19.E.
Discussion:
The resolution does not prescribe a specific policy mechanism. The eight letters in support recommend creating a working group or committee to evaluate potential approaches, including legislative proposals, constitutional amendments, or ballot initiatives to strengthen local authority over housing and land use matters.
A discussion of a strategy to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use matters will need to consider the California Constitution’s framework for both preemption of police power enactments and municipal affairs, discussed above. It will also need to determine whether changes to the California Constitution will be proposed, and whether they constitute an amendment or a revision, which require different processes.
A constitutional revision is a multistep process blending legislative consensus, voter support, and on occasion, a constitutional convention. It requires significant public engagement.
A constitutional amendment would require a ballot initiative, which includes gathering enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot, building large coalitions to support election efforts, and campaigning to voters to support the initiative. This process can involve significant costs. In the last major election for ballot initiatives in 2024, proponents spent $8-$18 million to qualify for the ballot and spent nearly $700 million for the full election cycle, averaging out to about $100 million per ballot initiative.
Cal Cities has been engaged in ballot advocacy for over 20 years. In the early 2000s, Cal Cities developed a ballot advocacy infrastructure that included forming an issue political action committee, fundraising, establishing a network of regional managers, and building a coalition with other organizations to ultimately advocate on a ballot measure. Ballot advocacy requires the approval of the Board of Directors with a supermajority vote.
In the Legislature, Cal Cities plays an active and influential role to ensure that local flexibility and autonomy in the land use and housing space is maintained by engaging on dozens of bills every legislative session to ensure that cities' voices are heard at the state Capitol. Below, you will find Cal Cities “Existing Policy” on local control, housing, and land use policies.
Fiscal Impact
The resolution itself would not have a significant direct fiscal impact. However, depending on what actions follow, the fiscal costs could be significant. 26
19.E.
Existing Cal Cities Policy
Vision
To be recognized and respected as the leading advocate for the common interests of California's cities.
Mission Statement
To expand and protect local control for cities through education and advocacy to enhance the quality of life for all Californians.
We Believe
• Local self-governance is the cornerstone of democracy. • Our strength lies in the unity of our diverse communities of interest. • In the involvement of all stakeholders in establishing goals and in solving problems.
• In conducting the business of government with transparency, openness, respect, and civility.
• The spirit of honest public service is what builds communities. • Open decision-making that is of the highest ethical standards honors the public trust.
• Cities are vital to the strength of the California economy. • The vitality of cities is dependent upon their fiscal stability and local autonomy.
• The active participation of all city officials increases the League's effectiveness.
• Partnerships and collaborations are essential elements of focused advocacy and lobbying.
• Ethical and well-informed city officials are essential for responsive, visionary leadership and effective and efficient city operations.
Zoning
Cal Cities believes local zoning is a primary function of cities and is an essential component of home rule. The process of adoption, implementation and enforcement of zoning ordinances should be open and fair to the public and enhance the responsiveness of local decision-makers. State policy should leave local siting and use decisions to the city and not interfere with local prerogative beyond providing a constitutionally valid procedure for adopting local regulations. State agency siting of facilities, including campuses and office buildings, should be subject to local notice and hearing requirements in order to meet concerns of the local community. Cal Cities opposes legislation that seeks to limit local authority over parking requirements.
Housing Element
Housing issues should be addressed in the general plan as other planning issues are. The housing element should be prepared for the benefit of local 27
19.E.
governments and should have equal status with the other elements of the general plan.
Encourage Full Community Participation
Foster an open and inclusive community dialogue and promote alliances and partnerships to meet community needs.
Well-Planned New Growth
Recognize and preserve open space, watersheds, environmental habitats, and agricultural lands, while accommodating new growth in compact forms, in a manner that:
• De-emphasizes automobile dependency;
• Integrates the new growth into existing communities;
• Creates a diversity of affordable housing near employment centers; • Provides job opportunities for people of all ages and income levels.
Support:
The following letters of concurrence were received:
City of Banning
City of Calimesa
City of Canyon Lake
City of Moreno Valley
City of Norco
City of Torrance
Crystal Ruiz, Mayor, City of San Jacinto
Jessica Alexander, Mayor, City of Temecula
28
19.E.
CITY OF HEMET
LEGISLATIVE
PLATFORM
HEMETCA.GOV
19.E.
LEGISLATIVE
PLATFORM
The City of Hemet's legislative platform serves as a foundation for advocating at the local, state, and federal levels of government. This platform reflects the City Council’s priorities, goals, and initiatives to enhance our residents' well-being, foster economic growth, and improve the overall quality of life in Hemet.
Hemet seeks to preserve and enhance local revenue streams, protect local decisionmaking, and continue building reforms to promote and preserve the City’s interests. This platform supplements new initiatives, including the City’s Strategic Plan and associated action items.
‘
HEMET IS A CITY BUILT BY PEOPLE, ._ a, , . ,, PLANNING, AND PROGRESS. j
: M...
