AGENDA

REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKEPORT CITY COUNCIL

Tuesday, Febuary 5, 2013 City Council Chambers, 225 Park Street, Lakeport, California 95453
Any person may speak for three (3) minutes on any agenda item; however, total public input per item is not to exceed 15 minutes, extended at the discretion of the City Council. This rule does not apply to public hearings. Non-timed items may be taken up at any unspecified time.

I. II. III.

CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Urgency Items:

6:00 p.m.

Move to accept agenda as posted, or move to add or delete items. To add item, Council is required to make a majority decision that an urgency exists (as defined in the Brown Act) and a 2/3rds determination that the need to take action arose subsequent to the Agenda being posted.
The following Consent Agenda items are expected to be routine and noncontroversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without any discussion. Any Council Member may request that any item be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion under the regular Agenda. Removed items will be considered following the Consent Calendar portion of this agenda.

IV.

CONSENT AGENDA:

A. B. C. V.

Ordinances: Warrants: Minutes:

Waive reading except by title, of any ordinances under consideration at this meeting for either introduction or passage per Government Code Section 36934. Approve warrant register from January 9, 2013 and January 23, 2013. Approve minutes of the regular City Council meeting of January 15, 2013 and the special City Council meeting of January 22, 2013. Introduction of new Police Volunteer, John Norcio.

PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS/REQUESTS: A. Presentation from Chief of Police

VI.

PUBLIC HEARING A. Administrative Citation Ordinance Introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Lakeport adding Chapters 8.30 and 8.31 Administrative Citation and Appeal Procedures of the Lakeport Municipal Code establishing and Administrative Citation Policy and correlating appeal procedure. Introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Lakeport enacting Chapter 17.38 of the Lakeport Municipal Code, regarding medical marijuana cultivation

B. VII.

Marijuana Ordinance

COUNCIL BUSINESS: A. B. Finance Director 1. Budget Adjustment Chief of Police 1. Request for an additional police officer position C. Planning Services Manager 1. Report and Recommendation from the Mobile Catering Ordinance Review Committee D. City Engineer 1. Safe Routes to School Project

Review and approve budget amendment, Fiscal Year 2012-13. Consider request for an additional Police Officer position.

Consider the report and recommendations of the ad hoc Mobile Catering Ordinance Review Committee.

Verbal Report/Update on progress of the Safe Routes to School Project and request for staff direction.

City Council Agenda of February 5, 2013

Page 2

VIII.

CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS: A. Miscellaneous Reports, if any: Pursuant to Government Code §54956.9(b), Anticipated Litigation

IX. X. XI.

CLOSED SESSION: REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION: ADJOURNMENT:

Adjourn

Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office at 225 Park Street, Lakeport, California, during normal business hours. Such documents are also available on the City of Lakeport’s website, www.cityoflakeport.com, subject to staff’s ability to post the documents before the meeting.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Lakeport will make available to members of the public any special assistance necessary to participate in this meeting. The public should contact the City Clerk’s Office at (707) 263-5615 to make such a request. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

_______________________________________ Kelly Buendia, Deputy City Clerk

Tuesday, January 15, 2013 City Council Chambers, 225 Park Street, Lakeport, California 95453
I. WORKSHOP: 4:30 p.m. Deputy City Clerk Buendia and City Attorney Brookes gave a Power Point presentation on the Brown Act, concluding at 5:45 p.m. Mayor Engstrom called for a 15 minute recess prior to the start of the regular meeting. II. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL: 6:00 p.m. Mayor Engstrom called the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lakeport to order at 6:00 p.m. with Council Members Stacey Mattina, Kenny Parlet, Martin Scheel, and Marc Spillman present. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Scott Harter. A motion was made by Council Member Mattina, seconded by Council Member Parlet, and unanimously carried by voice vote to accept the agenda as presented Waive reading except by title, of any ordinances under consideration at this meeting for either introduction or passage per Government Code Section 36934. Approve minutes of the regular City Council meeting of December 18, 2012. Approve warrants as listed on Warrant Registers dated December 12, 2012 and December 19, 2012. Review and file Building Permit Reports. A motion was made by Council Member Spillman, seconded by Council Member Scheel, and unanimously carried by voice vote to approve the Consent Agenda as posted. Dennis Rollins gave an update on Westside Park activities for the past year. They completed $100,000 dollars in construction projects which involved a lot of community effort. An interim driveway and parking is in upcoming plans. Wilda Shock reported on the Mendocino College Lake Center, the college's new campus. The new campus is open and classes begin next week. A formal grand opening will take place mid-March. B. C. Presentation of Certificate of Appreciation for Gazebo Renovation Presentation from Chief of Police Mayor Engstrom presented a Certificate of Appreciation to Rotary President Melissa Fulton for the renovations at the Library Park Gazebo. Lieutenant Ferguson reported on the volunteer hours for 2012 and the extraordinary work done by volunteers at the Lakeport Police Department including parking enforcement, evidence processing, special projects, filing, and traffic enforcement for parades and events. The volunteers worked 1,950 hours in 2012.

MEETING OF THE LAKEPORT CITY COUNCIL

MINUTES

III. IV. V.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: CONSENT AGENDA: A. B. C. D. Ordinances: Minutes: Warrants: Building Permits Report:

Vote on Consent Agenda

VI.

PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS/REQUESTS: A. Citizen Input:

VII.

PUBLIC HEARING:

Lakeport City Council Minutes of January 15, 2013

Page 2

A.

Appeal of Planning Commission Revocation of Use Permit No. 04-05 Psalmonds Family Child Care

Mayor Engstrom opened the public hearing. Marci Psalmonds, applicant, spoke to the Council. She said that the turn out on top has been completed and that straw for erosion at the bottom. There was never a turn-out at the bottom. From now on the road should be easier to maintain with a tractor. Steven Jones, maintains a neighboring property and expressed concern with maintenance of the road in the future. Bob Funderberg, spoke about past road conditions and concerns on future maintenance. Mayor Engstrom opened the Public Hearing. With no further public comments, Mayor Engstrom closed the Public Hearing. A motion was made by Council Member Scheel, seconded by Council Member Mattina, and unanimously carried by voice vote to grant the conditional approval of the applicant’s appeal request and the reinstatement of the Use Permit allowing the operation of a large family day care facility at 1310 Eleventh Street subject to the execution of a revised Project Conditions Agreement which includes the additional conditions of approval set forth in the staff report. The conditional approval of the appeal is based on the driveway improvements completed thus far and the applicant’s agreement to comply with the project’s conditions of approval in the future.

B.

Secondary Accessory Dwelling Units

With no comments from the public, Mayor Engstrom closed the public hearing. A motion was made by Council Member Spillman, seconded by Council Member Parlet, and unanimously carried by voice vote to introduce an Ordinance amending Title 17, Chapter 17.28 of the Lakeport Municipal Code related to the placement and construction of secondary accessory dwelling units and set a public hearing and second reading for February 19, 2013, at 6:00 p.m.

VIII.

COUNCIL BUSINESS: A. City Clerk 1. Appointments of Liaisons to Commissions, Boards & Committees Mayor Engstrom made the appointments of Council member liaisons to various commissions, boards, and committees for 2013. See Attachment 1 for list of Liaisons to Commissions, Boards, Committees, effective January 15, 2013. 2. Appointment to Vector Control District Board of Trustees Applicant for the City’s seat on the Vector Control District Board of Trustees Randall Williams, George Spurr, and Ron Bertsch spoke and answered questions of the City Council. Council Member Spillman nominated George Spurr, seconded by Council Member Mattina, and Council Member Parlet nominated Randall Williams, seconded by Council Member Scheel. There were no further nominations. George Spurr was appointed to the Vector Control Board with the following Aye votes: Council Members Engstrom, Mattina, and Spillman. The appointee will serve the remainder of the term, effective January 15, 2013 and expiring at the end of 2013. 3. Appoint Members to the Lakeport Economic Development Committee Applicants Wilda Shock, William Eaton, and Carol Cole-Lewis were present answered questions of the City Council. Applicants Mireya Turner, and Melissa Fulton were not present. A motion was made by Council Member Mattina, seconded by Council Member Parlet, and unanimously carried by voice vote, to appoint all 5 applicants [Wilda Shock, William Eaton, Carol Cole-Lewis, Melissa Fulton and Mireya Turner] to the Lakeport Economic Development Committee effective January 15, 2013 and expiring at the end of 2014. 4. Appoint Member to the Business & Housing Loan Committee A motion was made by Council Member Scheel, seconded by Council Member Parlet, and unanimously carried by voice vote to appoint John Norcio to the City of Lakeport Business & Housing Loan Committee.

Lakeport City Council Minutes of January 15, 2013

Page 3

5. Election Services

A motion was made by Council Member Mattina, seconded by Council Member Spillman, and unanimously carried by voice vote to approve a Resolution authorizing the City Clerk to obtain Election Services from the County Official. A motion was made by Council Member Mattina, seconded by Council Member Parlet, and unanimously carried by voice vote to accept the Westside Community Park Committee recommended naming of Phase 2 of the Park to the "Jane Barnes Field", and authorize staff to work with the Committee in locating the appropriate placement of the monument sign. A motion was made by Council Member Parlet, seconded by Council Member Mattina, and unanimously carried by voice vote to approve a proposal to pay off early the balance of the Promissory Note owed to Mr. Chuck Witt and directed staff to draw documents to accomplish the payoff and surrender of the property.

B.

Public Works Director 1. Westside Park Dedication

C.

City Attorney 1. Witt Lease-Note Payoff

IX.

CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS: A. Miscellaneous Reports, if any: Council member Spillman remarked on the ease of use of the Ipad. Mayor Pro Tem Mattina advised she had nothing to report. Council member Parlet stated that he would be attending training for new Council Members with the City Manager and the other new Council Members in Sacramento. Council member Scheel will also be attending the training and will miss the LAFCO meeting. City Engineer Harter reported TAC meets Thursday City Attorney Brookes will be attending the annual REMIF board meeting on th January 24 & 25th, as will the City Manager. City Manager Silveira looks forward to the New City Council training in Sacramento; City Engineer Harter will be Acting City Manager in her absence. Mayor Engstrom reported on the Clearlake Advisory Committee. The meeting was adjourned to a closed session at 7:41 p.m. pursuant to Government Code §54956.9(b), Anticipated Litigation The meeting reconvened to open session at 7:55 p.m. No action was taken. Mayor Engstrom adjourned the meeting at 7:57 p.m.

X. XI. XII.

CLOSED SESSION: REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION: ADJOURNMENT:

Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office at 225 Park Street, Lakeport, California, during normal business hours. Such documents are also available on the City of Lakeport’s website, www.cityoflakeport.com, subject to staff’s ability to post the documents before the meeting. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Lakeport will make available to members of the public any special assistance necessary to participate in this meeting. The public should contact the City Clerk’s Office at (707) 263-5615 to make such a request. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. Attest: _______________________________________ Kelly Buendia, Acting City Clerk Approved: _______________________________________ Mayor Thomas Engstrom

Attachment 1.

LIAISONS TO COMMISSIONS, BOARDS, COMMITTEES
LIAISONS
Lakeport Fire Protection District Lakeport Regional Chamber of Commerce Lakeport Main Street Association Council Member Parmentier Council Member Engstrom, Alt. Mayor Mattina, Alt. Mayor Mattina City Manager Council Member Engstrom

LAKEPORT CITY COUNCIL EFFECTIVE JANUARY 15, 2013

2012

Council Member Spillman Mayor Engstrom, Alt. Mayor Engstrom City Manager Council Member Spillman

2013

APPOINTMENTS Lake County/City Area Planning Council County of Lake Solid Waste Management Task Force Lake County Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Service Authority SB 621 Indian Gaming Funds Committee Clear Lake Advisory Subcommittee Local Agency Formation Commission Lake County Airport Land Use Commission Invasive Species Task Force Committee Clean Water Program Committee Investment Committee Lakeport Unified School District Committee Oversight Board of the Former Lakeport Redevelopment Agency Mayor Mattina Council Member Parmentier Council Member Lyons, Alt. Mayor Mattina City Manager Council Member Rumfelt Council Member Rumfelt City Manager Council Member Lyons Council Member Lyons Council Member Rumfelt, Alt. Council Member Parmentier Council Member Rumfelt Council Member Rumfelt Council Member Parmentier Council Member Rumfelt Mayor Mattina Council Member Lyons Mayor Mattina City Manager

2012

Mayor Pro Tem Mattina Council Member Scheel Mayor Engstrom, Alt. Council Member Scheel City Manager Council Member Parlet Council Member Scheel Mayor Engstrom, Alt. Mayor Engstrom Mayor Pro Tem Mattina Council Member Scheel, Alt. Council Member Spillman Council Member Parlet Council Member Parlet Council Member Spillman Council Member Parlet Mayor Engstrom Mayor Pro Tem Mattina Mayor Pro Tem Mattina Council Member Parlet, Alt.

2013

MINUTES
LAKEPORT CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING Tuesday, January 22, 2013, 5:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Engstrom called the special meeting of the City Council of the City of Lakeport to order at 5:00 p.m. with Council Members Stacey Mattina, Kenny Parlet, Martin Scheel, and Marc Spillman present. Public Works Director Brannigan answered questions from the Council on this item. A motion was made by Council Member Mattina, seconded by Council Member Parlet, and carried by voice vote to authorize a change in the City's application with USDA-RD for projects needed for the Water Division of Public Works, and to authorize staff to file a CEQA notice of exemption. Finance Director Buffalo gave a presentation of the City of Lakeport Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ended in June 2012. Joseph Arch, C.P.A. of the accounting firm of JJACPA, Inc., external auditor of the report, was available for questions. Finance Director Buffalo gave a presentation of the City of Lakeport Quarterly Financial Report for the second quarter of fiscal year 2012 - 2013. Department heads were present and address questions and comments from the Council and the public. Staff will return with budget adjustments at a future meeting. STRATEGIC PLANNING: City Manager Silveira answered questions from the Council regarding the costs and benefits of contracting with a Facilitator to assist with strategic planning. A motion was made by Council Member Mattina, seconded by Council Member Parlet, and carried by voice vote to approve the hiring of a Facilitator for the Annual Goals Meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 8:09 p.m.

USDA APPLICATION MODIFICATION:

2011/2012 YEAR-END FINANCIAL REVIEW:

MID-YEAR BUDGET REVIEW:

ADJOURNMENT:

ATTEST ____________________________________ KELLY BUENDIA, Acting City Clerk

APPROVED _____________________________________ THOMAS ENGSTROM, Mayor

CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District

STAFF REPORT
RE: Administrative Citation Ordinance SUBMITTED BY: Steven Brookes, City Attorney PURPOSE OF REPORT: Information only Discussion Action Item MEETING DATE: 02/05/2013

WHAT IS BEING ASKED OF THE CITY COUNCIL/AGENCY/BOARD: The City Council is being asked to introduce/conduct public hearing for the attached ordinance establishing an Administrative Citation procedure and direct staff to place the ordinance on the agenda for a second reading/final public hearing on February 19, 2013, at 6:00 p.m. BACKGROUND: After considering additional tools to gain compliance for Municipal Code violations (especially when abatement budgets are being cut) the City Manager and staff have worked on a draft ordinance establishing an Administrative Citation procedure for violations of the City Municipal Code and other City rules or agreements. This would be available for use as with most City code violations as well as in matters such as failing to comply with terms of a Project Conditions Agreement. DISCUSSION: The City establishes rules and regulations for living and doing business within city limits. Currently, the City’s only ability to enforce its ordinances is through voluntary compliance, recordation of a notice of code violation against the title of the property, public nuisance abatement or criminal prosecution through the court system. The proposed administrative citation ordinance would allow staff to issue administrative citations for violations of the City Rules and Codes. Typically, enforcement of violations of City Code results in the issuance of a “Notice of Violation”, which consists of identifying the specific tasks that needed to be done and a time frame for compliance. In most cases this type of corrective notice is sufficient; however, there are situations where stronger enforcement actions become necessary. Under the existing City Code, code violations may be criminally charged as infractions or misdemeanors. Prosecution through the Court system is costly, time consuming, and requires significant staff resources, as well as, City Attorney time. For example: the City Code regulates storage of personal property on residential property (recreational vehicles, boats and trailers are the most complained about); staff efforts to enforce this ordinance are often ignored by residents because they understand that court prosecution is time consuming and costly for the City. In addition, if the matter actually gets to court, the offender may simply be required to remove the personal property or materials. Similar circumstances arise in connection with enforcement of other requirements of City Codes. The proposed ordinance would provide an alternative to criminal prosecution of code violations and other existing tools. Staff believes there are some circumstances where this could be a more effective tool to promote compliance with the City Code. The attached ordinancewould allow the City to impose administrative fines of not more than $100.00 for a first violation, $200.00 for a second violation, and a fine not exceeding $500.00 for each additional violation. Each day that a violation continues would be considered a separate violation of the Code. Costly court actions could be avoided except in instances where
Meeting Date: 2/05/2013 Page 1 Agenda Item #VI.A

an individual or entity refuses to respond to a citation or to an appeal officer’s finding that a violation has occurred. Unpaid administrative fines would be made liens against the property in violation or otherwise collected as a debt owed to the City. The ordinance would require that residents be given the opportunity to correct code violations before any penalty is issued except in cases of immediate danger to health or safety. The ordinance includes procedures for appeals of citations to an impartial hearing officer. Such hearings would provide persons who believe the citation is not warranted to present their case to the hearing officer. I am suggesting using volunteer local attorneys and/or trained mediators to serve as hearing officers. Staff recommends that no administrative citations be issued until a future date certain. This will allow time for staff training, public education, creating the required forms and setting up the other aspects of the program. OPTIONS: Provide staff with alternative direction including any suggested revisions. FISCAL IMPACT: None $ Account Number: Comments: Staff believes that the collection of fines and penalties will result in a revenue-expense neutral code compliance program. Administrative citations will range from $100 up to $500 per occurrence. It is expected that the staff cost of this program will be largely offset by the revenue from the civil fines. There will be some initial costs related to public outreach/education efforts and staff time to implement the Administrative Citation process. SUGGESTED MOTIONS: Move to introduce an ordinance adding Chapters 8.30 and 8.31 Administrative Citation and Appeals Procedures to the City of Lakeport Municipal Code and set a second reading/public hearing for February 19, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. Attachments: Ordinance adding Chapters 8.30 and 8.31 Administrative Citation and Appeals Procedures to the City of Lakeport Municipal Code

