’s Office of
Emergency Services at www.oes.ca.gov. OES is looking for feedback from local government
officials on a number of different items in order to enhance the plan.
Specifically, OES is interested in:
Best management practices in hazard mitigation: What are cities learning and doing well
and how could this be better captured in the plan?
Linkages between state and local governments in the area of hazard mitigation: What
relationships could be improved or strengthened over time in respect to the current
arrangement?
Investments in hazard mitigation: What is taking place independent of the usual hazard
mitigation grant funding stream?
Local priorities: What is essential in respect to state actions?
Initial impressions or general comments are also welcome
Following the review period, closing on Friday, Sept. 7, OES will forward the updated and
enhanced draft plan to the United States Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) for review and approval. 6
To review and provide comments on the 2007 Draft SHMP, visit
www.hazardmitigation.oes.ca.gov, and see the SHMP listing under “programs.”
Background on SHMP
The SHMP is the official statement of California’s statewide hazard mitigation goals, strategies,
and priorities. By law, state hazard mitigation plans must be updated every three years in order
for states and their local jurisdictions to be eligible for federal hazard mitigation and certain public
assistance funding.
Hazard mitigation addresses the reshaping and strengthening of the built environment to
significantly reduce disaster losses created by natural and human-caused hazards and risks. The
goals of this plan are to significantly reduce life loss and injuries and minimize damage to
structures and property from disasters, protect the environment, and promote hazard mitigation
as an integrated public policy, creating safer communities and state.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Find a Bill, Legislators, Leg Committee, or Ask League Leg Staff
Visit (and bookmark!) the League’s Legislative Resources Web page
(www.cacities.org/legresources). You’ll find a roster and contact information for the League’s
legislative staff; the online Bill Search program, background materials on lobbying your
legislators, and more.
_____________________________________________________________________________