«in iIIE I
u mm ”I II
'___ ,___.;,..t._- . . I L.EHI"
g 4 I E
‘ 5
I
,
. I
_
. -_I
MI- ‘ _ ?l?? '_ Barf F??é??h
., _, MIL§|=f=IEIE?
Diamond Valley Lake
"Ls
CITY Page 36 of 46 OF HEMET LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM 2024-26
19.E.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
l.Guiding Principles
2. Local Government Finance
3. Economic Development
4.Transportation & Infrastructure
5.Housing & Social Service Programs/ Parks and Recreation Programs
6.Public Safety
7.Employee Relations/California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) / Land Use Planning
8.General Government
“wall-I IIIIn, «Illi‘lllll I, 3:IIHIII
IIIO
l
‘I
I
I
_Ia
I
I
I.
I1
I
.14
b
‘ m
it;
("if
:25”
:E
--_.
I—.
II‘
It:
LCITY OF HEMET
19.E.
GUIDING
PRINCIPLES
1.Support measures to preserve and protect the City’s general law powers and duties to enact legislation and policy direction.
2.Protect and secure long-term, sustainable, and essential fiscal revenues and strategies to enhance the City’s revenue base.
3.Support measures that pursue strategies and resources to address crime homelessness and support other safe and clean initiatives in the community.
4.Support funding opportunities to offset and leverage capital expenditures to support the City’s priorities and Strategic Plan initiatives.
CITY OF HEMET
19.E.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
FINANCE
1.Support legislation that would provide greater local control over how local funds are expended.
2.Support legislation that would protect or propose any constitutional amendment that provides a guarantee for local government finances.
3.Support legislative policies, and programs that protect or expand funding eligibility for local governments, such as tax revenues, block grants, and formula-based funding allocations.
4.Support efforts to enhance and strengthen local representation on regional commissions, task forces, and governing boards.
OPPOSE
1.0ppose measures that would impose State and Federal-Mandated costs for which there is no guarantee of local reimbursement or offsetting benefits (i.e., unfunded mandates).
2.0ppose any measure that restricts or limits a public entity’s ability to use tax-exempt debt or tax increment financing to purchase or construct public purpose improvements.
3.0ppose any measure diverting local funds to the State or any other entity to balance the budget.
4.0ppose efforts that either increase the City’s liability or decrease outside parties’ liability concerning municipal finances.
5. Oppose any change in tax allocations, which would negatively affect local government.
6.0ppose legislation that would reduce local discretion over locally imposed taxes such as transient occupancy tax.
7.0ppose legislation restricting or eliminating the availability of traditional government financing instruments or practices.
8.0ppose any legislation regarding short-term residential rentals that creates a cost burden to local government services.
9.0ppose legislation limiting local government's power to negotiate indemnification protection in public contracts.
10.0ppose legislation that would prohibit or limit local government’s ability to contract out for the provision of services.
11.0ppose policies that broaden definitions of injury under worker’s compensation.
12.0ppose policies that mandate additional responsibility to provide fringe benefits to employees. ,_,.
‘
’ ’ . .. t g I <1
”.15.. .
' " T“ ' , .
‘ '2 a
‘ ‘n |_ .
CITY Page 39 of 46 OF HEMET LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM 2024-26
19.E.
ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
SUPPORT
1.Support additional efforts to provide local governments with the tools necessary for economic development.
2.Support legislation and efforts to re-establish tax increment financing and other economic development tools.
3.Support policies and programs that encourage working with other cities, counties, and government agencies to jointly leverage resources and assets to create and strengthen regional economic clusters.
4.Support economic development initiatives that preserve and enhance a positive business climate and maintain and grow the business tax base.
5.Support all attempts to bring higher education opportunities to the region.
6.Support property tax reform, allowing cities to restore and capture a more significant share of property taxes to fund critical infrastructure, services, and economic development activities.
7.Support efforts encouraging the development of vacant and underutilized space to plan for growth creatively.
8.Support legislation to encourage State business incentives in communities with larger vehicle miles travelled (VMT)to job centers.
9.Support local economic development efforts and endeavors to create new products, services, and businesses that will expand wealth and job opportunities for all social and economic levels.
10.Support Vibrant City Centers and give preference to the redevelopment and reuse of city centers and existing transportation corridors by supporting and encouraging Mixed-use development, housing opportunities for all income levels, retaining businesses, and promoting new business opportunities that produce quality local jobs.
OPPOSE
1.0ppose policies and programs that may create additional barriers of entry for small businesses.
2.0ppose policies or legislation that would preempt local land use authority and control.
3.0ppose legislation that would shift parking, zoning, or development guidelines away from local control.
CITY Page 40 of 46 OF HEMET LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM 2024-26
19.E.
TRANSPORTATION &
INFRASTRUCTURE
SUPPORT
1.Support legislation that supports proposals to expand funding for critical infrastructure projects within the City.
2.Support legislation and full funding eligibility to leverage private, non-traditional funding sources, alternative financing options, and project delivery methods to advance the design and construction of the City’s infrastructure and repair projects.