Meeting Date: 2/05/2013

Page 2

Agenda Item #VI.A

ORDINANCE NO. XXX (2013)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEPORT ADDING CHAPTERS 8.30 AND 8.31 ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION AND APPEAL PROCEDURES OF THE LAKEPORT MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING AN ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION POLICY AND CORRELATING APPEAL PROCEDURE

WHEREAS, the City of Lakeport Municipal Code establishes rules and regulations for living and doing business within city limits, and; WHEREAS, the City’s only ability to enforce its ordinances is through voluntary compliance, recordation of a notice of code violation against the title of the property, public nuisance abatement or criminal prosecution through the court system, and; WHEREAS, an administrative citation ordinance would allow staff to issue administrative citations for violations of the Municipal Code, and;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Lakeport does hereby add the following Chapters to the Municipal Code: Chapter 8.30 ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION AND APPEAL PROCEDURES

Sections: 8.30.010. Issuance of Administrative Citation. 8.30.020. Administrative fines. 8.30.030. Opportunity to correct or remedy violations. 8.30.040. Contents of Administrative Citation. 8.30.050. Form of Administrative Citation. 8.30.060. Service of Administrative Citation. 8.30.070. Completion of service of Administrative Citation. 8.30.080. Appeal of Administrative Citation. 8.30.090. Form for filing of appeal. 8.30.100. Time in which to file appeal. 8.30.110. Fee for filing of appeal. 8.30.120. Incomplete filing.
1

8.30.130. Failure to file proper appeal. 8.30.140. Processing and conducting of appeal. 8.30.150. Stay pending appeal. 8.30.160. Time in which to pay fine; Demand for Payment; Notice of Decision and Compliance Order. 8.30.170. Contents of Demand for Payment. 8.30.180. Service of Demand for Payment. 8.30.190. Completion of service. 8.30.200. Proof of service. 8.30.210. Appeal of administrative fine. 8.30.220. Attorneys fees. 8.30.010. Issuance of Administrative Citation. Whenever a code compliance officer or other authorized enforcement agent determines that an infraction or misdemeanor violation of the Municipal Code has occurred or that a violation exists which is deemed to constitute a public nuisance pursuant to the Municipal Code and/or applicable statute, rule, code, Project Condition Agreement or other City regulation, the officer or agent may issue an Administrative Citation to any party responsible for the violation. 8.30.020. Administrative fines. Any party to whom an Administrative Citation is issued, shall be responsible for payment of an administrative fine in the amount specifically set forth in the Municipal Code and/or applicable statute, rule, code or regulation violated or, if no amount provided, in the following amounts: (a) an administrative fine in an amount not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) for the first violation; (b) an administrative fine in an amount not to exceed two hundred dollars ($200) for the second violation of the same provision within a twelve (12) month period commencing on the date of the first violation; and (c) an administrative fine in an amount not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500) for the third and any subsequent violation of the same provision within a twelve (12) month period commencing on the date of the first violation. 8.30.030. Time period within which to correct or remedy violations. (a) Any party to whom an Administrative Citation has been issued for violations pertaining to building, plumbing, electrical, or other similar structural or zoning issues that do not create an immediate danger to health or safety, shall be provided not less than ten (10) calendar days in which to correct or otherwise remedy the violation prior to the imposition of any administrative fine. For all other violations, the recipient of an Administrative Citation shall be provided not less than seven (7) calendar days in which to correct or otherwise remedy the violation prior to the imposition of any administrative fine, unless a shorter period is determined necessary by the code compliance officer or other authorized enforcement agent. (b) The code compliance officer or other authorized enforcement agent may extend the time in which to correct or otherwise remedy a violation upon a showing that the recipient of the Administrative Citation requires additional time to complete repairs or upon a showing that the recipient of the Administrative Citation is awaiting issuance of a permit, provided such person offers proof that he or she has commenced taking action to correct or otherwise remedy the violation and/or that a proper application for such permit has been made. 8.30.040. Contents of Administrative Citation. An Administrative Citation shall include all of the following information: (a) the name of the person(s) responsible for committing the violation(s); (b) the date of the violation(s); (c) the street address or a definite description of the location where the violation occurred; (d) the code section(s) violated; (e) a description of the violation; (f) an order
2

prohibiting the continuation or repeated occurrence of the described violation(s); (g) the amount of the administrative fine for the violation(s); (h) a description of the fine payment process, including a description of the time within which and the place to which the fine shall be paid; (i) a description of the Administrative Citation appeal process, including the time within which an appeal must be filed; (j) a description of the process by which the City may collect any unpaid fines; (k) a description of the potential consequences should the violator continue or repeat the violation; and (l) the name and signature of the code compliance officer or other authorized agent who issued the Administrative Citation (the “citing officer”). 8.30.050. Form of Administrative Citation. An Administrative Citation may be in letter form or any other form which adequately conveys the information set forth in Section 8.30.040. 8.30.060. Service of Administrative Citation. An Administrative Citation may be served in any of the following ways: (a) by personal delivery to the violator; (b) if the violator is being charged for violations occurring at a business operating within the City, and the violator is the owner or an employee of the business, the citation may be served by causing a copy of said citation to be sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested to the address shown on any permit or license issued by the City to said business; or (c) by causing a copy of said citation to be sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to an address otherwise known to the citing officer. The failure of any such person to receive a copy of the Administrative Citation shall not affect the validity of any proceedings or actions taken under this Title. Service by certified mail in the manner herein provided shall be affixed to the copy of the Administrative Citation and retained by the citing officer. 8.30.070. Completion of service of Administrative Citation. Service of an Administrative Citation which is personally served shall be deemed completed at the time of such personal service. Service of an Administrative Citation which is served by mail is deemed completed on the date said citation is deposited in the mail. 8.30.080. Appeal of Administrative Citation. Any recipient of an Administrative Citation may contest that there was a violation or that he or she is the party responsible for committing the violation by filing a complete and proper appeal of the Administrative Citation with the citing officer pursuant to this Chapter 8.30. 8.30.090. Form for filing of appeal. All appeals from any administrative citation shall be in writing and shall contain the following information: (a) name(s) of each appellant, (b) a brief statement in ordinary and concise language of the specific items protested, together with any material facts claimed to support the contentions of the appellant, (c) a brief statement in ordinary and concise language of the relief sought and the reasons why the Administrative Citation should be rescinded, modified or otherwise set aside, and (d) the signatures of all parties named as appellants and their mailing addresses. Any appeal filed that fails to provide all of the information required by this Section shall be deemed incomplete. 8.30.100. Time in which to file appeal. A complete and proper appeal of an Administrative Citation as described in this Chapter 8.30 shall be filed with the citing officer within ten (10) calendar days from the date that service of the Administrative Citation was completed pursuant to Section 8.30.070. Any appeal not timely filed shall be rejected. 8.30.110. Fee for filing of appeal. A filing fee as established by City Council resolution or any amendments thereto for an appeal of an Administrative Citation must be paid to the City at or prior to the time of the filing of such appeal. Any appeal of the Administrative Citation filed without payment of the filing fee shall be deemed incomplete.
3

8.30.120. Incomplete filing. Not later than ten (10) calendar days from the date the appeal is filed the citing officer or his or her designee shall determine whether the appeal is complete. If the appeal is determined to be incomplete, the citing officer or his or her designee shall immediately mail to the appellant a Notice of Incomplete Filing which shall provide a written explanation of each reason why the appeal has been determined to be incomplete. If service of the Notice of Incomplete Filing is completed within ten (10) calendar days from the date the appeal is filed, the time period within which to file a completed appeal of an Administrative Citation shall be extended by an additional 5 calendar days. 8.30.130. Failure to file proper appeal. Failure to timely and properly file an appeal from an Administrative Citation shall constitute a waiver of all rights to an administrative appeal hearing and adjudication of the Administrative Citation or any portion thereof. The determination that the violation occurred and that the violator was responsible for the violation shall be deemed final on the date that service of the Administrative Citation is deemed completed pursuant to Section 8.30.070. 8.30.140. Processing and conducting of appeal. The appeal of any Administrative Citation shall be processed in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter 8.30 and conducted in accordance with the provisions of Municipal Code Chapter 8.31. 8.30.150. Stay pending appeal. Enforcement of any Administrative Citation {except for violations requiring immediate abatement due to immediate threats to public health and safety} shall be stayed during the pendency of the appeal. 8.30.160. Time in which to pay fine; Demand for Payment; Notice of Decision and Compliance Order. (a) After an Administrative Citation becomes final due to the failure to file a timely and proper appeal, the Code Compliance Manager or other authorized agent shall prepare a Demand for Payment of all applicable administrative fines. The Demand for Payment shall require the person who was issued the Administrative Citation to pay all applicable administrative fines no later than thirty (30) calendar days from the date the Administrative Citation was issued. The amount of the fine for which the recipient shall be responsible shall be as set forth in the Administrative Citation. Payment of the administrative fine shall be made to the Finance Department unless otherwise stated in the Demand for Payment. (b) Where a timely and complete appeal of the Administrative Citation is filed pursuant to this Chapter and the citation is upheld, the Notice of Decision and Compliance Order issued by the Administrative Hearing Officer shall require appellant to pay all applicable administrative fines no later than twenty (20) calendar days from the date the Notice of Decision and Compliance Order was issued. The amount of the fine for which the recipient shall be responsible shall be as set forth in the Administrative Citation. Payment of the administrative fine shall be made to the Finance Department unless otherwise stated in the Demand for Payment. 8.30.170. Contents of Demand for Payment. The Demand for Payment shall include all of the following, which shall be consistent with the information contained in the Administrative Citation: (a) the name of the person(s) responsible for payment of the administrative fines; (b) the date of issuance of the Administrative Citation and the street address or a definite description of the location where the violation occurred; (c) the amount of the administrative fine which shall be immediately due and payable; (d) the place where the fine must be paid; and (e) a description of the process by which the City may collect any unpaid fines. The Demand for Payment may be in letter form or any other form which conveys the information set forth in this Section.
4

8.30.180. Service of Demand for Payment. The Demand for Payment shall be served upon the person(s) responsible for payment of the administrative fines either personally or by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, at their address as it appears on the last equalized assessment roll of the county or as otherwise known to the citing officer or authorized agent. If an address of any such person does not appear on the last equalized assessment roll or is not otherwise known to the citing officer, then a copy of the Demand for Payment shall be addressed to such person(s) and mailed to the address of the subject premises. The failure of any such person to receive a copy of the Demand for Payment shall not affect the validity of any proceedings or actions taken under this Chapter. Service by certified mail in the manner herein provided shall be affixed to the copy of the Demand for Payment and retained by the citing officer. 8.30.190. Completion of service. Service of the Demand for Payment which is personally served shall be deemed completed at the time of such personal service. Service of a Demand for Payment which is served by mail is deemed completed on the date said Demand for Payment is deposited in the mail. 8.30.200. Proof of service. Proof of service of the Demand for Payment shall be certified at the time of service by a written declaration under penalty of perjury executed by the persons effecting service, declaring the date and manner in which service was made. The declaration, together with any receipt card returned in acknowledgment of receipt by certified mail shall be affixed to a copy of Demand for Payment and retained by the citing officer. 8.30.210. Appeal of administrative fine. Any party contesting the imposition of the administrative fine(s) may seek judicial review of the imposition of the fine(s) by filing an appeal pursuant to California Government Code Section 53069.4, subdivision (b) (1) after said party has exhausted all available administrative remedies. 8.30.220. Attorneys’ fees. The prevailing party in any proceeding conducted pursuant to this Chapter and associated with the abatement of a public nuisance or correction of any code violation or other issues as set forth herein shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in any such proceeding. Chapter 8.31 ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION APPEAL HEARING PROCESS Sections: 8.31.010. Applicability of Administrative Appeal Hearing procedures. 8.31.020. Duties of Administrative Hearing Officer. 8.31.030. Limitations on authority of Administrative Hearing Officer. 8.31.040. Obtaining an Administrative Hearing Officer. 8.31.050. Scheduling the Administrative Appeal Hearing. 8.31.060. Preparation and form of Notice of Administrative Appeal Hearing. 8.31.070. Time for and method of service of Notice of Administrative Appeal Hearing. 8.31.080. Proof of service of Notice of Administrative Appeal Hearing. 8.31.090. Report and recommendation. 8.31.100. Admissibility of evidence at Administrative Appeal Hearing. 8.31.110. Rights of parties at Administrative Appeal Hearing. 8.31.120. Failure to attend Administrative Appeal Hearing. 8.31.130. Hearing Officer’s Determination on Appeal. 8.31.140. Duty to prepare and serve Notice of Decision and Compliance Order. 8.31.150. Time in which to serve Notice of Decision and Compliance Order.
5

8.31.160. Form of Notice of Decision and Compliance Order. 8.31.170. Service of Notice of Decision and Compliance Order. 8.31.180. Effective date of Notice of Decision and Compliance Order. 8.31.190. Failure to obey Notice of Decision and Compliance Order. 8.31.200. Attorneys fees. 8.31.010. Applicability of Administrative Appeal Hearing procedures. The procedures adopted in this Chapter for the selection of Administrative Hearing Officers shall not replace, substitute for, or in any way affect the administrative hearing board processes created by the California codes, uniform codes and national codes adopted by the City and the administrative hearings provided by such codes shall be treated separate and apart from the Administrative Appeal Hearing procedures adopted herein. 8.31.020. Duties of Administrative Hearing Officer. The Administrative Hearing Officer ("Hearing Officer") shall conduct all Administrative Appeal Hearings of any timely and properly filed appeal from an Administrative Citation pursuant to the procedures set forth in this Chapter 8.31. The Hearing Officer shall review all evidence, documents, and written testimony and hear all oral testimony submitted by the parties and render all decisions and findings in writing to the appellant with a duplicate copy to the citing officer. The Hearing Officer may decide to uphold the Administrative Citation, rescind the citation in part or in its entirety, and/or reduce the amount or waive payment of the administrative fine. 8.31.030. Limitations on authority of Administrative Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer's authority to hear and consider appeals shall be limited to passing on only those appeals pertaining to matters within his or her subject matter jurisdiction. The Hearing Officer shall consider at the hearing on the appeal only those matters or issues which are specifically raised by the appellant in his or her appeal and which are relevant to the issues of the hearing. The Hearing Officer shall not have the authority to waive any requirements of the Municipal Code and/or any applicable statutes, rules, codes or regulations, except as otherwise provided in this Chapter 8.31. 8.31.040. Obtaining an Administrative Hearing Officer. (a) Within five (5) business days after the City has determined that a timely and complete appeal of an Administrative Citation has been filed, the citing officer or his or her designee shall provide written notice by first class mail or facsimile to the Lake County Bar Association/Mediation Program requesting a neutral Hearing Officer. (b) As soon as practicable, the Lake County Bar Association will provide to the citing officer and the person or entity who filed the appeal, a randomly selected disinterested Hearing Officer. 8.31.050. Scheduling the Administrative Appeal Hearing. Once the Hearing Officer is selected, the citing officer or his or her designee shall contact the Hearing Officer to schedule a date, time, and location for the Administrative Appeal Hearing. The Administrative Appeal Hearing shall be scheduled as soon as practicable but allowing sufficient time for providing notice of the hearing. 8.31.060. Preparation and form of Notice of Administrative Appeal Hearing. Once the date, time and place for the Administrative Appeal Hearing is determined, the citing officer or his or her designee shall prepare a Notice of Administrative Appeal Hearing ("Hearing Notice"), which shall be in substantially the same form as follows: "You are hereby notified that a hearing will be held before the Administrative Hearing Officer at _________________ on the ____ day of ______________, ________, at the hour of ______ to hear your appeal of the Administrative Citation served upon you. You may be present at the hearing. You may be, but need not be,
6

