HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1989/09/05 Item 15 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 15
Meeting Date 9/5/89
ITEM TITLE: Ordinance 2331 Repealing Sections 17.08.020 through
17.08.430 and 17.08.520 through 17.08.540; establishing a new
chapter 17.07; renumbering Section 17.08.010 and Sections
17.08.440 through 17.08.510; retitling chapter 17.08; and
adding sections 17.07.020 and 17.07.030 to the Chula Vista
Municipal Code relating to open space districts (Second
Reading and Adoption)
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works
tEVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/5ths Vote: Yes No )
At the meeting of August 22, Council placed on first reading the subject
ordinance which would revise the procedures in establishing open space
districts in the City and allow for maintenance of drainage improvements in
open space areas. Although Council placed the item on the first reading, they
directed staff to return with provisions to require the developers to assist
in providing the financing for the maintenance of the natural drainage ways.
RECOMMENDATION:
1 . Adopt ordinance.
2. Direct staff to return with a policy for developer contributions to open
space districts prior to any new district being established.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The attached August 22, 1989 staff report discusses the justification for
repealing the existing open space district ordinance and incorporating the
1972 Landscaping Act in the State of California Street and Highways Code as
modified as our financing mechanism to maintain our open space areas and
public rights-of-way. The report proposes a change in City policy for
drainage improvements in the eastern areas in that we are changing from
concrete channels to more naturalized channels. This ordinance would assist
the City in financing the continuous maintenance of those facilities. Council
directed staff to return with revised ordinance that would require the
developer to provide funding to help offset the drainage maintenance
requirements.
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 9/5/89
Staff agrees that the developer should assist in helping with the maintenance
of natural drainage ways since 1 ) it is anticipated that the early maintenance
costs could be greater due to the grading operations in the immediate area
which would cause siltation; 2) developer in most cases will be allowed to
develop a facility which is less costly than our standard requirement; 3)
since we do not have a long history of maintenance costs for these naturalized
channels, the developer contribution would help to offset any unknown factors
which would tend to increase the assessments in later years, and 4) drainage
maintenance tends to peak in 5 to 10 year increments, in conjunction with
major storms and thus a reserve is needed. Creating a drainage reserve fund
up front without developer contributions is not feasible.
On the other hand, an argument that developers may give is that the homeowner
pays for everything in the end and that the price of housing would be lower if
they didn't have to contribute to the districts.
There are several alternatives that could be used in calculating the developer
contribution for the drainage reserve fund:
a) Calculate the cost of a naturalized channel versus a full concrete channel
or underground pipe and have the developer pay the difference as a
contribution.
b) Calculate the cost of maintenance of the channel for an extended period of
time and have the developer pay all or a percentage of that cost.
c) Require the developer to maintain the channel for a period of time (i.e. ,
5 years, or until all upstream grading is completed and developed with
mature landscaping). This option or a similar requirement could be
included in a) or b) above.
Addressing the drainage issue with regard to developer assistance although a
valid concern is also a complicated issue which will have impacts on the
developers. Because of this, staff believes it is inappropriate to add all
these provisions to the second reading of an ordinance and would recommend
that Council adopt the ordinance as submitted and give direction that prior to
approval of any future maintenance districts that the issue of developer
contributions be resolved either by Council policy, revisions to the
subdivision ordinance, or revisions to the open space procedural ordinance.
The ordinance as submitted provided that a reserve fund of 50% of the annual
maintenance costs would be established by adding 10% per year to the annual
assessment until a reserve fund of 50% was established. This is appropriate
for those districts which are established by vote of the people in the
district in already developed areas. However, it is staff's opinion that an
additional provision should be considered which would require the developer to
deposit six months operating costs into the district's fund to assist the City
in cash flow during the first six months before revenues come into the City.
Also as areas in an open space district are added to it, the added six months
maintenance costs for that area would be required each time an annexation
occurs.
JPL/mad
WPC 4546E
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 4iffi5
Meeting Date 8122189- Gi
ITEM TITLE: Ordinance 2,331 Repealing Sections 17.08.020 through
17.08.430 and 17.08.520 through 17.08.540; establishing a new
chapter 17.07; renumbering Section 17.08.010 and Sections
17.08.440 through 17.08.510; retitling chapter 17.08; and
adding sections 17.07.020 and 17.07.030 to the Chula Vista
Municipal Code relating to open space districts
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works
REVIEWED BY: City Manage r E I / (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X )
Chula Vista has used a City Code provision for open space maintenance
districts since 1972 primarily for natural open space areas within
subdivisions. The City has also used the 1972 Act from the Streets and
Highways Code to create maintenance districts to provide funding for
maintaining landscaping and supplemental street lighting rights-of-way such as
Third Avenue, Bay Boulevard, and EastLake medians. It is the intent of this
ordinance for the City to adopt the State of California 1972 Landscaping Act
in its entirety as part of the City Code with minor modifications of that Act
to more specifically meet Chula Vista's needs.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council place this ordinance on its first reading.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The Chula Vista Open Space District Ordinance was enacted in June 1972. The
purpose of that Code Section was to provide a means whereby the City could
form open space districts and assess properties to pay for the cost of
acquisition, development, and maintenance of such open space districts. To
date, the City has created 18 open space districts. The Landscaping Act of
1972 in the State of California's Street and Highways Code provides a
mechanism to finance the maintenance of landscaping and other types of
improvements in the City rights-of-ways and properties. This procedure has
been used three times in Chula Vista for the Town Centre Redevelopment Area,
Bay Boulevard area, and the EastLake median islands.