3.Support measures that provide local and regional funding opportunities for local transportation and system projects.
4.Support legislation encouraging sustainable transportation options, including bike lanes, sidewalks, and public transit.
OPPOSE
1.0ppose measures that limitthe ability of cities to remove or immobilize vehicles that chronically ignore moving and/or parking violations and/or are operating unlawfully on public roads.
CITY Page 41 of 46 OF HEMET LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM 2024-26
19.E.
HOUSING & SOCIAL SERVICE PROGRAMS
SUPPORT
1.Support legislation and funding that addresses the complex issues of homelessness from a regional perspective that employs best practice strategies to reduce the number of people experiencing homelessness by:
0 Preventing homelessness of those at risk.
0 Providing emergency and supportive housing.
0 Expanding affordable permanent housing.
0 Promoting self-empowerment through counseling, job training, and other supportive services.
2.Support efforts that maintain local control to exercise flexibilityof local housing governance to best address the needs of the community.
3.Support efforts for the preservation of existing mobile home parks as an important source of affordable housing.
4.Support measures that provide resources for local governments to coordinate services to assist displaced residents and communities recover from wild?res, earthquakes, and other natural disasters.
OPPOSE
1.0ppose efforts that preempt local land use control and authority.
2.0ppose unfunded mandates on matters of housing, zoning, land use, and pricing.
PARKS AND RECREATION PROGRAMS
SUPPORT
1.Support legislation that provides adequate and consistent funding to support the acquisition, development, and operation and maintenance requirements of recreation, parks, and community services agencies at the local, State, and federal levels.
2.Support legislation that provides funding to support public art, both performing and visual.
3.Support legislation that provides funding for, or otherwise assists, the preservation of historical sites and buildings.
4.Support legislation that provides funding or othenNise promotes programs to address and increase the level of physical activity among our community’s children. \xx‘F\‘~-‘
. rrrr
4 v
CITY Page 42 of 46 OF HEMET LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM 2024-26
19.E.
PUBUC
SAFETY
1.Support legislation that establishes greater City Council latitude in setting speed limits.
2.Support legislation to oppose the early release of prisoners.
3.Support measures to increase the capacity of the judicial branch in Riverside County to address the shortage of judges and staff, and implement programs and incentives to retain experienced judges.
4.Support legislation that limits the issuance of alcoholic beverage licenses in areas of high crime or where excessive numbers of permits exist.
5.Support legislative efforts to address the negative impacts of AB 109, Proposition 47, and Proposition 57 on local governments and provide local law enforcement with the appropriate tools to reduce criminal activity.
6.Support legislation that provides funding assistance to local agencies to increase police and firefighter staffing levels.
7.Support measures that provide funding to local agencies for training, effective disaster preparedness, information systems, security, homeland security, and emergency planning.
8.Support measures that provide the use of local, state, and federal collaborative prevention and intervention methods to reduce youth and gang violence.
OPPOSE
1.0ppose legislation that would impede local law enforcement from addressing crime problems and recovering costs resulting from a crime committed by the guilty party.
2.0ppose legislation that would decrease funding to the various Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) programs.
3.0ppose legislation that would decrease funding for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program within the Department of Homeland Security.
5 l
l
:51W
. i It
'
V .I E
I J .
i
' 1: g‘
t
" II I
j .
.
‘
. "H'II l g f
l
I
M
CITY Page 43 of 46 OF HEMET LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM 2024-26
19.E.
EMPLOYEE RELATIONS
OPPOSE
1.0ppose any measure that imposes upon local government mandated employee benefits that are more properly decided at the local level.
2.0ppose legislation that imposes further restrictions on local jurisdictions (or adds additional burdens) on employer/employee negotiations.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITYACT (CEQA)
SUPPORT
1.Support all efforts to create efficiencies within CEQA and support efforts to limit delays in the local planning and development process.
2.Support legislation that allows State agencies and local governments to continue to retain full authority to reject projects or to condition project approvals and impose mitigation measures.
3.Support legislation that prevents CEQA lawsuits from being filed for any reason other than a bonafide environmental impact.
LAND USE PLANNING
SUPPORT
1.Support efforts that are consistent with the doctrine of “home rule” and the local exercise of police powers through planning and zoning processes over local land use.
2.Support legislation that would provide additional resources, including adequate funding, to local agencies to address regional growth issues such as air quality, water quality, air pollution, transportation corridors, and homelessness.
OPPOSE
1.0ppose legislation that imposes undue hardship on local agencies to implement environmental regulations.
CITY Page 44 of 46 OF HEMET LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM 2024-26
19.E.
GENERAL
GOVERNMENT
SUPPORT
1.Support tort reform efforts specific to ending frivolous lawsuits aimed at municipalities.
2.Support legislation that would provide local jurisdictions with increased authority to regulate the sale of automobiles on public streets.
3.Support legislation requiring mortgage lenders to adopt a uniform tracking method for mortgage instruments, which enables local government to locate owners of titles reliably.
4.Support legislation promoting alternative and electronic posting and noticing of public hearings and meetings, including online posting.