represented by an attorney. You may present any relevant evidence at the hearing and you will be given a full opportunity to cross-examine all witnesses testifying against you." 8.31.070. Time for and method of service of Notice of Administrative Appeal Hearing. The citing officer or his or her designee shall cause a copy of Hearing Notice to be provided to each appellant either by causing a copy of said Notice to be delivered to each appellant personally or by causing a copy of said Notice to be delivered by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, and addressed to each appellant at the address shown on the appeal. 8.31.080. Proof of service of Notice of Administrative Appeal Hearing. Proof of service of the Hearing Notice shall be certified at the time of service by a written declaration under penalty of perjury executed by the persons effecting service, declaring the date and manner in which service was made. The declaration shall be affixed to a copy of the Hearing Notice and retained by the citing officer or his or her designee. 8.31.090. Report and recommendation. The citing officer shall prepare an administrative hearing packet for the Hearing Officer to review prior to the hearing. The packet shall include a copy of the written appeal and any supporting documents, a copy of the Administrative Citation, a staff report if any, and any other evidence relevant to the violation(s). 8.31.100. Admissibility of evidence at Administrative Appeal Hearing. At the Administrative Appeal Hearing, the Hearing Officer shall review all evidence, documents, and written testimony and hear all oral testimony offered either in support of appellant’s claim or in support of the Administrative Citation, provided such evidence and testimony is relevant to the issues of the hearing. The Hearing Officer has the authority to determine the relevance of any evidence to the issues of the hearing. The Hearing Officer also has the authority to exclude unduly repetitious and cumulative evidence, regardless of its relevancy. 8.31.110. Rights of parties at Administrative Appeal Hearing. Each party appearing at the hearing shall have the following rights: (a) to call and examine witnesses; (b) to introduce documentary and physical evidence; (c) to cross-examine opposing witnesses; (d) to impeach any witness regardless of which party first called the witness to testify; (e) to rebut evidence; and (f) to be represented by anyone who is lawfully permitted to do so. 8.31.120. Failure to attend Administrative Appeal Hearing. If the appellant fails to attend the scheduled Administrative Appeal Hearing, the hearing will proceed without appellant and he or she will be deemed to have waived his or her rights to be orally heard at the Appeal Hearing. 8.31.130. Hearing Officer’s Determination on Appeal. Following the appeal of an Administrative Citation, the Hearing Officer may decide to uphold the Administrative Citation, establish a modified schedule for compliance, overturn some or all of the findings of the citing officer and/or rescind the citation in part or in its entirety, and/or reduce the amount or waive payment of the administrative fine. In the event the Hearing Officer determines to rescind the Administrative Citation in its entirety, the recipient of the Administrative Citation shall not be required to pay the administrative fine imposed by said citation and the appeal fee shall be refunded. 8.31.140. Duty to prepare and serve Notice of Decision and Compliance Order. The Hearing Officer shall sign their decision and then provide same to City staff who will then prepare and serve a written Notice of Decision and Compliance Order (“Decision and Compliance Order”) upon each appellant and the citing officer following the Administrative Appeal Hearing. The decision of the Hearing Officer shall be final, except as otherwise provided by this Chapter. 8.31.150. Time in which to serve Notice of Decision and Compliance Order. The Hearing Officer shall serve the written Notice of Decision and Compliance Order to each appellant within
7

twenty (20) calendar days from the date the hearing is deemed closed. The Hearing Officer shall also provide or cause to be provided a copy of the Decision and Compliance Order to the citing officer. 8.31.160. Form of Notice of Decision and Compliance Order. The Decision and Compliance Order for an Administrative Citation shall state whether the Administrative Citation has been either upheld, in full or in part, or rescinded, in full or in part. In addition, the Decision and Compliance Order shall contain a brief summary of the evidence considered, findings of fact, a determination of the issues presented, the effective date of the decision, and a Compliance Order, if applicable, which shall specifically describe the actions which shall be required to be taken to remedy the code violations indicated in the Decision and Compliance Order and shall require the actions to be completed within a specified time period and by a specified deadline. In addition, the Decision and Compliance Order shall contain a Compliance Order, if applicable, which shall require the Administrative Citation recipient to pay all applicable administrative fines no later than twenty (20) calendar days from the date of issuance of the Notice of Decision and Compliance Order. The amount of the fine for which the recipient shall be responsible shall be as set forth in the Administrative Citation. Payment of the administrative fine shall be ordered to be made to the issuing department or division unless otherwise directed by the City. 8.31.170. Service of Notice of Decision and Compliance Order. The Hearing Officer shall cause a copy of the Notice of Decision and Compliance Order to be provided to each appellant either by causing a copy of the Decision and Compliance Order to be delivered to each appellant personally or by causing a copy of said Decision and Compliance Order to be delivered to each appellant by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, and addressed to appellant at the address shown on the appeal. A copy of the Decision and Compliance Order shall also be provided to the citing officer. 8.31.180. Effective date of Notice of Decision and Compliance Order. The effective date of the Hearing Officer’s Notice of Decision and Compliance Order shall be as stated therein or, if none provided, the date of the Decision and Compliance Order. 8.31.190. Failure to obey Notice of Decision and Compliance Order. (a) Failure to obey a Notice of Decision and Compliance Order shall be deemed a separate infraction/violation for purposes of this Section. A fourth violation and subsequent violations of this Section within a twelve (12) month period shall be deemed a misdemeanor. (b) If, after the Notice of Decision and Compliance Order becomes final, the person(s) to whom the Decision and Compliance Order is directed shall fail, neglect or refuse to obey such order, the Code Compliance Manager or other authorized agent may: (a) cause such person to be prosecuted for an infraction violation for the offense of contempt of the Hearing Officer’s Decision and Compliance Order and/or (b) institute any appropriate administrative or legal action or proceeding necessary to gain compliance. (c) For each day that the person(s) to whom the Decision and Compliance Order is directed fails, neglects or refuses to obey such order, a new offense is committed. 8.31.200. Attorneys fees. The prevailing party in any proceeding conducted pursuant to this Chapter and associated with the abatement of a public nuisance or correction of any code violation or other issues as set forth herein shall be entitled to recovery of attorneys' fees incurred in any such proceeding. 8.31.210. Lien/Collection. Recovery of penalties and costs.
8

(a) Administrative penalties and abatement costs shall be a debt to the city and subject to all remedies for debt collection as allowed by law. (b) When a violation involves privately owned real property and the abatement costs and penalties are unpaid within the prescribed time set forth in the applicable order, the amount of such costs and penalties may be recorded as a lien upon and against the real property or collected as special assessments without further hearing. (c) In addition to any other means of enforcement, the city attorney is authorized to bring a civil action against the responsible party for collection of administrative penalties and abatement costs in any court of competent jurisdiction. Section 2. Severability.

If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this and each section, subsection, phrase, or clause thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, phrases, or clauses be declared unconstitutional on their face or as applied. Section 3. Effective Date.

This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after the date of adoption. Section 4. Posting/Advertising.

The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published and/or posted within fifteen days after its adoption. This ordinance was introduced before the City Council of the City of Lakeport at a regular meeting thereof on the 5th day of February 2013, by the following vote:

AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINING:

9

This Ordinance was duly enacted by the City Council of the City of Lakeport at a regular meeting thereof on the 19th day of February 2013, by the following vote:

AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINING: _________________________________ THOMAS ENGSTROM, Mayor

ATTEST:

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_____________________________ KELLY BUENDIA, Deputy City Clerk

_________________________________ STEVEN J. BROOKES, City Attorney

10

CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District

STAFF REPORT
RE: Introduction of an Ordinance Regulating the Cultivation of Medical Marijuana SUBMITTED BY: Steve Brookes, City Attorney Information only Discussion Action Item MEETING DATE: 02/05/2013

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

WHAT IS BEING ASKED OF THE CITY COUNCIL/BOARD: City Council is being asked to: 1.) Introduce the proposed Ordinance, which will add Chapter 17.38, Medical Marijuana Cultivation, to the Lakeport Municipal Code; and 2.) Set a public hearing date for the second reading and adoption of the Ordinance. BACKGROUND: Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5 et. seq., known as the “Compassionate Use Act of 1996,” (CUA), adopted by the voters in the State of California, allows a person to use marijuana for medical purposes with a doctor’s recommendation without violating state criminal laws concerning the use, possession or cultivation of marijuana. Health and Safety Code Section 11362.7 et. seq., known as the “Medical Marijuana Program Act,” (MMPA), was adopted by our state legislature and offers some clarification on the scope of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 and allowed cities and other governing bodies to adopt and enforce rules and regulations related to medical marijuana. Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5(2)(d) says, in part: “[state regulations imposing punishments] relating to the possession…and cultivation…of marijuana shall not apply to a patient, or to a patient’s primary caregiver, who possesses or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician.” Further, Health and Safety Code Section 11362.765(a) reads: “…[qualified patients or their primary caregivers] …shall not be subject, on that sole basis, to criminal liability under [specified state regulations imposing punishments for marijuana cultivation, possession and use].” Thus, although we may disagree, the state law is very clear that patients with a recommendation from their doctor may possess, cultivate and use marijuana for medical purposes. Marijuana remains an illegal drug in the eyes of the federal government; however, the current administration has chosen to not devote federal law-enforcement resources to enforcing marijuana laws in states that allow the use of medical marijuana provided the user is in compliance with state law.

Meeting Date: 02/05/2013

Page 1

Agenda Item #VI.B.

As noted, cultivation is specifically mentioned as allowed for medical purposes. In addition, a California Supreme Court ruling found that a state or local jurisdiction cannot limit the amount of medical marijuana that a qualifying individual may possess beyond that which has been recommended by a physician. This ruling seems to clarify that a local jurisdiction must be careful to not deny activity specifically allowed in the CUA. However, the courts have long since allowed local governments flexibility to regulate land uses in the interest of health and safety and the establishment of guidelines for cultivation is appropriate. For example, the CUA specifically says in Section 11362.5(b)(2):“Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede legislation prohibiting persons from engaging in conduct that endangers others, nor to condone the diversion of marijuana for nonmedical purposes.” Thus, the City may impose regulations to ensure the safety of our residents, being careful not to unreasonably limit the rights of qualified patients under the CUA and MMPA. Despite several challenges, the Courts have not yet found that balance. With little guidance from the Courts, there is no action the City may impose that is 100% safe from successful legal challenge. Regardless, the City should step forward and impose regulations necessary to keep our residents safe while seeking to protect ourselves from expensive legal challenges. This proposed ordinance restricts the cultivation of marijuana in residential areas to outdoor accessory buildings, requires security measures to be in place, requires growers to advise the City of their plans to cultivate, and other similar measures. Over the years the City has received numerous complaints through the police and code enforcement departments. The Police Department has conducted checks at numerous locations in the city, have had reports of thefts or attempted thefts of medical marijuana, and one prior incident where a homeowner fired several shots in the air to scare off the suspects who he thought were trying to steal his medical marijuana. The department is also aware of additional incidents where medical growers were found to be armed at various locations in the City. Some of the incidents are quite brazen and pose significant safety risks for surrounding neighbors. City Departments have also responded to several complaints regarding the odor. We have been made aware of nuisances associated with the odor of the marijuana plants and public safety issues concerning theft of plants. Outdoor growing has caused neighbors to complain about very strong pungent odors (a skunk-like odor) from maturing plants that encroach on their adjacent outdoor yard areas. The strength of the odor is reported to be so strong as to deprive them of enjoyment of their yards. Complaints have also been received from residents of adjacent units in multifamily residences complaining of obnoxious odors from indoor marijuana cultivation. Damage to the interior of residences from the odor, mold and water has been reported by landlords. Most of these hazards are particularly acute in the fall as the plants mature before harvest. Indoor marijuana cultivation can also occur throughout the year causing continual odor problems and other related issues {mold growth, interior moisture damage}. None of the cities contacted for this staff report have completely banned cultivation for personal use in residential districts. Some cities have broad policies that entirely “ban” marijuana (cultivation and dispensing); however, all such cities contacted admitted that they cannot and do not enforce the restriction on personal cultivation in residential neighborhoods. We can find no city that has enacted a permanent “ban” on residential cultivation of marijuana because of the clear conflict with the provisions of the CUA DISCUSSION:
Meeting Date: 02/05/2013 Page 2 Agenda Item #VI.B.

The provisions in the current ordinance (attached as: Attachment #1) for cultivation for personal use include: • Outdoor cultivation shall be declared unlawful and a public nuisance for any person owning, leasing, occupying or having charge or possession of any parcel within any zoning district in the City of Lakeport. • Indoor Cultivation within a residence shall be declared unlawful and a public nuisance for any person owning, leasing, occupying or having charge or possession of any parcel within any zoning district in the City of Lakeport. Safety concerns with cultivation in a residence include odor, unsupervised access by minors, security (home invasion threatening the residents), mold and water damage to the structure. • The City of Lakeport shall be held harmless with regard to any legal liability and in no way does this ordinance provide protection of the owners or operators from prosecution under other local, state or federal laws. • Medical marijuana cultivation shall be permitted as an accessory use to a legally established residence within a legal detached accessory building on a legal parcel within the R-1, R-2, R-5 and UR zoning districts and said indoor cultivation shall be limited to 50 square feet. Residential accessory structures used for cultivation shall meet the following criteria: The building must be provided with locking doors and have a working security system. The alarm shall be a standard audible residential alarm of at least 90 dBA but not exceeding 110 dBA and shall meet the requirements of the Municipal Code. Note that the code does not require a monitored alarm system. If the building is a greenhouse then it must additionally be surrounded by a secure solid six (6) foot high fence located within ten (10) feet of the greenhouse and equipped with a lockable gate. The structure must be located in the rear yard portion of the lot and maintain a minimum of a ten (10) foot setback from the side and rear property lines and from any other building on the parcel. The structure utilized for cultivation shall be legally constructed with a building permit. All electrical and plumbing must be permitted. The lighting for medical marijuana cultivation shall not exceed 1200 watts and shall conform to all applicable codes. Cultivation areas shall be ventilated with odor control filters and shall not create an odor, humidity or mold problem.

-

• Regardless of building size, an accessory building that will be used for cultivation of marijuana will require a building permit. Current codes require permits only for structures exceeding 120 square feet or for electrical and plumbing installation. If the resident is proposing to convert an existing accessory structure for this purpose, an inspection will be required to ensure compliance with the ordinance. • Building permits for accessory buildings used for the cultivation of medical marijuana will only be issued to the owner of the property. • Medical marijuana cultivation may be undertaken only by a qualified patient who must occupy the residence on the parcel proposed for cultivation as their primary residence or by a qualified caregiver • Wherever medical marijuana is grown, a copy of a current and valid, physicians medical marijuana recommendation must be made available on request by a Code Enforcement Officer or Law Enforcement Officer. • Marijuana that is cultivated pursuant to this ordinance may only be used by the qualified patient and not transferred, given, or “sold” to any other person (including a dispensary). • The cultivation of marijuana for any purpose is prohibited within 300 feet of any hospital, school, church, park or playground or in other areas where large numbers of minors regularly travel or congregate.
Meeting Date: 02/05/2013 Page 3 Agenda Item #VI.B.

The intent of the ordinance is that from the street or adjacent properties, there should be almost no way to know that cultivation of medical marijuana for personal use is occurring on the property. As an accessory to a residential use, the cultivator must be the patient (or caregiver) living in the home, and the home must remain in use as a residence during the cultivation. The remaining restrictions and requirements are based on public safety (mainly ensuring adequate electrical connections and the prevention of mold), security (building, fencing, and door locks), and a desire to maintain the residential character of the neighborhood. This proposed ordinance (as attached) is currently not in effect in Lakeport, and the Police and Code Enforcement officers are relying on existing code sections and laws to try to deal with the impacts of the growing, e.g. odor, increased traffic, and crime. The majority of the problems occur during a 60-day harvest period in the fall. Because current code enforcement and law enforcement efforts require progressive notification and investigation that can extend over a period of several months, the problems are often gone (harvested) before any action can be taken, but not before the nuisance has been severe for the neighborhood. The existing code enforcement ordinances and techniques have not been particularly effective at combating the neighborhood nuisances. As a result, the Council directed staff to add sections to the ordinance that improve our ability to quickly enforce the laws. The following provisions have been added: • • Violations of the ordinance are deemed to be criminal infractions. Fines for violating the ordinance are $50 the first violation, $100 for the second violation, and $250 for each violation thereafter. Each day that the violation is committed can be a separate offense, thus, the fines are $50 for the first day, $100 for the second day, and $250 for each day thereafter. Citations would be processed using the Administrative citation procedure or, where appropriate, forwarded to the courts for criminal enforcement.

We believe that compliance with the ordinance would result in very few neighborhood complaints, as few people should know that cultivation is occurring. From experience, we know that aside from security, odors present the largest source of complaints. Placing the growing area inside a building, and requiring a ventilation system, should address the odor issues. With this ordinance in place, staff will have the tools to regulate cultivation before it becomes a neighborhood problem. Because of the cost of installing the necessary lighting, irrigation systems, outbuildings, security systems, etc., we believe this ordinance will have the effect of reducing the number of people who cultivate marijuana at their place of residence, while still preserving the rights of qualified patients to cultivate marijuana safely and without disrupting the neighborhood. Based on current practice in the region and recent court cases, this approach will be defensible in court. OPTIONS: 1. Introduce the proposed Ordinance and set a public hearing date for its second reading and adoption. 2. Propose revisions to the draft Ordinance and request that it be returned to the City Council for further discussion FISCAL IMPACT: None $ Account Number: Comments: SUGGESTED MOTIONS:
Meeting Date: 02/05/2013 Page 4 Agenda Item #VI.B.

