10E Action 2012 0904 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City of San Leandro Meeting Date: September 4, 2012 Staff Report File Number: 12-420 Agenda Section: ACTION ITEMS Agenda Number: 10.E. TO: City Council FROM: Chris Zapata City Manager BY: Chris Zapata City Manager FINANCE REVIEW: Not Applicable TITLE: City Council Discussion and Determination of City Position on Five Resolutions of the League of California Cities to Be Voted on at the 2012 Annual Business Meeting (provides voting directions to the Citys voting delegate and alternate as designated by Resolution No. 2012-081) City of San Leandro Page 1 Printed on 8/28/2012 i July 12, 2012 TO: Mayors, City Managers and City Clerks League Board of Directors RE: Annual Conference Resolutions Packet Notice of League Annual Meeting Enclosed please find the 2012 Annual Conference Resolutions Packet. Annual Conference in San Diego. This year’s League Annual Conference will be held September 5 -7 at the San Diego Convention Center in San Diego. 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 Web site at www.cacities.org/ac. We look forward to welcoming city officials to the conference. Annual Luncheon/Business Meeting -Friday, September 7, 12:00 p.m. The League’s Annual Business Meeting will be held at the San Diego Convention Center. Resolutions Packet. At the Annual Conference, the League will consider the five resolutions introduced by the deadline, Saturday, July 7, 2012, midnight. These resolutions are included in this packet. We 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 resolution. A copy of the resolutions packet is posted on the League’s website for your convenience: www.cacities.org/resolutions. The resolutions packet contains additional information related to consideration of the resolutions at the Annual Conference. This includes the date, time and location of the meetings at which resolutions will be considered. Voting Delegates. Each city council is encouraged to designate a voting delegate and two alternates to represent their city at the Annual Business Meeting. A letter asking city councils to designate their voting delegate and two alternates has already been sent to each city. Copies of the letter, voting delegate form, and additional information are also available at: www.cacities.org/resolutions. 1400 K Street, Suite 400 􀁸 Sacramento, California 95814 Phone: 916.658.8200 Fax: 916.658.8240 www.cacities.org Please Bring This Packet to the Annual Conference September 5 -7 — San Diego i I. INFORMATION AND PROCEDURES RESOLUTIONS CONTAINED IN THIS PACKET: 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 considered by the General Resolutions Committee at the Annual Conference. This year, five resolutions have been introduced for consideration by the Annual Conference and referred to the League policy committees. POLICY COMMITTEES: Three policy committees will meet at the Annual Conference to consider and take action on resolutions referred to them. The committees are Environmental Quality, Public Safety, and Revenue & Taxation. These committees will meet on Wednesday, September 5, 2012, at the San Diego Marriott Marquis & Marina Hotel in San Diego. Please see page iii for the policy committee meeting schedule. The sponsors of the resolutions have been notified of the time and location of the meetings. Two other policy committees may also be meeting: Administrative Services and Employee Relations. Administrative Services will meet pending League Board (July 19 & 20) action to determine whether the committee will review any November General election ballot initiatives. Employee Relations will meet if the Legislature acts on pension reform in August. If pension reform is passed, the committee will meet to discuss the details of the proposal. For now, please plan to attend the meeting at the Annual conference. If for some reason this changes, League staff will send an email notifying the committee. Three policy committees will not be meeting at the annual conference. These committees are: Community Services; Housing, Community & Economic Development; and Transportation, Communication, & Public Works. GENERAL RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE: This committee will meet at 1:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 6, at the San Diego Convention Center, to consider the reports of the three policy committees regarding the five resolutions. This committee includes one representative from each of the League’s regional divisions, functional departments and standing policy committees, as well as other individuals appointed by the League president. Please check in at the registration desk for room location. ANNUAL LUNCHEON/BUSINESS MEETING/GENERAL ASSEMBLY: This meeting will be held at 12:00 p.m. on Friday, September 7, at the San Diego Convention Center. PETITIONED RESOLUTIONS: For those issues that develop after the normal 60-day deadline, a resolution may be introduced at the Annual Conference 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 at least 24 hours prior to the time set for convening the Annual Business Session of the General Assembly. This year, that deadline is 12:00 p.m., Thursday, September 6. 