5.Support legislation that provides greater local control, including but not limited to reorganization of special districts, labor relations, city council vacancies, and interagency cooperation.
6.Support measures that provide the use of local, state, and federal collaborative prevention and intervention methods to reduce youth and gang violence.
OPPOSE
1.0ppose legislation that preempts local control, including, but not limited to, land-use planning, formation of a charter city, and local public meeting procedures.
2.0ppose legislation that would increase employer liability for unemployment compensation or reduce local discretion to manage this risk.
3.0ppose legislation that would provide presumptive eligibility for the award of benefits for workers' compensation or other employee health benefits.
4.0ppose legislation eliminating abandoned vehicle programs and a local government’s ability to remove abandoned vehicles immediately.
5.0ppose legislation that would further restrict the use of eminent domain to acquire land not zoned for residential use for redevelopment purposes.
CITY Page 45 of 46 OF HEMET LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM 2024-26
19.E.
Joe Males - Mayor (District 4)
Jaculin “ Jackie” Peterson - Mayor Pro Tem (District 2) Carole Kendrick - Council Member (District 1)
Malcolm Lilienthal - Council Member (District 3)
Linda Krupa - Council Member (District 5)
HEMETCA.GOV
CITY Page 46 of 46 OF HEMET
19.E.
City of Hemet
City Council Meeting
STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council Meeting - Sep 08 2026
Department: City Attorney
Submitted by: Noah Rau, Interim City Manager
Steven Graham, City Attorney;
☐ Receive and File ☐ Consent Calendar ☒ Business Item ☐ Public Hearing TITLE:
Calls for Review of Land Use and Development Decisions Under Chapter 90 of the Hemet Municipal Code
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
It is respectfully recommended that the City Council:
1. Receive and consider this report and staff’s presentation concerning the establishment of procedures by which the City Council and the Planning Commission may call for review land use and development decisions made under delegated authority.
2. Provide direction on each of the policy questions identified in the Discussion section of this report, including the scope of decisions subject to call for review, the method by which a call for review may be initiated, the applicable time period and the effect of a call for review on the finality of the underlying decision, the applicable standard of review, the treatment of fees, the exclusions and special handling required by State law, and the related clarifying amendments to the existing appeal provisions of Chapter 90.
3. By minute order, direct the City Manager, or his designee, to prepare an ordinance consistent with the City Council’s direction and to schedule the ordinance for a duly noticed public hearing before the Planning Commission with the Planning Commission’s recommendation and the ordinance to be returned to the City Council for introduction and consideration of adoption pursuant to Government Code sections 65856 and 36934.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Chapter 90 of the Hemet Municipal Code delegates the authority to decide most land use and development applications to the Planning Commission and to the Community Development Director.
Those decisions may be reviewed on appeal, but only on the appeal of an “interested party,” filed by letter within ten calendar days and, in most instances, accompanied by an appeal fee. Chapter 90 contains no procedure by which the City Council may bring a Planning Commission decision before
19.F.
itself for review, or by which the Planning Commission may bring a decision of the Director before itself for review, on the initiative of the reviewing body or its members. A procedure of that kind is commonly referred to as a “call for review” or a “call-up.” California appellate authority holds that a city may review a lower body’s land use decision at the request of a member of the reviewing body only where the municipal code expressly so provides, and that an informal practice of doing so is not a substitute for codified authority. Most California cities that call items up have therefore codified the procedure expressly, and a range of workable models exists among them.
This item asks the City Council whether it wishes staff to prepare an ordinance establishing call for review procedures in Chapter 90 and, if so, to give direction on the policy choices that ordinance would present. Because a zoning text amendment must first be considered by the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing and returned to the City Council with the Commission’s recommendation, this item is the City Council’s opportunity to shape the concept before the draft is prepared, rather than to react to a completed draft at the end of the process.
No draft ordinance is presented with this item. The Discussion section identifies ten policy questions, states staff’s recommendation on each, and describes the practical consequence of the principal alternatives, so that the City Council may give direction from the dais on each question. A summary of those questions and staff’s recommendations is provided as Attachment 1.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:
The City’s land use procedures are codified principally in Chapter 90 (Zoning), Article II (Administrative Regulations), Division 1 (Applications). Division 1 assigns each application type to an approving authority and provides a parallel set of provisions governing notice, hearing, findings, effective date, and appeal. The Community Development Director decides administrative use permits, administrative adjustments, and minor site development review applications. The Planning Commission decides conditional use permits, variances, and major site development review applications, and hears appeals from decisions of the Director. Subdivisions are governed by Chapter 70, and a general administrative appeal procedure appears in Chapter 2, Article II.
Each of the Chapter 90 appeal provisions is written in the same form. An appeal may be taken by an “interested party,” by letter filed within ten calendar days of the decision, and in most sections upon payment of an appeal fee established by City Council resolution. Absent a timely appeal, the underlying approval becomes effective on the eleventh day and the applicant may proceed. The term “interested party” is not defined in Chapter 90.