Move that the City Council introduce the proposed Ordinance which will add Chapter 17.38, Medical Marijuana Cultivation, to the Lakeport Municipal Code and set a public hearing and second reading for February 19, 2013, at 6:00 p.m. Attachments: Attachment #1: Proposed Ordinance ____ (2013)

Meeting Date: 02/05/2013

Page 5

Agenda Item #VI.B.

Attachment 1

ORDINANCE NO. XXX (2013) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEPORT ENACTING CHAPTER 17.38 OF THE LAKEPORT MUNICIPAL CODE, REGARDING MEDICAL MARIJUANA CULTIVATION WHEREAS, the City of Lakeport Municipal Code establishes rules and regulations for living and doing business within city limits, and; WHEREAS, Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5 et. seq., known as the “Compassionate Use Act of 1996,” (CUA), adopted by the voters in the State of California, allows a person to use marijuana for medical purposes with a doctor’s recommendation without violating state criminal laws concerning the use, possession or cultivation of marijuana, and; WHEREAS, Health and Safety Code Section 11362.7 et. seq., known as the “Medical Marijuana Program Act,” (MMPA), was adopted by our state legislature and offers some clarification on the scope of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 and allowed cities and other governing bodies to adopt and enforce rules and regulations related to medical marijuana, and; WHEREAS, the City may impose regulations to ensure the safety of our residents, being careful not to unreasonably limit the rights of qualified patients under the CUA and MMPA, and; WHEREAS, numerous locations in the city, have had reports of thefts or attempted thefts of medical marijuana, and; WHEREAS, medical marijuana growth poses significant safety risks for surrounding neighbors, and causes nuisances associated with the odor of the marijuana plants and public safety issues concerning theft of plants, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The City Council of the City of Lakeport does hereby add the following Chapter to the Municipal Code: Chapter 17.38 Medical Marijuana Cultivation A. Legislative Findings. The City Council finds as follows: 1. In 1996, the voters of the State of California approved Proposition 215 which was codified as California Health and Safety Code Chapter 11362.5, and entitled "The Compassionate Use Act of 1996" ("the Compassionate Use Act" or “CUA”).
1 of 8

2.

The intent of the Compassionate Use Act was to enable persons who are in need of marijuana for medical purposes to obtain and use it under limited, specific circumstances, without being subject to criminal prosecution under certain state statutes. On January 1, 2004, Senate Bill 420, codified as California Health and Safety Code Chapters 11362.7 et seq. and entitled “The Medical Marijuana Program,” (“MMP”) became effective to clarify the scope of the Compassionate Use Act. California Health and Safety Code Chapter 11362.83 expressly allows Cities and Counties to adopt and enforce ordinances that are consistent with Senate Bill 420. The City of LAKEPORT has adopted a Zoning Ordinance identified as Title 17 (Zoning) of the City of LAKEPORT Municipal Code. Prior to the enactment of this Chapter, there were no regulations addressing Cultivation of Medical Marijuana in the Zoning Ordinance. The City of LAKEPORT with a population of 4,622 (January 1, 2012) is a small town with a high percentage of non-owner occupied residential units. Landlords have complained of damage caused by unauthorized cultivation activities in their rental properties. The City of LAKEPORT Police Department, City residents and other public entities have reported adverse impacts from Medical Marijuana cultivation, including disagreeable odors; increased risk of burglary and other property crimes; and acts of violence in connection with the commission of such crimes or the occupants’ attempts to prevent such crimes. The creation of persistent strong odors as marijuana plants mature and flower is offensive to many people and creates an attractive nuisance, alerting persons to the location of valuable marijuana plants and creating an increased risk of crime. The indoor cultivation of substantial amounts of marijuana also frequently requires excessive use of electricity, which often creates an unreasonable risk of fire from the electrical grow lighting systems used in indoor cultivation. Children are particularly vulnerable to the effects of marijuana use, and the presence of marijuana plants has proven to be an attractive nuisance for children, creating an unreasonable hazard in areas frequented by children including schools, parks, and other similar locations. The City Council finds and determines that the enactment of this Chapter is exempt from environmental review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Chapter 15061(b)(3) in that there is nothing in this Chapter or its implementation that could have a foreseeable significant effect on the environment.

3.

4. 5. 6. 7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

B.

Intent.

1.

The City Council of the City of LAKEPORT, pursuant to Chapter 17.38 of the LAKEPORT Municipal Code, hereby intends to regulate the cultivation of marijuana for medical purposes, including but not limited to, regulations as to location of the cultivation, size of the area used for cultivation, and the use of fencing or other screening and security structures, to accommodate the needs of qualified patients and their caregivers, and in furtherance of the public necessity, convenience and general welfare. Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to authorize any use, possession, cultivation, or distribution of marijuana for non-medical purposes. This Chapter is established to regulate Medical Marijuana cultivation in a manner that mitigates potential impacts on surrounding properties and persons, and that is in conformance with the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Chapter 11362.5 through 11362.83.

2.

C.

Applicability. The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to all persons and businesses described herein whether the activities described herein were established before or after the effective date of this Chapter. Title 17, Chapter 17.36 of the Municipal Code, Nonconforming Uses, shall not apply to preexisting land or building uses inconsistent with the provisions of this Chapter. Definitions. “Cultivation” means the planting, growing, harvesting, drying, or processing of marijuana plants or any part thereof. “Marijuana” shall have the same meaning as that set forth in California Health and Safety Code Chapter 11018. "Medical Marijuana" means medical marijuana that has been recommended by a licensed physician in strict accordance with California Health and Safety Code Chapters 11362.5 through Chapter 11362.83, inclusive, commonly referred to as the Compassionate Use Act and the Medical Marijuana Program. “Primary Caregiver” shall have the same definition as California Health and Safety Code Chapter 11362.7(d), as may be amended. “Qualified Patient” shall have the same definition as California Health and Safety Code Chapters 11362.7 (c) and (f), as may be amended.

D.

E.

Regulation of Location. 1. Medical Marijuana cultivation shall be prohibited on any parcel within the incorporated area of the City of LAKEPORT except as an accessory use to a legally established residence within a legal accessory building on a legal parcel within the R-1, R-2, R-3, R5 and UR zoning districts. No medical marijuana cultivation is permitted within three hundred feet of any hospital, school, church, park or playground or in other areas where large numbers of

2.

minors regularly travel or congregate. The distance between any marijuana cultivation and any hospital, school, church, park or playground or other areas where large numbers of minors regularly travel or congregate shall be measured in a straight line, without regard to intervening structures, from the closest exterior wall of the detached accessory building in which the marijuana cultivation is occurring to the closest property line where the other building or activity is conducted. 3. Except as provided in Chapter 17.38(E)(4), Medical Marijuana cultivation may be undertaken only by a qualified patient who must occupy the residence on the parcel proposed for cultivation as their primary residence. A qualified primary caregiver, as defined, may undertake cultivation of Medical Marijuana on behalf of his/her qualified patient(s), but only in an accessory structure located on a parcel containing the primary caregiver’s or qualified patient’s primary residence. Cultivation shall only be permitted in a detached accessory building and said cultivation area shall be limited to 50 square feet per parcel or residence, whichever is less. The cultivated marijuana may be used only by the qualified patient and not distributed, sold, given or transferred in any way to any other person or organization. The use of a detached accessory building for cultivation of Medical Marijuana shall not reduce the required parking required per Chapter 17.23.050. Outdoor cultivation shall be unlawful and a public nuisance for any person owning, leasing, occupying or having charge for possession of any parcel within any zoning district in the City of LAKEPORT. Indoor Cultivation within a residence shall be unlawful and a public nuisance with regard to any person owning, leasing, occupying or having charge for possession of any parcel within any zoning district in the City of LAKEPORT.

4.

5.

6. 7.

8.

F.

Development and Operational Standards: 1. 2. From a public right-of-way there shall be no exterior evidence of Medical Marijuana cultivation located inside an accessory building. The qualified patient or primary caregiver shall reside in the residence located on the parcel containing the accessory structure where the Medical Marijuana cultivation occurs. The qualified patient or primary caregiver shall not cultivate Medical Marijuana in any other location within the incorporated City of LAKEPORT other than in the accessory structure located on the parcel containing his/her primary residence. The qualifying residence located on the property containing the detached accessory building in which Medical Marijuana is cultivated shall maintain kitchen, bathrooms, and primary bedrooms for their intended use and shall not be used for Medical Marijuana cultivation.

3.

4.

5.

Medical Marijuana cultivation shall not adversely affect the health or safety of nearby residents by creating dust, glare, heat, noise, noxious gasses, odor, smoke, traffic, vibration, or other impacts, or be hazardous due to use or storage of materials, processes, products or wastes. Residential accessory structures used for cultivation shall meet the following criteria: o The building shall be provided with locking doors and have a working security system. The alarm shall be a standard audible residential alarm of at least 90 dBA but not exceeding 110 dBA and shall meet the requirements of Chapter 8.01 of the Municipal Code. o If the building is a greenhouse then it shall additionally be surrounded by a secure solid six (6) foot high fence located within ten (10) feet of the greenhouse and equipped with a lockable gate. o The structure shall be located in the rear yard portion of the lot and maintain a minimum of a ten (10) foot setback from the side and rear property lines and from any other building on the parcel. o Any accessory structure, of any size, utilized for cultivation of marijuana shall be legally constructed with a building permit. All electrical and plumbing shall be installed with a valid electrical and plumbing permit from the City. Such building permits will only be issued to the owner of the property. If the resident is proposing to convert an existing accessory structure for cultivation of marijuana, an inspection will be required to ensure compliance with the ordinance. o Medical Marijuana cultivation lighting shall not exceed 1200 watts and shall conform to all applicable codes. o Accessory structures utilized for cultivation shall be ventilated with odor control filters, and shall not create an odor, humidity or mold problem on the subject property or adjacent properties. Other activities may occur within a detached accessory structure where medical marijuana is cultivated provided that the cultivation area itself within the structure does not exceed 50 square feet and further provided that the cultivation area is segregated from all other building uses by permitted walls and all other conditions of this Chapter are satisfied.

6.

7.

Wherever Medical Marijuana is grown, a copy of a current and valid, State-issued Medical Marijuana card must be kept available to immediately present to officers of the City and law enforcement officers upon request. Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed as a limitation on the City’s authority to abate any nuisance which may exist from the planting, growing, harvesting, drying, processing or storage of marijuana plants or any part thereof from any location, indoor or outdoor, including from within a fully enclosed and secure building.

8.

G.

Enforcement. 1. Right of Entry: Persons designated by resolution as Code Enforcement Officers of the City are authorized to enter upon and inspect private properties to ensure compliance with the provisions of Chapter 17.38 of the LAKEPORT Municipal Code. Reasonable advance notice of any such entry and inspection shall be provided and, before entry, consent shall be obtained in writing from the owner or other person in lawful possession of the property. If consent cannot for any reason be obtained, an inspection warrant shall be obtained from a court of law prior to any such entry and inspection. In those cases where consent is denied, the City may seek to recover the costs it incurs in obtaining a warrant from the property owner and/or person in lawful possession of the property. Public Nuisance. The maintaining, cultivating or growing of marijuana upon private property within the City of LAKEPORT, unless in full compliance with the provisions of Chapter 17.38 of the LAKEPORT Municipal Code, is declared to be a public nuisance as defined in Chapter 370 of the California Penal Code. Criminal Offense: Every person who, in violation of the provisions of Chapter 17.38 of the LAKEPORT Municipal Code, maintains, permits or allows marijuana to be grown upon his or her property or premises, and every person occupying, renting or leasing the property or premises of another who maintains, permits or allows marijuana to be grown thereon in violation of this Chapter is guilty of an infraction punishable as set forth in Chapter 1.08.010 of the LAKEPORT Municipal Code. After written notice is provided to any such person of such violation, the continued existence of such violation for each and every day after the service of such notice shall be deemed a separate and distinct offense. Issuance of Citations: All persons designated by resolution as Code Enforcement Officers of the City are authorized to issue citations to persons deemed to be in violation of the provisions of Chapter 17.38 of the LAKEPORT Municipal Code. Such citations shall be expeditiously processed through use of the Administrative citation process or where appropriate through a criminal filing in the appropriate court of law. Remedies Non-Exclusive. The criminal remedies provided herein shall not be the exclusive means of enforcing the provisions of this Chapter nor the exclusive means available to the City to address problems associated with the cultivation of marijuana, whether for medical or other purposes. The City shall continue to have available to it the ability to pursue abatement of nuisances and other problems related to marijuana cultivation under California Penal Code Chapters 372 and 373a and other applicable provisions of law. The City may also pursue the recovery of its abatement costs in the manner provided by the LAKEPORT Municipal Code.

2.

3.

4.

5.

H.

Liability. The provisions of this Chapter shall not be construed to protect the property owner(s) of record for each legal parcel associated with the cultivation of Medical Marijuana, lessees,

tenants, and other participants in the cultivation of Medical Marijuana, and members of collectives and/or cooperatives associated with the cultivation of Medical Marijuana, from prosecution pursuant to any laws that may prohibit the cultivation, sale, and/or possession of controlled substances. Moreover, cultivation, sale, possession, distribution, and use of marijuana remain violations of federal law as of the date of adoption of the ordinance creating this Chapter and this Chapter is not intended to, and does not protect any of the above described persons from arrest or prosecution under those federal laws. The property owner(s) of record for each legal parcel associated with the cultivation of Medical Marijuana, lessees, tenants, and other participants in the cultivation of Medical Marijuana, and members of collectives and/or cooperatives associated with the cultivation of Medical Marijuana, assume any and all risk and any and all liability that may arise or result under state and federal criminal laws from the cultivation of marijuana. Further, to the fullest extent permitted by law, any actions taken under the provisions of this Chapter by any public officer or employee of the City of LAKEPORT or City of LAKEPORT itself, shall not become a personal liability of such person or the liability of the City of LAKEPORT. Section 2. If any provisions of this ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance are held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of this ordinance that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are severable. Section 3. All former ordinances including but not limited to Chapter 9.24 and resolutions, or parts thereof, conflicting or inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed.

Section 4. This Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of LAKEPORT, in the manner provided by Chapter 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California, and shall be effective 30 days after its passage. The foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of LAKEPORT held on February 5, 2013 and duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of LAKEPORT held on February 19, 2013 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ___________________________ Thomas Engstrom, Mayor

ATTEST: _______________________________ Janel Chapman Clerk Attorney

APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ STEVEN J. BROOKES, City

City Council Lakeport Redevelopment Successor Agency City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District

CITY OF LAKEPORT

STAFF REPORT
RE: Budget Amendment, Fiscal Year 2012-13 SUBMITTED BY: Daniel Buffalo, Finance Director PURPOSE OF REPORT: Information only Discussion Action Item MEETING DATE: 02/05/13

WHAT IS BEING ASKED OF THE CITY COUNCIL/AGENCY/BOARD: Review and approve the attached budget amendment. BACKGROUND: In January, staff began the process of a mid-year budget review to examine current expenditures and compare them to appropriations. Staff presented that analysis to the Council at a regular meeting on January 22, 2013. At that time, the Council was informed that several adjustments were needed to ensure expenditures did not exceed appropriations or to address instances where such overruns did occur. According to City policy, budget control rests at the fund level. This means that expenditures for any particular, budgeted fund should not exceed what has been appropriated by the City Council for the fund as a whole in any given fiscal year, unless the Council increases the appropriation. In line with this policy - and based on past practice - the City Manager (CM) could exercise budget control up to $2,500 per object (e.g., expenditure accounts such as electricity, propane, fuel, office supplies, professional services, etc.) each fiscal year. In other words, expenditures could be reduced in one area and increased in another at the CM level to accommodate operating changes, so long as the total appropriation for the fund remained unchanged. The adopted 2012-13 budget identifies expenditures by what are known as characters, summarized groupings of expenditure accounts which share similar purpose. The City budgets for its departments in four main characters: salaries and benefits, operations, capital improvements (CIP), and debt service. This facilitates a working understanding of where financial resources are allocated in a broader policy making context. In other words, presenting information in this way allows decision makers to focus more on what they want to get done and less on the specifics of how to do it. This year, the budget focus was on priorities - where to maximize the use of resources. This was based on input from the Council and staff. Those priorities are identified in the budget document within the discussion of each department. The budget process begins with the identification of goals and priorities of both the City Council and management. The CM aligns that information and instructs executive management to calculate costs and bring forward appropriation requests. The Finance Department provides the CM with revenue estimates for all major operating funds, which provide the available resources to pay for these requests. The CM works with executive management to refine a spending plan and subsequently brings her recommendations to the Council for review and approval. Council can then revise the spending plan or adopt it as recommended. This becomes the adopted budget. An adopted budget gives legal spending authority to the CM to implement the activities identified therein. But the plan is based largely on estimates. Those estimates often require revision throughout the year.
Meeting Date: 2/05/2013 Page 1 Agenda Item #VII.A.1.

