This report is submitted in response to a Motion (Miscikowski-Hahn), which calls for the development of a City policy on the renaming of communities and instructs the Chief Legislative Analyst (CLA), with the assistance of the affected City departments, to develop said policy. At your meeting on September 17, 2002, comments were received from City staff, Council District 11, the President of the Board of Neighborhood Commissioners (Board), and the general public on the draft policy. On December 17, 2002, the CLA submitted a report containing a policy which addressed the concerns identified at your prior meeting on this matter.

After much discussion at the December 17 meeting on this item, your Committee Chair appointed a working group on the renaming of communities. This working group included the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment (DONE), the City Clerk, City Attorney, Planning Department, Cultural Affairs, Department of Transportation, and Board of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering. Councilwoman Hahn asked that the CLA head the working group and hold a special meeting with all interested City Council staff and the general public to receive comments on this policy. This meeting was held January 23,2003.

This policy proposes an application supported by 500 signatures of residents and business owners. The application would be reviewed by the appropriate certified Neighborhood Council(s) with notification to any others in the immediate vicinity, thereby notifying bordering Neighborhood Councils. The policy calls for a six-month wait until the Council (and appropriate committee consideration) hears the application, which should be sufficient time for any interested Neighborhood Council to hold its hearing and make recommendations. The City Council would then approve or disapprove the name change.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the City Council:

The naming process that has been developed is based on input from the working group and Council staff and members of the general public. The policy has been further developed using elements of the zoning variance procedure and the certification process for Neighborhood Councils.

Proposed Naming and Renaming Policy

Background

At your last Committee meeting on this matter, the following concerns were raised: (a) allowing residents of the Community Plan Areas (CPAs) to vote on a name change; (b) how difficult it would be for an applicant to submit a petition with 20 percent of the signatures of the registered voters and stakeholders located in an affected area; (c) the term stakeholder should be clarified; (d) under the City Charter, neither Neighborhood Councils nor BONC are given the decision- making authority to either approve or disapprove a name change for a community (City Attorney); and (e) the naming process should include acknowledging the historical and/or cultural significance of a neighborhood.

As to the recommendation made about a community area-wide vote on a neighborhood name change, the City representatives believe that it is a costly measure to undertake. The Planning Department staff has advised that Community Plan Areas (CPAs) are staff-driven designs developed over twenty-years ago and may not have that much bearing when it has come to calling an election for one small neighborhood' s name.

Additionally, the City Clerk's office advises that a full scale election with polling places, etc., would cost up to $250,000 depending on the size of the area. According to the City Clerk, vote- by-mail elections would cost about $50,000. However, at least as important as the potential cost for such an election, requiring the entire CPA to vote on a name change of a community may not be the appropriate means to determine which segments of an area would be impacted by a community name change. It is advisable to receive input from all stakeholders inside the community and those surrounding the community concerning a name change.

In the original draft of the policy, it was recommended that advocates submit an application including a petition with the signatures of 20 percent of the registered voters and stakeholders in the area being renamed DONE staff has indicated that neighborhood groups would find it difficult to comply with this requirement. During the meeting with City Council staff, City department representatives, and the general public there was discussion and general agreement that the naming application contain a petition with 500 signatures of residents and business owners within the affected community. However, public members from Van Nuys recommend having a higher threshold, such as 70 percent of residents in the Community Plan Area affected, according to a resident of Hollywood citing Local Agency Formation Commission statutory provisions for other activities, 25 percent of the registered voters. These thresholds appear unreasonably high.

There was a member of the general public that requested that the term stakeholders be clarified. For the purposes of this policy, the term stakeholders refers to residents and business property owners (profit and nonprofit entities) within the affected community to be renamed The renaming application will require that a petition be submitted with 500 signatures of the residents and business property owners within the effected community, instead of 20 percent of the registered voters and stakeholders in the area.

The policy stipulated that the Neighborhood Council(s) or the Board would conduct the hearing for advocates wishing to change the name of their community. Additionally, the Neighborhood Council(s) or the Board would be required to review all applications and only recommend approval or disapproval of the request for the new name based on the information given at the hearing. According to the City Attorney, neither the Board nor the Neighborhood Council(s) have the jurisdiction to make a decision that would be final unless appealable to the City Council. Consequently, Neighborhood Council(s) or Board may hold a hearing if they so desire. In any event, the application will be forwarded to the Council for its consideration and final approval.

Additionally, Councilmember Tom LaBonge suggested that the policy allow for the historical and/or cultural significance of a neighborhood to be preserved and recognized. Accordingly the working group recommended that the Cultural Affairs/Cultural Heritage Commission, Board of Public Works/Bureau of Engineering, the City Clerk's archivist and historian, City Planning Department and Community Redevelopment Agency review naming applications and insure that the proposed name reflects the historical and cultural significance of the community.

Fiscal Impact Statement

The costs associated with certified Neighborhood Councils involvement in notifying stakeholders of a public hearing concerning a name change of a community will vary depending on the size of the area. The only comparable current City cost similar to this is that of the certification process of a Neighborhood Council. DONE staff advises that it cost a total of $29,275 from July 1 through November 6, 2002 to utilize the Walking Man service to place notices of public hearings on the doorknobs of 1,345,352 Neighborhood Council residents (See attachment for more details).

RFD:GM:MK:dhp:jr

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Attachment 1

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Walking Man (Actual Deliveries)
July 1 -November 6, 2002

Source: Department of Neighborhood Empowerment

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Attachment 2

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

EDUCATION & NEIGHBORHOODS
MOTION - JAN 30, 2002

As the second largest city in the nation, the City of Los Angeles has many community names to designate and help to distinguish the many diverse neighborhoods of the City. As neighborhoods and communities change, there is an occasional movement to create new community names for areas, distancing themselves from long identified community boundaries. This process can prove controversial, especially since there are no formalized boundary lines for communities with existing names. There are no established policies and procedures for community name changes and such changes can be done simply by a request of a member of the Council to the Department of Transportation. Different Council offices have had varying policies regarding community name changes. The City should develop clear and consistent standard procedures and policies for community name changes that, among other measures, incorporate both the desires of the area wishing to change the name and the views of the remaining members of that community.

I FURTHER MOVE that the Office of the Chief Legislative Analyst, with the assistance of affected departments, prepare and present a report to Education and Neighborhoods Committee in 30 days outlining a consistent City policy on the renaming of communities, including a provision that would require not only the approval of those wishing to establish a new name, but the remaining members of the affected community and that such policy should be in place prior to any further name changes move forward.