DISCUSSION:
What a Call for Review Is
A call for review is a procedure by which the reviewing body itself brings a delegated decision before it for consideration, rather than waiting for a member of the public to file an appeal. It is not an appeal, is not filed by a party, and is not a determination that the decision below was wrong. In the two-tier structure Chapter 90 already uses, a call for review would allow the Planning Commission to review a decision of the Director and the City Council to review a decision of the Planning Commission. In every other respect the matter would proceed as an appeal does: on notice, at a public hearing, with the reviewing body making the findings required for the underlying application.
19.F.
The Present Gap in Chapter 90
Because the Chapter 90 appeal sections authorize appeals only by an interested party, and because the Code does not define that term, Chapter 90 supplies no mechanism for the City Council or the Planning Commission to initiate review. California appellate authority addressing materially similar code language has set aside a council decision taken on a councilmember’s “appeal” of a planning commission approval, and has declined to treat an unwritten practice of calling items up as authority to do so. Express codification is accordingly the means by which cities make this tool available. A related consequence of the present text is that a decision becomes effective on the eleventh day after it is made, so any call for review procedure must operate inside that window and must expressly suspend the effective date once it is invoked.
Practice in Other California Cities
Staff reviewed the codes of several California cities. Most cities authorize governmental calls for review expressly, and each names who may initiate a call, where the request is filed, and the applicable deadline. Some cities, like Hemet, still only provide for party-initiated appeals. Among the cities that permit calls for review, the common features are consistent: the call period matches the ordinary appeal period, no fee is charged for a governmental call, the underlying decision is stayed, and the reviewing body considers the matter de novo with the same range of dispositions available on an appeal.
The principal variation among them is the number of members required to initiate a call and whether the body itself must act before the matter is set for hearing.
Policy Questions for City Council Direction (See Attachment) Process and Timeline
An ordinance amending Chapter 90 is a zoning text amendment. It must first be considered by the Planning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing, and the Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council. The ordinance then returns to the City Council for a duly noticed public hearing, introduction and first reading, and a second reading at a subsequent meeting, and takes effect thirty days after adoption.
Assuming direction is given at this meeting, staff anticipates preparing the ordinance and returning to the Planning Commission within approximately two to three meeting cycles, with the Commission’s recommendation and the ordinance presented to the City Council at the next available regular meeting thereafter. Specific dates will depend on the Planning Commission and City Council meeting calendars and on publication deadlines.
STRATEGIC PLAN INTEGRATION:
N/A
FISCAL IMPACT:
19.F.
No appropriation is requested in connection with this item. Preparation of the ordinance, the conforming amendments, and the associated Planning Commission and City Council staff reports will require City Attorney and Community Development Department staff resources, and publication of the required hearing notices will result in customary newspaper publication costs. If the City Council directs staff to proceed, and the ordinance is later adopted, administration of the procedure will require ongoing staff time to notify members of decisions, to process requests, to prepare records for review, and to notice and conduct hearings. Because no fee is proposed for a call for review, those administrative costs would not be recovered from an applicant or an appellant.
ALTERNATIVE(S):
The City Council may:
1. Decline to proceed and retain the existing appeal-only structure. Under this alternative, delegated land use decisions would continue to be reviewable only on the timely appeal of an interested party, and neither the City Council nor the Planning Commission would have a mechanism to initiate review.
2. Direct a narrower ordinance limited to City Council review of Planning Commission decisions, leaving decisions of the Director reviewable only on private appeal to the Planning Commission.
3. Direct staff to return with additional information, including additional comparative research concerning other Riverside County and Inland Empire jurisdictions, before the concept is presented to the Planning Commission.
4. Provide direction different from staff’s recommendation on one or more of the policy questions identified in this report, including the method of initiation, the scope of decisions subject to call for review, or the treatment of fees.
ATTACHMENT(S):
Attachment 1 - Call Up Matrix
19.F.
ATTACHMENT 1 – POLICY OPTIONS MATRIX
Policy Question Options Staff Recommendation
1. Whether to
proceed
Adopt call for review procedures; or retain the current appeal-only structure.
Proceed with an ordinance.
2. Which
decisions
Both tiers (Commission review of Director decisions;
Council review of Commission decisions); or Council
review of Commission decisions only.
Both tiers, mirroring the existing
appeal universe.
3. Who may
initiate
(a) One member requests, body ratifies by majority
vote; (b) two members’ written request calls the item
up directly; (c) any single member calls it up directly; (d) body vote only.
Option (a), request and ratify; option
(b) is a reasonable alternative.
4. Deadline and
stay
Align with the existing ten-day appeal period, with a
next-business-day rule and an automatic stay on
filing; or a different period.
Ten calendar days; automatic stay
from filing.
5. Fee No fee for a governmental call; whether to refund a private appellant’s fee if the City calls the same
matter up.
No fee; Council direction requested
on the refund.
6. Standard of
review
De novo review on the same application, with
authority to affirm, reverse, modify, condition,
remand, or continue; or a narrower record-based
review.