Priorities sometimes are modified, and activities may be refined due to changes in resources (e.g. the dissolution of redevelopment). Budget adjustments are necessary to realign the original intent of the spending plan to account for these changing variables. Adjustments of all amounts are tracked by the Finance Department and reported to the City Council regularly, if and when they occur. For simplicity, most adjustment are made during the mid-year review. To date, no such formal budget amendments have been made by the CM or the Council, though it has approved several appropriation increases for unbudgeted expenditures, which include the following:

Item Carbon media replacement Office specialist - administration Witt note payoff Server room air conditioner replacement

Character CIP Operations Debt service CIP

Appropriations 60,000 27,750 73,866 15,000

It is a primary goal of management to ensure Council is aware of where money has been or is planned to be spent. Therefore, budget adjustments - whether implemented by the CM or the Council - are reported to the Council. This ensures accountability and transparency for the benefit of the Council and community. DISCUSSION: The following schedule is a summary of all adjustments required by the City Council. It demonstrates net increases to revenue estimates and appropriations presented at the fund level with additional department level detail included in Attachment A.
Fund Name 110 General fund Contract overtime - Police Functional revenues from pool Property tax increase from RDA dissolution Redistribution of former RDA cash assets Departmental appropriation requests Total 202 Park land dedication fund 203 HUTA gas tax fund 238 CDBG housing grant 2010 501 Water O&M fund 502 Water expansion fund 601 Sewer O&M fund Net Increase (Decrease) Increase (Decrease) Revenue Appropriations 10,000 3,500 40,000 70,000 123,500 15,000 50,000 $ 188,500 $ 55,044 55,044 73,866 117,052 15,000 148,515 79,907 35,108 524,492
(4)

Net Effect

(1)

Estimated Budgeted Surplus (Deficit)

(2)

Beginning Fund Balance

(3)

Estimated Ending Fund Balance

(5)

(6)

68,456 (73,866) (117,052) (98,515) (79,907) (35,108) $ (335,992) $

32,286 75,443 (76,881) 103,223 134,071

1,469,594 (91,250) 275,887 (8,738) 219,376 332,399 384,227 $ 2,581,495

1,538,050 (165,116) 191,121 66,705 43,980 252,492 452,342 $ 2,379,574

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Net effect represents the difference between new revenues and new appropriations Estimated budget surplus (deficit) based on original estimates found in adopted 2012-13 budget Represents spendable fund balance/working capital Includes general fund share of increased appropriations for Office Specialist and server room air conditioner, previously approved by Council Approved by Council, January 15, 2013 Includes original Council approved appropriation of $60,000 for carbon media replacement. Costs has been increased to $90,000.

This budget amendment recognizes increased revenue to the general fund of $123,500 from various sources. It also recognizes a request for appropriations to the general fund of $55,044, resulting in an overall estimated net increase to the general fund's budgeted fund balance of $68,456. In January, the Council approved the payoff of the Witt note for $73,866 from fund 202, Park Land Dedication. The general fund will have to advance the fund money to make the payoff and subsequently record it as a long-term receivable. Management requests an increase to the Highway User Tax Account (HUTA) fund for an additional road project. Original budgetary estimates identified a surplus of $32,286 in the fund this fiscal year. The
Meeting Date: 2/05/2013 Page 2 Agenda Item #VII.A.1.

increased appropriation will eliminate the surplus and require the use of fund balance, which, as of June 30, 2012, was $275,887. This fund can only be used for transportation projects. Fund 238, CDBG Housing Grant of 2010, is a reimbursement grant. The City must expend money to be eligible to receive grant revenue. The City has engaged in housing relocation assistance, which was not originally budgeted. Staff estimates that up $15,000 will be spent by June 30, 2013 in this function. Replacement of carbon media at the surface water treatment plant and a replacement vehicle are needed in the water division of Public Works. Also, treatment chemical costs and regulatory permit fees are expected to be higher than aniticipated. The fund originally was budgeted to realize a deficit, with available working capital of $219,376. The appropriation of the carbon media replacement for two containers was approved by Council for $60,000; however, all four vessels can be refreshed for $90,000, a savings of 25%. Finance estimates the recently adopted rate increase for water to generate $50,000-$75,000 additional revenue to budgetary estimates by June 30, 2013. This additional revenue will be used to pay in part for these capital items. The water main project down Parallel Drive to service the new Mendocino College campus has been completed and the final invoice received by the City. This remaining invoice was not budgeted in fund 502, Water Expansion Fund, but there is sufficient working capital in the fund to cover it. The total cost for the project was split 50/50 with the College. Finally, a replacement vehicle is needed in the sewer division of Public Works. Staff estimates the cost of the used replacement truck to be $25,000. The total appropriation increase, however, includes the sewer fund share of the air conditioner replacement in the server room, as well as increases to overtime appropriations and the fund's share of the approved office specialist. See Attachment A for more details on all the requested appropriation increases. OPTIONS: 1. Approve the budget amendment as recommended by staff. 2. Do not approve but provide direction to staff. FISCAL IMPACT: None $138,500 increase in revenue, 524,492 increase in appropriations Account Number(s): Funds 110, 202, 203, 238, 501, 502, 601 SUGGESTED MOTIONS: Move to approve the budget amendment as recommended by staff. Attachments: Attachment A: Budget Adjustments by Department

Meeting Date: 2/05/2013

Page 3

Agenda Item #VII.A.1.

Budget Adjustment Summary Fiscal Year: 2012-13 Adjustment Date: 2/5/2013 Department Character Description Non-Departmental Salaries and benefits Operations Debt service Capital outlay Total Charges for service Operating grants Capital grants Other functional revenues General revenues Total Net Increase (decrease) to fund balance 110 General Fund 501 Water O&M

Fund Level Changes 601 705 Sewer O&M RDA Successor -

Other - $ 73,866 -

Beginning

Net Increase (Decrease)

Ending

Comments

- $ 420,500 652,277 -

- $ 420,500 73,866 726,143 Witt note payoff 73,866 $1,146,643 - $ - $ 94,251 94,251

$ 1,072,777 $ - $ $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (73,866) - $ 94,251 94,251 $

City Council Salaries and benefits Operations Debt service Capital outlay Total Charges for service Operating grants Capital grants Other functional revenues General revenues Total Net Increase (decrease) to fund balance - $ $ - $ $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 57,227 $ 37,024 94,251 $ - $ 94,251 94,251 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 57,227 37,024 94,251 94,251 94,251

Budget Adjustment Summary Fiscal Year: 2012-13 Adjustment Date: 2/5/2013 Department Administration Character Salaries and benefits Operations Debt service Capital outlay Total Charges for service Operating grants Capital grants Other functional revenues General revenues Total Net Increase (decrease) to fund balance 5,032 Description 110 General Fund 5,032 501 Water O&M

Fund Level Changes 601 705 Sewer O&M RDA Successor 6,163 (3,000) 2,876 (1,000) -

Other - $ $

Beginning

Net Increase (Decrease)

Ending

Comments

6,307 (3,000) -

331,269 $ 61,576 850 393,695 $ - $ - $

20,378 $ 351,647 to cover costs of new Office Specialist (7,000) 54,576 to offset costs of OS with savings of IIPP deferral 850 13,378 $ 407,073 - $ 5,032 5,032 $ 5,032 5,032

-

-

-

- $ $

$

- $

(3,307) $

(3,163) $

(1,876) $

-

City Attorney Salaries and benefits Operations Debt service Capital outlay Total Charges for service Operating grants Capital grants Other functional revenues General revenues Total Net Increase (decrease) to fund balance - $ $ - $ $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 82,814 $ 18,126 500 101,440 $ - $ - $ - $ 82,814 18,126 500

- $ 101,440 - $ - $ -

Budget Adjustment Summary Fiscal Year: 2012-13 Adjustment Date: 2/5/2013 Department Finance Character Salaries and benefits Operations Debt service Capital outlay Total Charges for service Operating grants Capital grants Other functional revenues General revenues Total Net Increase (decrease) to fund balance Description 110 General Fund 501 Water O&M

Fund Level Changes 601 705 Sewer O&M RDA Successor 359 (2,235) -

Other - $ $

Beginning

Net Increase (Decrease)

Ending

Comments

329,250 $ 109,789 1,000 440,039 $ - $ - $

359 $ 329,609 increased costs for share of Office Specialist (2,235) 107,554 operating cost savings to offset salaries and bens 1,000 (1,876) $ 438,163 - $ - $ -

-

-

-

- $ $

$

- $

- $

- $

1,876 $

-

Planning Salaries and benefits Operations Debt service Capital outlay Total Charges for service Operating grants Capital grants Other functional revenues General revenues Total Net Increase (decrease) to fund balance - $ $ - $ $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 151,912 $ 68,486 220,398 $ - $ - $ - $ 151,912 68,486 - $ 220,398 - $ - $ -

Budget Adjustment Summary Fiscal Year: 2012-13 Adjustment Date: 2/5/2013 Department Building Character Salaries and benefits Operations Debt service Capital outlay Total Charges for service Operating grants Capital grants Other functional revenues General revenues Total Net Increase (decrease) to fund balance Description 110 General Fund 501 Water O&M

Fund Level Changes 601 705 Sewer O&M RDA Successor -

Other - $ $

Beginning

Net Increase (Decrease)

Ending

Comments

196,368 $ 24,687 221,055 $ - $ - $

- $ 196,368 24,687 - $ 221,055 - $ - $ -

-

-

-

- $ $

$

- $

- $

- $

- $

-

Engineering & IT Salaries and benefits Operations Debt service Capital outlay Total Charges for service Operating grants Capital grants Other functional revenues General revenues Total Net Increase (decrease) to fund balance 5,282 3,143 2,139 929 1,496 929 1,233 - $ $ - $ $ $ - $ (2,425) $ (2,162) $ - $ 213,010 $ 45,353 200 258,563 $ - $ - $ - $ 213,010 5,001 50,354 increased IT costs 4,868 5,068 corp yard server and SCADA improvements 9,869 $ 268,432 - $ 5,282 5,282 $ 5,282 5,282

Budget Adjustment Summary Fiscal Year: 2012-13 Adjustment Date: 2/5/2013 Department Housing Character Salaries and benefits Operations Debt service Capital outlay Total Charges for service Operating grants Capital grants Other functional revenues General revenues Total Net Increase (decrease) to fund balance Description 110 General Fund 501 Water O&M

Fund Level Changes 601 705 Sewer O&M RDA Successor -

Other - $ 15,000 $

Beginning

Net Increase (Decrease)

Ending

Comments

- $ 331,261 331,261 $ - $ - $

- $ 15,000 346,261 increase to relocation estimates 15,000 $ 346,261 - $ 15,000 15,000 $ 15,000 15,000

-

-

-

- $ 15,000 $

$

- $

- $

- $

- $

-

Economic Development Salaries and benefits Operations Debt service Capital outlay Total Charges for service Operating grants Capital grants Other functional revenues General revenues Total Net Increase (decrease) to fund balance

-

-

-

-

- $ - $ 340,450 1,932,166 $ 2,272,616 $

- $ 340,450 - 1,932,166 - $2,272,616 - $ - $ -

-

-

-

-

- $ $

- $ - $

$

- $

- $

- $

- $

-

Budget Adjustment Summary Fiscal Year: 2012-13 Adjustment Date: 2/5/2013 Department Police Character Salaries and benefits Operations Debt service Capital outlay Total Charges for service Operating grants Capital grants Other functional revenues General revenues Total Net Increase (decrease) to fund balance 10,000 28,464 Description 110 General Fund 38,464 501 Water O&M

Fund Level Changes 601 705 Sewer O&M RDA Successor -

Other

Beginning

Net Increase (Decrease)

Ending

Comments

- $ 1,223,362 $ 330,429 71,509 $ 1,625,300 $

38,464 $1,261,826 new Police Officer I 330,429 71,509 38,464 $1,663,764 10,000 $ 28,464 38,464 $ 10,000 contract overtime reimbursement 28,464 increased property tax from RDA dissolution 38,464

-

-

-

- $ $

- $ - $

$

- $

- $

- $

- $

-

Roads & Infrastructure Salaries and benefits Operations Debt service Capital outlay Total Charges for service Operating grants Capital grants Other functional revenues General revenues Total Net Increase (decrease) to fund balance

(1,217) -

1,000 -

1,000 -

-

- $ 424,921 $ 2,000 $ 426,921 increase to overtime to cover unanticipated events 328,218 (1,217) 327,001 reduced to cover IT improvements 117,052 1,262,426 117,052 1,379,478 for unbudgeted road projects $ 2,015,565 $ 117,835 $2,133,400

-

-

-

-

- $ $

- $ - $

- $ - $

-

$

1,217 $

(1,000) $

(1,000) $

- $

(117,052)

Budget Adjustment Summary Fiscal Year: 2012-13 Adjustment Date: 2/5/2013 Department Character Description Parks, Buildings & Grounds Salaries and benefits Operations Debt service Capital outlay Total Charges for service Operating grants Capital grants Other functional revenues General revenues Total Net Increase (decrease) to fund balance 3,783 110 General Fund 850 2,933 501 Water O&M

Fund Level Changes 601 705 Sewer O&M RDA Successor 5,000 -

Other - $ $

Beginning

Net Increase (Decrease)

Ending

Comments

5,000

163,153 $ 112,286 35,000 310,439 $ - $ - $

- $ 163,153 850 113,136 to cover increased supply costs 12,933 47,933 for air conditioner replacement in server room 13,783 $ 324,222 - $ 3,783 3,783 $ 3,783 3,783

-

-

-

- $ $

$

- $

(5,000) $

(5,000) $

- $

-

Solid Waste Management Salaries and benefits Operations Debt service Capital outlay Total Charges for service Operating grants Capital grants Other functional revenues General revenues Total Net Increase (decrease) to fund balance

-

-

-

-

- $ $

- $ 445,000 445,000 $ - $ - $

- $ 445,000 - $ 445,000 - $ - $ -

-

-

-

-

- $ $

$

- $

- $

- $

- $

-

Budget Adjustment Summary Fiscal Year: 2012-13 Adjustment Date: 2/5/2013 Department Character Description Westshore Pool Salaries and benefits Operations Debt service Capital outlay Total Charges for service Operating grants Capital grants Other functional revenues General revenues Total Net Increase (decrease) to fund balance 3,500 110 General Fund 3,500 501 Water O&M

Fund Level Changes 601 705 Sewer O&M RDA Successor -

Other - $ $

Beginning

Net Increase (Decrease) - $ 3,500 -

Ending

Comments

62,081 $ 44,662 1,600 108,343 $ - $ - $

62,081 48,162 to reflect propane costs, Channel Cats 1,600

3,500 $ 111,843 - $ 3,500 3,500 $ 3,500 remibursement of costs for use of pool 3,500

-

-

-

- $ $

$

- $

- $

- $

- $

-

Water O&M Salaries and benefits Operations Debt service Capital outlay Total Charges for service Operating grants Capital grants Other functional revenues General revenues Total Net Increase (decrease) to fund balance 200 50,000 200 26,783 110,000 - $ 79,907 384,532 $ 200 $ 384,732 increase to expected overtime 576,038 26,783 602,821 increase to chemical costs and regulatory fees 253,884 253,884 189,907 189,907 carbon media, vehicle replacement, college water main

$ 1,214,454 $ 216,890 $1,431,344 - $ $ $ - $ (86,783) $ - $ - $ (79,907) - $ - $ 50,000 $ 200 50,200 $ 50,000 200 50,200

Sewer O&M Salaries and benefits Operations Debt service Capital outlay Total Charges for service Operating grants Capital grants Other functional revenues General revenues Total Net Increase (decrease) to fund balance 23,783 - $ 439,682 $ 828,605 190,560 88,300 - $ 439,682 828,605 190,560 23,783 112,083 vehicle replacement 23,783 $1,570,930 - $ - $ -

$ 1,547,147 $ - $ $ $ - $ - $ (23,783) $ - $ - $ - $

CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District

STAFF REPORT
RE: Request for additional police officer position SUBMITTED BY: Brad Rasmussen, Chief of Police PURPOSE OF REPORT: Information only Discussion Action Item MEETING DATE: 02-05-2013

WHAT IS BEING ASKED OF THE CITY COUNCIL/BOARD: The City Council is being asked to allocate additional funding to the 2012/2013 Police Department budget in order to increase the total number of full time sworn personnel by one officer and to commit continued funding for that position through the 2013/2014 Fiscal Year under the plan outlined below. BACKGROUND: The Police Department is currently budgeted for nine full time sworn peace officer positions. As of approximately January of 2009, the police department was authorized and budgeted for a total of 14 full time sworn peace officer positions and had been at that level since the mid 1990's. Over the past four years, the Police Department has lost positions that were not re-filled or budgeted for. As of approximately mid Fiscal Year 2010/2011, the Police Department was at a full time sworn officer staff of nine. Although the remainder of the 2010/2011 and the entire 2011/2012 Fiscal Year budgets authorized funding for ten full time sworn officer positions, neither the Police Department nor the City moved to fill the position due to the ongoing financial crisis. In addition, the current Fiscal Year budget as well as previous budgets had other non-sworn resource cuts that affected the Police Department's operations. The Police Department made numerous operational changes in order to continue to provide sufficient law enforcement coverage to the City of Lakeport to ensure the safety of our residents, businesses and visitors. Although I believe our dedicated staff has done an outstanding job keeping the City of Lakeport safe over the past two and one half years while working with considerably less staff and resources, I do not believe we should continue to operate at this level over the long term as the department is continuing to face new challenges, public safety demands and increased crime issues as summarized below. The City of Lakeport has recently annexed the Parallel Drive area adding 30 additional addresses, a half mile of jurisdictional area including the intersection of SR 29/SR175 and the new Mendocino College campus. The new College campus is expected to have increased enrollment as well as increased traffic volume in the surrounding area and there will be a need for increased police presence. Since October 2011, the police department has seen additional impacts to our agency and the community due to California AB 109 (Public Safety Realignment). Numerous new law violations involving early release felons have occurred in the City of Lakeport. The County jail is at, or over capacity, which as of mid January had sixty-seven persons serving prison sentences locally. This has also caused the early release of over three hundred other lower level local inmates. Additionally, many lower level new law violation arrestees can no longer be housed and must be cited at the scene of the incident or released after booking. Increased crime and realignment issues also pose officer safety risks for our staff. Additional resources allow for more overlap coverage providing for increased officer safety.