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 Web site: www.cacities.org/resolutions. Any questions concerning the resolutions procedures may be directed to Meg Desmond at the League office: mdesmond@cacities.org or (916) 658-8224. ii 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 of major 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 (requires 2/3 vote at General Assembly). iii III. LOCATION OF MEETINGS Policy Committee Meetings Wednesday, September 5, 2012 San Diego Marriott Marquis & Marina Hotel 333 W. Harbor Drive, San Diego POLICY COMMITTEES MEETING AT ANNUAL CONFERENCE TO DISCUSS AN ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTION 9:00 a.m. – 10:30 a.m. Environmental Quality; Revenue and Taxation 10:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. Public Safety TENTATIVE POLICY COMMITTEE MEETINGS AT ANNUAL CONFERENCE TO DISCUSS OTHER ISSUES 9:00 a.m. – 10:30 a.m. Administrative Services 10:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. Employee Relations Note: These policy committees will NOT meet at the Annual Conference: Community Services Housing, Community & Economic Development Transportation, Communication & Public Works General Resolutions Committee Thursday, September 6, 2012, 1:00 p.m. San Diego Convention Center Annual Business Meeting and General Assembly Luncheon Friday, September 7, 2012, 12:00 p.m. San Diego Convention Center 􀁜􀁜 iv IV. KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN ON RESOLUTIONS Resolutions have been grouped by policy committees to which they have been assigned. Please note that one resolution has been assigned to more than one committee. This resolution is noted by this sign (􀆇). Number Key Word Index Reviewing Body Action 1 2 3 1 -Policy Committee Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee 2 -General Resolutions Committee 3 -General Assembly ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY POLICY COMMITTEE 1 2 3 3 Desert Protection Act 4 Global Warming PUBLIC SAFETY POLICY COMMITTEE 1 2 3 􀆇1 Fines and Forfeitures 2 Internet Crimes Against Children 5 Emergency Management Mission for California Cities REVENUE AND TAXATION POLICY COMMITTEE 1 2 3 􀆇1 Fines and Forfeitures Please note: These committees will NOT meet at the annual conference: Community Services; Housing, Community & Economic Development; and Transportation, Communication & Public Works Information pertaining to the Annual Conference Resolutions will also be posted on each committee’s page on the League website: www.cacities.org. The entire Resolutions Packet will be posted at: www.cacities.org/resolution s. v 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 * Subject matter covered in another resolution Aa -Approve as amended ** Existing League policy Aaa -Approve with additional amendment(s) *** 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 basis 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. 6 V. 2012 ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTIONS REFERRED TO ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY POLICY COMMITTEE 3. RESOLUTION ENCOURAGING CALIFORNIA CITIES TO OPPOSE THE CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION ACT OF 2011 Source:City of Needles Referred To: Environmental Quality Policy Committee Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: WHEREAS, in 1993 Senator Diane Feinstein introduced the California Desert Protection Act of 1994 which became federal law and was passed by the United States Congress on October 8, 1994, and WHEREAS, this act established the Death Valley and Joshua Tree National Parks and the Mojave National Preserve in the California desert; and WHEREAS, this act designated 69 wilderness areas as additions to the National Wilderness Preservation System within the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA), the Yuma District, the Bakersfield District, and the California Desert District of the Bureau of Land Management permits grazing in such areas; and WHEREAS, the Act abolished Death Valley National Monument, established in 1933 and 1937, and incorporated its lands into a new Death Valley National Park administered as part of the National Park System. Grazing of domestic livestock was permitted to continue at no more than the then-current level. The Act also required the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability of lands within and outside the boundaries of the park as a reservation for the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe; and WHEREAS, the Act abolished Joshua Tree National Monument, established in 1936, and incorporated its lands into Joshua Tree National Park; and WHEREAS, the Act established the Mojave National Preserve, consisting of approximately 1,419,800 acres (5,746 km; 2,218.4 sq mi), and abolished the East Mojave National Scenic Area, which was designated in 1981. The preserve was to be administered in accordance with National Park System laws. Hunting, fishing and trapping were permitted as allowed by federal and state laws, with certain exceptions. Mining claims were