De novo, consistent with existing
Chapter 90 appeals.
7. Procedural
neutrality
Whether reasons must be stated; whether initiation is
prejudgment; whether the initiating member may
participate and vote.
No reasons required; initiation is not
prejudgment; member may
participate.
8. Exclusions Legislative recommendations, ministerial approvals, tentative maps, and housing development projects
subject to State law limits.
Exclude legislative and ministerial
matters; special handling for maps
and housing projects.
9. Related cleanupsDefine “interested party” and “decision date,” fix finality, address Chapter 2 overlap, reconcile the
appeal sections.
Include the clean-ups in the same
ordinance.
10. Pending
matters
Apply to decisions whose appeal period has not run
as of the effective date; or only to decisions made
after that date.
Council direction requested.
19.F.
City of Hemet
City Council Meeting
STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council Meeting - Sep 08 2026
Department: City Attorney
Submitted by: Noah Rau, Interim City Manager
Steven Graham, City Attorney;
☐ Receive and File ☐ Consent Calendar ☒ Business Item ☐ Public Hearing TITLE:
Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter, and Parkway Maintenance Responsibility and Liability Policy Discussion RECOMMENDED ACTION:
It is respectfully recommended that the City Council:
1. Receive and consider this report and staff’s presentation concerning the allocation of responsibility for the maintenance, repair, and cost of sidewalks, curbs, gutters, parkways, and related improvements adjacent to private property, and the circumstances in which an adjacent property owner should owe a duty to, and be liable to, members of the public.
2. Provide direction to staff on each of the policy questions identified in the Discussion section of this report, including whether to proceed, the improvements to be covered, the allocation of civil liability, responsibility for damage caused by City-owned street trees, indemnity, any owner inspection obligation, the notice and cure period, the hearing and appeal procedure, cost recovery and collection, hardship and cost-sharing relief, prospective application, and public outreach.
3. By minute order, direct the City Manager, or his designee, to prepare an ordinance consistent with the City Council’s direction and to return the ordinance to the City Council for introduction and consideration of adoption pursuant to Government Code section 36934.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Hemet Municipal Code contains no provision allocating responsibility for the maintenance, repair, or cost of sidewalks and related improvements adjacent to private property. Chapter 66 addresses encroachment permits, obstructions, and street trees, Chapter 1, Article II and Chapter 30 supply general abatement and cost-recovery tools, and Chapters 70 and 90 govern the construction of frontage improvements as a condition of development. None of them assigns sidewalk maintenance, repair cost, indemnity, or liability to adjoining owners. The City therefore relies entirely on the default rules of State law.
19.G.
Under the Streets and Highways Code, the owner of a lot fronting an improved street must maintain the adjoining sidewalk so that it does not endanger persons or property, and the City may give notice to repair, perform the repair on the owner’s default, and recover its cost by assessment and lien.
California courts have consistently held, however, that this statutory duty is owed to the City rather than to pedestrians. An adjacent owner is not liable to an injured pedestrian merely because the statute applies, and the statute creates no duty to indemnify the City. A city may alter that allocation, but only by an ordinance using clear and unambiguous language. Appellate authority has upheld such an ordinance where it did not purport to relieve the city of its own liability, while questioning ordinances that shift all liability to owners and require full indemnity without regard to city fault.
One feature of the existing Code requires particular attention. Section 66-94 commits the City to maintain street trees in all rights-of-way and planting easements. Under settled California authority, a city that plants and maintains a parkway tree bears the liability for sidewalk displacement caused by that tree’s roots, notwithstanding the owner’s statutory repair duty. Any ordinance the City adopts must resolve who bears the cost of repairing tree-caused damage, and that question may be the most consequential fiscal choice in this item.
This item asks the City Council whether it wishes staff to prepare an ordinance on this subject and, if so, to give direction on the policy choices that ordinance would present. The ordinance would return directly to the City Council for introduction and adoption. This item is accordingly the City Council’s opportunity to shape the concept before the draft is prepared, rather than to react to a completed draft. The attachment to this staff report identifies twelve policy questions and provides states staff’s recommendation on each.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:
Chapter 66 of the Hemet Municipal Code is titled Streets and Sidewalks. Section 66-4 requires an encroachment permit before any person makes improvements or places any material or structure within the public right-of-way, provides for emergency work and for annual blanket permits to utilities and franchisees, and makes a violation enforceable by administrative citation and by civil action. The City is currently evaluating amendments to this general framework and in consultation with utilities that operate in the roadway. Sections 66-91 through 66-97 govern street trees. Section 66-94 provides that the City will supply, replace, or plant street trees and will maintain street trees in all rights-of-way and planting easements, while the abutting owner or occupant is responsible for watering them. Section 66-96 makes it unlawful to damage or interfere with an official street tree without approval, and section 66-97 requires owners to trim private trees overhanging the street to a stated clearance.
A review of the Code did not locate any provision assigning responsibility for sidewalk maintenance, repair cost, indemnity, or liability to adjoining owners, and no City Council adopted or directed sidewalk repair program or inspection protocol has been located.