Meeting Date: 02/05/2013

Page 1

Agenda Item #VII.B.1.

The Police Department case load has increased in recent years. The most recent statistical information shows increases in 2012 over 2011 of sixty-eight more criminal arrests, eighty-four more police case reports and approximately two hundred more community or officer generated incidents. Additionally, in Fiscal Year 2011/2012, the department made more criminal arrests than in the previous nine years. In November 2012, the Police Department lost its part time School Resource Officer who had been in place working on the campuses of the Lakeport Unified School District for the previous three years. Additionally, the Police Department has had a School Resource Officer in place for fourteen of the past sixteen years. Since the inception of the program, the police department, school and community have continued to see great value in it. The department believes the program has had a significantly positive impact on the lives of students and the safety of the district. With the School Resource officer position currently unfilled, the police department is unable to do any proactive work or provide additional sworn officer protection at the district campuses. Recent significant violent events at schools throughout the United States have increased demands on police agencies to provide more campus coverage and develop plans for the safety of schools in their jurisdictions. We have also seen recent safety concerns at schools within our local area. There are recent state and federal regulatory and legislative restrictions that will make it considerably more costly to maintain a part time peace officer as a School Resource Officer. The Police Department believes that the public safety demands and crime issues will continue to have an impact on us, the City of Lakeport and the community. The department continues to have special event policing responsibilities for major community events, especially during the summer months, and additional resources would help provide for better policing coverage. The department is and will continue to place significant efforts on community policing efforts, such as the volunteer, neighborhood watch, town hall meetings and other future programs, which we believe have the biggest value on reducing crime and providing for a safer community. However, we do need to increase resources to effectively continue these programs as well maintain our patrol and criminal investigative responsibilities. DISCUSSION: The Police Department requests that City Council authorize the hiring of one additional Police Officer on March 1, 2013 under the following plan: After receiving complete department field training, the officer would be assigned to patrol during the summer months allowing the department greater resources during our busiest time of the year. Starting at the beginning of the school year, the officer would be assigned a cover day shift position spending half their time in the schools and the other half in patrol. The department believes this would provide sufficient coverage for the schools and also provide much needed assistance for the patrol division. In consultation with the City Manager and the Finance Director, the department proposes that the position be funded for the remainder of the current Fiscal Year with $28,464.00 in available increased property tax revenue due to the former Redevelopment Agency dissolution. The department proposes that the position be funded in Fiscal Year 2013/2014 by $40,000.00 in anticipated increased property tax revenue due to the former Redevelopment Agency dissolution, $25,000.00 in safety funds provided by the Lakeport Unified School District, and $15,000.00 in Measure I General Fund tax revenue. During the upcoming 2013/2014 budget preparation, the police department will work with the City Manager and the Finance Director to attempt to secure other public safety funding to help reduce the impact to the general fund. Staff believes this is a reasonable plan to secure an additional police officer over the next sixteen months through the end of the 2013/2014 Fiscal Year to provide for additional school and general public safety. We realize that the City Council has not yet been presented with a 2013/2014 budget; however based on projections, we believe the funding will be available.
Meeting Date: 02/05/2013 Page 2 Agenda Item #VII.B.1.

The hiring request is being made at this time, rather than with the upcoming 2013/2014 budget due to significant field training requirements for a new officer. This lead time would allow for us to have the additional officer released as a Solo Beat Officer by the beginning of the 2013/2014 Fiscal Year, allowing for increased patrol coverage in the summer and school coverage at the start of the 2013/2014 school year. OPTIONS: 1. Authorize staff to hire the additional officer under the funding plan outlined above. 2. Authorize staff to hire the additional officer with a modified funding plan as determined by city council. 3. Reject the plan to hire the additional full time officer and direct staff to present a plan and funding options to continue with a part time School Resource Officer. 4. Take no action at this time. FISCAL IMPACT: None $28,464.00 in FY 2012/2013. $55,000.00 in FY 2013/2014 Number: 110.2010.910.000, 911.000, 913.000 & 914.000 Comments: SUGGESTED MOTIONS: Move to authorize staff to hire the additional officer under the funding plan outlined above. Attachments: Account

Meeting Date: 02/05/2013

Page 3

Agenda Item #VII.B.1.

CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District

STAFF REPORT
RE: Report and Recommendations From the Mobile Catering Ordinance Review Committee SUBMITTED BY: Andrew Britton, Planning Services Manager PURPOSE OF REPORT: Information only Discussion Action Item MEETING DATE: 2-5-13

WHAT IS BEING ASKED OF THE CITY COUNCIL/BOARD: Consideration of the report and recommendations of the ad hoc Mobile Catering Ordinance Review Committee. BACKGROUND: The issue of modifying the City’s existing Mobile Catering regulations (Municipal Code Chapter 5.20) was first considered by the City Council in August 2012. Please see Attachment #1 for the original Staff Report and related background information. At that time direction was given to create an ad hoc committee consisting of staff, two City Council members and other interested parties to explore various options. The ad hoc Mobile Catering Ordinance Review Committee consisting of Bob Rumfelt, Melissa Fulton, Richard Persons, Suzanne Lyons and Richard Knoll met on September 6, 2012 at 10:00 am and considered the following agenda: 1. Make no changes and continue to enforce the existing ordinance. 2. Require a more intensive application and review process for mobile vendors including the requirement for a public hearing before issuing a permit. 3. Consider a revision to the current City Ordinance and require more mobile vendor operational criteria dealing with, but not limited to the following: • Public Property Bans. Ban vending on public property, such as on streets and sidewalks. Vendors subject to such bans must contract with private property owners to vend on their property and obtain a land use entitlement. • Restricted Zones. Restrict the areas in which food trucks may operate. Restricted zones often include potentially lucrative areas, such as downtown commercial districts. • Proximity Bans. Limit how close street vendors can park to certain types of businesses, typically brick-and-mortar restaurants. Proximity bans address the complaints of certain businesses who do not wish to have food trucks park near their place of business. • Stop-and-Wait Restrictions (Ice Cream Truck Rules). Make it illegal for food trucks to stop and park in order to wait for customers. Instead, food trucks must be flagged down by a customer before they can park and serve the customer. Stop-and-wait restrictions make it difficult for food trucks to establish regular stops and develop relationships with customers. • Duration Restrictions. Limit the amount of time mobile vendors can remain in one spot. For instance, in Chicago, a food truck may not sell food for more than two hours on any one block.
Meeting Date: February 5, 2013 Page 1 Agenda Item #VII.B.1.

4. Consider other mobile vendor regulations such as a limit on the total number of mobile vendors that can operate in the City, provide for an annual discretionary review and approval process, and/or consider requiring each vendor to have a GPS tracking device in order to assure compliance with location/duration standard. DISCUSSION: The Committee had no desire to ban mobile vending on public property or establish restricted zones. The Committee does recommend a proximity ban, a restriction on food vendors setting up/parking on the street in front of or adjacent to restaurants and recommended that there be a required separation of at least two parallel parking spaces or sixty feet from the food service/restaurant building corners and/or from food service/restaurant property corners. There was no interest in recommending stop and wait restrictions. The Committee does recommend an increase in duration restrictions and felt that the timeframe should be increased to be consistent with the existing parking restrictions of (2) two hours and to require that mobile vendors be required to maintain a written location/duration log for enforcement purposes that can be spot checked by City enforcement staff if necessary. The Committee staff report and recommendation was provided to the City Council on November 6, 2012. See Attachment #2 for the related Staff Report. However, a request for reconsideration was granted, consideration was postponed and the committee was asked to meet again to consider some input from the Main Street hot dog vendor. The Committee met again on November 17, 2012 and after additional discussion and consideration of the issues including a request from the local hot dog vendor for a longer time frame, recommended the following: 1. An increase in the basic mobile vendor set up parking time limit from 1 hour to a 2 hour time limit with the requirement to maintain a daily location/duration log for enforcement purposes. 2. Institution of a time waiver (increase) application procedure and a processing fee to cover the staff time and cost associated with processing an application. An application for an increased timeframe allowance would be required to be considered by the City Council. The time waiver request would apply to a specific location only and would need to include a specific defined timeframe. Decision by the Council will be discretionary and should be based on conformance with yet to be determined criteria and findings. 3. Application of the previously recommended mobile vendor parking (set up area) restrictions adjacent to or near "brick and mortar" restaurants. The restrictions would require a parking set back distance of two parallel parking spaces or sixty feet from restaurant building corners or from restaurant property lot corners. 4. All signage for mobile vendors shall conform to sign ordinance. It should be noted that the Lakeport Main Street Association’s Board of Directors recently reviewed the proposed changes to the mobile catering regulations and voted to support the ad hoc Committee’s recommendations. OPTIONS: 1. Reject the Committee recommendations and take no action. 2. Accept the Committee recommendations and direct staff to develop additional criteria related to the processing fee and appropriate findings for a time waiver application and prepare an ordinance amendment incorporating the same for City Council consideration and action. FISCAL IMPACT: None $ Account Number:
Page 2

Comments:
Agenda Item #VII.B.1.

Meeting Date: February 5, 2013

SUGGESTED MOTIONS: Motion to accept the ad hoc Mobile Vending Committee recommendations as set forth in the February 5, 2013 City Council staff report. Direct staff to prepare an amendment to Municipal Code Chapter 5.20 and incorporate the recommended changes and details regarding the time waiver application for consideration by the City Council at a later date. Attachments: 1. 8-21-12 City Council Staff Report & Background Information 2. 11-16-12 City Council Staff Report 3. Ad Hoc Mobile Catering Committee notes 9-6-12

Meeting Date: February 5, 2013

Page 3

Agenda Item #VII.B.1.

CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District

Attachment #1

STAFF REPORT
RE: Mobile Vending Regulations MEETING DATE: 08/21/2012 SUBMITTED BY: Richard Knoll, Community Development Director PURPOSE OF REPORT: Information only Discussion Action Item

WHAT IS BEING ASKED OF THE CITY COUNCIL/BOARD: The City Council is being asked to consider background information regarding mobile food vending regulations and provide direction to staff. BACKGROUND: The City Council has requested background information from staff as to how other communities regulate mobile food vendor operations. The City of Lakeport does permit mobile catering on City streets subject to the issuance of a business license, compliance with County Health Department rules and compliance with the ordinance provisions set forth below. A City Business License for mobile catering costs $60 annually. Veterans are exempt from paying for a business license. The business license issuance is an administrative approval, there is no hearing or public review required, unless there is a proposed business license revocation action being pursued as a result of ordinance violations. There is no limitation on the total number of mobile caters in the City. There are currently two mobile hot dog vendors licensed and one operating downtown. There is one ice cream vendor in the City. There are two other licenses issued for operators that don’t appear to be in business. There have been some recent issues with the one hot dog vendor who has been exceeding the one-hour time limitation. There has also been at least one downtown business owner who has complained about the hot dog vendor parking in front of a retail store. DISCUSSION: Below please find the City of Lakeport Mobile Catering Ordinance, a summary of mobile food vending regulations imposed by various communities in California, and some related information. Chapter 5.20 - MOBILE CATERING BUSINESSES 5.20.010 Mobile catering defined. Mobile catering means any retail sales of food stuffs conducted out of a motor vehicle, wagon or other mobile business unit. (Ord. 809 (part), 2001) 5.20.020 Permit required. A. A person shall be required to obtain a mobile catering business license prior to engaging in the mobile catering business in the city.
Meeting Date: 08/21/2012 Page 1 Agenda Item #VII.A.1.

B. Prior to the issuance of any mobile catering business license, the applicant for such a license shall furnish to the city, proof of compliance with all applicable state and county health department regulations and provide the City with copies of all required certificates or clearances. (Ord. 809 (part), 2001) 5.20.030 Parking regulations. Mobile caterers shall be legally parked at all times when stopped to do business in the city. The term “legally parked” as used in this ordinance shall mean a location where the mobile catering unit does not: A. Obstruct or interfere with the free flow of pedestrian traffic. In no case shall any mobile catering unit occupy any portion of a public sidewalk; B. Obstruct or interfere with the free flow of vehicular traffic; C. Obstruct or interfere with the free flow of pedestrian traffic to or from any business, public building, or private residence; D. Conflict with the California Vehicle Code or other city parking regulations; or E. Create a safety hazard. (Ord. 809 (part), 2001) 5.20.040 Location restrictions. A. Mobile caterers shall not stop for business for more than one hour in any one location. B. The term “location” as used in this subsection shall be defined as the distance of at least one city block from the last location occupied by the mobile catering unit. C. Mobile caterers shall not stop to conduct business in or on a street adjacent to any designated city park facility, unless authorized by written consent approved in advance by the City Council for a limited time frame only. (Ord. 809 (part), 2001) 5.20.050 Grounds for revocation of permit. A. The City Council shall revoke a mobile catering permit after two convictions for violations of this chapter in any twelve month period. B. The City Council shall, prior to any revocation, hold a noticed hearing and allow the mobile caterer to show good cause why his or her permit should not be revoked. (Ord. 809 (part), 2001) 5.20.060 Violation--Penalty. Violation of any of the provisions of this chapter shall constitute an infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed fifty dollars for a first violation; a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars for a second violation of the same provision within one year; and a fine not to exceed two hundred fifty dollars for each additional violation of the same provision within one year. (Ord. 809 (part), 2001) Attached is a list of 27 California Cities and a summary of their mobile vending provisions. OPTIONS: 1. Make no changes and continue to enforce the existing ordinance. 2. Require a more intensive application and review process for mobile vendors including the requirement for a public hearing before issuing a permit. 3. Consider a revision to the current City Ordinance and require more mobile vendor operational criteria dealing with, but not limited to the following:  Public Property Bans. Ban vending on public property, such as on streets and sidewalks. Vendors subject to such bans must contract with private property owners to vend on their property and obtain a land use entitlement.
Page 2 Agenda Item #VII.A.1.

Meeting Date: 08/21/2012

 

Restricted Zones. Restrict the areas in which food trucks may operate. Restricted zones often include potentially lucrative areas, such as downtown commercial districts. Proximity Bans. Limit how close street vendors can park to certain types of businesses, typically brick-and-mortar restaurants. Proximity bans address the complaints of certain businesses who do not wish to have food trucks park near their place of business. Stop-and-Wait Restrictions (Ice Cream Truck Rules). Make it illegal for food trucks to stop and park in order to wait for customers. Instead, food trucks must be flagged down by a customer before they can park and serve the customer. Stop-and-wait restrictions make it difficult for food trucks to establish regular stops and develop relationships with customers. Duration Restrictions. Limit the amount of time mobile vendors can remain in one spot. For instance, in Chicago, a food truck may not sell food for more than two hours on any one block.

4. Consider other mobile vendor regulations such as a limit on the total number of mobile vendors that can operate in the City, provide for an annual discretionary review and approval process, require each vendor to have a GPS tracking device in order to assure compliance with location/duration standards, etc. FISCAL IMPACT: None $ Account Number: Comments:

SUGGESTED MOTIONS:

Attachments:

Responses from other cities regarding mobile food vendors Articles related to mobile vendors

Meeting Date: 08/21/2012

Page 3

Agenda Item #VII.A.1.