governed by the National Park System laws, and grazing was permitted to continue at no more than the then-current level; and WHEREAS, the Act required the Secretary of the Interior to ensure that American Indian people have access to the lands designated under the Act for traditional cultural and religious purposes, in recognition of their prior use of these lands for these purposes. Upon the request of an Indian tribe or religious community, the Secretary must temporarily close specific portions to the general public to protect the privacy of traditional cultural and religious activities; and WHEREAS, flights by military aircraft over the lands designated by the Act were not restricted or precluded, including over flights that can be seen or heard from these lands; and WHEREAS, Congress found that federally owned desert lands of southern California constitute a public wildland resource of extraordinary and inestimable value for current and future generations; these desert wildlands have unique scenic, historical, archeological, environmental, ecological, wildlife, cultural, 7 scientific, educational and recreational values; the California desert public land resources are threatened by adverse pressures which impair their public and natural values; the California desert is a cohesive unit posing difficult resource protection and management challenges; statutory land unit designations are necessary to protect these lands; and WHEREAS, Senator Dianne Feinstein, author of the 1994 California Desert Protection Act has introduced legislation “California Desert Protection Act of 2011” that will set aside new land in the Mojave Desert for conservation, recreation and other purposes; and WHEREAS, the proposed legislation will take AN ADDITIONAL 1.6 million acres of Bureau of Land Management land out of potential development, including mining exploration, by designating two new “National Monuments”, one adjacent to the Mojave National Preserve which will take 1.5 million acres out of BLM multiple use in addition to 800,000 acres out of private ownership and one adjacent to the Joshua Tree National Park; and WHEREAS, this legislation will result in just about every square inch of the desert spoken for, either for military use, national parks, wilderness and special conservation areas, Indian reservations and other types of land management (half of the lands under BLM management are protected under wilderness or special conservation area restrictions); and WHEREAS, projects, such as California mandated solar energy development, that would disturb or destroy habitat must make up for that loss by purchasing private habitat at ratios of at least three acres for every one acre disturbed; and WHEREAS, at that rate, even in the nation’s largest county, San Bernardino, just three solar projects on federal land will require an amount of private land acquisition of 22,000 acres, or roughly 34 square miles, land will come off of the county’s tax rolls and we will literally run out of mitigation land after a handful of projects; and WHEREAS, the Federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires that 10,000 megawatts of renewable energy be generated on public land in the west. To meet California’s mandate of having 33 percent of our energy come from renewable sources, it requires more that 20,000 megawatts of production and they are looking mainly at public lands. If we approve that much solar, the result would be a regulatory lockdown on the rest of the Desert by the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service and the State Department of Fish and Game; and WHEREAS, the Desert Protection Act of 1994 encompassed 1.5 million acres or 2,218.4 square miles plus an additional 800,000 acres of private land or 1,250 square miles; Fort Irwin, 1,000 square miles; 29 Palms Marine Base, 931.7 square miles and they have also applied for an additional 420,000 acres in 2008, or 659.375 square miles totaling 6,059.48 square miles; and WHEREAS, the California Desert Protection Act of 2011 will take OVER 2,300 square miles, not including the acreage of wilderness located outside any of the above mentioned areas (this total mileage would roughly encompass Rhode Island, Delaware, and Connecticut); and WHEREAS, these public lands have long supported a range of beneficial uses and efforts have been made to protect the desert inhabitants. Let’s not destroy the desert or our ability to use and enjoy it. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities assembled at the Annual Conference in San Diego, September 7, 2012, that the 8 League encourages California cities to adopt resolutions in opposition to the California Desert Protection Act of 2011. //////////League of California Cities Staff Analysis Staff: Kyra Ross, Legislative Representative, (916) 658-8252 Committee: Environmental Quality Policy Committee Summary: This resolution encourages California cities to oppose the California Desert Protection Act of 2011. Background: The California Desert Protection Act of 2011 (S. 138) is legislation proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein which would provide for conservation, enhanced recreation opportunities, and development of renewable energy in the California Desert Conservation Area. The Measure would: 􀁸 Create two new national monuments: the 941,000 acres Mojave Trails National Monument along Route 66 and the 134,000 acres Sand to Snow National Monument, which connects Joshua Tree National Park to the San Bernardino Mountains. 