The following problems have arisen in using these acts as described below:
1 . The City' s ordinance does not provide a clear procedure for levying annual
assessments after the first year.
BOND READING AND ADOETIOM
Page 2, Item 4-8- 15
Meeting Date 8/22/89
2. Large-scale developments in the east create needs where both open space
areas off-site of public rights-of-way and landscaping within public
rights-of-way need to have mechanisms for financing the maintenance which
would better be served by one financing procedure, rather than using the
City ordinance for the open space lots and the 1972 Act for the public
rights-of-way.
3. The City's existing ordinances do not provide specifically for maintenance
of natural drainage ways in the canyons in the eastern areas.
City staff has met with the City Attorney's office and came to the conclusion
that in order to handle the new major developments in the eastern area and to
modify our ordinance to provide a procedure for levying annual assessments, it
would be best to adopt the Landscaping Act of 1972 in its entirety from the
Streets and Highways Code and modify it by this ordinance to meet our
particular needs. The City has the ability to do this procedure since we are
a charter city.
Council should be aware that staff is proposing a policy change on maintenance
responsibilities for drainage ways. A general policy in the past has been
that the subdivider is responsible to install concrete drainage improvements
throughout the City in accordance with approved City design standards. That
is, drainage facilities would either be concrete pipes installed underground
or open concrete channels, i .e. , as installed along Telegraph Canyon Road
between Paseo Del Rey and Hilltop Drive. "
What is evolving as we are moving into the eastern portions of the City is
that canyon areas which typically have drainage facilities at the bottom of
them are being retained as natural open space areas. In order to encourage
habitat areas for wildlife and to maintain the pristine nature of these areas,
the drainage facilities are being modified to be built as more natural
appearing i .e. , erosion control facilities are installed such as riprap
barriers and/or drop structures but the concrete improvements in between these
drop structures are left natural or are to be planted. Examples of this are
Bonita Long Canyon, Rice Canyon in Rancho del Rey, and the widening of
Telegraph Canyon Road and channel currently in progress. Not installing these
massive concrete improvements on the one hand may be cheaper for the developer
and therefore, represent a lower development cost for each house, but on the
other hand, it creates increased maintenance cost over the lifetime of the
facility. This is because through the years siltation may build up, erosion
may occur, and the growth itself will just cause more maintenance needs than
the standard pipes and/or concrete facilities.
The issue then becomes a public financing policy issue. Should the General
Fund of the City pay for the increased maintenance costs due to a lower level
of improvements in the eastern area or should the people that are benefiting
from these pristine appearing facilities pay for the maintenance of those
facilities just as they pay for the maintenance of the open space areas?
Page 3, Item 15
Meeting Date 8/22/89
It is staff's recommendation that if concrete improvements are installed such
as concrete channels and/or pipes, that the General Fund should continue to
maintain those facilities whether or not they are located in public streets
and/or open space areas. However, if the drainage way is to be left natural
with possible modifications to reduce the erosion potential , then those types
of drainage facilities should be maintained by the open space districts. It
should be clarified, however, that the maintenance will still be done by
Public Works crews and/or contractors and not the open space maintenance
contractor. A policy needs to be developed and an agreement reached between
the departments of Public Works and Parks and Recreation to clearly specify
the responsibilities for administering the maintenance of these districts
between the two departments. For instance, currently the open space
maintenance contractor is responsible to keep brow ditches clear from planting
so that they will operate properly. However, if a brow ditch malfunctions due
to cracking and/or needs to be replaced, then Public Works has taken the lead
in fixing that. Whether or not Public Works or Parks and Recreation
Department handles the work, the cost of that work would still be charged to
the maintenance district.
The attached ordinance will delete the existing open space maintenance
district, adopt the State of California Streets and Highways Code, Landscaping
and Lighting Act of 1972, and modify that Act to meet our open space
maintenance needs.
FISCAL IMPACT: Negligible. However, the impact on the General Fund will be
positive since the maintenance districts will be established for financing the
maintenance of natural drainage facilities.
JPL:nr/OS-001
WPC 4530E
&Coed Re-ad/A/10(
•
= - by the City Council of
by t - City Council of Chula Vista, Ca:ifornia
Chula Vista, California
Dated 2 - -3
Dated