CA Cities Mobile Food Vendor Provisions
City
Fortuna

Permit
Yes; application process; valid for one year; need Business License

Location Restrictions
 Paved site  Must have permission from property owner for use of site and restrooms for workers

Time Limit
 Hours specified in use permit  May arrive up to one hour before opening and one hour after closing  Stationary units permitted to stay overnight; treated as restaurants

Misc. Conditions
 Portable toilets are not allowed  Cannot use parking if adversely affects the principal use of the site  Vehicles are self-sufficient (gas, electricity, water); if not, additional permits are required  Must maintain the area in a clean, safe, and sanitary condition  Must comply with the City’s noise standards  No site furniture or free standing signs  Must apply for appropriate permits for site improvements  Vehicles are self-sufficient (no water, gas, or electrical lines)  No exterior storage or display; no obstructions or safety hazards  Must maintain the area in a clean, safe, and sanitary condition  Cannot obstruct or create hazards; cannot block pedestrian access  Permanent restroom facilities must be available  Furniture not allowed  Temporary uses may be subject to additional regulations.  Must maintain a clean site

Sales Tax
Yes; subject to same requirements and regulations as any other retailer

Arroyo Grande

Yes; application process; permit required of each vending vehicle; valid for one year; not transferable; reviewed by the chief of police

 Only on a private developed site  Restricted from vending within 10’ from a fire hydrant, fire escape, building entrance, bus stop, loading zone, handicapped parking space or access ramp, fire station driveway or police station driveway; 300’ from an elementary or junior high school; 500’ from a freeway entrance or exit  Prior written authorization is required for vending at city parks, recreational facilities, or sports complex  Private property authorized by Zoning Ordinance and restricted by the listing of allowable locations

 9:00 am to 9:00 pm  Vendors shall not stop in any single location for more than 2 hours; must move at least 500’ away

Not specified in document

Gilroy

Yes; need approval by the Planning Division

Thousand Oaks San Marcos

N/A

N/A

 Can only use 30’ of curb space  Restrictions regarding proximity to freeway ramps, schools, churches, and cross streets  Unilateral prohibition on City property  N/A

 May only operate during the hours of operation of the primary use on the site  Up to 30 consecutive days per calendar year  Only 4 temporary uses per calendar year may be permitted on a site  30 days minimum between termination and commencement of another temporary use on the same site  May not stay in 1 location for more than 4 hours  Hours limited in residential areas  30 minute limit on private property  Not operable in one location for more than 1 hour in 24 hour period  30 minute limitation in one area

Not specified in document

 N/A

Not specified in document N/A

Citrus Heights

Yes

Woodland

Yes

 N/A

 Must meet public health requirements and food handling rules  Need to provide lighting if after dark  One sign allowed  No tables  N/A

N/A

N/A

San Gabriel

N/A

Ross Newport Beach Millbrae Lakeport

Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted Yes; requires mobile catering business license

 Permitted in specified zones in conjunction with existing commercial or manufacturing operation  N/A  N/A  N/A  Must be at least one city block away from the last location occupied by the mobile catering unit  Cannot conduct business in or on a street adjacent to any designated city park facility without written consent approved in advance by the city council for a limited time frame only  No restrictions on location regarding other food services  In districts with quotas on food services, the quota limits apply  Requires business license if on private property

 30 minute stationary limit  N/A  N/A  N/A  Cannot be stopped for business for more than one hour in any one location

 N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  Mobile caterers must be legally parked

N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A

Berkeley

Yes when in ROW

 7:00 am to 12:00 am

 N/A

N/A

Azusa

Claremont

Covina

Glendora

La Verne

Yes, temporary use permit/ special event permit Yes, requires General Use & Development Permit Yes, requires Administrative CUP Yes, requires temporary use permit/ special event permit Yes, requires temporary use permit/ special event permit Yes, requires temporary use permit/ special event permit Yes, requires temporary use permit/ special event permit

 Requires business license if on private property  Requires different permits if on public property  Does not allow “roaming” food trucks on public streets  Requires business license if on private property  An encroachment permit may be required on public property  Requires business license if on private property  Allows “roaming” food trucks on public streets with a street vendor permit  Does not need business license on private property (amending their code to have a new license)  If event is on public school property, the planning permit is waived  Requires business license if on private property  Needs special event permit if on public property  Does not allow “roaming” food trucks on public streets  Does not require a business license on private property

 When not part of a special event permit, limited to 30 minutes within 2-hour period in commercial and industrial zones  N/A

 N/A

N/A

 N/A

N/A

 N/A

 N/A

N/A

 N/A

 N/A

N/A

 When “roaming” public streets and not part of a special event, required to move every 15 minutes

 N/A

N/A

Pomona

Upland

 When “roaming” public streets and not part of a special event, no maximum 10 minutes allowed for a stop.  N/A

 N/A

N/A

 N/A

N/A

Walnut

Yes, requires temporary use permit/ special event permit

West Covina

Yes, requires Business License

Davis

Livingston

Yes; public health permit, business license from City of Davis, and zoning permit (public property) or encroachment permit (private property) Yes; street food or beverage vendor’s permit; no single street vending business can license more than 2 vending vehicles or pushcarts

 Requires business license when on private property  If event is on public property, annual $75 license tax for food trucks on City streets but “vendor” only fee for one time event on private property  Allows “roaming” food trucks on public streets  Needs business license for use of private property  They do not approve business license for food trucks on public property  Vending not allowed on streets or parking spaces

 N/A

 N/A

License Tax

 N/A

 N/A

N/A

 If operating for less than 10 minutes, do not need zoning or encroachment permits

 Follow health standards for retail food sales

N/A

Oakley

Yes, outdoor vending permit and a valid business license

 Cannot obstruct normal flow of vehicular pedestrian access  Cannot work within 10’ of any intersection, driveway, or building entrance  Cannot block parking  More than 3 cannot congregate at any location  Cannot work within 300’ of any church or temple property line during where services are being conducted, or when attendees are arriving or leaving  Cannot be in any commercial district  Permitted on specified portions of private property  Public property use additionally requires an encroachment permit  The Community Development Director determines the proximity of a proposed facility to a retail business engaged in similar commercial activity  Director also determines the distance of the vendor from any fire hydrant and all driveways  Cannot occupy parking spaces, landscape areas, or sidewalks that are less than 10’ wide  Should not exceed more than 200 square feet in area  Should not be greater than 10’ in height; not within 15’ from any entrance to any building

 Cannot be standing or stopped for more than 10 minutes for business; needs to move at least 50’  Cannot work within 300’ of schools between 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM on any school day  No vending allowed during hours of darkness

 The maximum dimensions of any pushcart are 6’ x 4’  Workers must wear uniform on which the business is identified  Signs must be on the vehicle or pushcart  No artificial lighting is permitted  No music or other sound emitting device  Required to have a health permit  Cannot create any public nuisance or disturb the peace and quiet by the use of loud noise, brilliant lights, or any other actions constituting a public nuisance.

Yes, restaurants on wheels are subject to the itinerant vendor ordinance

 Cannot work between 8:00 PM and 8:00 AM

N/A

Emeryville

Yes, vendor permit

Mendota

Yes, itinerate food vendor permit (one permit for each 2,000 residents)

 Cannot be within 300’ of any elementary or secondary school on any school day; 500’ of a freeway entrance/exit; 50’ of any street intersection, crosswalk, fire hydrant, or bus stop  Cannot restrict the ingress to or egress from the adjoining property  Cannot locate on any public sidewalk or within any public street adjacent to a curb which has been duly designated by the City as a white, yellow, blue, or red zone  Cannot locate within 200’ of a permanent food facility during that facility’s operating hours  Cannot locate within 200’ of any other vendor operating during the vending hours  May not be located within 50’ from a permitted restaurant

 Permitted between 8:00 AM and 7:00 PM daily

 Health permit is required  Must maintain a clean site, dispose of all trash within 20’ of the vendor’s location  Needs to be within 200’ of restroom

Business tax certificate required

 N/A

San Rafael Lemore

N/A Yes

 Allowed in private parking lots  Within 200’ of restroom; not within 1000’ of another vendor

 Not allowed to park for more than 15 minutes at a given location  7:00 am to 10:00 pm

 Needs adequate parking for customers  Tables and chairs should provide adequate setback for pedestrian traffic on the sidewalk  Tables and chairs only allowed from June 1 to September 30 each year  N/A  N/A

N/A

N/A N/A

myABA|About Us|Join the ABA|Calendar|Member Directory|Shop ABA| Sign In MembershipABA GroupsResources for LawyersPublications & CLEAdvocacyNews

       

Home Membership Events & CLE Committees Initiatives & Awards Publications About Us Contact Us

Food Truck Regulations Drive Controversy
By Keith H. Berk and Alan D. Leib Posted: May 25, 2012 Are food trucks the underdog of the food industry or are they a force to be reckoned with? In recent years, food trucks have been hitting city streets in record numbers. This trend is driven, not only by the food industry's desire to provide new and innovative dining options, but by individuals' desire to achieve economic independence. For many, mobile vending is an entry point to entrepreneurship and a way to establish a living. Social media tools, such as Facebook and Twitter, have greatly impacted the way that many food trucks market to customers. Food trucks rely almost exclusively on social media to advertise their brand, maintain customer relationships, and increase their accessibility. It is now possible for a food truck to tweet locations in advance so that customers can be waiting when the trucks arrive. The rise in popularity of food trucks has not gone unnoticed. Opponents have attacked the mobile vending industry by arguing that food trucks are unfairly stealing customers away from brick-and-mortar businesses. To many opponents' delight, various cities have imposed a myriad of regulations on food trucks. In some cases, these regulations make mobile vending an impossible or unprofitable business. The purpose of this article is to provide a brief general overview of the types of regulations imposed on mobile vending operations as well as to highlight some recent developments surrounding these regulations. Overview of Mobile Vending Regulations Food truck operators must comply with a variety of regulations. Not surprisingly, food truck operators are typically subject to a variety of state and local health and food safety regulations including (1) approval of food truck design, (2) approval for in-truck cooking equipment/configuration, (3) vending permits, (4) requirement for food truck personnel to obtain food safety certification, (5) periodic health inspections and (6) food safety requirements for depots where food stocks are replenished. More controversial, however, are local regulations that dictate how, where and when food trucks can sell food. These types of sale regulations include:

   

Public Property Bans. More than 10 major cities ban vending on public property, such as on streets and sidewalks. Vendors subject to such bans must contract with private property owners to vend on their property. Restricted Zones. Many cities restrict the areas in which food trucks may operate. Restricted zones often include potentially lucrative areas, such as downtown commercial districts. Proximity Bans. Proximity bans limit how close street vendors can park to certain types of businesses, typically brick-and-mortar restaurants. Proximity bans address the complaints of certain businesses who do not wish to have food trucks park near their place of business. Stop-and-Wait Restrictions (Ice Cream Truck Rules). A handful of cities make it illegal for food trucks to stop and park in order to wait for customers. Instead, food trucks must be flagged down by a customer before they can park and serve the customer. Stop-and-wait restrictions make it difficult for food trucks to establish regular stops and develop relationships with customers. Duration Restrictions. Food trucks that are allowed to stop and wait for customers may be limited in the amount of time they can remain in one spot. For instance, in Chicago, a food truck may not sell food for more than two hours on any one block.

Recent Developments in the Mobile Vending Industry Lawsuit Against the City of El Paso In Castenada v. City of El Paso, No. 3:11-CV-00035-KC (W.D. Tex) (Jan. 26, 2011), four food truck vendors sued the City of El Paso's regulations over a regulation that banned food trucks from operating within 1,000 feet of restaurants, grocers, and other food-service establishments. These vendors argued that the regulation made

it nearly impossible to operate profitably anywhere within El Paso. As a result, many mobile vendors in El Paso faced the possibility of losing their primary source of income. The food vendors argued that the regulation's only purpose was to protect established businesses, which is not a legitimate government interest that would allow the government to infringe upon the constitutional rights of food vendors. As a result of the lawsuit, El Paso agreed to repeal the regulations. California Bill Prohibiting Vending Trucks Near Schools A proposed California bill recently sparked intense debate over the mobile vending industry. (California Assembly Bill No. 1678.) The bill, spearheaded by Assemblyman Bill Monning, would have prohibited food trucks from vending within 1,500 feet (approximately three blocks) of any elementary, middle, or high school. Opponents of the bill argued that it would eliminate the food truck industry in populated urban areas, where almost the entire city is within 1,500 feet of a school. On the other hand, supporters argued that the presence of mobile food trucks at schools would undermine state efforts to establish nutritious school food programs. On March 29, 2012, after intense pressure from industry groups, Monning released a statement taking the bill out of consideration. City of Chicago Regulations The food truck industry has thrived in cities like Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, and Austin. This is not the case in Chicago where food trucks are subject to a wide array of legal restrictions imposed by the city. These restrictions include prohibitions on preparation of food on a truck or cart, serving customers before 10:00 a.m., and stopping within 200 feet of a restaurant. A bill, which was introduced in the city in June 2011, would lift the ban on food preparation in mobile food vehicles. Mayor Rahm Emanuel originally supported the bill but has recently equivocated on his support. The bill has been tied up in various committees for nearly a year and its future is uncertain at this point. Impact of Regulating the Mobile Vending Business Supporters of the mobile vending industry view food trucks as an avenue to entrepreneurship and a way to provide consumers with innovative products. Opponents, on the other hand, cite two primary arguments as reasons for eliminating the industry: health concerns and unfair competition to brick-and-mortar restaurants. For instance, critics of the industry question whether food can be prepared safely and whether health regulations can be properly enforced on a food truck. Health concerns can be addressed by appropriate regulations. The real issue is whether food trucks unfairly steal customers from brick-and-mortar restaurants. This issue has become a political football in a number of municipalities as politicians attempt to regulate to protect brick-and-mortar restaurants that often have political clout and generate significant sales tax revenues. On the other side, civil liberty groups have taken up the cause of the food truck vendors and have become emboldened by their successful litigation in El Paso. In light of these competing interests, we expect that the regulation of food trucks will continue to generate controversy and litigation. Hopefully, the result will be that regulations strike a balance between fostering entrepreneurship and protecting the interests of those with significant investments in established businesses. Keith H. Berk and Alan D. Leib are partners at the Chicago law firm Horwood, Marcus & Berk Chartered. Mr. Berk works with the firm's food and beverage industry clients. Mr. Leib is chair of the firm's Food and Beverage Industry Group. The authors were assisted in the preparation of this article by Anne K. Rolwes, a law clerk with their firm.
© 2012 American Bar Association Business Law Section. All Rights Reserved.

Mayor’s proposed ordinance tries to stop food fight - Wednesday, July 25, 2012 | 2 a.m. - Las Vegas Sun

Switch to normal site

August 16, 2012

98° | Mostly Cloudy

Mayor’s proposed ordinance tries to stop food fight
Bill would regulate how close, how long food trucks could park near restaurants

SAM MORRIS / LAS VEGAS SUN

Longtime Fremont Street eatery Uncle Joe’s Pizza is seen Tuesday, July 24, 2012.

By Joe Schoenmann
Wed, Jul 25, 2012 (2 a.m.)

For a small-business owner in downtown Las Vegas, this was a night to remember. Or one he’d rather forget and hopes never happens again. Bush Xhindi, owner of Uncle Joe’s Pizza, one of the longtime mainstays on East Fremont Street (it’s one of a few storefronts sandwiched between

Proposed food truck ordinance Should food trucks be allowed to operate in proximity to existing

http://m.lvsun.com/news/2012/jul/25/mayors-proposed-ordinance-tries-stop-food-fight/[8/16/2012 4:20:53 PM]

Mayor’s proposed ordinance tries to stop food fight - Wednesday, July 25, 2012 | 2 a.m. - Las Vegas Sun

buildings recently purchased by the Zappos-oriented Downtown Project), couldn’t believe his eyes. There, in front of his pizza joint, was parked a food truck. And it was selling pizza, no less. This was two or three months ago, and it happened two nights in a row. Xhindi said the truck owner told him that “Zappos told him it was OK to do that.” So Xhindi talked “to Zappos,” he said. The people at Zappos told Xhindi they had nothing to do with it. The short of the story is: Xhindi doesn’t want food trucks near his restaurant. Neither do some other East Fremont Street restaurants. It’s not that they want food trucks banned; they just don’t want them to be able to park so close to their businesses that they suck away potential customers. The result of the dispute is a new ordinance to be considered next month by the Las Vegas City Council. Outside of those vendors who obtain special use permits, the proposal would allow food trucks to be parked no closer than 150 feet from an existing business and for up to four hours in a 24-hour time period. The bill, introduced by Mayor Carolyn Goodman, also limits the time a food truck can do business in the public right-of-way — parked at a curb, for instance — to 30 minutes. That wording would prohibit long-term parking on streets in front of a business like Uncle Joe’s. The proposal would, though, allow up to two food trucks with a conditional use permit to park for four hours over 24 hours in a lot. And business owners could park their own, or someone else’s food truck, on their own property with no time restrictions. Michael Cornthwaite, who operates The Beat coffeehouse and Downtown Cocktail Room, both within shouting distance from Uncle Joe’s, said people downtown see both sides. Generally, they feel 150 feet is too short of a distance and 1,000 feet is too much. Cornthwaite stresses that he thinks the trucks are good for downtown because of the foot traffic they can drive to an area. “They bring

businesses? Yes No
Vote

View results »

SAM MORRIS

Longtime Fremont Street eatery Uncle Joe's Pizza is seen Tuesday, July 24, 2012.