􀁸 Add adjacent lands to Joshua Tree National Park, Death Valley National Park and Mohave National Preserve; 􀁸 Protect nearly 76 miles of waterways; 􀁸 Designate five new wilderness areas; 􀁸 Designate approximately 250,000 acres of Bureau of Land Management wilderness areas near Fort Irwin; 􀁸 Enhance recreational opportunities; and, 􀁸 Designate four existing off-highway vehicle areas in the California Desert as permanent. S. 138 is a re-introduction of S. 2921, the California Desert Protection Act of 2010 which is now dead. S. 138 was introduced in January 2011 and was referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The measure has not yet been set for hearing by the Committee. Fiscal Impact: Unknown. No direct fiscal impact to city general funds. Existing League Policy: The League’s Mission Statement is “to expand and protect local control for cities through education and advocacy to enhance the quality of life for all Californians.” Specific to this Resolution, existing policy offers no specific policy on this issue. The League’s Strategic Priorities for 2012, as adopted by the League Board of Directors, include: 2) Promote Local Control for Strong Cities: Support or oppose legislation and proposed constitutional amendments based on whether they advance maximum local control by city governments over city revenues, land use, redevelopment and other private activities to advance the public health, safety and welfare of city residents. >>>>>>>>>> 9 4. RESOLUTION REQUESTING CONSIDERATION OF SUSPENSION OF IMPLEMENTATION OR REVISION OF THE CALIFORNIA GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT (AB 32 of 2006) Source: City of Needles Referred To: Environmental Quality Policy Committee Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: WHEREAS, in 2006 the California Legislature adopted the California Global Warming Solutions Act, commonly referred to as AB 32 (Health & Safety Code §§38500 et seq.); and WHEREAS, AB 32 aims to reduce California's greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) to 1990 levels by 2020 (Health & Safety Code §38550) and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050; and WHEREAS, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is the government agency charged with determining how the AB 32 goals will be reached (Health & Safety Code §38510); and WHEREAS, CARB's implementation of AB32 aims to reduce California's GHG emissions by 169 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2E) through a variety of strategies, including sector-specific regulations, market mechanisms, voluntary measures, fees, incentives and other policies and programs; and WHEREAS, there are portions of the state that have been designated as nonattainment for the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for Ozone and PM, nonattainment for state ambient air quality standards (SAAQS) for Ozone, PM, Sulfates and Hydrogen Sulfide, and identified by CARB pursuant to as overwhelmingly impacted by transported air pollution from upwind air basins; and WHEREAS, areas designated nonattainment are mandated under the provisions of the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) to require pursuant to New Source Review (NSR) rules, Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and offsetting emissions reductions (Offsets) on major new or modified stationary sources of those nonattainment air pollutants and their precursors (42 U.S.C. §§7502(c)(5), 7503) regardless of whether or not the area so designated has any control or not over the pollution causing the nonattainment finding; and WHEREAS, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has requested that a program be developed to implement the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) which will require additional analysis for new or modified sources of attainment pollutants including but not limited to greenhouse gases, which will also necessitate emissions reductions and BACT in some cases for attainment pollutants; and WHEREAS, due in part to the limited number of existing sources of air pollutants and the overwhelming impact of transport some or a majority of the cities have few if any available emissions reductions available to provide such offsets; and WHEREAS, many technologies used to attain BACT levels of air pollution control are based upon the combustion of fossil fuels which also causes emissions of GHGs; and 10 WHEREAS, there are a variety of Federal regulations promulgated and proposed by the USEPA regarding greenhouse gasses that have the potential to conflict both directly and in their implementation with regulatory measures to implement AB32 as adopted and proposed by CARB; and WHEREAS, there are a variety of other mandates and regulations at the State level (municipal waste diversion, renewable energy mandate etc.) which have the potential to conflict both directly and in due to their implementation with regulatory measures to implement AB32 as adopted and proposed by CARB; and WHEREAS, such conflicts severely impede the cities or state as well as regulated industry efforts to comply with both the applicable Federal regulations and regulations implementing AB32; and WHEREAS, the existing and proposed regulations on both the State and Federal level result in an overall regulatory structure that is inconsistent and confusing making it virtually impossible or incredibly slow to start any new large scale projects within the State at a time where California infrastructure and its economy are in most need of refurbishment; and WHEREAS, the existing and proposed regulations and unclear guidelines will also make it more difficult for smaller, pollution transport impacted air districts like the MDAQMD, to properly implement and enforce the regulations; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities assembled at the Annual Conference in San Diego, September 7, 2012, that the League encourages the existing 482 California cities to adopt resolutions requesting a suspension of the implementation of some, if not all, the regulations promulgated under the California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32 of 2006) until such time as the legal and regulatory inconsistencies can be resolved; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that California cities request the California Air Resources Board and other applicable state agencies examine the impact of the regulations promulgated pursuant to AB 32 and for potential direct and indirect conflict with other existing regulations at both the State and Federal level including but not limited to the potential for gains in one area to jeopardize progress in another; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that California cities request the California Air Resources Board and other applicable state agencies examine the overall economic impact of the regulations promulgated pursuant to AB 32 and their interaction with other existing regulations with emphasis upon the potential for job and other economic activity "flight" from California; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that California cities request the State of California by and through its Governor, Legislature, and applicable state agencies should encourage the resolution of internal conflicts between and among existing Federal programs by supporting items including but not limited to: reopening the Federal Clean Air Act, New Source Review Reform, and efforts to regulate GHGs under a comprehensive Federal program. ////////// 11 League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 4 Staff: Kyra Ross, Legislative Representative, (916) 658-8252 Committee: Environmental Quality Policy Committee Summary: This resolution encourages California cities to: 1.) Adopt resolutions requesting the suspension of the implementation of some, if not all, the regulations promulgated under the California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) until such time as the legal and regulatory inconsistencies can be resolved; 2.) Asks cities to request the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and other applicable state agencies examine the impact of the regulations promulgated pursuant to AB 32, and for potential conflict with other existing regulations at both the State and Federal level including, but not limited to, the potential for gains in one area to jeopardize progress in another; and, 3.) Asks cities to request the CARB and other applicable state agencies examine the overall economic impact of the regulations promulgated pursuant to AB 32 and their interaction with other existing regulations with emphasis upon the potential for job and other economic activity “flight” from California; and, 4.) Asks cities to request the State to encourage the resolution of internal conflicts between and among existing Federal programs by supporting items, including but not limited to: a. Reopening the Federal Clean Air Act; b. New Source Review Reform; and, c. Efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under a comprehensive federal program. Background: AB 32 passed in 2006 and requires the State to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. As the implementing agency, CARB developed and passed a Scoping Plan in 2008, outlining emission reduction measures to help the state meet its statutory reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Since 2008, a number of measures outlined in the Scoping Plan have been implemented. Measures of interest to cities include: voluntary local government 15% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions; regional transportationrelated greenhouse gas targets; landfill methane control; and green building codes. At the same time, many of California’s 15 air basins are facing ongoing challenges to meeting federal air quality standards. It’s important to note that regulation of air quality in California