In the absence of a local ordinance, the governing framework is the Streets and Highways Code. It defines the sidewalk to include the parking strip between the property line and the street line together with curbing and works for the protection of the sidewalk; it requires owners of fronting lots to maintain the sidewalk so that it does not endanger persons or property or interfere with public convenience, excepting conditions created by permittees, who are placed under a like duty; and it provides a procedure by which the superintendent of streets notifies the owner to repair, performs the repair on default, reports the cost, and obtains confirmation of the cost by the legislative body, after which the confirmed amount becomes a lien collectible on the tax roll. That procedure is available to the City today. It is also archaic in its notice mechanics, contains no provision for permits or
19.G.
engineering standards, says nothing about street trees, emergencies, or accessibility, and does not address liability at all.
What an Ordinance Could Do
An ordinance of the kind contemplated would do four things. It would state the maintenance and repair duties of adjacent property owners in local terms and define the improvements to which those duties attach. It would allocate responsibility for conditions caused by City-owned street trees, City construction, utilities, and other persons. It would establish a modern local procedure for notice to repair, owner-performed repair under permit and to City standards, City repair on default, emergency protective action, and recovery of the City’s costs, with notice, hearing, and appeal before any cost or lien is imposed. And it would state, in terms clear enough to be given effect, the circumstances in which an adjacent owner owes a duty to, and is liable to, members of the public.
The Present Gap and What an Ordinance Can and Cannot Change Two points frame the liability discussion. First, the statutory maintenance duty is owed to the City. It does not, by itself, make an adjacent owner liable to an injured pedestrian, and it does not require the owner to indemnify the City. An owner is liable at common law only where the owner created the defect, exercised control over the area, or altered the sidewalk for the owner’s own benefit, as with a driveway approach or private landscaping. A city may change that result, but California authority requires clear and unambiguous ordinance language to do so; ordinances that merely restate the statutory duty have been held insufficient.
Second, no ordinance can transfer away the City’s own exposure. The City remains subject to the Government Claims Act as the owner of the right-of-way, and remains liable where it created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it and failed to act. What an ordinance can accomplish is to add a responsible party, to permit the allocation of fault among the City, the owner, and others, to support indemnity and contribution, and to strengthen the City’s cost recovery. An ordinance that purported to eliminate the City’s liability would not be given effect, and staff does not recommend drafting one that says it does.
The Street Tree Question
Section 66-94 commits the City to maintain street trees in the rights-of-way. Under California authority, a city that planted and maintains a parkway tree bears responsibility for sidewalk displacement caused by its roots, even though the statutory repair duty rests on the owner regardless of who created the defect. The Code as it stands is therefore in tension with itself as to who pays for tree-caused damage, and the ordinance must resolve it one way or another. Root heave is a common cause of sidewalk displacement, and the choice the Council makes on this question will be a significant driver of the fiscal consequence of the ordinance.
Approaches Used by Other California Cities
California cities fall into four broad patterns. Some codify the maintenance duty and a local repair and cost-recovery procedure without altering liability. Some impose express liability on owners for injuries resulting from a failure to maintain the sidewalk area in a non-dangerous condition, which makes the owner a party to every claim. Some take a hybrid approach, imposing liability where the owner caused or controls the condition or has failed to repair after notice, while the city retains responsibility for its own trees and its own construction. And some operate a city-managed repair program, funding
19.G.
the work directly and coordinating it with accessibility obligations, which is the most expensive approach and the most favorable to owners.
The trade-offs are consistent across the models. The broader the liability shift, the greater the effect on the City’s share of claims and the greater the burden on owners for conditions they did not cause.
The narrower the shift, the less the City’s position changes from where it stands today. The hybrid model aligns responsibility with fault and with notice, which staff believes is both defensible and explainable to the public, and it is the approach staff recommends.
Accessibility
Whatever allocation the Council directs, public sidewalks are a City program for purposes of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the City’s obligation to keep that program accessible cannot be delegated to property owners. The ordinance should therefore require that all repairs, whether performed by an owner or by the City, meet current accessibility standards and City standard plans, should reserve curb ramp construction and transition plan work to the City, and should state expressly that the allocation of repair responsibility does not diminish the City’s obligations under federal and State disability access law.
DISCUSSION:
Policy Questions for City Council Direction
1. Whether to proceed. The threshold question is whether the City wishes to adopt a local ordinance at all. Staff recommends proceeding. Without a local ordinance the City must administer each sidewalk repair through the state notice-and-assessment procedure, which was drafted in an earlier era, contains no provision for permits, engineering standards, street trees, emergencies, or accessibility, and leaves the allocation of liability entirely to judicial doctrine. If the Council declines to proceed, existing state law continues to apply and no City procedure is added.
2. Which improvements are covered. Staff recommends that the ordinance define a "sidewalk area" comprising the sidewalk, the parkway or planting strip, the curb and gutter, the driveway approach, tree wells, and any landscaping, irrigation, or encroachment installed within that area by or for the benefit of the adjacent property. Staff recommends expressly excluding curb ramps, roadway pavement, traffic control devices, drainage facilities serving more than the adjacent parcel, utility facilities, and retaining walls and similar structures built by the City or accepted as public improvements. A narrower definition, excluding curb and gutter, would shift those elements to the City; a broader one would assign owners structures they often cannot lawfully modify.
3. The liability model. This is the central policy choice. Staff recommends the hybrid model: an owner owes a duty to the public, and is civilly liable, only where the owner created, contributed to, controlled, or specially used the condition, or where the owner failed to repair after written City notice and expiration of the cure period. The broader alternative imposes liability whenever the owner has failed to maintain the sidewalk area in a non-dangerous condition, regardless of cause, which makes the owner a co-defendant in every claim but assigns liability to owners for conditions they did not create. The narrower alternative imposes maintenance duties without altering liability, which leaves the existing allocation unchanged.
4. Damage caused by City-owned street trees. Staff is looking for direction on responsibility for damage caused by tree roots.
19.G.
5. Indemnity. Staff recommends including an indemnity provision limited to the owner’s proportionate fault, excluding the City’s sole negligence, active negligence, and willful misconduct, with a tender procedure and no independent duty to defend the City against its own negligence. A broader no-fault indemnity has been questioned by California appellate authority. Omitting the provision entirely would leave the City to rely on equitable indemnity and comparative fault, which remain available in any event but do not reach defense costs.
6. Owner inspection obligation. Staff recommends that the ordinance impose no affirmative duty on owners to inspect the sidewalk area, and instead encourage reporting. An inspection requirement is difficult to enforce, invites disputes about what a property owner reasonably should have observed, and adds little that the notice procedure does not already accomplish.
7. Notice and cure period. Staff recommends a written notice to repair that identifies the condition, includes photographs where practicable, states the allocation of responsibility and the City’s cost estimate, and allows not less than thirty days to commence and complete the repair, reduced to not less than ten days for an immediate hazard or accessibility barrier, with authority to extend for good cause and to require temporary protective measures in the interim. A shorter period tracks the state statute more closely but is often impractical for an owner arranging a permit and a licensed contractor.
8. Hearing and appeal. Staff recommends that an owner be permitted to contest a notice to repair before a hearing officer under the existing administrative procedures of Chapter 1, Article II, with a written decision and judicial review on the ordinary timeline, and that the City Council confirm the cost report where the statutory assessment route is used. The alternative is to rely solely on the Council hearing on the cost report provided by state law, which is simpler but does not allow an owner to contest responsibility before the City incurs the cost of the work.
9. Cost recovery, liens, and assessments. Staff recommends that the ordinance authorize recovery of the actual cost of City-performed work that is the owner’s responsibility, including administrative costs set by Council resolution, and permit collection as a personal obligation, as a lien, or as a special assessment collected on the tax roll, together with authority to enter installment agreements.
The ordinance should state that its procedures are alternative and supplementary to the state statutory procedure, so that either route remains available.
10. Hardship and cost-sharing relief. Staff recommends that the ordinance authorize, without itself creating, a hardship deferral or waiver program for income-qualified owner-occupied residential property and any cost-sharing, rebate, or grant program the Council may later wish to adopt by resolution, so that the fiscal commitment is made separately and with a budget before it. Directing that such a program be established within a fixed period would commit the Council to a program and an appropriation; omitting the authority entirely would leave no relief for fixed-income owners.
11. Prospective application. Staff recommends that the ordinance apply only to conditions and conduct occurring after its effective date, that the liability and indemnity provisions apply only to causes of action accruing after that date, and that any notice already issued under the state procedure continue under that procedure. New civil duties should not be applied to accrued claims.
12. Public outreach before introduction. The allocation of sidewalk repair cost is among the more publicly sensitive subjects a city addresses, and other California cities have encountered substantial public reaction. No outreach is legally required. Staff recommends at least one community meeting and a public comment period before the ordinance is introduced, together with a plain-language
19.G.
explanation of what the City will continue to pay for, but this is a matter for the Council’s direction and affects the timeline.
STRATEGIC PLAN INTEGRATION:
GOAL FIVE: ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
To identify the work needed inside the City organization to effectively provide services to the community and ensure financial stability.
Objective 1: Operate in a financially sustainable manner.
Objective 2: Evaluate existing practices to ensure continuity with industry best practices.
Objective 3: Provide Council with policies that are consistent while lessening liabilities.
Objective 4: Increase employee retention by training and creating a positive workplace.
Objective 5: Streamline fire prevention coordination efforts.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The principal fiscal consequences of this item depend on the direction the Council gives.
ALTERNATIVE(S):
The City Council may decline to proceed and continue to rely on State law. Under this alternative, sidewalk maintenance and repair would continue to be governed by the Streets and Highways Code, the City would continue to use the statutory notice and assessment procedure, the existing allocation of liability would remain unchanged, and the tension between section 66-94 and the statutory repair duty would remain unresolved.
19.G.