Map of Uncle Joe's Pizza

Map data ©2012 -

Uncle Joe's Pizza

505 Fremont Street, Las Vegas

Sun coverage More Sun business news

http://m.lvsun.com/news/2012/jul/25/mayors-proposed-ordinance-tries-stop-food-fight/[8/16/2012 4:20:53 PM]

Mayor’s proposed ordinance tries to stop food fight - Wednesday, July 25, 2012 | 2 a.m. - Las Vegas Sun

excitement and energy here,” he said. But restaurant owners also tell Cornthwaite, who is a touchstone for downtown business owners because of his seven-year foothold there, food trucks have an advantage because they don’t pay taxes or rent. Restaurants, the owners point out, are permanent while the food trucks mostly show up only on weekends when the area is teeming with people. The restaurant owners feel the food trucks are simply trying to cash in but have no real stake in the downtown area, Cornthwaite said. “Several of the local restaurant operators feel like, if the trucks draw their own crowd, they should come on a Sunday or Tuesday night, not a Saturday at 10 p.m.,” he added. Goodman said she requested the draft bill as a way to find a middle ground between the growing food truck industry and protection for existing bricks-and-mortar restaurants. “We’ve listened to the restaurant owners and food truck owners during several stakeholder meetings, and we’ve come up with what I believe is a fair compromise that addresses the needs of both groups and will enhance the downtown dining experience,” she said.

Gourmet Food Truck Fest

Photo Gallery »

SAM MORRIS

Longtime Fremont Street eatery Uncle Joe's Pizza is seen Tuesday, July 24, 2012.

She touched on the issue of expenses — permanent businesses pay property taxes and/or rent while trucks do not — by changing how food truck license fees are assessed. Instead of a $100 license fee paid per year, food truck vendors would pay a fee twice yearly based on gross sales. A vendor earning $135,000 to $180,000 in six months, for instance, would pay $100 — then another $100 if they earn that much in the next six months. City documents say 140 businesses potentially affected by the bill were contacted for opinions. Only 10 replied and none of those 10 were food truck operators. In general, the respondents said food trucks needed more regulation and 150 feet was too short of a distance between the trucks and existing businesses. Councilman Bob Coffin, whose ward includes parts of downtown, agrees.
http://m.lvsun.com/news/2012/jul/25/mayors-proposed-ordinance-tries-stop-food-fight/[8/16/2012 4:20:53 PM]

Mayor’s proposed ordinance tries to stop food fight - Wednesday, July 25, 2012 | 2 a.m. - Las Vegas Sun

“We’ve got to protect our restaurants,” Coffin said. Xhindi said he would like to see the distance between trucks and restaurants legally increased to one mile. Or he’d just like a little courtesy from the food truck vendors. If the owner of that pizza truck parked in front of his store had simply talked to him, he said, they could have worked out some kind of agreement. “Instead, they say, ‘We’ll be disrespectful,’ and did not talk to me like a man,” Xhindi said. Back to top
SHARE

DISCUSSION: 29 comments so far…
By Bghs Nineteeneightysix 7/25/12 at 3:20 a.m.

"food trucks have an advantage because they don't pay taxes or rent." Translation: Food Trucks have a better business model than permanent restaurants and therefore they must been restricted. Heaven forbid the owners of brick and mortar (B&M) restaurants actually do what the tenets of capitalism demand and provide a better service than than the competition at a competitive price. It's so much easier to cry to the government to protect them from the big bad food trucks. While food trucks don't pay rent, most do lease their vehicles. They pay sales taxes and vehicle registration fees. They could just as easily argue that since the B&M's don't have to pay for fuel, oil, tires or other vehicle maintenance; and since food trucks don't usually serve alcohol, offer seating, restrooms, an air conditioned dinning room that they are at the disadvantage. Perhaps the city should consider an ordinance that while the food truck is parked outside a restaurant the business must close its doors lest "they suck away potential customers" that might otherwise purchase from the food truck Since when is it the government's job to help any specific business survive the competition?
By Ashley Banas 7/25/12 at 7:46 a.m.

The food trucks are like ticket scalpers. And yes, they aren't paying in to the economy or occupying empty commercial property. We do need to protect the brick and mortar businesses that enhance our downtown and make it a regular business area.
By JerryWayne 7/25/12 at 8:49 a.m.

I like that pizza spot, but that owner keeps awful weird hours to be complaining. I've gone by during normal business hours and its closed. Maybe it was random but it's been on more than one occassion.

http://m.lvsun.com/news/2012/jul/25/mayors-proposed-ordinance-tries-stop-food-fight/[8/16/2012 4:20:53 PM]

Mayor’s proposed ordinance tries to stop food fight - Wednesday, July 25, 2012 | 2 a.m. - Las Vegas Sun

I think in areas like downtown, maybe designated parking for food trucks. Where the operators have to pay to park there for a designated amount of time. That parking lot right on the corner of Fremont and LVB that the hookah spot is (until the new place opens) would be perfect for food truck parking downtown.
By Jay Relph 7/25/12 at 9:22 a.m.

Uncle Joe's is a great place, wonderful food, & fantastic owner. I could see why he would be mad. That parking space, in front of his place, is usually a taxi drop-off point or 20 minute parking. He also another problem with his location; whenever a concert/festival (Punk Rock Bowling) is around, they close off his area and other businesses to foot traffic. Put the food trucks & concerts down the way in East Fremont, away from the businesses that are trying to do their everyday jobs so the fly-by-nights could leave them alone.
By Daniel Jackson 7/25/12 at 10:12 a.m.

If these permanent establishments had quality food and service, they wouldn't have to be concerned with trucks selling from the street. And like several other posters have already noted, why is there such an effort to penalize those who are enjoying free enterprise? Why is government stepping in to help certain businesses? Most people would rather eat from those trucks that at ANY of the downtown restaurants.
By David Fischer 7/25/12 at 10:15 a.m.

When the food truck shows up go out and give away free pizza until the food truck leaves. problem solved
By James Reza 7/25/12 at 10:24 a.m.

"bghs1986" says "Translation: Food Trucks have a better business model than permanent restaurants and therefore they must been restricted." This is misleading, and inaccurate. Food trucks operate in an entirely different world, subject to much different regulations and requirements, than a brick and mortar restaurant. For instance, a brick and mortar restaurant must provide a restroom for customers; a basic restroom costs $40k to build to code. Boom -- a $40k advantage, and just one of many. And when they park on public property (a street) and use the taxpayer's property, it comes rent free. I am a fan of food trucks, but level the playing field and let everyone compete fairly.
By James Reza 7/25/12 at 10:37 a.m.

"Since when is it the government's job to help any specific business survive the competition?" When it is the government itself that has created the costly rules, regulations and requirements that apply to actual restaurants and that mobile eateries skirt. The government created and oversees the building code, the health code, the parking regulations ... Everything. Food trucks were flying under the radar when they were primarily serving construction sites and parked on private property. Now that they are serving a wider audience and parking on public property... I'd be willing to bet that few, if any, of those who "cannot understand" why some restaurant owners are asking for a level playing field have never navigated the system, spent their own money, built a retail/service business, and competed in a world of regulations.
By Det__Munch 7/25/12 at 10:44 a.m.

http://m.lvsun.com/news/2012/jul/25/mayors-proposed-ordinance-tries-stop-food-fight/[8/16/2012 4:20:53 PM]

Mayor’s proposed ordinance tries to stop food fight - Wednesday, July 25, 2012 | 2 a.m. - Las Vegas Sun

Who in their right mind would buy ANYTHING from a food truck??? (Other than an ice cream truck!) At least restaurants are inspected and have to have the necessary permits and licenses. The food is prepared in a proper environment, ie out of the hot sun. I always got the impression it's not as strict with food trucks. At least in Vegas anyway.
By Tom Trujillo 7/25/12 at 12:21 p.m.

"bghs 1986" - Those are about the dumbest comments I have ever read in a blog. Let me know where you live and I'll have a bunch of kids come and do car repair in front of your investment, your home, and see how that works out! Your town government should have no responsibility to protect YOUR investment!
By Anthony Lale 7/25/12 at 12:36 p.m.

I thought the parking alongside Fremont Street was load/unload only? I walked the Fremont Street area not to long ago when I had family in town. I have to say that it is coming along. A lot less bums and more businesses were there. I can see downtown moving in the right direction. Food trucks along fremont street do not seem to fit in, or the experience a Las Vegas vacationer is looking for. Do you want to go on vacation and experience fights between food trucks and restaraunt owners?
By James Reza 7/25/12 at 2:50 p.m.

Business owners invest in privately-owned (and leased) physical real estate, spending $150-$300 a square foot to build out, subject to code, regulation and requirements. A $35k-$40k food truck then parks in front of that investment, on public property, paying no rent, little to no county tax assessment, often violating (30-minute) parking rules, and skirting all the other costly goverment codes and regulations that storefront restaurants are subjected to. If this business model seems proper, and there is to be no regulation, then why wouldn't *everyone* abandon their storefronts and clog the public streets with food trucks? Or, hey, what about booze trucks? Why not just start serving booze from a truck and park *it* on Fremont Street, right in front of the Griffin, and charge half the price for a Hamm's, because, hey, the overhead is negligible? It takes physical, permanent investment to create a community (or to reviatlize one). A food truck, no matter how good, is an addendum to a community, not a part of one. No, sir, the playing field is far from level.
By Bghs Nineteeneightysix 7/25/12 at 4:26 p.m.

@ thewookie (Tom Trujillo).....Well wookie you seem to suffer from the school of "if I can't understand it then it must be stupid." First off I doubt I would even see those kids from my spot on up on the 14th floor, so you can go right ahead and sent them over. But let's take your example as it was meant, based on your assumption that I have a regular home. If my home was in a area zoned for business then, once again, let them have at it. I doubt they would be doing much business parked in front of a house in the burbs. People wouldn't trust their repairs. You see Joe's Pizza is in area zoned for business activities, not a residential neighbohood. People tend to frequent the stores that give them more value for their dollar. If Joe made a superior pizza then why would someone choose to stand outside in the heat in order to buy an inferior product. But Joe doesn't want to make the effort and do what's best for his business. He wants to prove Obama right. If Joes survives because of preferential government treatment, then Obama's claim that he "didn't build that" rings true, because he looked to Mayor Goodman and the LV City Council to help build his business.

http://m.lvsun.com/news/2012/jul/25/mayors-proposed-ordinance-tries-stop-food-fight/[8/16/2012 4:20:53 PM]

CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District

Attachment #2

STAFF REPORT
RE: Report and Recommendation From the Mobile Catering Ordinance Review Committee MEETING DATE: 11-6-12

SUBMITTED BY: Richard Knoll, Community Development Director PURPOSE OF REPORT: Information only Discussion Action Item

WHAT IS BEING ASKED OF THE CITY COUNCIL/BOARD: Consideration of the report and recommendation of the ad hoc Mobile Catering Ordinance Review Committee BACKGROUND: The ad hoc Mobile Catering Ordinance Review Committee consisting of Bob Rumfelt, Melissa Fulton, Richard Persons, and Richard Knoll met on 9-6-12 at 10:00 am and considered the following agenda: 1. Make no changes and continue to enforce the existing ordinance. 2. Require a more intensive application and review process for mobile vendors including the requirement for a public hearing before issuing a permit. 3. Consider a revision to the current City Ordinance and require more mobile vendor operational criteria dealing with, but not limited to the following: • Public Property Bans. Ban vending on public property, such as on streets and sidewalks. Vendors subject to such bans must contract with private property owners to vend on their property and obtain a land use entitlement. • Restricted Zones. Restrict the areas in which food trucks may operate. Restricted zones often include potentially lucrative areas, such as downtown commercial districts. • Proximity Bans. Limit how close street vendors can park to certain types of businesses, typically brick-and-mortar restaurants. Proximity bans address the complaints of certain businesses who do not wish to have food trucks park near their place of business. • Stop-and-Wait Restrictions (Ice Cream Truck Rules). Make it illegal for food trucks to stop and park in order to wait for customers. Instead, food trucks must be flagged down by a customer before they can park and serve the customer. Stop-and-wait restrictions make it difficult for food trucks to establish regular stops and develop relationships with customers. • Duration Restrictions. Limit the amount of time mobile vendors can remain in one spot. For instance, in Chicago, a food truck may not sell food for more than two hours on any one block. 4. Consider other mobile vendor regulations such as a limit on the total number of mobile vendors that can operate in the City, provide for an annual discretionary review and approval process, require each vendor to have a GPS tracking device in order to assure compliance with location/duration standard.

Meeting Date: 11/06/2012

Page 1

Agenda Item #VI.B.1

DISCUSSION: The Committee had no desire to ban mobile vending on public property or establish restricted zones. The Committee does recommend a proximity ban, a restriction on food vendors setting up/parking on the street in front of or adjacent to restaurants and recommended that there be a required separation of at least two parallel parking spaces spaces or sixty feet from the food sevice/restaurant building corners and/or from food service /restaurant property corners. There was no interest in recommending stop and wait restrictions. The Committee does recommend an increase in duration restrictions and felt that the timeframe should be increased to be consistent with the existing parking restrictions of (2) two hours and to require that mobile vendors be required to maintain a written location/duration log for enforcement purposes that can be spot checked by City enforcement staff if necessary. OPTIONS: 1. Accept the Committee recommendations and take no action. 2. Accept the Committee recommendations and direct staff to prepare an ordinance amendment incorporating the same for City Council consideration and action. FISCAL IMPACT: None $ Account Number: Comments:

SUGGESTED MOTIONS: Motion to accept the ad hoc Mobile Vending Committee recommendations to impose a food service/restaurant proximity ban on mobile vendors/caterers and to increase the mobile vendor duration restriction from 1 hour to 2 hours with the requirement to maintain a location/duration log for enforcement purposes . Direct staff to prepare an amendment to Ordinance 890 (MC Chapter 5.20) and incorporate the recommended changes for consideration by the City Council.

Attachments:

8-21-12 CC Staff Report

Meeting Date: 11/06/2012

Page 2

Agenda Item #VI.B.1

Attachment #3
Mobile Catering Ordinance Revisions Meeting Notes taken by Richard Knoll:

Mobile catering committee Notes. 9-6-12 10:00 am Bob Rumfelt, Melissa Fulton , Suzanne Lyons, Richard Knoll, Richard Persons, 1. Make changes and continue to enforcement 2. Committee discussed a more intensive process..is there a need for a public hearing..didn't seem to be necessary ... Bob talked about the ice cream luring...background checks may be something we want to do.....Megan's law website...have all applicants will be subject to a background check...check with legal counsel and police for the extent of the background check.....subject to fingerprint No desire to restrict on public property There is a desire to consider restriction on food vendors locating in front of restaurants....what distance is appropriate...we discussed two parking spaces from a brick and mortar restaurant or two spaces or sixty feet from the building corners... or from property corners. Bring the matter of rethinking allowing vendors in the park for summer concerts back to the city council...there was discussion about allowing non profits sales, allowing brick and mortar restaurants or food service serving meals to vend and day to day....bicycle messenger to take orders...... There was discussion of a kiosk with restaurant menus There was no interest on stop and wait restrictions. Duration restrictions.....Melissa talked about Joey the hot dog guy timeframe and how long it takes to set up and operate...Melissa and Suzanne felt one hour wasn't enough...Suzanne felt it should be consistent with existing parking restrictions t two hours.... Consider a timeframe a clock as to when they started Or require a location log for enforcement purposes. There was a committee consensus on the two limitation and the parking limits in front of restaurants

Mobile Catering Committee Notes
Write up a report, send out to the committee, and then send to the City Council for direction.

Meeting......November 17, 2012. 11:00 am Follow up meeting Bob, Suzanne, Melissa, Richard, Richard, Marty, Joey. Knoll went through the background and history of the committee work. Joey described what he was looking for and what he wanted. Suzanne indicated that she had saw the validity in allowing a long term. Bob indicated that he felt that there was an opportunity to operate in a building. Bob also talked about the gift of public funds. Melissa wanted to address the issue of businesses in the downtown area not keeping the area clean. Question as to whether there have been complaints about the hot dog vendor from other businesses...only one from another business and one from a transit system rider. Suzanne said that there were complaints. Bob felt that Joey should consider a store front....and that he is doing whatever he wants....that's what the committee is looking at. Joey said he has done this to preserve his business...if he has been operating out of compliance he apologizes Richard Persons asked about doing a waiver process....is there one now..... Bob said that it should include notice to neighbors or.... There is a benefit to the city to having a mobile food business. There may be a need to consider other issues .... Joey explained about the problems with his cart...cracks in the top as a result of moving it. What's the big picture

2

Mobile Catering Committee Notes
The shortcomings or issues with joeys cart are a business decision... Bob is not in favor of allowing a mobile vendors in one spot Bob is not opposed to designating Mellissa would like to see specific spots designated Consider a vendor to apply for a specific location There was discussion about first come first serve. Richard said that he had a concern about this. Look at a Considering a waiver process....to amend the existing ordinance and allow a vendor to get a time waiver from the City Council Consider a process to have the City Council approve designating specific locations and giving out licenses to specific vendors. Richard has a concern about allowing long term caterers and their impact on brick and mortar restaurants..... Consider designated spaces as a long term basis............ Recommend an ordinance amendment: 1. For a 2 hour limit 2. For a time waiver process to be approved by the city Council...the waiver would apply to specific location only and would define a specific timeframe 3. For the recommended parking restrictions near existing restaurants. 4. For signage for mobile vendors to conform to sign ordinance. There was a committee consensus on these items. Staff to prepare a report from the Committee to the Council and ask for direction from the Council as to amending the Ordinance. Suzanne would like to have a kiosk with vendor phone numbers.......so that people will know where the restaurants are.

3

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful